Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity

Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Begründet von Karl Holl† und Hans Lietzmann† he...

Author: Johan Leemans | Peter Van Nuffelen | Shawn W. J. Keough | Carla Nicolaye

173 downloads 5490 Views 30MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity

Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Begründet von

Karl Holl† und Hans Lietzmann† herausgegeben von

Christian Albrecht und Christoph Markschies Band 119

De Gruyter

Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity

Edited by Johan Leemans, Peter Van Nuffelen, Shawn W. J. Keough and Carla Nicolaye

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-026855-3 e-ISBN 978-3-11-026860-7 ISSN 1861-5996 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Episcopal elections in late antiquity / [edited by] Johan Leemans ... [et al.]. p. cm. - (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, ISSN 1861-5996 ; Bd. 119) English, French, and German. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-3-11-026855-3 (hardcover 23 ¥ 15,5 : alk. paper) 1. Bishops - Appointment, call, and election - History. 2. Church history - Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. I. Leemans, Johan, 1965BV664.E65 2011 2621.1220901 dc23 2011022770

Bibliografische Information der Deutsche

Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über h t t p : / / d n b . d - n b . d e abrufbar.

© 2011 Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, B e r l i n / B o s t o n Druck: H u b e r t & Co. G m b H & Co. KG, Göttingen 00 Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in G e r m a n y www.degruyter.com

In memoriam Boudewijn Dehandschutter (1945-2011)

Preface The present volume is the result of the conference 'Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity (ca. 250-600 A.D.)', held in Leuven between 26 and 28 October 2009. Its aim was to re-assess the phenomenon of episcopal elections from the broadest possible perspective, examining the various factors, personalities, rules and habits that played a role in the process that resulted in one specific candidate becoming the new bishop. In particular it was the purpose of the conference to approach this phenomenon through a large number of case studies. The conference was a joyful event, profiting from a late autumn sun and the excellent facilities of the university's conference center in the middle of the beautiful surroundings of the Grand Beguinage of Leuven. After a rigorous process of peer-review and due revision, a number of papers was selected which form, together with the main papers, a representative collection of case studies. We consciously do not wish to cover the later Roman empire in its full chronological and geographical extension. This is not only practically impossible, but it would also generate a false impression of homogeneity. The volume rather wishes to display the variety of practices that existed in different places and at different times, and to present new dimensions of the phenomenon by drawing on distinct methodologies. In this way, we hope to provide building blocks for a future synthesis of episcopal elections and to contribute to the continuous new assessment of the crucial figure of the late antique bishop by focussing more on ordinary bishops and the social and political dimension of their position. The conference was part of a project sponsored by the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research, entitled: "Nobody Should Become Bishop before He is Thirty Years Old". A Historical and Theological Study of Episcopal Succession in Late Antiquity (250-600 AD) (Project G.0575.07N). The FSR-F project-funding provided the two collaborators, Dr. S.W.J. Keough and Dra. C. Nicolaye (part time), with the freedom to devote themselves to scholarly work on episcopal succession. Moreover, the FSRF supported the conference with a substantial conference grant, allowing for the invitation of additional keynote speakers. We express our warmest thanks for this generous support. We also thank wholeheartedly the Re-

VIII

Preface

search Council of the K.U. Leuven for their financial support of the conference. During the editing of this book we received support for which it is a pleasant duty to express thanks. First of all we thank the Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven), the Faculty of Arts (Ghent University), the Lichtenberg Kolleg (DFG-supported Institute of Advanced Study at the University of Gottingen) and the Department of Ancient History of the RWTHAachen for the institutional framework and support provided. We express our thanks to Walter de Gruyter Verlag in the person of Dr. A. Dohnert, the responsible editor, for the smooth cooperation towards the publication of this book. Thanks are also due to Hajnalka Tamas (Leuven) and Andy Hilkens (Ghent) who helped with the final editing and with the indices. When this volume neared completion, Professor Boudewijn Dehandschutter, the main promoter of the project passed away. He had already been ill, recovered during the autumn of 2010 but ultimately the disease got firmly hold on him again. He passed away in peace of mind. He was a great scholar, an unsurpassable Doktorvater and a good friend. We remember him with admiration, gratefulness and affection. This volume is dedicated to his memory.

Peter Van Nuffelen JohanLeemans

Table of Contents Preface

VII

Peter Van Nuffelen -Johan Leemans Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity: Structures and Perspectives

1

Keynote Lectures Pauline Allen Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century

23

Timothy David Barnes The Election of Ambrose of Milan

39

George A. Bevan Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Syrian Episcopal Elections

61

Philippe Blaudeau Selection d'archeveques diphysites au trone alexandrin (451-482): une designation artificielle et contrainte?

89

Peter Brum BischofswahlundBischofsernennungimSynodiconOrientale

109

Bruno Dumezil La royaute merovingienne et les elections episcopales au Vie siecle .. 127 Geoffrey D.Dunn Canonical Legislation on the Ordination of Bishops: Innocent I's Letter to Victricius of Rouen

145

RudolfHaensch Christlicher Euergetismus ob honorem? Die Einsetzung von Klerikern in ihre Amter und die von diesen vorangetriebenen Bauprojekte

167

X

Table of Contents

David G. Hunter Clerical Marriage and Episcopal Elections in the Latin West: FromSiriciustoLeoI

183

VeitRosenberger The Saint and the Bishop: Severinus ofNoricum

203

Raymond Van Dam Bishops and Clerics during the Fourth Century: Numbers and Their Implications

217

Peter Van Nuffelen The Rhetoric of Rules and the Rule of Consensus

243

Ewa Wipszycka Les elections episcopales en Egypte aux VF-VIP siecles

259

EckhardWirbelauer BischofswahleninRom(3.-6.Jh.): Bedingungen-Akteure-Verfahren

293

Short Papers FredericAlpi Les elections episcopales en Orient sous Severe d'Antioche (512-518)

307

Daniel Alt .. .ut sancto sanctus succederet... oder: Haben Heilige eine Wahl? Ein Ausblick auf die fruhmittelalterliche Bischofserhebung indenVitenheiligerBischofe

315

RenateDekker Bishop Pesynthios of Koptos (Egypt): "He did not pursue the honour, but it was the honour that pursued him" 331 FedericoFatti An Extraordinary Bishop: Eusebius of Caesarea in Cappadocia

343

Table of Contents

XI

Oliver Hihn The Election and Deposition of Meletius of Antioch: The Fall ofan Integrative Bishop

357

Christian Hornung Haeres Petri: Kontinuitat und Wandel in der Bischofsnachfolge desSiriciusvonRom

375

ShawnW.J.Keough Episcopal Succession as Criterion of Communion: The Rise of Rival Episcopal Genealogies in Alexandria according to Liberatus of Carthage

389

Young Richard Kim Epiphanius of Cyprus vs. John of Jerusalem: An Improper Ordination and the Escalation of the Origenist Controversy 411 Susan Loftus Episcopal Elections in Gaul: The Normative View of the Concilia Galliae versus the Narrative Accounts

423

AramMardirossian Ecclesia non abhorret a sanguine. Les elections episcopales dans l'Eglise armenienne aux IVe-Ve siecles

437

Jaclyn Maxwell Education, Humility and Choosing Ideal Bishops in Late Antiquity

449

David McOmish The Manipulation of Tradition: The Past as a Tool for Political and Religious Victory during the Laurentian Controversy

463

CarlaNicolaye Episcopal Elections in 5th-century Vandal North Africa

477

Claudia Rammelt Bischofswechsel in Edessa zur Zeit der christologischen Auseinandersetzung

499

JosefRist Zum Beispiel Proklos von Konstantinopel. Uber Chancen und Grenzen des spatantiken Bischofsamtes

515

XII

Table of Contents

OlehShchuryk The Election of Sahak I as Catholicos of the Armenian Church

531

Andreas Thier Procedure and Hierarchy: Models of Episcopal Election in Late Antique Conciliar and Papal Rule Making

541

Johannes A. van Waarden Episcopal Self-Presentation: Sidonius Apollinaris and the Episcopal Election in Bourges AD 470

555

DanalulianaViezure The Election of Paul the Jew (519) in Light of the Theopaschite Controversy

563

ListofAuthors

575

Indices Indexnominum Indexrerum Indexlocorum

577 577 586 587

Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity: Structures and Perspectives

Peter Van Nuffelen - Johan Leemans In the second book of his Ecclesiastical History (2.6.3) Socrates writes about the events surrounding the succession of bishop Alexander of Constantinople in 337. According to the church historian, Alexander gave his community the following message on his deathbed: "If you want an honest and wise teacher, choose the young presbyter Paulus. If you want somebody who distinguishes himself by giving an impression of piety, then choose the old deacon Macedonia". Despite the clarity of the deceased bishop's advice, both candidates did not get a clear majority behind them. Factors playing a role here are not only their different personality and way of life Socrates is referring to but also their different theological position within the Trinitarian debates of their time: Paul seems to have been attached more to a Nicene-inspired theology while Macedonius seems to have adopted a more arianising, subordinationist position. Political pressure nor riots in the Constantinopolitan streets helped to resolve the tensions and ultimately each group ordained its own candidate. The deadlock did not last long: emperor Constantius II supported Macedonius and sent Paul into exile. This incident illustrates the complexity of late antique episcopal succession, in which many elements played a role, such as: local traditions (the apparent usage that the bishop had a say in the election of his successor); church politics and doctrinal conflicts (here "Arianism" versus a "Nicene" theology); imperial politics (the intervention by Constantius II); canon and civil law (was the "double ordination" of Macedonius and Paul lawful and was it lawful that the emperor intervened in church affairs?); the role of the people that voiced its opinion through acclamations and street riots; theological ideas about the "ideal bishop"; the personality and charisma of each of the candidates. The present volume contributes to a reassessment of the phenomenon of episcopal elections from the broadest possible perspective, examining the varied combination of factors, personalities, rules and habits that played a role in the process that eventually resulted in one candidate tri-

2

Peter Van Nuffelen - johan Leemans

umphing. The importance of episcopal elections hardly needs stating: with the bishop emerging as one of the key figures of late antique society, his election was a defining moment for the local community and an occasion when local, ecclesiastical, and secular tensions were played out. Drawing and expanding on older contributions, 1 a few general studies have recently been dedicated to the phenomenon. 2 The reason for adding a volume of papers to these publications is that the existing syntheses, for all their merits, tend to impose a uniformity on electoral practices throughout the later Roman empire, often by implicitly taking the practices of the majority church in the main cities as normative. There are obvious reasons for doing so: the sees of, say, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople are among the best documented and most powerful of the age. Nevertheless, the late antique church was much more diverse and that diversity needs first to be understood before an accurate synthesis can take shape. The present introduction sets out some considerations regarding the religious, social, and political structures influencing episcopal elections that have emerged from the papers collected in this volume and from recent research. It provides a general framework in which to situate the individual papers and by indicating which routes have not been taken by the various contributors, it also hopes to open up perspectives for future research.

Bishops, Local and Universal In reality as well as in imagination, bishops were the pillars of the ancient church. The rise of the monarchic episcopate in the third century created a church structure which entrusted to a single bishop the ultimate authority

1

Notable examples are: D. Claude, Die Bestellung der Bischofe, ZRG 80, Kan. Abt.49, 1963; F. Letter, Designation und angebliches Kooptationsrecht bei Bischofserhebungen, ZRG 90, Kan. Abt. 56, 1973, 112-150 ; R. Gryson, Les elections episcopates au Illieme siecle, RHE 68, 1973, 353-404; Id., Les elections episcopales en Orient au IVieme siecle, RHE 74, 1979: 301-344; Id., Les elections episcopales en Occident au IVieme siecle, RHE 75, 1980, 257-283; J. Gaudemet, Les elections dans FEglise Latine, des origines aux XVIe siecle, Paris 1979; E. Dassmann, Die Bischofsbestellung in der friihen Kirche, in: Id., Amter und Dienste in den friihchristlichen Gemeinden, Hereditas: Studien zur alten Kirchengeschichte 8, Bonn 1994, 190-211; F.-R. Erkens, ed., Die friih- und hochmittelalterliche Bischofserhebung im europaischen Vergleich, BAKG 48, Koln/ Weimar/ Wien 1998.

2

P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007; P. Christophe, L election des eveques dans Feglise latine au premier millenaire, Paris 2009; A. Thier, Hierarchie und Autonomic Regelungstraditionen der Bischofsbestellung in der Geschichte des kirchlichen Wahlrechts bis 1140, Frankfurt am Main 2011.


3

in a local community. 3 Traces of a more shared leadership can still be detected in Rome and Alexandria at the beginning of the fourth century. The triumph of the monarchic episcopate in the fourth century refocused church life on the bishop: whilst we have a wealth of information about bishops, we know less about other clergy than we might hope. 4 Late Antique accounts often focus on ideal bishops, who displayed spiritual authority and fit into the modern category of 'holy men'. 5 They were depicted as the defenders of the local community against all sorts of evils and intercessors with God. Yet not all bishops were saints: ecclesiastical histories are full of stories of conflict and intrigue that sometimes cast their adversaries in the role of evil-doers. Crucially, the saintly and the sinful cast a long shadow over ordinary bishops, more or less competently directing their diocese, who remain largely invisible. The church was (and is) at once a local and universal institution. The bishop hence incorporated both dimensions. Leaving aside the issue of the decline of civic structures in Late Antiquity,6 it is largely correct to state that local communities continued to maintain strong traditions and foster loyalty and allegiance. From different perspectives, P. Blaudeau and E. Watts have recently shown that local traditions and allegiances had an important impact on the symbolic construction of power and a real influence on events/ Local secular actors could also pursue their own interests that could spur intervention in the church. But a bishop was also eminently linked in with the church at large. He constituted the link with other

3

4

5

6 7

A. Faivre, Naissance d'une hierarchie: les premieres etapes du cursus clerical, Paris 1977; E. Dassmann, Zur Entstehung des Monepiskopats, JbAC 17, 1974, 74-90 (= Id., Amter und Dienste [note 1] 49-74); G. Schollgen, From Monepiscopate to Monarchical Episcopate: The Emergence of a New Relationship between Bishop and Community in the Third Century, The Jurist 66, 2006, 114-128. R. Godding, Pretres en Gaule merovingienne, Subsidia hagiographica 82, Brussels 2001; S. Hiibner, Der Klerus in Der Gesellschaft des Spatantiken Kleinasiens, Stuttgart 2005; P. Delage, ed., Les Peres de l'Eglise et les ministeres : evolutions, ideal et realites: actes du Hie Colloque de La Rochelle, 7, 8 et 9 septembre 2007, Jonzac 2008. J.W. Drijvers/ J.W. Watt, eds., Portraits of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient, Religions in the GraecoRoman world 137, Leiden 1999; P. Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures, Hannover 2001; A. Sterk, Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church: the Monk-bishop in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Mass. 2004; C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 37, Berkeley 2005. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford 2001. P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451-491). De l'histoire a la geoecclesiologie, Rome 2006; E. Watts, Riot in Alexandria. Tradition and Group Dynamics in Late Antique Pagan and Christian Communities, Berkeley 2010.

4


churches, as he incarnated the universal church in his local community and represented the local church within his province, either through correspondence or through his presence at synods. Fourth century Cappadocia and the correspondence of Basil of Caesarea offer a good example here. Basil's correspondence was clearly "a strategy of communion" with the bishops within and without his church province and it also contains a substantial number of references to local synods.8 If the at once local and universal position of the bishop is one key structure to understand episcopal elections, the implicit tension between authority and consensus is the other one. A bishop possessed ultimate authority in his community, but just as an ancient monarch was not (supposed to be) a dictator, the monarchic episcopate did not by definition imply a top-down imposition of power. A bishop represented and to a certain degree even incarnated his community: as we shall see, a bishop was invested with the consensus of his community. Even if formal checks and balances were largely absent, a bishop was supposed to steer his community for the common good. He could forfeit his position when this was not the case anymore, for example when Peter I of Alexandria was perceived as abandoning his flock during the Diocletian persecution.9 But a bishop also had to be elected and rule with the consensus of the universal church, i.e. with his peers. Their always existed a temptation for the bishops of the province or the metropolitan to impose a candidate of their own choosing, in particular in periods of doctrinal strife. This authoritative imposition could, however, imperil the consensus, as (part of) the local community could outrightly reject the new bishop or form a permanent opposition. To judge from the rich correspondence of Isidorus of Pelusium, the latter seems to have been the case in Pelusium in the early fifth century. The bishop Eusebius seems to have been a bad bishop: a weak administrator, a corrupt person and also in religious matters far from holy. Some of his clerics shared his unpastoral attitude, others however criticised him sharply. The Letters of Isidorus document his attempts to criticise and correct the behaviour of Eusebius and his gang as well as the support he lent towards the victims of their way of doing.10

8

9

10

B. Gain, L'Eglisc de Cappadoce au IVe siecle d'apres la correspondance de Basile de Cesaree (330-379), Oriental* Christiana analecta 225, Rome 1985; R. Pouchet, Basile le Grand et son univers d'amis d'apres sa correspondance: une strategic de communion, Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 36, Rome 1992. T. Vivian, St. Peter of Alexandria, Bishop and Martyr, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity, Philadelphia, Pa. 1988, 20; H. Hauben, La premiere annee du schisme melitien (305/306), AncSoc 20, 1989, 267-280. P. Evieux, Isidore de Peluse, Theologie historique 99, Paris 1995, 206-241.


5

Many of the issues that come to the fore during episcopal elections can be related to these two axes, the local and the universal, and authority and consensus. As the bishop was both local and universal, episcopal elections were a nexus where the universal and the local met, and occasions when the competing demands of authority and consensus were played out. This situation, as well as the obvious potential for conflict it generates, makes the election of a bishop a complicated phenomenon to assess correctly, in particular in a state of limited evidence. We just wish to draw attention here to one important element. Given the nature of our sources, we are in particular running the constant danger of underestimating the local dimension. Episcopal elections were hugely important events for a community. We often tend to look at them from a disengaged and distant perspective, focusing on long-term developments, in particular regarding histories of doctrinal conflicts. But for individual communities, the election of a new incumbent was of tremendous importance. Except for cases of deposition or voluntary retirement, bishops held their position for life. The tendency was to elect elder members of the community, first driven by the authority of age but later enshrined in the clerical cursus honorum in the West which ensured that one could hardly become a bishop before the age of 45. 11 Tenures were maybe shorter than one would expect in a system with election for life, but could last long.12 Elections thus potentially determined the life of a community for many years to come. Individual ambitions and faction rivalry within a city and a church were thus played out at these occasions. This local context tends to be underestimated in scholarship, where the focus is often on the macropolitical at the expense of the micropolitical, on doctrinal conflicts and imperial strategy at the expense of local tension.13 For lack of information on that context, many elections remain obscure or we tend to focus on factors that can be more easily detected, such as imperial intervention and doctrinal conflict. Although the evidence seldom allows us to really grasp that local dimension, as even the papers in this volume show, we must be aware of it as a crucial dimension and try to see how the universal and the local interact.

11 12 13

Siricius ep. 1.13 (PL 13.1142a-l 143a); Zos. ep. 9.5 (PL 672b-673a). See the contribution by R. Van Dam in this volume. For attempts to correct that perspective, see P. Van Nuffelen, Episcopal Succession in Sixth Century Sicily, in: D. Engels, ed., Zwischen Ideal und Wirklichkeit - Herrschaft auf Sizilien von der Antike bis zur Friihen Neuzeit, Stuttgart 2010, 175-190 and Episcopal Succession in Constantinople (381-450 C.E.): The Local Dynamics of Power, JECS 18,2010,425-451.

6


Current Approaches Seeing episcopal elections as a nexus of the local and universal and of authority and consensus, may, we hope, help us to grasp better their complexities. We are obviously not the first to argue that elections were important and complex. In this section, we wish to sketch briefly three larger tendencies in scholarship. Earlier research on elections in the ancient church was often driven by contemporary issues: Catholic scholars have implicitly or explicitly tied their research on ancient episcopal elections into debates about the nature of the modern church and its hierarchical institutions.14 Unsurprisingly, many of them focus on the role played by the local community and laity, and it comes not as a surprise that R. Gryson linked the elaboration of a hierarchical church in the fourth century with a decline of the real impact of the laity.15 The recent monograph by Peter Norton has explicitly challenged that view and argues that the people continued to play a role until the end of Antiquity. Such schematic assessments may not do justice to the evidence,16 and moreover, it may be misleading to focus just on the role of the people and the issue of their "real" influence. As we argue below, episcopal elections must be seen as consensus-seeking phenomena that played out in a complex social environment. There does not seem to be a fixed procedure for running an election and organising, for example, a formal vote. Rather, the finding of a consensus could be informal, which later was publicly approved of by acclamations. The extent to which the people had a say in such a process is hard to measure. In an ideal consensual election there is no conflict of opinion and hardly a need to express a view. It is rather in contested elections that one can see that the people could indeed reject certain candidates or vocally (or militarily) support one particular candidate. But these were situations when consensus was not achieved and the different actors had to manifest their own will. The issue of popular involvement thus needs to be set in a wider context and not studied as an isolated element. Second, canon lawyers have had a long standing interest in episcopal elections, often with the aim of reconstructing the antecedents for current practice.17 This has, however, lead to a projection of a systematizing view of canon law back on Antiquity: most work has focused on establishing

14 15 16 17

Gaudemet, Les elections (note 1) and Christophe, l'election (note 2). Gryson, Les elections (note 1). For a much more differentiated picture, see Thier, Hierarchie (note 2), 194. With Thier, Hierarchie (note 2), we have now a new synthesis that can function as a guide to previous scholarship.


7

the procedure for elections in Late Antiquity. Although earlier scholars obviously took into account regional variation and change over time, they have tended to overestimate the regulatory character of ancient canons and often attempted to detect a linear development. Both aspects are challenged in this volume,18 which suggests a more dynamic view of canon law. Canon law is not a neutral resource laying down the rules for elections in Late Antiquity, but part of the various factors that played a role during the process and that could be highlighted or downplayed depending on the circumstances. Finally, the application of prosopographical methods to Late Antiquity has raised the issue of the social background of clergy and bishops in general. The traditional issue at stake here is the degree of continuity between the old, secular elite, and the new Christian one. It is now clear that most bishops were drawn from the curial class, with relatively few bishops drawn from the humiliores or the senatorial class.19 There are individual exceptions, of which Ambrose is the best known, and geographical ones, with Gaul in the fifth and sixth century as the prime example.20 Whilst the church was thus not a refuge for the top elite in an age of decline, it is not the case either that the local municipal elite simply espoused clerical office: evidence for Italy shows that more than half of the bishops did not originate from the city they governed. In the words of Claire Sotinel: "Se degage l'image d u n e institution avant tout soucieuse de se doter de cadres efficaces pour son gouvernement interne plus que dune Eglise confondue avec la hierarchie sociale de son epoque."21 The evidence from the early Byzantine empire, however, has been taken to indicate a greater degree of 18 A. Thier, Dynamische Schriftlichkeit: Zur Normenbildung in den vor-gratianischen Kanonessammlungen, ZSSKA 124, 2007, 1-33 and his contribution in this volume focus on the dynamics of late antique dealing with written sources of law, whereas P. Van Nuffelen emphasises the rhetorical function of canon law. 19 F.D. Gilliard, The Social Origins of Bishops in the Fourth Century, Diss. Berkeley 1966; W. Eck, Der Einfluss der konstantinischen Wende auf die Auswahl der Bischofe im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert, Chiron 8, 1978, 561-585; C. Sotinel, Le personnel episcopal: enquete sur la puissance de l'eveque dans la cite, in: E. Rebillard/ C. Sotinel, edd., L'eveque dans la cite du IVe au Ve siecle: image et autorite, Rome 1998, 105126 and Ead., Les eveques italiens dans la societe de l'Antiquite tardive: emergence d'une nouvelle elite?, in: R. Lizzi, ed., Le trasformazioni delle elites in eta tardoantica, Perugia 2006, 377-404; C. Rapp, The Elite Status of Bishops in Late Antiquity, Arethusa 33, 2000, 379-399. 20 M. Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien: zur Kontinuitat romischer Fiihrungsschichten vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert: soziale, prosopographische und bildungsgeschichtlicheAspekte, Munich 1976. 21 C. Sotinel, Le recrutement des eveques en Italie aux IVe et Ve siecles. Essai d'enquete prosopographique, in: Vescovi e pastori in epoca teodosiana, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 58, Rome 1997, 193-204, 202.

8


continuity.22 Local diversity is thus again evident, but even so it seems fair to state that the clerical elite is not a mere avatar of the age-old elites: it marked a true mutation in the social and political history, even if bishops started to model their behaviour on that of secular rulers.23 This does not mean, however, that social hierarchies played no role at all within the church and that the church was the great avenue for social promotion from sharecropper to bishop. An elite background was an obvious boon when pursuing a career in the church. Whilst engaging with these debates, this volume hopes to inspire further discussion by proposing a number of new perspectives. As said, one of the aims of the volume is to demonstrate the sheer variety of cases and

Procedure and Consensus We must start by confessing our ignorance in an important respect. The information we have, and in particular the canon rules, is mostly concerned with the proper preconditions of the ordination, and not with the actual designation of the candidate.24 Some aspects of the designation were formalized at some point in time. Justinian, 2 ' probably preceded by Anastasius,26 formalised the rule that a shortlist of three candidates should be drawn up from which the new bishop could be selected and stated that the clergy and the leading citizens should be involved. The ancient focus on ordination is an important fact, as modern interest tends to regard designation and election. Indeed, the present volume discusses episcopal elections, i.e. the process resulting in the appointment of a new incumbent, in its wider social, ecclesiastical and political context. In the relative disregard for the actual ordination this betrays a modern perspective on episcopal elections: what is important for us, is what happens before the ordination, the correct procedure or the kowtowing and back-stabbing. The actual ordination is often seen by us as the merely ceremonial endpoint of that

22

23 24 25 26

M. Whittow, Ruling the Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: A Continuous History, Past and Present 129, 1990, 3-29; A. Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municip a l s dans l'empire protobyzantin, Rome 2002, 151-4, 253. R. Haensch, Die Rolle der Bischofe im 4. jahrhundert. Neue Anforderungen und Neue Antworten, Chiron 37, 2007, 153-182. Norton, Episcopal Elections (note 2), 31 and G. Dunn in this volume. Codex Iustianianus 1.3.41 (528) (CIC(B).C, 26 Kriiger); Novellae 123 (546) and 137 (565) (CIC(B).N 594-595, 696-697 Scholl/Kroll). Severus Select Letters, 1, 39 (Vol. 1/1, 124 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 111 Brooks), with Norton, Episcopal Elections (note 2), 37 and F. Alpi in this volume.


9

process. The ancient church did not see it that way. The ordination is not just the moment when God's spirit is imparted on the new bishop. As the ordination is performed by neighbouring bishops and, possibly, by the metropolitan, it is also the moment when the local community is inserted anew into the universal church and when the local community and the universal church express their shared wish to see a particular individual as the new bishop. Ordination was thus the key moment and many examples show that in disputed elections one of the factions would rush to ordination to forestall the other candidate. Disputes were often about improper ordinations. In other words, there was no point such as the official proclamation of the results during modern elections which determines the official outcome, followed in due course by the installation of a new president or government. In episcopal elections, up until the ordination everything was open. This fact should direct us away from seeing, consciously or unconsciously, modern electoral procedures in our democracies or modes of designation in the modern churches as paradigms. Given the position of the bishop as the incarnation of the community and its link with the universal church, the election of a bishop was eminently consensual. As an expression of the communal consensus, an election could not ignore a constituant part of the community. The people thus always had some role to play. One cannot draw one straight line in the development of church law on elections: A. Thier argues that western canon law tends to attribute a more important role to bishops from the fourth century onwards, but from the fifth the laity again receives more emphasis. The argument for a linear decline of the people's influence should thus be nuanced.27 This does not mean that the people always played a decisive role, or even an important role: often the vox populi may have been rather pro forma.28 Evidence from Constantinople in the early fifth century suggests that the role of the people could be decisive in cases of disputed elections when the church and secular hierarchy could not agree on a candidate.29 Most importantly, however, the people could reject a bishop who was imposed on them, a situation that does not seem to have been that uncommon. 30 Here one notices that the local and the universal church had to agree. Just as the theoretical and actual role of the people varied over time and from place to 27 28

29 30

Gryson, Les elections episcopates en Orient (note 5), 302-4; Rapp, Holy Bishops (note 1), 200. On these lines, for a later period, see B. Moulet, Intervention des laics et regulation ecclesiastique des nominations episcopales a Byzance (Vlll-Xe siecles), Revue beige de philologie et d'histoire 85, 2007, 213-221. Van Nuffelen, Episcopal Succession in Constantinople (note 13). Norton, Episcopal Elections (note 2), 44-5 and J. Rist in this volume.

10


place, consensus could be achieved in a variety of ways: proposing a candidate and allowing him to be scrutinised; drawing up a list of three and have one selected; having candidates acclaimed. One has to take account of the onus of consensus. In a modern election, one can be declared a clear winner with just over fifty percent of the vote or, depending on the electoral system, even less. In an episcopal election that would not have been sufficient. Canon 6 of Nicaea presumes the necessity of consensus among all provincial bishops, even when allowing for some form of majority decision: "If all have come to a harmonious agreement according to the ecclesiastical rule and two or three disagree for reasons of private rivalry, the wish of the majority is to prevail." This volume chronicles sufficient instances when a minority succeeded in blocking the election of the bishop of the other faction or the majority could push through its will only at great cost. The highly disputed nature of episcopal elections is thus not just due to the ecclesiastical and political importance of the function, but also to the high demands of consensus. The high stock set by consensus is best reflected in hagiographical sources. Lives of saints are frustrating sources if one wishes to use them as historical sources. They tend to gloss over all the more wordly concerns that seem important to us and presents a rather irenic picture of the universal wish of a community for a saintly individual as bishop. But the emphasis on consensus, including that of the people, reveals the ideological focus on agreement of all, including the people. Indeed, Merovingian lives of saints attest to popular participation in a region and at a time when many elections seem determined by royal decree.31 The focus on consensus also allows to circumvent the difficulties faced by individuals: Sulpicius' Life of Saint Martin hints at the opposition of the hierarchy to Martin's election, but depicts the choice as a divinely inspired action of the people. The disgruntled bishops are marginalised in the suggestion of a wide consensus.32

State Intervention and Ecclesiastical Conflict Bishops are elected in a specific society and context. Two crucial factors need to be singled out, imperial intervention and ecclesiastical conflict. That the secular state and the emperor (and later, in the West, the king) intervened needs no discussion, but it is worth raising two interre-

31 32

See the contribution by D.Alt. Sulp. Sev. V. Martin 9 (ed. J. Fontaine, Vie de Saint Martin. Sources chretiennes 135, Paris 1969).


11

lated issues: how often and where did he intervene, and on what legal grounds did he do so? A traditional view would ascribe to the emperor an overriding and direct influence on episcopal elections, directly on the major sees and indirectly on the minor ones.33 Justification for this was found in a legal stewardship of the emperor over the church,34 often traced back to Eusebius' depiction of Constantine as "bishop of those outside" or the heritage of the position of pontifex maximus,35 Such a view of imperial competence and intervention in episcopal elections now seems on the wane. In a recent paper, J. Dijkstra and G. Greatrex have revisited the relationship between Anastasius and the patriarchs of Constantinople to show that the patriarchs, especially when they aligned themselves with the people, were powerful individuals who could effectively challenge the emperor,36 In a study of episcopal succession in Constantinople under the Theodosian dynasty P. Van Nuffelen has argued that the emperor had to take into account the views and power of an ecclesiastical establishment, which succeeded in controlling succession in the capital for most of the first half of the fifth century, against contestation by the johannites and imperial intervention,37 His intervention may have been less frequent than we assume, mainly limiting it to cases when no consensus was reached. In the context of this volume it is striking that no contribution to this volume deals mainly with imperial and regal intervention - except for the papers by B. Dumezil and C. Nicolaye, both arguing against overestimating its importance. This is a sign that the earlier emphasis on imperial intervention as the crucial element in late antique elections is in the process of being corrected, and that, as we shall see, attention is being shifted to intra-ecclesiastical motifs and agents. This shift of focus should not lead to a neglect of the role of the secular elite, nor to a failure to conceptualise imperial intervention. Yet the argument that imperial intervention is related to a legal privilege reflects a tendency to analyse modes of conduct in legal terms, whereas ancient practice was much more messy. More importantly, even if the emperor may have understood himself as 33 34

35 36 37

Gryson, Les elections episcopates en Orient (note 1), 345-7, nuanced by Norton, Episcopal elections (note 2), 82. F. L. Ganshof, Note sur Election des eveques dans l'cmpirc romain au IVme et pendant la premiere moitie du Vieme siecle, RIDA 4, 1950, (^Melanges Fernand de Visscher 3), 407-498; B. Biondi, II diritto romano cristiano, Milan 1952, 203-230; P. G. Caron, întervention de l'autorite imperial romain dans l'election des eveques, Revue de droit canonique 27, 1978, 76-83. Eus.v.c.4.24. J. Dijkstra and G. Greatrex, 'Patriarchs and Politics in Constantinople in the Reign of Anastasius (with a reedition of O.Mon.Epiph. 59)', Millenium 6, 2009, 223-264. Van Nuffelen, Episcopal Succession in Constantinople (note 13).

12


having a right of overview, this was in the period we are concerned with never conceptualised as such by the emperor. On the contrary, even in a region and a period where appointment by the emperor was the rule, Merovingian Gaul, councils did reassert the ecclesiastical privilege of appointing a bishop. As B. Dumezil points out, royal intervention always remained beyond legal conceptualisation and affirmation of ecclesiastical autonomy regularly took place. His proposal to analyse the existing practice as an informal system on its own, without trying to root it in a specific legal justification, succeeds in showing that the system could be stable and functioning while the church could keep alive the idea of its own autonomy and reassert it in certain circumstances. Moreover, as an informal system, each appointment marked the renegotiation of the relationship between king and church: the king was supposed to comply with implicit expectations, such as the importance of moderation and the duty of responding adequately to the circumstances. Conflict arose when king or church failed to honour their part of the implicit agreement. These recent approaches rely on the public dimension of elections in arguing that bishops could play out popular support against the emperor or that the king had to be seen as guaranteeing the implicit moral codes of expected behaviour. They thus back away from a strictly legal perspective. It is this public dimension that may also help to explain another phenomenon: the recurrence of violence and riots during elections.38 It may be fruitful to situate the presence of riots during episcopal elections against the background of widespread local violence and riots throughout Later Antiquity. Attempts have been made to explain late antique violence as a specifically Christian phenomenon spurred by the rise of the bishop,39 but given the extensive presence of city violence throughout the empire, not just for religious causes, this is not entirely convincing: riots and violence need to be related to the changed nature of local city life, in which Christianity obviously played a role but was far from the only factor.40 It may, in turn, be reductive to state that the street battles for the episcopal see in

38 39

40

It is most explicitly discussed in the paper of F. Fatti. R. MacMullen, Changes in the Roman Empire. Essays in the Ordinary, Princeton, 1990, 205-276; P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire, Madison, Wi. 1992, 85-95. For a social perspective on late antique religious riots, see J. Hahn, Gewalt und religioser Konflikt: Studien zu den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Christen, Heiden und Juden im Osten des Romischen Reiches (von Konstantin bis Theodosius II.), Berlin 2004. A sketch of a more integrated approach is laid out by M. Whitby, Factions, Bishops, Violence and Urban Decline, in: J.-U. Krause/ C. Witschel, eds., Die Stadt in der Spatantike - Niedergang oder Wandel?, Stutggart 2006, 441-461.


13

fourth-century Rome were just a mutated form of traditional patronage41 - a version of the thesis of social continuity between secular and ecclesiastical elites. If, however, we see episcopal elections as essentially public events, it becomes more understandable that violence could erupt when no consensus was reached, especially if this was happening in a society where local violence was common. Imperial intervention, in turn, often had the basic aim of maintaining order or forestalling disorder. What this volume leaves in obscurity and has, to our knowledge, received no in-depth study recently, is how the legislation of Justinian impacted on the actual recruitment of clergy and bishops in the East. It is, for example, noteworthy that the so-called Dialogue of Political Science favours a system of state appointment for bishops.42 The role of bishops within the state was clearly being reconsidered at the time, and it would be worthwhile to study the aims, effectiveness, and impact of Justinian's laws.43 This is an occasion when the interaction of internal church life and external state influence could be very well grasped. If the influence of the emperor is being cut down to realistic proportions, what are the intra-ecclesiastical factors that the contributions to this volume draw attention to? Elections were occasions when ecclesiastical networks of support and patronage could be built up. Bishops tended to staff their clergy with friends and relations,44 which translates in the emergence of episcopal dynasties, such as that of John and Domnus in Antioch, and Theophilus and Cyril in Alexandria. But bishops did not remain focused on their own sees: they would try to install like-minded individuals on vacant sees across the province, and sometimes even beyond the borders of a province. Given the importance of synodal decisions, having the numbers on one's side could be very advantageous. This strategy is particularly visible in times of doctrinal tension and is documented in this volume in particular for the patriarchate of Antioch: Theodoretus of Cyr overstepped his authority by intervening in Tyre,45 as did the patriarch of Alexandria with the election of Paul the Black (564).46 Elections could thus be vicarious battle grounds for wider conflicts, and this often led to the conscious overstepping of accepted procedure.

41

42 43 44 45 46

The most explicit statement of this position is R. Lizzi, Discordia in urbe: pagani e cristiani in rivolta, in: F.E. Consolino, ed., Pagani e cristiani da Giuliano l'Apostata al saccodi Roma, Messina 1995, 115-140. P. Bell, Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian, Liverpool 2009, 159. Norton, Episcopal Elections (note 2), 34-6 46-7 has a brief discussion. Blaudeau,Alexandrie(note7),17. See the contributions by Alpi, Bevan, and Keough. See the paper by P. Allen. See also D. I. Viezure's contribution.

14


As the following or not-following of procedure itself was not sufficient to make an election accepted or not, such battles spurred legitimizing discourses that justified overstepping canonical prescriptions or obscured infractions of accepted practice. This can be particularly well documented in Rome, where bishops modelled their self-understanding on that of the Roman state and used the legal vocabulary that depicted the incumbent as the inheritor of an unbroken tradition of orthodoxy.47 But also for Alexandria such justificatory discourses can be well studied.48 One of the aspects this volume wants to draw attention to is the symbolic dimension present in elections: by this we do not mean the theological dimension of the imparting of spiritual authority on a bishop as the representative of Christ in his bishopric, but rather the series of actions and symbols that justified the position of a particular bishop by setting him in a tradition and depicting him as the heir to that tradition. Such symbols were important. In Egypt the custom existed of putting the hand of the dead patriarch on the head of the new incumbent, or of performing the ordination in presence of the corpse. This was not an action that was performed in every instance, but it was part of the collective memory and could be drawn upon if need be.49 Conversely, since Paul the Tabennesiote in 538, diphysite bishops of Alexandria were ordained in Constantinople, which was an obvious symbolic disadvantage. This symbolic dimension needs to be further integrated in discussions of episcopal elections. Indeed, instead of understanding popular acclamations as a way of voting (hence giving rise to the debate whether the people had any real influence or not), it is possible to see them as the symbolic underwriting of an election, i.e. an expression of the consensus. This needs not, however, exclude the possibility of a real popular influence in specific circumstances. Ecclesiastical conflict, understood in a sociological sense of the establishment of factions and parties that compete for influence, thus emerges as a basic factor in elections. But it was a long-term process: unless one opted for the radical but difficult way of deposing a whole series of bishops, episcopal sees became vacant one by one and each election requested a lot of effort to make it turn the right way. Gains were not always long-term, as the succession of the Cyrillian Rabulla by the nestorian Ibas in Edessa (435) shows.50 Another complicating factor was that depositions for doctrinal reasons, sometimes but not always hardened by exile,51 and 47 48 49 50 51

See the contributions by C. Hornung and D. McOmish. See P. Blaudeaus chapter. A, is shown by E.Wipszycka in her chapter. See the paper of C. Rammelt. See P. Blaudeau/ F. Prevot, eds., Exil et relegation, les tribulations du sage et du saint dans FAntiquite romaine et chretienne (He avt-VIe s. ap. J.-C), Paris 2008.


15

elections of new incumbents were often contested. Bishops often refused to accept their deposition, which could lead to the splitting of communities, each with their own bishop. Examples range from the Melitian schism in the early fourth century to Antioch throughout the longest part of the same century. It is exemplified in this volume by Pauline Allen's prosopographical analysis of succession in sixth century Antioch. Reconciliation implied finding a compromise that integrated the various bishops; the failure in the cases of both the Melitians and the fourth-century Antiochean schism illustrate eloquently the difficulties involved.52 In line with earlier research,53 this volume thus draws attention to the sociological process of factionalism that overlaps in important ways with doctrinal strife, and often is driven by it, but is not always fully coterminous with it. Other internal factors are also considered in this volume. One could be termed 'disciplining'. The development of the church into a respectable institution of power obviously increased the numbers of bishoprics available. Although R. Van Dam's admittedly speculative calculations suggest there might actually have been twice as many senators as bishops at any given time in the empire, this also increased the need for qualified personnel. The development of a cursus, which only allowed one to become bishop at the age of 45, reduced in a natural way the number of candidates for a particular see, given the lower life expectancy of that period. D. Hunter, in turn, focuses on the condition of having been married only once and how this rule contributed to the establishment of priestly celibacy. He also questions the often stated preference for monks as bishops and he draws attention to the rather critical view of monks as bishops that also seems to have existed.

Centre and Periphery We stated at the outset that this volume maps variety and difference. Here it may be important to expand our perspective to episcopal succession: rather than looking at individual elections, regional variety is better detected by looking at succession patterns generated by a series of elections. Indeed, elections are often the only instances that are discussed in the sources for a given see, and thus good occasions to get an insight in the make-up of different churches. In general, it may be possible to state that

52 53

On Antioch, see the paper by O. Hihn. Cf. D.M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the 'Arian Controversy, Oxford 2007.

16


the form of episcopal succession depended on the structure of the local ecclesiastical community and on that of the society in which it took root. The classic image of a bishop residing in a city is only applicable to the church within the Roman empire: for the peoples beyond the frontiers, bishops were regularly appointed to entire regions or peoples.54 Goths and other Germanic peoples usually had only one bishop assigned to them, who followed them in their travels. Hence for a long time Vandal and Visigothic bishops resided at court and were not assigned to cities. For the Visigoths this seems to have happened only in the reign of Leovigild (57286).55 The bishops in Armenia, in turn, resided on the large estates of the magnates of that kingdom. 56 This situation is comprehensible against the background of the slow integration of barbarian and Roman societies in the successor kingdoms and the specific urban (or non-urban) make-up of non-Roman societies. But even within the empire not all bishops were city-based. Leaving aside the phenomenon of chorepiskopoi, bishops assigned to villages within a diocese and under the authority of the local bishop, bishops could also reside in monasteries, for example in Egypt in the sixth century when rival factions had their own bishops and only one of them occupied the city.57 Even within the Roman empire, we should not take the link between city and bishop as too self-evident or, better, we should not imagine the "city" as too big or too important a place. Surely bishops in the bigger cities of the Empire are best-documented but this should not make us forget that bishops often resided in not much more than villages. Gregory of Nazianze's Sasima, his cursed station in the middle of nowhere that comes immediately to mind, may be considered an exception but Nyssa, where that other luminary of Cappadocian theology resided, was not all too big a city to judge from the size of the martyr's shrine he describes in his Letter 25. And what to think of the 500 or more bishopsrics in Northern Africa? Many of these bishops must have had their see in smaller cities, just as one can easily imagine that not all of these bishops were welleducated, well-to-do people of good descent. Thus, just as the social makeup of these small cities must have been different from that of provincial capitals, not to mention cities like Alexandria, elections may well have run a different course there from what we know from bigger cities.

54 55 56 57

Ruf., h.c. I 9-10 on Iberia and Ethiopia; Prosper Tiro, Chronicon s.a. 431 on the Scots. R.W. Mathisen, Barbarian Bishops and the Churches "in barbaricis gentibus" during Late Antiquity, Speculum 72, 1997, 664-697. See the contribution by A. Mardirossian. The evidence is set out in the paper of E. Wipszycka.


17

If the paradigm of the city-based bishop may be too much at the forefront of our analysis, so is the idea of a single mode of episcopal succession in Late Antiquity. Many analyses take the model set out in the canons of the church as the standard one and then apply it to the various groups. It can be shown, however, that some sects made conscious choices for different modes of succession: the Novatians in Constantinople developed a tightly controlled system of succession in which elite background and blood ties were of paramount importance. The short-lived Eunomian hierarchy was exceptional in assigning only one or a few bishops to entire regions and by making the bishops subservient to the twin spiritual head of the groups, Eunomius and Aetius, who did not become part of the Eunomian episcopal system. Both can be related to the specific social situation these sects found themselves in, and in the case of the Eunomians theological considerations.58 It has been suggested that the Melitians continued the ancient Egyptian practice of having communities directed by presbyters.59 In a context of cultural and communal diversity, different bishops could co-exist in the same city.60 Such variety may have been reduced in the course of the centuries, but these examples at least show that it existed and they suggest that differences in succession patterns may reflect differences in social outlook and structure of specific churches, or even distinct theological choices. After all, a bishop is a leader of a community and the way he exercises his power is related to the selfunderstanding and make-up of that community. Obviously, it would be naive to simply claim local variety without seeing that certain places and models exercised a greater influence than others. In particular, patriarchal sees - well represented in this volume sought to control the local churches by trying to shape succession. Depending on geographical location and the strength of local traditions, some communities aligned themselves faster with the centre than others. Certain regions long remained properly peripheral in ecclesiastical terms: the churches of Armenia and Persia, for example, were long subjected to metropolitans within the Roman empire. Indeed, the abandonment of the obligation to have the new Armenian catholicos ordained in Caesarea in Cappadocia marked an important step in the autonomy of the Armenian church61 and was a clear refusal to remain an appendix to the church of the Roman empire. Being peripheral was also not without its advantages, as it could protect against centralising tendencies by powerful metropoli58 59 60 61

Van Nuffelen, Episcopal Succession in Constantinople (note 13). E. Wipszycka, The Origins of Monarchic Episcopate in Egypt, Adamantius 12, 2006, 71-90. As noted in the paper of P. Bruns. See the papers by A. Mardirossian, O. Shchuryk and P. Bruns.

18


tans Gregory the Great, for example, could not unseat Maximus of Salona when the latter outbid in 592 or 593 Gregory's favourite candidate. Salona was beyond the reach of Gregory's authority.62 Such examples should warn against studying episcopal elections just from the perspective of the emperor or the metropolitan. Local forces could thwart the desires of the centre.63

Ideal and Reality Finally, it is apposite to make a case in favour of the singularly unexpected: stories of individual actions that give us pause to think and make one hesitant to look for master-narratives to understand episcopal elections. What to think of a person such as Martinianus? Serving as presbyter under Eusebius of Pelusium (whose predecessor had refused to ordain him!), he was one of his accomplices in a life of luxury, weak and immoral leadership, abd financial abuse, exemplified in prefering a luxurious church over the temple of the body of the poor. After a few years of illconduct, this man took the money destined for the poor and travelled to Alexandria in order to buy an episcopal see. To judge from church canons warning for practices of simony with regard to episcopal elections, wellattested for Merovingian Gaul,64 Martinianus' attempt of buying an episcopal office was not a unique event. More exceptional maybe was the experience of vicarious shame and irritation Augustine experienced when his congregation reacted overly enthusiast on the occasion of the visit of Pinianus and Melania the Younger on their way to the Holy Land: in church his congregation tried to exhort this incredible wealthy man to accept the priesthood in their congregation, obviously in view of a future appointment as bishop.65 Wealth obviously was an important element to be considered a good candidate to the episcopacy. Paideia, culture and a good network were important for the big sees. The succession in Constantinople to the disappointing and disappointed Gregory of Nazianzus was a case in point: after this little-skilled diplomat a non-baptised senator, Nectarius, was chosen and became per saltum bishop of one of the most important sees of the Empire. Yet, these were exceptions and in the image of the ideal bishop piety was at least as important is paideia. In the Apostolic

62

See, e.g., Greg. Magn. en. I 10, 19-20, IX 150, 152, 154-156, 159, 177-179, 231, 234,237(CCsL140,D.Norberg). 63 Van Nuffelen, Episcopal Succession in Sicily (note 13). 64 See the paper by S. Loftus. 65 Aug. ep. 125-128 (CSEL 44, A. Goldbacher).


19

Constitutions (2.1.2) it is said that the candidate-bishop should be educated if possible, but if he were to be uneducated, that he should have experience in reading the Bible, be of suitable age and maturity. In other words: functional and basic knowledge were important but spiritual education and leadership skills were considered more important. Other normative texts about the ideal bishop66 also explore the tension between piety and paideia: a bishop should have paideia but not too visible and he certainly should not show off. Ultimately piety was considered more important. In practice, however, Christians (and, if need be, non-Christians) were very happy to ask the bishop for a letter of support or an intervention in a difficult situation. These images of the ideal bishop, construed in hagiographical literature67 or by bishops themselves,68 had no direct relevance on individual episcopal elections but it is not illogical to assume that such images influenced how bishops and bishops-to-be behaved and how their congregations expected them to behave.

Conclusion The foregoing discussion could be taken to suggest that we advocate a series of microstudies that describe the interplay of imperial intervention, ecclesiastical conflict, and local circumstances for each specific election and that a more general account is firmly beyond our reach. Whilst we do caution against generalisations from specific instances that are too easily taken as representing the standard, such a conclusion is too sceptical. This introduction has pointed to a series of structural factors that can give shape to a future synthesis. That is the modest aim of this voluminous collection: to take a step back to take stock of the sheer variety and to explore possible approaches so as to provide crucial building blocks for a future synthesis.

66 67 68

E.g. Greg.Nys., ep. 19 and the texts discussed by J. Maxwell in this volume. See the papers by D. Alt and R. Dekker. See T.D. Barnes and J.A. van Waarden in this volume.

Keynote Lectures

Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century 1 Pauline Allen Background Episcopal succession in Antioch in the sixth century has to be seen in the context of imperial attempts at ecclesiastical unity in Late Antiquity, typified by the publication of the Henoticon (Instrument of Union) by emperor Zeno in 482, which was the forerunner of the "Second Henoticon of emperor Justin II (571?), and of the Ekthesis of emperor Heraclius (638).2 However, apart from the raging debate about Chalcedon, which was influential in episcopal elections in sixth-century Antioch, we have to give serious consideration to the march of tritheist doctrine, which could have lain behind several episcopal elections and demises. Tritheism emerged among anti-Chalcedonians in about 557 from an attempt to establish a one-nature trinitarian doctrine on the basis of the christological terminology of Severus of Antioch. It spread rapidly and was early in vogue in Syria. The opponents of this doctrine, both pro- and anti-Chalcedonians, were as vociferous as its adherents, thus causing further turbulence among anti-Chalcedonians and engaging the attention of Chalcedonian bishops 1

The following abbreviations are used in this paper: Allen, Evagrius = P. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Etudes et Documents 41, Leuven 1981; CPG = Clavis Patrum Graecorum; Downey, History of Antioch = G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton 1961; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement = W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge 1972; Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/3 = A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/3. Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien, ed. T. Hainthaler, Freiburg 2002; Honigmann, Eveques et eveches = E. Honigmann, Eveques et eveches monophysites d'Asie anterieure au Vie siecle, CSCO.Sub 127, vol. 2, Louvain 1951; Norton, Episcopal Elections = P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007.

2

A detailed comparison of these edicts is a desideratum.

24

Pauline Allen

in the East,3 who realised that, as long as the anti-Chalcedonians remained divided among themselves on the question of tritheism, unity between adherents and opponents of Chalcedonian was impossible. Tritheism was one of the factors which troubled the nexus between Antioch and Alexandria on the anti-Chalcedonian side. Another important consideration on this point was the large number of exiled anti-Chalcedonian bishops and clergy who sought refuge in Egypt after 518, making the region a centre of the anti-Chalcedonian cause. I shall therefore be devoting some time to the relationship between the Syrian and Egyptian churches and its influence on episcopal succession in Antioch. In this paper I shall also try to address Norton's lack of attention to case-studies and to the role which monks played in episcopal succession by concentrating on fifteen case-studies of patriarchal succession in sixthcentury Antioch. 4 This prosopographical approach will enable us better to determine trends and influences in a particular region over a hundred-year period,5 rather than extrapolating across different regions and periods, as Norton does. I study these episcopal successions under the following rubrics: origin, curriculum vitae, circumstances of election, demise, sources, and literature. I include mentions of the mostly peaceful deaths of patriarchs

3

On tritheism see H. Martin, La controverse tritheite dans l'cmpirc byzantin au Vie siecle, diss. Louvain I960; R.Y. Ebied, A. Van Roey, and L.R. Wickham, Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier, OLA 10, Leuven 1981; A. Van Roey, La controverse tritheite depuis la condamnation de Conon de Eugene jusqu'a la conversion de l'eveque Elie, in: W.C. Delsman, J.T. Nelis, J.R.T.M. Peters, W.H.Ph. Romer and A.S. van der Woude, Von Kanaan bis Kerala, Festschrift fur Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979. Uberreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schiiler, Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Veroffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Ala n Testaments, Bd. 211, Neukirchen and Vluyn 1982, 487-497; A. Van Roey, La controverse tritheite jusqu'a l'excommunication de Conon et d'Eugene (557-569), OLP 16, 1985, 141-165; A. Van Roey and P. Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, OLA 56, Leuven 1994; Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/3 (see note 1), 279291.

4

Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 1). For a balanced critique of Norton's book see R. Lim, on Bryn Mawr Classical Review website 2009.07.52, accessed 20 July 2009. Some aspects of the chronologies of episcopal succession in what follows are only approximate. See T. Hainthaler in Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/3 (see note 1), for a tentative table of patriarchs after 451 and an outline of the difficulties of dating. In the prosopographical presentation that follows in this chapter anti-Chalcedonian patriarchs in Antioch are indicated by square brackets.

5

Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century

25

simply as a contrast to the violence and bloodshed that had previously accompanied episcopal successions in Antioch in the fifth century.6

488/491-498 Palladius This episcopal election is strictly speaking outside my chronological framework, but I include it because in one source a future emperor is said to have been one of the candidates. Palladius was a Syrian priest, attached to the great martyrion of St Thecla in Seleucia Pieria (port of Antioch). He accepted Zeno's Henoticon. The future emperor Anastasius I, who also accepted the Henoticon, is said by the eighth/ninth-century pro-Chalcedonian chronicler Theophanes also to have been a candidate for the episcopacy. Palladius seems to have died from natural causes. The main sources for his succession are the anti-Chalcedonian church historian Zachariah Rhetor or Scholasticus, and Theophanes/

498-512 Flavian II Like Palladius, Flavian was a Syrian priest; before his election he was also apocrisiarius or representative of the see of Antioch in Constantinople presumably the representative of his precursor, Palladius. Flavian had been a monk in the pro-Chalcedonian monastery of Tilmognon in Syria Secunda. A moderate, he accepted the Henoticon, and was therefore at one with emperor Anastasius' eirenic ecclesiastical policies, until the bishop was unable to maintain order in his see. Then, unequal to challenges posed by the anti-Chalcedonian bishop Philoxenus of Mabbug and Syrian monks, he withdrew from Antioch, and emperor Anastasius exiled him to Petra where he died.8 6

7

8

The most notorious of these were the four accessions of Peter the Fuller (469-470, 470-471, 475-476, and 484-491 [?]), and the murder of Patriarch Stephen in 479. See further Downey, History of Antioch (see note 1), 486-502. Zach. rh. (= Zach schol.) h.e. VI 6 (CSCO 84 Syr. 39, 11-15 Brooks); Theoph. chron. AM 5983 (ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, vol. 1, Leipzig 1883, 135). Secondary sources: L. Duchesne, L'Eglise au VIeme siecle, Paris 1925, 8-9; Downey, History of Antioch (see note 1), 507-508; W. Mayer and P. Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300-638 CE), Late Antique History and Religion, Leuvzn20\0, onihzmartyrion. Primary sources: Evagr. h.e. Ill 31-32 (ed. by J. Bidez/L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, Byzantine Texts, London 1898, 127-131);

26

Pauline Allen

512-518 Severus Despite what the sources try to tell us, Severus was born a pagan, not a Christian, in Sozopolis (Pisidia). He subsequently studied rhetoric and law in Alexandria and Berytus, before being converted to anti-Chalcedonian Christianity in Palestine. He became a monk there and an agitator for the anti-Chalcedonian cause, which he transferred to Constantinople in an effort to lobby the emperor Anastasius, who made him his theological adviser. Severus' election was engineered by bishop Philoxenus of Mabbug and Syrian monks, and supported by emperor Anastasius. For Severus' consecration as patriarch of Antioch we possess rare documentary evidence in the form of his public profession of faith on that occasion and the signature of the consecrating bishops.9 His first homily as patriarch could not be heard for noise, from which we may assume that his election was not without its critics. Hence Norton rightly observes: "Anastasius would only hand over to Severus with strings attached, and when Severus asked for military support to enforce Monophysite orthodoxy in parts of Oriens, he was refused on the grounds that there would be too much bloodshed."10 On the accession of the pro-Chalcedonian emperor Justin I in 518, Severus, like many anti-Chalcedonian bishops, was exiled, and fled to Egypt, where for twenty years he continued to administer the antiChalcedonian church in Syria (although technically as an exile he was a non-citizen). Many of his letters come from his exile and demonstrate the administrative care and skill which he exercised even at a distance until his death twenty years later in 538. It is a remarkable fact in the period which we are studying in this paper that we have six edited biographies of Severus, in only one of which he

9

10

Theoph. chron. AM 5991 (ed. De Boor, vol. 1, 142) (who says that Flavian opposed Chalcedon). Secondary works: A. de Halleux, Philoxene de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses ecrits, sa theologie, Louvain 1963, 64-75; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement (see note 1), 214-220. See Severus of Antioch, ed. and trans. M.-A. Kugener, Allocution prononcee par Severe apres son elevation sur le trone patriarchal dAntioche, O C 2, 1902, 265-282. Secondary sources: J. Lebon, Le monophysisme severien, Louvain 1909 [repr. New York 1978]; Honigmann (see note 1), Eveques et eveches, 19-25; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement (see note 1), 201-235; F. Alpi, Recherches sur l'administration et la pastorale de Severe dAntioche (512-519), diss. Universite de Lille III, 2003 (microfilm; forthcoming in print in two volumes); P. Allen and C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch, The Early Church Fathers, London 2004; Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 1), 94 n. 29, and 239. Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 1), 239.


27

is portrayed (compendiously) as the ideal bishop.11 The biography composed by his friend Zachariah Scholasticus deals deliberately with Severus' (pagan) life before his episcopate. However, at the end of this work Severus is said to have re-established union with the Egyptian church which his predecessor Flavian had broken.12 In fact Severus spent most of his life in Egypt, either as a student or an exile. The positive and negative aspects of this Antiochene-Alexandrian nexus are to become increasingly critical in the sixth century.

519-521 Paul"the JewPaul was a native of Constantinople, where he was priest and chief administrator of hostels for Christian tourists. He was acceptable to Rome and to pro-Roman Scythian monks in Constantinople, and therefore acceptable to emperor Justin's foreign policy of unification with Rome. Paul had lived in Antioch for two years during Severus' episcopate and had clashed with him.13 However, for some reason his election took place more than three months after the exile of Severus, contrary to canon 25 of the Council of Chalcedon, which states that "the ordination of bishops should take place within three months, unless the period of delay has been caused to be extended by some unavoidable necessity".14 Collectio Avelkna contains the information that there were plans to consecrate Paul in Constantinople, but the papal legates intervened and insisted that the ceremony take place in Antioch, as Pope Hormisdas had instructed.15 Perhaps this accounts for the delayed consecration. Paul was probably elected also because of his financial expertise, given the state of the depleted church coffers in Antioch at the time, as we know from the homilies and letters of Severus.16 Emperor Justin I gave Paul a huge amount of money to kickstart his episcopate.

11

For these sources see Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch (see note 9), 4-5. The biography in which Severus is portrayed as the ideal bishop is the fifteenth-century homily by a bishop of Assiut; see Y.N. Youssef in PO 50/1, Turnhout 2006. 12 Vie de Severe par Zacharie le Scholastique, ed. and trans. M.-A. Kugener, PO 2, Paris 1907, 3-115 at 114, 6-7. 13 See Collectio Avellana 17 (CSEL 35/1-2, 677,21-27 O. Guenther). 14 In N.P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1 (Nicaea I-Lateran V), London and Washington, D C 1990, 98. 15 Collectio Avellana 216 (675 Guenther). 16 See further Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch (see note 9), 14-15.

28

Pauline Allen

The new patriarch encountered opposition in Antioch because of his persecuting policy, hence his cognomen "the Jew", and appears to have withdrawn, after which he died. Norton says rightly that Paul's mission "was probably doomed at the outset but [his] conduct quickly alienated the people and clergy".17 521-526 Euphrasius Almost everything about Euphrasius is obscure. His origins could have been Palestinian, Syrian, or Samarian, and his curriculum vitae before his succession to the patriarchal throne of Antioch is unknown. If he was a Palestinian by origin, he was most likely pro-Chalcedonian, which would fit the imperial ecclesiastical policies of the time. What we do know about him is that he was killed in the Antiochene earthquake of 526.18 Evagrius, the eirenic Chalcedonian church historian, says almost nothing about Euphrasius, indicating that his was a contentious appointment; the antiChalcedonian church historian Zachariah Rhetor claims that the patriarch was killed in a burning cauldron of wax during the earthquake, which sounds like the punishment of a persecutor. The twelfth-century Jacobite chronicler, Michael the Syrian, who often preserves earlier reliable sources, condemns Euphrasius, saying that he "went to the gehenna reserved for his master Satan. May his memory be cursed."19

17

Episcopal Elections, 202. Sources: Collectio Avellana 167, 216, 217, 223, 241, 242 (CSEL 35/2, 618-621, 675-679, 683-684, 740-742 Guenther); Malalas chron. 17,6 (CSHB Berlin 35, Berlin 2000, 338 Thurn); Ps.-Zach. rh. h.e. VIII 1 and VIII 6 (CSCO 84, 60-62 and 83 Brooks); Evagr. h.e. IV 4 (154-155 Bidez/Parmentier); John of Nikiu chron. 90,14 (ed. and transl. H. Zotenberg, Chronique de Jean, eveque de Nikiou, Paris 1883, 383). Secondary sources: A.A. Vasiliev, Justin the First. An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great, Cambridge MA 1950, 206; Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 1), 94 and 202-203; V.L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford 2008, 8-49, and 196-144 on monks and monasteries.

18

Sources: Ps.-Zach. rh. h.e. VIII 1,4-5 (61-62 Brooks); Malalas chron. 17,11; 22 (342 and 352 Thurn); Marc. Com. chron. a. 526 (PL 51, 941); John Eph. h.e. I 41 (CSCO 105 Syr. 54, 50-51 E.W. Brooks); Evagr. h.e. IV 4 (154-155 Bidez/Parmentier). Secondary sources: Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (see note 1), 148-149; Downey, History of Antioch (see note 1), 591, 521, 526. Ed. and trans. J.-B. Chabot, Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vols 1-2, Paris 18991901, vol. 2, 179.

19


29

526-545 Ephrem One of the most impressive Antiochene patriarchs of the sixth century, Ephrem was a native of Amida (Mesopotamia I) and thus a native Syriacspeaker. He was bilingual. As comes Orientis he was responsible for repairing the damage caused by the major earthquake of 526; subsequently his superlative administrative skills were recognised, possibly by public acclaim, and he was appointed patriarch. Perhaps for the purposes of emperor Justin I and his coregent/nephew Justinian, Ephrem was a suitable candidate because he could control anti-Chalcedonian feeling in his home territory of east Syria. But in any case his succession might have been seen as contentious, because in Justinianic legislation passed the year after Ephrem's death anyone coming from the imperial or military service was categorically banned from becoming a bishop unless they had spent the last fifteen years in a monastery.20 Although, like Euphrasius, he is denounced in the antiChalcedonian sources as a persecutor, Ephrem was a very able theologian. Conceivably he suffered from stress and overwork in his reasonably long patriarchate, given the disasters which occurred on his watch - plague, a Persian invasion, and an earthquake, to name the most serious. We can compare the case of Julian, patriarch of Antioch, who was said to have died in 471 "from vexation".21 Perhaps more than any other bishop under consideration in this paper, Ephrem bears out half of Norton's contention: "It is perhaps not an oversimplification to suggest that to many there seemed to be only two ideal types of bishop - either someone who could help to get things done here on earth, or someone whose sheer holiness

20

21

See e.g. Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 1), 46-47, and 35 n. 34, on Justinian's legislation: "Anyone coming from the local curia or imperial service was categorically banned [from becoming a bishop], unless they had spent the last 15 years in a monastery and they had also settled their fiscal obligations to the state." (Novel 123.1-4 [AD 546] [CIC(B).N 594-599 Schoell/Kroll]; cf. Novel 137 [AD 565] [696-697 Schoell/Kroll]. Sources: Ps.-Zach. rh. h.e. VIII 4; X 1 (74-77 and 174-176 Brooks); Vita Symeonis 25; 71 (ActaSS Maii vol. V, 316; 334 C. Janning); Evagr. h.e. IV 6 (156 Bidez/Parmentier); John Moschus, Pratum Spirituale 36 (PG 87/3, 2883-2886); Ephrem's own theological works. Secondary works: J. Lebon, Ephrem d'Amid, patriarche d'Antioche (526-544), in: Melanges d'Histoire offerts a Charles Moeller, vol. 1, Louvain 1914, 197-214; Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (see note 1), 49, 232; G. Downey, Ephraemius, patriarch of Antioch, Church History 7, 1938, 365-370; Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/3, 357-373; Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church (see note 17), 119-120, 196-198. On Julian's death "from vexation" ( k o Xv^s) see Downey, History of Antioch (see note 1), 488 with n. 59.

30

Pauline Allen

could help intercede with God."22 Ephrem definitely belonged to the first category.

545-559 Domninus/Domnus Domninus, sometimes called Domnus in the sources, was of Thracian origin. We are told that originally he was the director of a poor-house in Lychnidos (Achrida, modern Ochrid) in Epirus nova, thus quite some distance west from Antioch. The circumstances of his election as they are recounted are extremely odd: supposedly he happened to be in Constantinople on business for his poor-house when candidates for the vacancy in Antioch were being considered in the capital. Domninus found favour with emperor Justinian, very likely because he was Chalcedonian, and became patriarch of Antioch. Possibly because of his Thracian origin, the new patriarch was unpopular with the Antiochenes. This is reflected in the negative story about him recounted by the contemporary hagiographer of Symeon Stylites the Younger (third quarter of the sixth century) and the silence in the church historian Evagrius (who tries to be conciliatory in ecclesiastical matters). The biographer of Symeon relates that when Domninus (the former director of a poor-house, we remember) arrived in Antioch, he was disgusted at the number of poor people congregated at the city gates and decided to have them removed. Shortly afterwards, as a punishment from God, he became unable to walk and eventually died.23

[558 (?)-560 Sergius (anti-Chalcedonian)]24 Sergius was the first of the shadow anti-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Antioch. His origins lay in Telia (Constantina, east of Edessa), in the province of Osrhoene. He was a priest, and friend and supporter of the foundational anti-Chalcedonian missionary bishop, Jacob Baradaeus, after whom in some quarters the followers of Severus of Antioch took their name "Jacobites". Most importantly for our investigation Sergius was a 22 23

24

Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 1), 49. Sources: Vita Symeonis 72. 202. 204 (334, 383, 384 janning); Evagr. h.e. IV 37 (186 Bidez/Parmentier); Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 267), (hostile). Secondary sources: P. Van den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Symeon Stylite le jeune (521-592), Subsidia Hagiographica 32, Brussels, 1970, vol. 2, 79; Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/3, 307. From now on I indicate the shadow anti-Chalcedonian patriarchs by square brackets.


31

tritheist; this is where tritheism first manifests itself as a factor in episcopal succession in sixth-century Antioch. The circumstances of Sergius' election and his patriarchate are unusual, to say the least: he was consecrated bishop in Constantinople as "successor" to Severus (d. 538) and never left there. This was probably an anti-Chalcedonian election of only symbolic value for Antioch, as later historians call Sergius "patriarch of Constantinople". His consecration demonstrates the strategic importance of Antioch to the antiChalcedonians, and may have precipitated the election of Anastasius I, who was well acquainted with tritheism and had written against it.25 As far as we know, Sergius died a natural death.26

559-570 Anastasius I Of Palestinian origin, Anastasius was apocrisiarius of the see of Antioch (thus the representative of patriarch Domninus/Domnus) in Alexandria. He was a strong figure, a very able neo-Chalcedonian theologian, and composed works against tritheism, as I have said. In fact, his election was very likely due to his anti-tritheist stance. According to Evagrius (h.e. 5.5), the future emperor Justin II asked Anastasius to hand over money to him on his election as patriarch, but the church historian is hostile to Justin. Anastasius' demise occurred when he refused to subscribe emperor Justinian's aphthartodocetist edict, then after Justinian's death he fell foul of the erratic Justin II for failing to effect ecclesiastical unity with antiChalcedonians, through no fault of his own. Anastasius was taken to Constantinople and kept there probably under arrest. It is likely that he also objected to interference in Egyptian affairs by his former apocrisiarius, the anti-tritheist patriarch of Constantinople, John Scholasticus, who consecrated a candidate from the capital as patriarch of Alexandria. According to the twelfth-century chronicler, Michael the Syrian,27 Anastasius was chased out by the Chalcedonians, meaning the emperor and the patriarch

25

26

27

See CPG 6958; ed. K.-H. Uthemann, Des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von Antiochien Jerusalemer Streitgesprach mit einem Tritheiten (CPG 6958), Traditio 37, 1981, 73108. Sources: John Eph. Lives 49. 50 ( P 0 1 9 / 2 , 153-158). Secondary works: E.W. Brooks, The Patriarch Paul of Antioch and the Alexandrine Schism of 575, ByZ 30, 1930, 468-476; Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (see note 1), 192-195. Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot, vol. 2, 292).

32

Pauline Allen

of Constantinople. 28 Here we have a case of an Antiochene bishop deposed for supporting the autonomy of the see of Alexandria against Constantinopolitan interference.

[564-581 Paul"the Black"] A native of Alexandria, Paul was a monk and probably spent some time in Syria. He became the syncellus or associate of the anti-Chalcedonian and anti-tritheist leader Theodosius of Alexandria in Constantinople. At some stage in his career he was an archimandrite. Paul was more or less unwittingly and forcibly consecrated through the influence of ex-patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria, three years after the death of Sergius (560), although the charismatic Jacob Baradaeus was still alive and was technically in charge of Syria. In other words, this was an irregular consecration. Theodosius' aim was to have Paul consecrate bishops and clergy in Egypt. According to Michael the Syrian,29 it was the monks of Antioch who wanted Paul as bishop. From the start of Paul's episcopate there was therefore considerable stress on the relations between the anti-Chalcedonian churches of Syria and Egypt. In any case Paul was a puppet who spent more time out of his patriarchate than in it, although this was typical of the shadow hierarchy in Syria.30 In reality he had aspirations to be patriarch of his home city of Alexandria. On two occasions Paul communicated with Chalcedonians, recanted, and was imprisoned. Subsequently he was responsible for instigating a serious schism between Antioch and Alexandria. Paul sought refuge more than once in the desert with the anti-Chalcedonian Arab leader, 28

Sources Chron. Pasch. Olym. 343 (CSHB 10, 692 L. Dindorf); Vita Symeonis 204 (384 Janning); Vita Eutychii (CChr.SG 25 Carl Laga); Evagr. h.e. IV 39-41 (190-192 Bidez/Parmentier), V 5 (201 Bidez/Parmentier), VI 24 (240-241 Bidez/Parmentier); Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 172-173 and 292); Anastasius' theological works (CPG 6944-6963). Secondary works: Duchesne, L'Eglise au VIeme siecle, 272274; G. Weiss, Studia Anastasiana I. Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I. von Antiochien (559-598), Miscellanea Monacensia 4, Munich 1965; P. Goubert, Patriarches d'Antioche et dAlexandrie contemporains de saint Gregoire le Grand, REByz 25, 1967, 65-76 at 65-68; S.N. Sakkos, Anastasii Antiocheni opera omnia genuine quae supersunt, Thessaloniki 1976; Allen, Evagrius (see note 1), 24, 204-205, 214-217; Mi. Whitby, Evagrius on Patriarchs and Emperors, in Ma. Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of Power. The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, Leiden 1998, 321-343 at 331-332; Grillmeier, Jesus der Chrisms 2/3, 374-402.

29 30

Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 319). See Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (see note 1), 173.


33

al-Moundhir. During his patriarchate there was an interesting case of an aborted consecration of a replacement anti-Chalcedonian patriarch, Severus,31 a candidate of Patriarch Damian of Alexandria. Significantly it was the Chalcedonian patriarch Gregory (570-593) who prevented the ordination, presumably to prevent further splintering among the antiChalcedonians. Paul died either in Isauria or Constantinople. 32 His importance in the history of the anti-Chalcedonians in the second half of the sixth century is reflected in a remarkable dossier of forty-five documents compiled by an anonymous supporter of Paul's position, in which the tritheist controversy plays a significant part,33

570-593 Gregory Gregory was perhaps of Palestinian origin. He had been a monk at Pharan and on Sinai, and at the time of his elevation to the patriarchate of Antioch he was abbot34 of the monastery of the Byzantines in Jerusalem. A man of action, having repelled Arab incursions on Sinai, Gregory was appointed by emperor Justin II, who had also appointed him to Sinai. The new patriarch seems to have been generally acceptable to both Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians,35 He died as a result of taking a drug for gout,36

31 32

John Eph. h.e. IV 41(221-224 Brooks); Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 345). Sources: Documenta monophysitica (ed. by J.-B. Chabot, Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, CSCO 17 and 103, Paris 1907 and 1933); John Eph. h.e. IV 41(221-224 Brooks); Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 345). Nota bene: there is nothing about Paul in the Chalcedonian documents. Secondary works: Brooks, The Patriarch Paul of Antioch (see note 26), 468-476; Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (see note 1), 195-205; Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts (see note 3), 265-303. 33 The dossier is edited and translated by J.-B. Chabot, Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, CSCO 17 and 103, Louvain 1908 and 1933, and studied in detail by Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts (see note 3), 265-303. 34 Apocrisiarius, according to Theoph. chron. AM 6062 (ed. De Boor, vol. 1, 243). 35 Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 292). 36 Sources: Evagr. h.e. V 6 (201-203 Bidez/Parmentier) and VI 24 (240-241 Bidez/Parmentier); John Moschus, Pratum spirituale 140 (PC 87/3, 3003-3004); Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 292 and 344). Secondary works: S. Vailhe, Repertoire alphabetique des monasteres de Palestine, ROC 4, 1899, 512-542; P. Goubert, Patriarches d'Antioche et d'Alexandrie contemporains de saint Gregoire le Grand, REByz 25, 1967, 65-76 at 68-71; Allen, Evagrius (see note 1), 217-218; Whitby, Evagrius on patriarchs and emperors (see note 28), 329-331.

34

Pauline Allen

[581-591 Peter of Callinicum (anti-Chalcedonian)] As his name indicates, Peter was a native of Callinicum in Euphrasia. He was bilingual in Syriac and Greek,37 a monk, and anti-tritheist. As a young man Peter was consecrated by Damian, anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria, either in the monastery of Goubba Barraya (close to Cyrrhus), or Mar Hanania,38 during the lifetime of Paul the Black - again an irregular succession. Once more we observe interference in the Antiochene church by the patriarch of Alexandria. Originally friends, Peter and Damian became bitter enemies over the question of how to handle the tritheists,39 Peter appears to have died a natural death.40

[591-595 Julian (anti-Chalcedonian)] We know little about Julian. He was a monk of a monastery in Qennesrin (Chalcis) and had been the syncellus (patriarch's associate) of Peter of Callinicum. Perhaps he was therefore also anti-tritheist, like Peter. The circumstances of Julian's election are unknown, as are those of his death.41

593-599 Anastasius I (for the second time) I have dealt with the origins and curriculum vitae of Anastasius in connection with his first patriarchate. After his deposition by Justin II and patriarch John Scholasticus of Constantinople, Anastasius apparently lived in the capital from 570 until 593, where he befriended Gregory, future

37 38 39

40

41

Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 348). On the location of this monastery near Callinicum see Ebied, Van Roey, and Wickham, Anti-Tritheist Dossier (see note 3), 4-5. See further R.Y. Ebied, Peter of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria: the end of a friendship, in: R.H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Voobus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East, Chicago 1977, 277-282. Sources: his writings (CPG 7250-7255); Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 345348). Secondary works: Allen, Evagrius (see note 1), 32-36; Ebied, Van Roey, and Wickham, Anti-Tritheist Dossier (see note 3); Van Roey, La controverse (see note 3); Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts (see note 3). Sources: Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 234, 373, 375). Secondary works: J. Maspero, Histoire des patriarches dAlexandrie (518-616), rev. by A. Fortescue and G. Writ, BEHE fasc. 237, Paris 1923, 319; Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (see note 1), 243.


35

bishop of Rome, who was nuntius there. As an old man he was appointed to the patriarchate of Antioch for a second time by emperor Maurice, very likely as a peace-broker with anti-Chalcedonians. The speech he made on his return to Antioch has peace as its predominant theme. Additionally, Anastasius' second appointment no doubt came about because of his familiarity with tritheism and the Alexandrian church, relations with which were becoming ever more critical. However, the influence of Anastasius' friend, Pope Gregory I, was also instrumental in his restoration, as we are informed by some of the Pope's letters.42 Anastasius appears to have died a natural death at an old age.43

[595-634 Athanasius Gamal or Camel-driver (anti-Chalcedonian)] The successor to Julian, Athanasius was a Syrian (born in Samosata), and before his consecration, like Julian, was also a monk in a monastery in Qennesrin (Chalcis). This fact may associate him with the anti-tritheist movement. Athanasius was reportedly driving a camel when the Syrian bishops, acting on a dream which told them to ordain the first monk they saw when the monastery gates opened in the morning, forced him to be consecrated patriarch of Antioch. On his demand, his consecration remained secret for a year, during which he was permitted to remain a camel-driver. It must be said that this story is the stuff of legend and may have been devised to excuse the camel-driver's humble background. Whatever of that, in his long patriarchate Athanasius devoted a great deal of energy to establishing peace - unsuccessfully - with the anti-Chalcedonian church of Alexandria. He seems to have died a natural death.44

42 43

44

See further Weiss, Studia Anastasiana (see note 28), 34-44. Sources: see above under Anastasius' first patriarchate; Oratio pacificatoria, ed. LB. Pitra, in Iuris Ecclesiastici Graecorum Historia et Monumenta, Rome 1868, vol. 2, 251-257; Greg. Mag. Registrum 1,6. 7. 24. 25 (CChr.SL 140, 7-8; 9-10; 22-32; 3334 Norberg); 5,41. 42 (320-327 Norberg); 8,2 (CChr.SL 140A, 514-517 Norberg); 9,136 (CChr.SL 140A, 685-687 Norberg). Secondary works: see above, esp. Weiss, Studia Anastasiana (see note 28). Sources: Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 375-377), (hagiographical). Secondary works: Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d'Alexandrie (see note 41), 319-323; R. Devreesse, Le patriarcat d'Antioche depuis la paix de l'eglise jusqu'a la conquete arabe, Paris 1945, 102; Downey, History of Antioch (see note 1), 576-577; D. Olster, Chalcedonian and monophysite: the union of 616, Bulletin de la Societe d'archeologie copte 27, 1985, 93-108; P. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy. The Synodical Letter and Other Documents, OECT, Oxford 2009, 24, 26, 43, 59-61, 145.

36

Pauline Allen

Some Conclusions What can we conclude from these fifteen case-studies? Let us first consider whether the provenance of candidates played a role in sixth-century Antiochene episcopal elections. Ephrem, apart from being a native Syrian, was also the right man in the right place at the right time. In the case of Domninus, his western, Chalcedonian background apparently played a role. Anti-Chalcedonians tended to be Syrian, with the notable exceptions of Severus (Pisidia) and Paul the Black (Alexandria). Paul's Alexandrian pedigree was in fact a source of discontent among Antiochenes. Here again we note the tension between the churches of Syria and Egypt. In the post-Chalcedonian context of Antioch we need to consider not only the circumstances of episcopal succession but also those in which predecessors died or left their bishoprics. The case of the expulsion of Severus as a result of a change in imperial policy and the appointment of Paul "the Jew" to maintain the Chalcedonian position is a good example. For sixth-century Antioch we are at the mercy of our sources, probably more than usual, because of the polarization of the writers. Again, with the notable exception of Severus, we have no full biographies of Antiochene patriarchs (as I mentioned, for Severus we have no fewer than six), and, given the polarization in the sources, it is consequently difficult to arrive at a definition of the "ideal" bishop in sixth-century Antioch. Possible reasons for the imbalance in hagiographical sources would be worth further consideration. I shall return to the topic of the "ideal" bishop below. In the introduction I suggested that tritheism lay behind some episcopal successions. This seems certain in the case of the anti-Chalcedonian tritheist Sergius, and at least very probable in that of the anti-tritheists Anastasius I, a Chalcedonian, and Peter of Callinicum, an anti-Chalcedonian. It would also seem logical to posit tritheism as a factor in the succession of the anti-Chalcedonian Julian, syncellus of Peter of Callinicum. We can only speculate whether, because of his association with a monastery in Qennesrin, where Julian had been a monk, Athanasius the Cameldriver was also anti-tritheist. How did the sixth-century Antiochene bishops come to power? Canonical criteria seem to have been completely sidestepped in the case of Ephrem.« Paul, Domninus, Anastasius I (first appointment), and Gregory were imperial appointments. Anastasius' second appointment (as an old man, c. 75) was certainly influenced by Gregory of Rome and possibly by Emperor Maurice. Monks were instrumental in the election of Severus, 45

See Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 1), 46-47, for the criteria.


37

but so too were Syrian bishops, notably Philoxenus of Mabbug. The Antiochene people, together with the emperor, played an important role in having Ephrem translated quickly from comes Orientis to patriarch but it is unclear from the sources to what extent they influenced other episcopal successions. Some elections were not successions in the strict sense, or else they were quite irregular. This is especially true of the anti-Chalcedonians. For example, Sergius was consecrated as the so-called "successor" of Severus of Antioch in about 558, some twenty years after Severus' death. Paul the Black, we are told, was unwittingly consecrated. In the case of the succession of Peter of Callinicum, the previous anti-Chalcedonian patriarch was still living. The role of the late-antique bishop has been exaggerated in some modern scholarship as "lover of the poor", "champion of the poor", etc.46 Sixth-century Antiochene evidence suggests that, at least on the Chalcedonian side, peaceful, diplomatic negotiation was the criterion for election, often with imperial intervention to back it up. The conciliatory christological movement of neo-Chalcedonianism embraced by Anastasius I and Gregory was to lead to further attempts at ecclesiastical unity in monoenergism and monotheletism in the seventh century.47 Anastasius would have been acceptable as patriarch to both supporters and opponents of the Council of Chalcedonian if Justin II's religious policies had been articulated in a more coherent fashion.48 In Anastasius' speech on his return to his patriarchate in 593 the dominant theme is peace. It is telling too that the Chalcedonian Gregory is said in the anti-Chalcedonian tradition to have been a caring pastor, to have acted charitably even towards opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, and to have made it his business to make peace with everybody.49 On the anti-Chalcedonian side Athanasius the Camel-driver was to play an important, if eventually unsuccessful, role in re-establishing peace between the anti-Chalcedonian churches of Antioch and Alexandria in 616, much to the subsequent derision of Soph-

46

47

48 49

Especially P. Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures, London 2002. See the challenge to Brown in P. Allen, B. Neil, and W. Mayer, Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity. Perceptions and Realities, Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 28, Leipzig 2009. See in detail K.-H. Uthemann, Der Neuchalkedonismus als Vorbereitung des Monotheletismus. Ein Beitrag zum eigentlichen Anliegen des Neuchalkedonismus, StPatr29,Leuven 1997, 373-413. See further Allen, Evagrius (see note 1), 28-30. Mich. Syr. chron. (ed. Chabot vol. 2, 292).

38

Pauline Allen

ronius, Chalcedonian patriarch of Jerusalem in the 530s, and the proChalcedonian chronicler Theophanes. 50 The pattern of episcopal succession at Antioch, especially in the second half of the sixth century, foreshadowed seventh-century attempts at unity between pro- and anti-Chalcedonians on the one hand, and between anti-Chalcedonians in Syria and Egypt on the other. Unfortunately none of these attempts at unity was ultimately successful.51

50

51

For Sophronius see Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem (see note 44), 24-25; Theoph. chron. AM 6121 (ed. De Boor, vol. 1, 330, 10) (or his source) has the word u6poPa;Erstens.

Etwas fiber die Bischofe. Es sollen also nicht leichtfertig in einer einzigen Stadt zwei oder drei Bischofe sein. Vielmehr sei ein einziger Bischof in jeder Stadt und in ihrem Regierungsbezirk. Und wenn ein Bischof stirbt, so darf er nicht einen anderen zum Bischof machen, weder in seiner Todesstunde noch zu seinen Lebzeiten. Wer Bischof durch einen oder zwei Bischofe wird, ist nicht echt, sondern nur durch drei,

22

23 24

25 26

werden, so dass wir genau auf vierzig kommen, vgl. Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 31f. 34f. Die Vater sprechen von einer geistigen Auferstehung und dem Beginn einer langen Friedenszeit. Das Gebet fur den Grofikonig ist durchaus aufrichtig gemeint, vgl. Braun, Synodicon orientale, 11. Die Konzilseuphorie jener Tage kommt in Satzen wie diesen zum Ausdruck: „Und beim herrlichen Anblick der Bischofssynode wuchs unsere Seele, als ob wir vor dem Thron der Majestat Christi stiinden." (Chabot, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 20,3f). Vgl. Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 12f. Es miissen also schon Ubersetzungen ins Syrische vorgelegen haben, auf die die Vater dann zuriickgreifen konnten. Vgl. F. Schulthess, Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon, AGWG.PH NF 10, Gottingen 1908; vgl. auch H. Kaufhold, Die syrische Ubersetzung des Briefes der Synode von Nikaia an die Kirche von Alexandrien, in: M.B. von Stritzky/Chr. Uhrig, Garten des Lebens (= FS W. Cramer), Miinster 1999, 119-137. Vgl. P. Bruns, Bemerkungen zur Rezeption des Nicaenums in der ostsyrischen Kirche, AHC 32, 2000, 1-22. Die Doppeliiberlieferung ist zu beachten. Denn der Beschluss der Synode des Mar Isaak (410) ist mit dem nachfolgenden can. 1 zusammenzunehmen. Er referiert gleichsam den Inhalt, wahrend die canones der Synode auch getrennt iiberliefert sein konnen.

Bischofswahl und Bischofsernennung im Synodcon Orientale selbst wenn dieselben Bischofe sehr emfernt sind, und zwar mittels Vollmachtsbriefes des Metropoliten, des Hauptes der Bischofe."27

115 eines

Die Griinde fur eine mogliche Doppelbesetzung werden im Text leider n i c k explizit benannt. Vielleicht war es ein lokales Schisma innerhalb einer einzigen Gemeinde, vielleicht waren es mehrere Gemeinden unterschiedlicher ethnischer Herkunft und kirchlicher Obodienz am gleichen Ort 28 , die sich nicht auf einen gemeinsamen Bischofskandidaten einigen konnten. Aus den vergleichbaren Vorgangen des dritten und vierten Jahrhunderts ist hinreichend bekannt, dass sich die griechischen Deportierten mit der alteingesessenen aramaischen Bevolkerung schlecht vertrugen und ein gemeinsames Glaubenszeugnis in der heidnischen Umgebung dadurch erschwert war. Nun sah aber der antike Monepiskopat, an dem im fiinften Jahrhundert niemand mehr zu rutteln wagte, nur einen einzigen Bischof fur eine Stadt und Region vor. Der freiwillige, vorzeitige Rucktritt eines Ordinierten hatte den Ausweg aus dem bestehenden Schisma weisen konnen. Dazu waren die am Streit beteiligten Personen nicht immer bereit, was den Einsatz einer ubergeordneten Instanz wie z.B. des Metropoliten erforderlichmachte. Die alte nizanische Vorschrift, wonach der Bischof durch mindestens drei Konsekratoren, im Idealfall durch die Bischofe der gesamten Kirchenprovinz unter Aufsicht des Metropoliten geweiht wird, spiegelt sich gleichfalls in dem Beschluss von 410 wider und ist auEerdem in den ersten Kanon eingeflossen. Die Sonderstellung des Metropoliten wird eigens betont; sollte er aufgrund der groEen Entfernung nicht personlich anwesend sein, dann ist auf jeden Fall schriftlich sein Einverstandnis fur die vorzunehmendeWeiheeinzuholen. Can. 1 der Synode des Mar Isaak (410) schreibt in bezug auf die Bischofsweihevor: Jeder, der (nur) von einem oder zwei Bischofen zum Bischof gemacht wurde (Ifwa), soil abgesetzt werden, und zwar Gemachter und Machender. Vielmehr sollen, wenn ein Bischof gemacht wird, die Bischofe sich in der Stadt versammeln und die (allgemeine) Meinung befragen und ausforschen beziiglich eines Mannes, der fur die Armen sorgt, die Fremden (xenoi) aufnimmt, den Bedrangten Erquickung verschafft, die Waisen und Witwen nahrt, sein Geld nicht zum Wucher gibt, keine Bestechung annimmt, im Gericht nicht auf das Ansehen einer Person schaut, sich von Hochmut und Aufgeblasenheit fernhalt, der in weiser Rede bewandert ist und in der Lehre der Schriften bei Tag und Nacht sinnt, der Verstand und Urteil besitzt, urn alle zum Dienst notigen Bediirfnisse der Kirche bereitzustellen. Sobald dann die Bischofe unter 27 28

Syr. Text bei Chabot, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 20,8-15. Nach dem Zeugnis der Chronik von Seert (PO 4, 219-223) fiihrten griechischsprachige und aramaische Christen in der Diaspora ein Eigenleben, was sich auch in der getrennten Liturgie niederschlug.

116

Peter Bruns seinem Volke in seiner Kirche vor dem Altare Christi versammelt sind, sollen sie zu der Zeit, da das Opfer bereitet wird, das Evangelium auf sein Haupt legen und gemeinsam die Rechte fiber ihn ausstrecken. Das Haupt unter ihnen rezitiere fiber ihn die Weihe(-gebete). - Hernach komme der eingesetzte Bischof herbei, um vom Grofcnetropoliten, dem Katholikos von Seleukia-Ktesiphon, vollendet zu werden, indem er von den Bischofen, die ihn eingesetzt haben, einen Brief mitbringt. - Wer aber von uns es wagen sollte, einen anderen Bischof zu machen, sei es zu seinen Lebzeiten oder sei es in seiner Todesstunde, soil nach dieser von der grofien, heiligen Synode der 318 Bischofe aufgestellten Bestimmung - Gemachter und Machender - erbarmungslos aus dem Klerus der Kirche ausgestofcn werden." 29

In freier Anlehnung30 an can. IV von Nicaea definiert dieser erste Kanon, dass mindestens drei Bischofe fur die Konsekration eines Bischofs erforderlich seien. Wird aber die Dreizahl der Konsekratoren n i c k erreicht, so ist die Weihe ungultig. In praxi bedeutete dies, dass auf diese Weise eine ganze Reihe von in der Verfolgungszeit zwischen 340 und 400 gespendeten Weihen als ungultig betrachtet werden musste. Viele Bischofssitze waren in der zweiten Halfte des vierten Jahrhundert verwaist, oft fanden sich wegen der akuten Verfolgung die Nachbarbischofe nicht ein, so dass der betagte Bischof seinen eigenen Nachfolger selbst bestimmte und konsekrierte. Der Kanon spricht wortlich von einem „Machen"31 des Bischofs (syr. °bd) im Sinne des griechischen poiein (Mk 3,14); wie der Herr die Zwolf zu Aposteln macht, so machen die Bischofe den Weihekandidaten zu einem der Ihren. Diese Terminologie ist singular und kommt, wie Braun32 nachgewiesen hat, nur im Text der Synode von 410 und in den pseudonizanischen Kanones des Marutha vor. Als besondere Qualifikation verlangt der Kanon einen guten Leumund, d.h. die Meinung uber den Kandidaten wird erfragt. Eine Lesart bietet hier die „allgemeine Meinung", worunter Braun33 die heidnische Offentlichkeit, nicht aber die

29 30

Syr. Text bei Chabot, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 23,8-25. Zu den syrischen Kanones von 410 vgl. Bruns, Rezeption des Nicaenums (s. Anm. 25), 16-22. Die Akten sprechen zwar von einer Niederschrift der Kanones, welche jedoch in mehreren Etappen vonstatten gegangen sein mus. Eine Nahtstelle liegt eindeutig beim Ubergang von c. 10 zu c. 11 vor; c. 10 markiert einen Sessionsschluss und stellt sprachlich die Verbindung zum Glaubenssymbol her. Ein zweiter Einschnitt ist mit c. 17, der erneut Zustimmungserklarungen der versammelten Synodalen emhalt, gegeben. Eine dritte Reihe (cc. 18-21) regelt schliefilich die regionale Ordnung der persischen Kirche und bildet eine weitere Einheit. Nur im ersten Teil (cc. 1-10) lafit sich eine direkte Bezugnahme auf die nizanischen Kanones erkennen.

31 32 33

Resp. passiv „gemacht werden" (syr. Ifwa) was griech. ginesthai entspricht. Vgl. dazu Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 12, Anm. 1. Vgl. Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 16. Denkbar ware auch die binnenkirchliche „allgemeine" Meinung fiber den Kandidaten, d.h. nicht nur der Bischofe, sondern auch der Laien, der niederen Kleriker und der Bundesbriider (Monche).

Bischofswahl und Bischofsernennung im Synodcon Orientale

117

kirchliche, verstanden wissen will. Moglicherweise stand nach der langeren Verfolgungszeit die besondere Offentlichkeitswirkung des stark angefeindeten Christentums im Vordergrund des Bemuhens. Staatliche Stellen hatten ohnehin ein besonderes Interesse an „kooperativen"34 Bischofen. Konkret werden die diakonalen Tugenden wie ArmenfUrsorge etc. erfragt. Unter die Xenoi fallen auch die Kranken35, und es ist wohl kein Zufall, dass zwischen 410 und 420 unter dem Konvertiten Schapurbaraz das erste christliche Krankenhaus in Karka de Beth-Selokh36 errichtet wurde. Der Bischof musste gewisse administrative Aufgaben nicht nur im Bereich der Krankenfursorge wahrnehmen und sollte daher uber entsprechende Eignung verfiigen. Offensichtlich waren die Diakone bevorzugte Aspiranten fur den Bischofsthron, da sie haufig diese erforderlichen Qualifikationen mitbrachten. Der Tugendkatalog des c. 1 ist durchaus biblisch (vage Anspielungen an Ps 1; 24), er orientiert sich an dem vorbildlichen Leben der Amtstrager in den Pastoralbriefen (Tit 1,7-9) und den einschlagigen Kirchenordnungen. Die Warnung vor Bestechung lafit an simonistische MiEbrauche denken. Auf dem Hintergrund der Mahnungen Aphrahats vor der Habgier bei Klerikern und weltlichen Wurdentragern in der bereits zitierten Darlegung XIV,3 37 ist dies ein durchaus nachvollziehbarer Gedanke. Ferner sei in diesem Zusammenhang an den umstrittenen Bischof Barsauma von Nisibis38 erinnert, der als enger Freund des Markgrafen nur so mit den Goldstucken urn sich warf.

34

35

36

37 38

Gut zehn Jahre sparer emstand ein heftiger innerkirchlicher Streit fiber die Kompromissbereitschaft der Katholikoi, welche einigen Glaubigen zu weit gegangen war. Die Spaltungen in den Jahren 417/18 zeugen von den immensen Spannungen innerhalb der Gemeinde der Hauptstadt und des Gesamtepiskopats. Vgl. O. Hiltbrunner, Art. Krankenhaus, in: RAC 21 (2006) 882-914; fur den syrischpalastinischen Raum vgl. bes. S. 897-899. Dem Autor ist unter Bezugnahme auf Selb, Orientalisches Kirchenrecht (s. Anm. 1), 99-102, unbedingt zuzustimmen, wenn er dem pseudonizanischen c. 70, wonach es in grofieren Stadten ein Xenodochium geben und der Bischof dessen Vorsteher sein soil, die Historizitat abspricht. Dieser Kanon spiegelt eindeutig einen spateren Zustand, lange nach 325, wider, als die Kirche in Persien Frieden hatte und sich starker ihren karitativen Aufgaben widmen konnte. Von Schapurbaraz, dem Bischof von Karka, heifit es in der Vita: „Er errichtete aus ihrer (sc. der Eltern) Erbschaft ein Haus fiir die Fremden, in dem Kranke, Bedrangte, Arme und Notleidende Aufnahme und Erquickung fanden. Er spendete dem Haus und teilte ihm Besitztum zu als Lohn fur die dort stattfindenden Heilungen und zur Bestreitung jener Dinge, welche fur heilungsbedurftige Personen erforderlich sind." (AMS II, 518,4-8). Vgl. Bruns, Aphrahat (s. Anm. 5), 332f Vgl. P. Bruns, Barsauma von Nisibis und die Aufhebung der Klerikerenthaltsamkeit im Gefolge der Synode von Beth-Lapat (484), A H C 37, 2005, 1-42. Der weltgewandte Bischof verstand es geschickt, sich kurzerhand mit fiinfzig oder hundert Golddareiken seine Suffragane gefiigig zu machen.

118

Peter Bruns

Die eigentliche Bischofsweihe findet in der Hauptkirche wahrend der Meffliturgie noch vor der Opferung start, essentielle Bestandteile des Ritus sind die Handauflegung und das Weihegebet. Wahrend der Weiheliturgie befindet sich das Evangeliar auf dem Altar, hierfur ist der (Archi-)Diakon zustandig. Im Moment der eigentlichen Konsekration wird dem Weihekandidaten das Evangeliar auf das Haupt gelegt; der Metropolit der Kirchenprovinz, so wird man den syrischen Ausdruck „Haupt der Bischofe" zu interpretieren haben, rezitiert das Weihegebet,39 wahrend die anderen Konsekratoren still unter Ausbreitung der rechten Hand verharren. Mit der Weihe ist die sakramentale Befahigung zum Bischofsamt gegeben, eine besondere Befugnis, dieses auszuuben, wird durch den Gro&netropoliten von Seleukia/Ktesiphon personlich erteilt. Indes holten nicht alle Bischofe eine solche Erlaubnis ein, jene von Arbela40 waren beispielsweise sehr kritisch gegenuber dem Gro&netropoliten der Reichshauptstadt eingestellt. Auch die Bischofe von Qatar und Bahrain haben sich - schon allein wegen der groflen Entfernung - nicht immer zu einem solchen Mmina-Besuch in der persischen Hauptstadt Seleukia-Ktesiphon eingefunden; 410 wird Daniel von Qatar41 auf der Synode des Mar Isaak abgesetzt. Er war noch von dem des Amtes enthobenen Bischof Battai konsekriert worden und kam nach Seleukia/Ktesiphon in der freilich eitlen Hoffnung, sich seine irregulare Weihe bestatigen lassen zu konnen. Indes wurde seine Ordination von der versammelten Synode fur ungultig erklart und seine Person feierlich mit dem Bann belegt. Von der Rechtssystematik42 her betrachtet,

39

40

41

42

Auf die liturgischen Vorbilder in der sog. Traditio Apostolka, (cap. 2f) und dem syrischen Tegmentum Domini (cap. XX-XXIII) kann hier aus Platzgriinden nicht eingegangen werden. Die altere Ausgabe von I.E. Rahmani, Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, Moguntiae 1899, bedarf aufgrund neuerer Handschriftenfunde dringend eingehender Korrekturen. Vgl. Schwaigert, Huzistan (s. Anm. 9), 50-57. dass spatere offiziose Patriarchenchroniken und -biographien diese Sicht nicht teilen, bedarf keiner weiteren Erklarung, vgl. Schwaigert, Huzistan (s. Anm. 9), 57-101. Vgl. Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 33. Battai war Bischof von Meschamhig, einer der Qatarinseln, zwischen Bahrain und Oman gelegen. Zur genauen Lage vgl. Anm. 1. Battai und Daniel werden im Synodicon als .Aufriihrer" bezeichnet. Uber eine materiale oder formale Haresie der beiden erfahren wir aus den Quellen nichts. Oder waren sie nur Schismatiker, die sich der Gewalt des Bischofs von Seleukia/Ktesiphon nicht unterordnen wollten? Als Metropolit fur die Region am Persischen Golf wird ein gewisser Paulus bestatigt. In spaterer Zeit (6. Jh.) wurde diese Gegend als Suffraganbistum dem Sitz von Rew Ardaschir zugeschlagen. Doch blieb die Inselgruppe ein Zankapfel zwischen den benachbarten Metropoliten. Man hat hier gleichsam die vertikale und die horizontale Ebene des Sakramentes zu beachten. Die Bischofe empfangen bei ihrer Weihe die apostolische Vollmacht direkt


119

ist die „Vervollkommnung" des Weiheritus (syr. §umldyd) durch den Gro&netropoliten von Seleukia/Ktesiphon fur die GUltigkeit nicht eigens erforderlich, dient aber doch der allgemeinen Festigung der Kirchengemeinschaft. Nicht nur die Golfregion bereitete den Synodenvatern Kummer. Denn auch um die Neubesetzung des Bischofsstuhls in SeleukiaKtesiphon war es nicht eben gut bestellt. So enthalt der letzte Satz des Kanons einen Seitenhieb gegen Mar Papa43, den seligen Vorganger des Mar Isaak, wenn es dort heifit, es sei einem Bischof nicht gestattet, den eigenen Nachfolger selbst zu bestimmen. Genau das war aber mit Simeon bar Sabba'e, dem „Farbersohn", geschehen. Mar Papa sah sich aus einem doppelten Grunde zu einem solchen Schritt veranlaEt. Zum einen war der Klerus in Mesopotamien vollig zerstritten und wollte sich der Oberhoheit des Stuhles von Seleukia-Ktesiphon nicht unterordnen. Um nun internen Nachfolgestreitigkeiten vorzubeugen, ernannte Mar Papa den Simeon vorsorglich mit dem Recht auf Nachfolge. Zum anderen sah der Bischof die politische Situation der Christen im vierten Jahrhundert von offener Verfolgung gepragt. Angesichts der drohenden Einmischung des GroEkonigs in die kirchlichen Belange erschien es Mar Papa angemessener, fur die Bereitstellung eines geeigneten Kandidaten seines Vertrauens selbst zu sorgen. Welche Rolle spielt der Metropolit einer Kirchenprovinz bei der Bischofswahl? Folgt man c. 20 der Synode des Mar Isaak (410), dann erscheint die Leitungsgewalt des Metropoliten nicht sehr umfangreich: „Wenn der Bischof eines ihm untergebenen Ortes stirbt, so ist der Metropolit ermachtigt, die anderen Bischofe zu versammeln und einen der Stadt genehmen Bischof aufzustellen. Nachdem er denselben eingesetzt hat, sende er ihn mit einem Schreiben an den Grofimetropoliten, damit er von diesem vervollkommnet werde. Davon abgesehen, hat der Metropolit jedoch keine Macht fiber die ihm unterstehenden Bischofe und darf auch nicht aus Habsucht und Aufgeblasenheit auf dem Tauschwege Dinge vonihnenfordern."^

Der Metropolit leitet demnach die Wahl eines neuen Bischofs, weiht den Neugewahlten zusammen mit mindestens zwei Konsekratoren, und ersucht den Gro&netropoliten um die Bestatigung des Neugeweihten. Im wesentlichen nimmt er also Aufsichtsrechte wahr und vermittelt im Instanzenzug zum Gro&netropoliten. Er visitiert die Diozesen seiner

43 44

von oben durch die Hand der Konsekratoren, wahrend die Sumldyd die sichtbare kirchliche Gemeinschaft mit dem Stuhle von Seleukia-Ktesiphon herstellen sollte. Zum Streit um Mar Papa, seinen Vorganger und seinen Nachfolger, die Rede des Agapetvgl. Schwaigert, Huzistan (s. Anm. 9), 57-101. Syr. Text bei Chabot, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 32,10-16.

120

Peter Bruns

Hyparchic Als zweite Instanz entscheidet er Uber die von den Bischofen erstinstanzlich getroffenen Entscheidungen « Ebenso hat der Metropolit Streitigkeiten zwischen den Bischofen seiner Hierarchie zu schlichten, was nicht eben selten vorkam. Er darf aber nicht ohne weiteres auf das Gebiet eines Suffraganbischofs46 vordringen, sondern hat Beschwerden schriftlich vorzulegen. Bei geringeren Anlassen ist die Metropolitansynode zustandig, in schwierigen Fallen, besonders wenn es um den Vorwurf der Haresie geht, hat der Metropolit von der Moglichkeit Gebrauch zu machen, sofort den Gro&netropoliten und die allgemeine Synode der persischen Kirche anzugehen. Bei alien Entscheidungen, die dem Metropoliten selbst obliegen, ist hingegen seine hierarchische Zwischenstellung offenkundig. Er kann die Entscheidung dem Gro&netropoliten ubertragen und umgekehrt durch Delegation in jenen Angelegenheiten, fur die eigentlich der GroEmetropolit zustandig ist, selbst tatig werden. Zusammenfassend lafit sich sagen: Bereits zu Beginn des funften Jahrhunderts prasentiert sich die Kirche im Sassanidenreich als straff organisierter, zentralisierter Verband47 mit dem Hauptsitz Seleukia-Ktesiphon und den funf Metropolien Nisibis, Arbela, Karka de Beth-Selokh, Beth Lapat,PratdeMaischan.

Die Reformsynoden des sechsten Jahrhunderts Der Reform des Mar Isaak war zu Beginn des funften Jahrhunderts eine lang andauernde Nachhaltigkeit beschieden. Gut anderthalb Jahrhunderte hatte das von Marutha angestoEene und von Isaak durchgefuhrte Reformprogramm auf die Geschicke der persischen Kirche eingewirkt. Mar Aba verfuhr in der Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts nach dem namlichen Grundsatz. Der energische Katholikos trieb die von Dadischo initiierte Zentralisation auf die Spitze. Kirchenpolitik machte er mit Hilfe von Bischofsernennungen, oftmals auf Kosten lokaler Metropolitanrechte. So

45 46 47

Vgl. c. 18 des Isaak (Braun, Synodicon orientale [s. Anm. 1], 27). Vgl. c. 19 des Isaak (Braun, Synodicon orientale [s. Anm. 1], 28). Vgl. hierzu D.H. Marot, Un exemple de centralisation ecclesiastique: l'ancienne eglise chaldeenne, Irenikon 28, 1955, 176-185. Zu den syrischen Bischofssitzen im Einzelnen vgl. auch die Untersuchung von I. Guidi, Ostsyrische Bischofe und Bischofssitze im V., VI. und VII. Jahrhundert, Z D M G 43, 1889, 388-414. Vgl. auch E. Sachau, Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien, in: AAWB.PH 1, Berlin 1919, 3-80 (mit haufigem Rekurs auf die nicht immer zuverlassige Chronik von Arbela).


121

setzte Mar Aba auf seinen zahlreichen Visitationsreisen48 schismatische Bischofe ab und bestellte in Kaschkar und Rew Ardaschir eigene Kandidaten, die dann vom Volk bestatigt wurden. Die Regelungen friiherer Synoden wurden von ihm bestatigt, insbesondere die Entscheidungen kleinasiatischer Synoden wie Gangra wurden in das Rechtscorpus der ostsyrischen Kircheaufgenommen. Was die Metropolitanrechte anbelangt, so bestimmte c. 23 der Synode des Mar Ezechiel (Februar 576) die Wahlaufsicht genauer. Die spateren Konsekratoren sollten gewissermaEen als Wahlleiter amtieren und die Bevolkerung der Stadt zur Wahl auffordern, ohne selbst bei der Wahl mitzuwirken: „Der Synode hat gefallen, dass beim Tode eines Bischofs sein Metropolit, sofern vorhanden, die Mitbischofe versammle. Diese sollen dann kommen und die Einwohner der Stadt zur Wahl einer geeigneten Person auffordern, damit sie diese einsetzen. Stirbt der Metropolit, dann sollen sich die Bischofe der Hyparchie versammeln und die Einwohner der Stadt auffordern, dass durch ihre Vermittlung und Zustimmung eine geeignete Person gewahlt wiirde. Und sie sollen es dem Patriarchen (sic!) mitteilen, wenn namlich - sollte kein Metropolit vorhanden sein - durch Vermittlung eine lange Zeit wegen des Metropoliten oder des Bischofs verstrichen ist, bis ein Bischof anstelle des Verstorbenen geweiht wird. Vier Monate (sollen es sein); sollten aber die schwierigen Umstande einen Zeitaufschub erzwingen, dann ist die Angelegenheit in die Lange zu ziehen; doch diirfen die Bischofe keineswegs die Dinge vernachlassigen."*

Die Wahl des Bischofs-Gro&netropoliten resp. des KatholikosPatriarchen stellte einen Sonderfall der Bischofswahl dar, funktionierte aber im Prinzip nach den oben skizzierten Normen. Da der Bischofssitz von Seleukia-Ktesiphon, der „beiden Stadte", eine der Residenzstadte der persischen GroEkonige war, wurde die Wahl schnell zu einem Politikum. So hielten Marutha und Isaak eifrig Kontakt zum GroEwesir (Buzurg framadar), Chosrau Jazdegerd mit Namen, und auch zum Standortkommandanten Mihrschabur aus dem Hause Argabet. Letzterer drangte nach dem Tode Jazdegerds den Bischofen einen gewissen Marabocht (Farrbocht)50 als Katholikos auf, was keineswegs als Prazedenzfall anzuse-

48

49 50

Uber die Vorgange liegen verschiedene Quellen vor, die vita des Mar Aba schildert die Dinge selbstredend aus der Sicht des Katholikos, vgl. hierzu Braun, Synodicon orientale (s.Anm. 1), 93-145. Syr. Text bei Chabot, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 124,5-16. Vgl. hierzu Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 44, Anm. 4. Der Name variiert in den Handschriften. „Marabocht" bedeutet soviel wie „vom Herrn erlost" und konnte als Taufname an die Stelle des heidnischen Farrbocht („im Gliicksglanz erlost") getreten sein. Es ist in jedem Falle bemerkenswert, dass Perser, also weder Griechen noch Aramaer, vom Grofikonig als Bischofskandidaten bevorzugt wurden.

122

Peter Bruns

hen ist. Seit den Tagen Schapurs II. suchten die persischen GroEkonig Einfluss auf die Wahl des Bischofs ihrer westlichen Residenzstadt zu nehmen. Die Friihjahrs- oder Herbstsynode der Bischofe sollte jeweils im Beisein des GroEkonigs oder seiner Wesire stattfinden, so sahen es die Bestimmungen Jazdegerds 410 vor, was den Rang der Diozese in den Augen der weldichen Gewalt nochmals unterstreicht. Gleichzeitig entwickelt sich innerhalb der kirchlichen Hierarchie der Hauptstadt ein ausgepragtes papales Bewufosein. Bereits Mar Papa suchte im vierten Jahrhundert den Bischofssitz von Seleukia-Ktesiphon51 sehr zum VerdruE seiner Suffragane aufzuwerten; seit der Synode des Mar Isaak 410 ist mit diesem Sitz der Titel „Gro&netropolit" verknupft, spatestens seit den zwanziger Jahren des fiinften Jahrhunderts, seit den Tagen des Dadischo also, nennt sich der Bischof der Reichshauptstadt Katholikos,52 und seit Mar Ezechiel (576) ist der PatriarchentiteF fur die Ostsyrer verburgt. Unter dem Reformbischof Ischojahb I. (585/S6)54 erreicht das primatiale Denken seinen Hohepunkt. Wir konnen an dieser Stelle nicht naher auf die eigenwillige Umdeutung der Pentarchietheorie bei Ischojahb, die sich nicht unwesentlich von jener in den Kanones des Marutha 55 unterscheidet, eingehen, 51

Richtungsweisend ist hier neben der Untersuchung von Schwaigert jene von W. de Vries, Antiochien und Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Patriarch und Katholikos?, in: Melanges Eugene Tisserant. Vol. III. Orient Chretien, He partie (StT 233), Rom 1964, 429450, geworden. Eine umfassende literarkritische Studie zu den Akten des Dadischo hat jiingst Luise Abramowski (Tubingen) auf dem 6. Deutschen Syrologentag (16.07.2009-18.07.2009) in Konstanz angekiindigt. Ihrer Grundthese zufolge, auf die aus Platzgriinden hier nicht naher eingegangen werden kann, trug der Bischof von Seleukia-Ktesiphon urspriinglich den Titel „der allgemeine Bischof (Katholikos). Er sei dem Patriarchen von Antiochien niemals untergeordnet gewesen, sondern habe stets unabhangig als Oberhaupt der Kirche des Ostens aufierhalb der Grenzen des Romischen Reiches gewirkt. Letztere These ist diskussionswiirdig, denn sie ist nicht die Sicht der pseudonizanischen Kanones des Marutha, s. u.

52

Zum sprachgeschichtlichen Hintergrund vgl. G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1976, 690b-691a. Verburgt ist in Konstantinischer Zeit die Verwendung als offizieller Titel fur einen hohen weldichen Finanzbeamten (Superintendent), erst in spaterer Zeit fur Erzbischofe und Metropoliten, die eine gewisse Kontrollfunktion fiber einen grofieren kirchlichen Sprengel wahrnehmen. Er kann auch in Mesopotamien nicht eher als in der Reichskirche aufgetreten sein. Der literarische Nachlass Ischojahbs (Kanones, Briefe, Glaubensbekenntnisse etc.) ist kaum zu iiberblicken, vgl. Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm.l), 190-277. Vgl. Voobus, Canons ascribed to Marutha (s. Anm. 15), 53-55. Der Liste lautet hier Rom, Alexandria, Ephesus (!), Antiochien. Da Konstantinopel keine apostolische Griindung ist (die Andreas-Legende kam wohl erst spater auf), wurde der Patriarchalsitz von Ephesus in die Reichshauptstadt verlegt. Beziiglich des Sitzes von SeleukiaKtesiphon heifit es: „Auch der Stuhl von Seleukia im Orient soil von nun an in Zukunft die Erlaubnis haben, wie ein Patriarch Metropoliten zu kreieren, damit nicht

53 54 55


123

doch wollen wir nur den einen Punkt festhalten, dass sich der Bischof von Seleukia-Ktesiphon56 seither als einer der fiinf Patriarchen der Gesamtkirche verstand. Papal ist Ischojahbs Vorstellung, wonach alle priesterliche Vollmacht dem Primus Orientis eignet und von seinem bischoflichen Thronausgeht: „Ebenso gehen vom Haupte der Kirche die priesterlichen Ordnungen in verniinftiger Weise aus und wird die Leitung der Gemeinschaft in vaterlicher Weise fortgefiihrt. Deshalb befiehlt der Kanon, dass bei seiner Weihe drei oder vier Metropoliten in Begleitung zweier oder dreier Bischofe zusammenkommen sollen, nachdem sie von den Bischofen der grofien Hyparchie sowie dem Archidiakon, den Kirchenvorstehern und angesehenen Laien der beiden Stadte der Mahozaye schriftlich berufen wurden. Nach Ankunft der Metropoliten und der Bischofe mit ihnen wird zuerst in Anwesenheit der Bischofe der grofcn Hyparchie auf einer allgemeinen Versammlung der Priester und Glaubigen der Stadte der Mahozaye die Wahl eingerichtet und in einer Wahl fern von Voreingenommenheit und Parteiengunst und untadelig vor Gott eine Person ausgesondert, die fahig und geeignet ist, den Patriarchenstuhl und Primat, welcher Mutter aller Primaten ist, zu regieren. Hernach stellen sie ihn den angekommenen Metropoliten und Bischofen vor und zeigen ihn an, damit diese ohne Zogern seine Weihe (chirotonia) vomhrcn.^

Der bereits zitierte c. 29 thematisiert die Mitsprache der Laien bei der Wahl des Katholikos-Patriarchen. Wie diese genau ausgesehen hat, geht aus dem Kanon selbst nicht explizit hervor. Hier und dort horen wir in der syrischen Literatur von Beschwerden seitens des Katholikos, bei der Wahl der Schismatiker seien Klerus und Volk ubergangen worden. Doch war dies nicht selten die Sicht des Patriarchen, die von den Abweichlern nicht unbedingt geteilt werden musste. Wie sah die Mitsprache konkret aus? Wir wissen z.B. aus spaten Quellen, der Vita des Rabban Sauma aus

durch ihr Hinauf- und Hinabziehen zum Patriarchen des Orients, d.h. von Antiochien in Syrien, das im romischen Gebiet liegt, die Heiden einen Vorwand gegen unsere christlichen Briider finden und gegen sie Verfolgungen erregen. Auch ist der Patriarch von Antiochien infolge guten Zurredens der Versammlung gewillt, sich nicht dariiber zu betriiben, dass die Vollmacht fiber den ganzen Orient (!) ihm abgenommen wurde. Wir tun es ja urn der Ruhe unserer christlichen Briider im Perserreich willen, damit sie nicht zwecklos von den Heiden angeklagt und getotet werden." (Syr. Text bei Voobus, Canons ascribed to Marutha [s. Anm. 15], 60,23-61,10). 56

57

Der in diesem Zusammenhang zu bemiihende c. 29 hat Uberlange, vgl. Braun, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 229-233. Nach Ischojahb gibt es im Abendland vier Patriarchen und im Morgenland einen einzigen, namlich den von Seleukia-Ktesiphon. Der westliche Betrachter muss sich schon ein wenig an die orientalische Perspektive gewohnen, in der Antiochien und Konstantinopel im Land des Sonnenunterganges liegen, von Rom einmal ganz zu schweigen. Syr. Text nach Chabot, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 160,31-161,13.

124

Peter Bruns

dem 13. Jahrhundert, 58 dass einflussreiche Arzte im allgemeinen, die Leibarzte des Kalifen von Bagdad im besonderen, vorstellig warden, um die Gunst der weldichen Obrigkeit zu erlangen. Ahnliches war auch schon im vierten Jahrhundert Fall, wenn etwa der Katholikos Simeon bar Sabba'e durch den Einfluss der vermogenden Kaufleute und Seidensticker als moglicher Kandidat ins Spiel gebracht wurde. Im fiinften Jahrhundert gewannen dann auch die Arzte, die Leibarzte der persischen GroEkonige an Einfluss bei Hofe, wie das Beispiel des Gabriel von Singara zeigt, der allerdings fur die miaphysitische Sache sich bei Hofe verwandte. Aus diesem Grunde war die „Orthodoxie" im Sinne des „nestorianischen" Bekenntnisses unbedingt erforderlich, wie auch die Kanones bestatigen. Ja, diese Frage musste sich im Verlauf des sechsten Jahrhunderts noch verscharfen, da die westsyrische, miaphysitische Hierarchie sich anschickte, in den Osten59 zuexpandieren. Die arabische Zeit brachte in diesem Punkte keinen grundsatzlichen Wandel. Nach dem Zusammenbruch des Sassanidenreiches und der Vertreibung der Byzantiner aus Syrien suchten sich die sog. „Nestorianer" nach Westen auszudehnen, wahrend sich die Miaphysiten zum argen VerdruE des Katholikos im Zweistromland dauerhaft festsetzten und ihr eigenes Vikariat errichteten. Die besseren Beziehungen zur weldichen Obrigkeit waren wie schon zur Sassanidenzeit unter Chosrau Anoschurwan auch bei den neueren konfessionellen Streitigkeiten von entscheidender Bedeutung. Bereits zur Zeit des Katholikos-Patriarchen Georg wurden Klagen uber die Kaufiichkeit des Klerus laut (c. 3 der Synode des Mar Georg vom Mai 676): „Daruber, dass die Kirchenvorsteher nach herausragendem Lebenswandel, nach Kenntnis der Lehre, nach Rechtglaubigkeit und nach Eignung fur den Dienst gewahlt werden sollen, nicht aber nach ihrem Ansehen bei Standespersonen, nach Gunst und tadelnswerten Geschenken den Dienst des Apostolats erhalten sollen, worin die Erlosung der Menschen verborgen ist. - Wenn irgendwo ein Bischof stirbt, so wird die Wahl eines anderen entsprechend den von unseren seligen Vatern festgesetzten Kanones anberaumt. So soil entsprechend den apostolischen Gesetzen mit Zustimmung der Internen jemand nach Sitten und trefflichen Eigenschaften ausgesondert werden, der im Priesterdienst angestellt ist, indem Klerus und Laien des Bischofssitzes dem Metropolit mitteilen, wer ihnen dazu geeignet erscheint. Der lerne ihn kennen, setze ihn ein und benachrichtige davon den Patriarchen, indem er die Zustimmung des Volkes absendet. Nach dem Befehl des Patriarchen soil er seine Wurde erhalten

58

59

Vgl. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Monks of Kublai Khan Emperor of China, London 1928. Die von A. Toepel, Die Monche des Kublai Khan. Die Reise der Pilger Mar Yahballaha und Rabban Sauma nach Europa, Darmstadt 2008, besorgte deutsche Ubersetzung nach dem englischen „Urtext" bei Budge ist leider vollig unbrauchbar. Denken wir hier etwa an Simeon von Beth Arscham und seine Korrespondenz mit den Christen des Zweistromlandes.


125

und soil seine Vervollkommnung ordnungsgemafi vollzogen werden. Diejenigen aber, welche in menschlicher Gesinnung eine Wahl mit Riicksicht auf Standespersonen vornehmen und um verfluchte Bestechung und verwerfliche Geschenke von den gottlichen Dingen in solch siindhafter Wahl Gebrauch machen, deren Wahl ist ungiiltig imfurchtbaren Wort des Herrn.""°

Indes wird man die strengen MaEstabe des westlichen Reformpapsttums des 11. Jahrhunderts nicht unverandert an die orientalischen Verhaltnisse anlegen diirfen. Wahrend die Katholikoi in islamischer Zeit in der Regel von der Kopfsteuer befreit waren, hatten die Laien die gesamten finanziellen Lasten fur die Kirche, sprich die Toleranztaxe der dschisja, auch fur die Patriarchen zu schultern. Nach Spuler61 war dies lediglich die Fortfuhrung einer alten sasanidischen Gewohnheit, wenn der Kalif von seinen christlichen Untertanen Ehrengeschenke entgegennahm.

60 61

Syr. Text bei Chabot, Synodicon orientale (s. Anm. 1), 218,8-24. Zum „Geschenkwesen" im Orient vgl. B. Spuler, Iran in friihislamischer Zeit. Politik, Kultur, Verwaltung und offentliches Leben zwischen der arabischen und der seldschukischen Eroberung 633 bis 1055, Wiesbaden 1952, 367-369. 453. Geschenke an einen Hoherstehenden zu iibersenden, gehorte zu einem feststehenden Teil des iranischen und iiberhaupt morgenlandischen Zeremoniells. In einem religiosen Kontext haftete einem solchen Vorgang freilich immer der schale Beigeschmack der Simoniean.

La royaute merovingienne et les elections episcopales au Vie siecle Bruno Dumezil En septembre 597, le pape Gregoire le Grand envoie une lettre au monde franc pour lui demander de lutter centre la simonie et centre l'accession de simples laics au rang d'eveque.1 Du point de vue de Rome, l'achat des charges qui preside aux elections episcopales se traduit par la mauvaise qualite morale des prelats gaulois. Pourtant, la lettre de Gregoire le Grand n'est pas adressee au clerge pour l'inviter a corriger, en interne, ses propres pratiques. Ce sont les rois merovingiens qui se voient remettre la charge de retablir l'ordre et la moralite dans la procedure de nomination des nouveauxeveques. Telle semble etre l'ambiguite fondatrice du monde franc: alors que l'Eglise, conciles et papes en tete, reclame la libre election des eveques, personne ne conteste le droit des souverains a surveiller les successions episcopales, quitte a ce qu'ils interviennent pour que le "meilleur" candidat soit choisi. La royaute franque apparait ainsi a la fois comme perturbatriceetgarantede l'ordre canonique. Ce jeu d'interrelations complexes entre l'Etat et l'Eglise peut etre decrit de differentes facons. Souvent, les canonistes tels que Jean Gaudemet ont applique leur propre grille de lecture.2 Si Ton suit cette vision legaliste, il y a d'un cote une procedure unique pour les elections episcopales - celle qui est definie par le concile de Nicee - et de l'autre cote des irregularis regionales, dont la situation franque consume un cas d'ecole. De fait, cette description est en elle-meme parfaitement legitime. Mais il est egalement possible de soumettre la Gaule du VP siecle a une interpretation beaucoup plus fonctionnaliste.3 Plutot que de voir le controle royal sur les elections comme une anomalie, considerons-la comme le cadre normal, sinon norme, dans lequel chaque election se deroule. Dans une telle perspective, il 1 2 3

Greg. Mag. ep. VIII 4 (CChr.SL 140a, 518-521 ed. D. Norberg). j . Gaudemet, Les elections dans l'Eglise latine des origines au XVIe siecle, Paris, 1979. Cf. M. Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien. Zur Kontinuitat romischer Fiihrungsschichten von 4. bis 7. Jahrhundert, Munich, 1976.

128

Bruno Dumezil

s'agit maintenant de comprendre comment le systeme apparait, s'autoentretient et resiste aux critiques. Ainsi peut-on degager les interets qu'offre la procedure, tant pour le palais que pour les eveques eux-memes.

Pratiques et critiques de Intervention royale En 597, le pape croit savoir que les rois des Francs, et notamment la tres c o n t r o v e r t reine Brunehaut, disposent du pouvoir d'imposer leur candidat dans les elections episcopales. Ce point de vue n'est certainement pas faux, mais il est reducteur. II serait en effet illusoire de vouloir identifier, a travers un siecle d'histoire merovingienne, une procedure unique par laquelle le palais interviendrait dans la designation des prelats. Quelques pratiques reviennent toutefois avec une grande regularite dans nos sources. En premier lieu, l'autorite publique dispose d u n pouvoir de surveillance sur Fentree des laics dans le clerge. Sous l'Empire tardif, la procedure s'expliquait pour des raisons d'ordre fiscal: un nouveau clerc constituait en effet un curiale de moins, et done un manque a gagner pour l'Etat. Le Code Theodosien autorise done le souverain et ses agents a controler etroitement le recrutement du clerge; en Gaule romano-barbare, ce dispositif fut relaye par le Breviaire d'Akric* L'Eglise gauloise accepte sans trop de difficult une telle ingerence. Des le concile d'Orleans I de 511, il semble etabli que le roi et ses fonctionnaires ont le pouvoir d'autoriser, d'ordonner ou d'interdire Fentree d u n laic dans la clericature.5 Responsable du maintien de l'ordre, le prince dispose en outre du droit de decider de la tenue dune election apres la mort d u n eveque, ne serait-ce que pour en valider ensuite les resultats.6 En Gaule, cette forme d'intervention semble assez ancienne. Pour se limiter a Fepoque barbare, le phenomene commence a etre visible chez les Wisigoths du royaume de Toulouse dans les annees 470. Lors d u n e rebellion des Gallo-Romains

4

5 6

Voir notamment Breviaire XVI 1.5 (= C.-Th. XVI, 2,39 [ed. by Th. Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, vol. 1/2, 848-849]); Breviaire. Novelles de Majorien I (= C.-Th. Maiorianus I [ed. by P. Meyer/Th. Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, vol. 2, Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, Zurich 1971, 156]); et Breviaire. Novelles de Valentinien XII ( = C.-Th. Valentinianus XII [93-94 Meyer/Mommsen]). Concile d'Orleans I, c. 4 (in Les canons des conciles merovingiens [VL-VIL siecles], ed. by J. Gaudemet/B. Basdevant, vol. 1, SC 353, 74). Lune des attestations les plus precoces en Occident, encore que peu claire, est la lettre de Valentinien II au prtfet de Rome Pinianus sur l'election du pape Sirice (Collectio Avellana 4, CSEL 35/1, 47-48 O. Giinther).

La royaute merovingienne et les elections episcopales au Vie siecle

129

catholiques, neuf cites se virent ainsi interdire de proceder au remplacement de leurs eveques defunts/ Cette sanction fut toutefois levee quelques annees plus tard, lorsque les Gallo-Romains se rallierent au pouvoir wisigoth. Dans un tel cadre, le palais doit imperativement etre consulte lots de la vacance d u n siege. Ceci ouvre une premiere breche dans le principe de l'election clero etpopulo, puisqu'un eveque age peut intriguer aupres du roi pour preparer la nomination de son successeur. Gregoire de Tours rapporte ainsi que, vers 580, Feveque Dalmatius de Rodez avait redige un testament indiquant qu'il ne voulait pas que son successeur soit un Granger a sa cite ou un homme marie.8 De la a court-circuiter la procedure normale d'election en faveur d u n individu donne, il n'y avait qu'un pas, qui fut frequemment franchi. Au debut du VP siecle, Eonius d'Arles ecrivit ainsi au palais wisigoth de Toulouse pour donner le nom de son futur successeur, Cesaire, un homme originaire de Chalon-sur-Saone et qui appartenait a sa propre famille.9 De meme, Maurilon de Cahors exigea que l'on consacre pour lui succeder un certain Ursinus.10 La strategie pouvait toutefois se retourner contre son beneficiaire suppose: ainsi, Feveque du Mans Domnole avait obtenu l'accord du roi pour qu'un abbe local le remplace, mais le souverain se ravisa et choisit finalement un haut fonctionnaire.11 Dans les annees 580, Bertrand de Bordeaux echoua tout autant a designer son propre successeur.12 Peut-etre les clercs furent-ils ainsi les premiers a faire appel au prince dans les elections. Mais il est evident que le palais franc comprit tres tot 7

Sid. ep. VII 6.7 (Poemes et lettres, 44 A. Loyen): "Pour toutes ces raisons, laissez-moi vous instruire promptemem de la maladie encore cachee de la communaute catholique, pour que vous puissiez en toute hate y appliquer ouvertement un remede. Burdigak (Bordeaux), Petrogorii (Perigeux), Rutenii (Rodez), Lemovices (Limoges), Gabalitani (javols/Mende), Helusani (Eauze), Vasates (Bazas), Conuenae (St-Bertand-deComminges), Auscenses (Auch) - et ce sera bientot le cas dans un nombre beaucoup plus grand de cites - amputees par la mort de leur supreme pontife, sans qu'on ait nomme par la suite dans les fonctions des defunts d'autres eveques qui auraient pu en tout cas assurer les successions dans les ordres mineurs... toutes ces villes ont vu s'elargir le champ des ruines spirituelles".

8

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 46 (Gregorii episcopii Turonensis historiarum libri historiarum X, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,1, Hannover 2 1951, 256-7, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison). Vita Caesarii I, 13 (MGH SS rer. Merov. 3, 461 Krusch): ipsos dominos rerum per internuntios rogat ut [...] sanctum Caesarium eligerent fieri successorem. L'expression "domini rerum" est largement utilisee par le Breviaire dAlaric pour designer les rois wisigothsde Toulouse. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 42 (248-9 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 9 (279 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 22 (388-9 Krusch/Levison).

9

10 11 12

130

Bruno Dumezil

l'avantage qu'il pouvait trouver a participer a la nomination des nouveaux eveques. On doit d'ailleurs constater qu'en la matiere, la religion personn e l du souverain n'avait guere d'importance. Du temps ou il etait encore paien, Clovis semble ainsi avoir ordonne la nomination de Termite Vaast sur le siege d'Arras.13 Plus certainement, il presida a la nomination de trois eveques dans le nord de la Gaule; quelques annees plus tard, dans le cadre d u n e controverse sur une ordination discutable, saint Remi de Reims prit d'ailleurs plaisir a rappeler a ces trois personnages combien leur propre election avait ete peu canonique.14 Pour autant, une nomination par le roi n'etait pas toujours contraire au droit de l'Eglise des Gaules. La premiere reconnaissance officielle de replication royale date du concile d'Orleans V de 549, ou il est dit qu'un eveque ne doit pas acheter son siege, mais le recevoir "avec l'assentiment du roi, en conformite avec l'election du clerge et du peuple".15 L'objectif semble ici de trouver un compromis entre la vieille election locale et les nouvelles exigences des pouvoirs centraux. Peu a peu formalist, la procedure de nomination merovingienne passait par l'octroi d u n precepte officiel emis par la chancellerie palatine et dont Gregoire de Tours fait mention a de nombreuses reprises. Aucun de ces documents ne nous est conserve pour le VP siecle, mais on les connait pour la periode suivante; Sandrine Liger estime d'ailleurs que 8.500 actes de ce type ont pu etre emis pour l'ensemble de la periode merovingienne.16 Pour obtenir son precepte, le candidat a l'episcopat devait apporter des cadeaux au palais. Doit-on pour cela parler de simonie? Les presents pouvaient etre purement symboliques et il arrivait que le roi refuse de recevoir les biens qui lui etaient offerts.17 Dans tous les cas, comme le souverain etait en mesure de controler les nominations episcopales, les candidats a la mitre prirent l'habitude de rechercher la recommandation de personnages bien en cour. Le concile de Clermont de 535 est le premier a evoquer "le patronage de puissants" dans l'election des nouveaux eveques.18 Gregoire le

13 Vita Vedasti 5 (MGH SS rer. Merov. 3, 409 Krusch). 14 Epistula austrasicae, 3 (MGH Epp. 3, 114 Gundlach): Tanto in me prorupistis felle eommoti, ut nee episeopatus vestri detukritis auetori. Ces trois eveques avaient accuse Remi de Reims d'avoir ordonne pretre un homme peu recommandable sur ordre du roi Clovis. La replique etait de ce fait cinglante. 15 Concile d'Orleans V (549), c. 10 (SC 353, 308 Gaudemet/Basdevant): eum uoluntate regis iuxtaeleetionemelerietplebis. 16 S. Liger, L'ecrit a l'epoque merovingienne dapres la correspondance de Didier, eveque de Cahors (630-655), Studi medievali 33, 1992, 799-823, ici 810. 17 Voir par exemple Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 7 (139-40 Krusch/Levison). 18 Concile de Clermont (535), c. 2 (SC 353, 212 Gaudemet/Basdevant).


131

Grand denonce egalement ce patonicium qu'il considere comme une pratique courante.19 On salt effectivement que dans les annees 580, un candidat au siege de Rodez chercha a faire intervenir le parrain de son fils, qui n'etait autre que le regent du royaume d'Austrasie.20 Les notables locaux semblent egalement avoir pris initiative des demarches, meme si celles-ci n'etaient pas tres canoniques. Vers 540, ce fut ainsi a la demande de membres de hplebs de Melun que Childebert F proceda a la nomination d'un eveque.21 La totalite des elections episcopales gauloises du VP siecle resultaientelles pour autant de nominations royales? Au vu des rares sources conserv e s , on ne saurait l'affirmer de facon categorique. De plus, l'immixtion du palais se trouvait regulierement critiquee. Si le concile d'Orleans II de 533 est le premier a evoquer des desordres dans les elections,22 le concile d'Orleans III de 538 invite fermement a un retour a Election clero et papula avec consentement du metropolitan. 23 Le concile d'Orleans IV de 541 rappelle egalement qu'un eveque doit etre elu et consacre dans la cite ou il officiera,24 disposition qui avait sans doute pour but d'eviter le parachutage par le palais d'hommes etrangers a la ville. Le concile d'Orleans V de 549 synthase cette critique en decretant que "mil eveque ne soit donne a ceux qui ne veulent pas de lui". 25 Si le canon entend surtout lutter contre les patronages dont beneficient certains candidats, il peut egalement se comprendre comme une contestation de l'arbitraire royal dans les nominations. Toutefois, la reunion d'Orleans V se tint sous un controle etroit du roi Childebert I" et la liberte de parole des eveques restait limitee. Quelques annees plus tard, le troisieme concile de Paris put se permettre d'etre beaucoup plus vehement. Reuni dans la periode de faiblesse de la monarchic qui suivit la mort de Childebert P r et de Clotaire Pr, il prescrivit qu'un eveque elu par designation royale ne pourrait pas etre recu par ses comprovinciaux, dans la mesure ou son election etait irreguliere.26 En

19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26

Greg. Mag. ep. VIII 4 (518-521 Norberg). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 46 (256-7 Krusch/Levison). Epistola aevi merowingici collectae 3 (MGH Epp. Ill, 437-438 Gundlach). Concile d'Orleans II (533), c. 7 (SC 353, 198 Gaudemet/Basdevant). Concile d'Orleans III (538), c. 3 (SC 353, 232 Gaudemet/Basdevant). Concile d'Orleans IV (541), c. 5 (SC 353, 268 Gaudemet/Basdevant). Ce concile n'a vraisemblablement pas ete reuni par un roi merovingien et disposait de ce fait d'un assezgrande liberte de parole. Concile d'Orleans V (549), c. 11 (SC 353, 308 Gaudemet/Basdevant): nullus inuhis detur episcopus. Concile de Paris III (556-573), c. 8 (in Les canons des conciles merovingiens [VL-VIL siecles], ed. b y j . Gaudemet/B. Basdevant, vol. 2, SC 354, 420-422).

132

Bruno Dumezil

pratique, cela signifiait qu'un candidat choisi par le roi ne devait pas etre consacre. La mesure prise par Paris III presentait meme une vocation retroactive, puisque des proces pouvaient etre souleves contre les prelats en poste dont l'election n'aurait pas ete tenue pour canonique. Apres la guerre civile - pendant laquelle l'activite conciliaire s'interrompt dans le monde franc - , la reunion de Paris V de 614 rappelle une derniere fois les anciens principes d'election niceenne dans l'Eglise de Gaule: le choix doit se faire au sein de la cite, clero etpopulo et sous la surveillance bienveillante du metropolitan assiste des comprovinciaux.27 Toutefois, le roi Clotaire II ne laissa pas passer la chose. Lorsqu'il promulgua l'edit de confirmation du concile de Paris V, il modifia le texte du canon de facon a reintroduce l'idee dune intervention royale dans le processus electoralSi Ton sort maintenant du debat juridique et que Ton entre dans le champ de la pratique reelle, on remarque que la rhetorique conciliaire, tres critique, ne se traduit pas par une opposition frontale entre le roi et l'episcopat. Les tentatives faites pour casser les nominations operees par le palais resterent ainsi rares, isolees, voire exceptionnelles. Elles paraissent d'ailleurs correspondre a des situations de faiblesse du pouvoir central. Ainsi, ce fut parce que le roi d'Austrasie Theodebald etait tres jeune en 552 que des eveques estimerent pouvoir elire un certain Caton sur le siege de Clermont sans demander l'autorisation du palais.29 De meme, a la mort de Clotaire I" en 561, le metropolitan de Bordeaux, Leonce, deposa l'eveque de Saintes, Emerius, qui avait ete choisi par ce roi et avait ete ordonne en dehors de la province. Le nouveau souverain, Charibert, refusa d'etre place devant le fait accompli: il confirma Emerius et soumit Leonce a une forte amende pour le punir de sa tentative de deposition.30 Visiblement, le metropolitan de Bordeaux avait pense profiter d u n e crise de succession royale pour retablir ses privileges metropolitans. Vaincu, il sut faire bonne figure et se reconcilia meme avec Emerius.31 De la meme maniere, si Ton cherche a reconstituer le point de vue de Gregoire de Tours sur la question des ingerences royales dans les elections, on ne peut manquer d'etre surpris. Le chroniqueur critique bien sur certaines nominations qui lui semblent abusives, mais il ne conteste pas en soi 27 28 29 30 31

Concile de Paris V (614), c. 1 (SC 354, 508 Gaudemet/Basdevant). Edit de Clotaire II, c. 1 (MGH Capit. 1, 21 Boretius). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 6 (139 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 26 (157-9 Krusch/Levison). Leonce et Emerius participerent ensemble a l'achevement de l'eglise Saint-Vivien: Venant. Fort. carm. I, 12 (Venance Fortunat, Poemes, ed. and transl. by M. Reydellet, vol.1, Paris 1994, 31-32).


133

le pouvoir du roi a attribuer les sieges. II est vrai, si on en croit une lettre de Venance Fortunat, que Gregoire avait lui-meme recu son siege episcopal des mains de Sigebert I" d'Austrasie et qu'il avait ete consacre par le metropolitan de Reims, ce qui etait la une entree en fonction fort peu canonique,32 II reste toutefois impossible d'expliquer la perennite d u n systeme de nomination par la veulerie des hommes qui en auraient profit*. En effet, les souverains controlaient les elections, mais pas les elus. Une fois consacres, ceux-ci pouvaient s'affranchir de la tutelle du palais avec d'autant plus de facilite qu'ils se savaient inamovibles: les destitutions autoritaires s'averaient tres rares en Gaule merovingienne. De temps en temps, on l'a vu, des eveques crees par le palais osaient d'ailleurs elever la voix contre les designations royales. Si le systeme se perpetuait dans le monde franc, ce n'etait done pas parce que le clerge l'acceptait de bon coeur, mais plutot parce qu'il repondait aux attentes de l'ensemble de la societe. Discutable sur le plan legal, la pratique se comprenait parfaitement dans un monde du clientelisme generalise, dans lequel la qualite d u n promu etait finalement indifferente aux circonstances de son election.

Figures d'eveques elus par nomination royale Que sait-on des eveques nommes par designation royale? Dans l'attente de la prochaine parution de la Prosopographie chretienne des Gaules, on se contentera ici d'exploiter les informations plus ou moins explicites offertes par Gregoire de Tours, Venance Fortunat et Fredegaire pour la periode situee entre 500 et 614. Ce sondage, meme s'il est partiel et laisse de nombreuses incertitudes,33 n'est pas depourvu d'interet,34 En tete des personnalites choisies par le palais pour occuper un siege episcopal, on trouve d'abord des clercs, qui sont mentionnes a au moins

32

Venam. Fort. carm. V, 3,15 (Venance Fortunat, Poemes, ed. and transl. by M. Reyd d k t , vol. 2, Paris 1998, 17). 33 Condition initiate du candidat non prkisee: Emeri a Saintes, nomme par Clotaire Ier et confirme par Charibert (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 26 [157-9 Krusch/Levison]); Apollinaire a Clermont, qui obtient du roi l'episcopat en echange de cadeaux contre le candidat canoniquement elu (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. Ill, 2 [98-99 Krusch/Levison]); Ommatius a Tours, nomme par Clodomir (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. Ill, 17 [117 Krusch/Levison]). 34 On retiendra ci-dessous a la fois les candidats qui recurent l'episcopat entre v. 500 et 614, ainsi que ceux qui ont obtenu la faveur du palais mais sans parvenir a etre consacres pour une raison variable.

134

Bruno Dumezil

vingt-six occurrences.35 Dans leur cas, on ne saurait done dire que la procedure de designation royale ait ete un moyen de bouleverser l'ordre canonique. Dans plusieurs cas, le candidat a meme ete clairement elu clero et populo avant de partir au palais recevoir son precepte de nomination.

35

Nomination de clercs locaux. Verus II a Vienne, pretre de famille senatoriale (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 39 [405-6 Krusch/Levison]); Nizier a Lyon, designe par son oncle Sacerdos a Childebert Ier (Greg. Tur. vit. patr. VIII, 3 [Gregorii episcopii Turonensis miracula et opera minora, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,2, Hannover 1885, 242-3, ed. B. Krusch]; Aetherius a Lyon (L. Duchesne, Fastes episcopaux de l'ancienne Gaule, Paris, 1907, 168); Gall a Clermont (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 5 [138-9 Krusch/Levison]); Caton, pretre a Clermont, pense pouvoir obtenir l'episcopat local du roi (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 6 [139 Krusch/Levison]); Eufromius a Tours, pretre, nomme par Clotaire Ier (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 15 [147 Krusch/Levison]); Marcel, diacre, a Uzes (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VII, 7 [329-30 Krusch/Levison]); Promotus, pretre, nomme a Chateaudun lors de l'erection de la localite en eveche par Sigebert (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VII, 17[338 Krusch/Levison]); Romulf, pretre, designe a Reims pour remplacer Egidius, depose pour haute trahison (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 19 [510-513 Krusch/Levison]); Cautin, archidiacre a Clermont, sous Theodebald (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 7 [139-40 Krusch/Levison]). Archidiacres: Avitus de Clermont, apres une difficile competition contre Eufrasius et Firmin, qui donnent des fortunes en numeraire et en objets precieux (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 35 [167-8 Krusch/Levison]); Theodose, archidiacre a Rodez, finalement deboute apres la disparition de son protecteur au palais (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 46 [256-7 Krusch/Levison]). Clercs etrangers: Virgile d'Arles, ancien abbe d'Autun nomme sur la recommandation de Syagrius d'Autun aupres de la reine Brunehaut (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IX, 29 [447-8 Krusch/Levison]); Platon, archidiacre de Tours, nomme eveque de Poitiers vers 591, sans doute sur intervention de Brunehaut (Venant. Fort. carm. X, 14 [Venance Fortunat, Poemes, ed. and transl. by M. Reydellet, vol. 3, Paris 2004, 93]; Greg. Tur. virt. Martin. IV, 32 [Gregorii episcopii Turonensis miracula et opera minora, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,2, Hannover 1885, 208, ed. B. Krusch]); Caton, pretre de Clermont, designe par Clotaire I» pour occuper le siege de Tours, puis recuse (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 11 [141-2 Krusch/Levison]); Pappoul, archidiacre d'Autun, nomme eveque de Langres apres une succession difficile (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 5 [200-203 Krusch/Levison]); Domnole, abbe de Paris, devenu eveque du Mans (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 9 [279 Krusch/Levison]); Gregoire a Tours, grace a l'appui de Sigebert et Brunehaut (Venant. Fort. carm. V, 3,15 [vol. 2, 17 Reydellet]); Germain a Paris (Venant. Fort. vit. Germ. 39 [Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici Opera pedestria, M G H AA 4,2, Berlin 1885, 14, ed. B. Krusch]; Nizer a Treves (Greg. Tur. vit. patr. XVII, 1 [278-9 Krusch]); Gery a Cambrai, a la demande de Childebert II (Vita Gaugerici 6, M G H SS rer. Merov. 3, 654 Krusch). Exiles etfugitifs: Fronimius de Vence, ancien eveque d'Agde ayant fui les Wisigoths, nomme par Childebert II (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IX, 24 [443-4 Krusch/Levison]); Munderic, nomme par Gontran pour devenir eveque de Langres, il s'enfuit face a la colere du roi et est recueilli par Sigebert d'Austrasie, qui le fait eveque d'Arisitum (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 5 [200-203 Krusch/Levison]); Theodore, Procule et Dinifius, eveques de Burgondie en exil, installes a Tours par Clotilde et Clodomir (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. Ill, 17 [117 Krusch/Levison]; X, 31 [532 Krusch/Levison]).


135

On remarque toutefois que le parrainage royal ne favorise pas les candidats les plus attendus: ainsi, seuls deux archidiacres locaux sont connus pour avoir profite de la protection du palais, alors que le poste etait repute predisposer a l'accession a l'episcopat.36 De plus, le roi a tendance a nommer beaucoup de clercs etrangers a la cite: on connait au moins le nom de neuf d'entre eux,37 Parmi ceux-ci, on note une proportion non negligeable de clercs chasses de chez eux par une persecution ou exiles de leur siege par des difficult politiques. Ces parias beneficient dune grande bienveillance de la cour, qui n'hesite pas a contrevenir a la discipline ecclesiastique pour les accueillir, parfois en nommant deux eveques sur un meme siege. A cote du clerge, la fonction publique consume le second vivier de recrutement des eveques designes par le souverain. Pour le seul VP siecle, onze fonctionnaires francs au moins ont profite d u n e promotion a l'episcopat grace a la protection royale,38 Deux originalites meritent d'etre soulignees. D'abord, ces nominations ne concernent que des membres de la tres haute administration; ensuite, les officiers palatins sont tres largement preferes aux agents territoriaux. La nomination royale beneficie done a des personnalites de premier plan, qui ont generalement mene de longuesetbrillantescarrieres. En elles-memes, les nominations de fonctionnaires a des postes episcopaux posent certainement des problemes canoniques. Toutefois, le concile d'Arles de 52439 ne prevoit deja plus qu'un an de conversio avant de devenir eveque; la prescription se trouve repetee par les conciles d'Orleans 36 37 38

Vita Praeiecti 13 (MGH SS rer. Merov. 5, 232-233 B. Krusch/W. Levinson). V.^m,note35. Fonctionnaires: Cariatto de Geneve, ancien spathaire de Gontran (Fredeg. Chroniques III, 89 [ M G H SS rer. Merov. 2, 117 Krusch]); Licerius d'Arles, referendaire de Gontran (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 39 [405-6 Krusch/Levison]); Jovin, ex-recteur de Provence, nomme sur le siege d'Uzes qu'il ne parvient pas a occuper (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 7 [276-7 Krusch/Levison]); Innocent, comte de Javols nomme eveque de Rodez par Brunehaut (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 38 [309 Krusch/Levison]); Baudin, referendaire de Clotaire V nomme a Tours (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 3 [136-7 Krusch/Levison] et X, 31 [532 Krusch/Levison]); Ursinus, ancien referendaire de la reine Ultrogothe a Cahors (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 42 [248-9 Krusch/Levison]); Flavus, referendaire de Gontran, nomme a Chalon-sur-Saone (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 45 [254. 256 Krusch/Levison]); Albin, ancien prefer de Provence de Marseille, a Uzes (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VII, 7 [229-30 Krusch/Levison]); Badegisele, maire du palais, nomme au Mans (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 9 [279 Krusch/Levison]); Harimer, referendaire d'Austrasie, nomme a Verdun contre le candidat local, un abbe (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IX, 23 [443 Krusch/Levison]); Gondesigele, comte de Saintes, nomme a Bordeaux contre le candidat local, un diacre (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 22 [388-9 Krusch/Levison]).

39

Concile d'Arles IV (524), c. 1 (SC 353, 138 Gaudemet/Basdevant).

136

Bruno Dumezil

de 53840 et de 549.41 Comme la forme de cette conversio reste sujette a appreciation, un dignitaire menant une vie pieuse peut etre juge parfaitement digne d'acceder au sacerdoce. De plus, les hauts fonctionnaires beneficiant d u n promotion a l'episcopat essaient souvent de respecter les regies canoniques, meme si c'est a minima. Par exemple, lorsque le maire du palais Badegisele est nomme sur le siege du Mans, il se fait tonsurer puis ordonner successivement a tous les ordres clericaux. Son seul tort est sans doute d'accelerer un peu trop la procedure, puisqu'il parvient a l'episcopat en quarante jours.42 Aux yeux des contemporains, la nomination de fonctionnaires ne consume nullement un scandale. Sans doute ces hommes etaient-ils juges competents, ou tout au moins impartiaux puisque exterieurs aux querelles locales. II en va tout autrement des promotions de laics n'ayant jamais servi l'Etat, evenements qui soulevent toujours l'indignation des chroniqueurs. On ne connait toutefois que peu d'occurrences assurees de ce phenomene; il semble d'ailleurs que, dans ce cas, le candidat ait du faire d'importants cadeaux au palais pour obtenir son precepte.43 Si Ton poursuit le releve des mentions dune intervention royale connues pour le VP siecle, on est surpris de constater qu'elles ne beneficient qu'assez rarement aux moines et encore moins aux ermites.44 Pe point est d'autant plus notable qu'avant les annees 480, le monachisme constituait

40 41 42 43

Concile d'Orleans III (538), c. 6 (SC 353, 234-236 Gaudemet/Basdevant). Concile d'Orleans V (549), c. 9 (SC 353, 306 Gaudemet/Basdevant). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 9 (279 Krusch/Levison). Simples laics: Nicetius devient eveque de Dax sous Gontran, grace a un precepte de nomination recu sous Chilperic (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 20 [386-7 Krusch/Levison]); Didier d'Eauze, laic, est elu apres avoir verse beaucoup d'argent (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 22 [388-9 Krusch/Levison]). Le cas d'Eusebe de Pais est plus incertain, car on ne sait pas s'il a achete son poste aupres du roi ou du college electif (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 26 [519 Krusch/Levison]). De meme, la situation de Sulpice de Bourges est discutable, dans la mesure ou quoique n'etant pas signale comme un fonctionnaire, il etait issu d'une famille senatoriale et disposait d'une vaste culture (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 39 [309-10 Krusch/Levison]).

44

Personnalites monastiques: Pair d'Avranches, nomme avec le soutien de Childebert Ier (Venant. Fort. vit. Patern. 47 [37 Krusch]); Virgile d'Arles, ancien abbe d'Autun nomme sur la recommandation de Syagrius d'Autun aupres de la reine Brunehaut (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IX, 29 [447-8 Krusch/Levison]); Domnole, abbe de Paris, devenu eveque du Mans en recompense pour son aide aux espions de Clotaire Ier (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 9 [279 Krusch/Levison]). On peut eventuellement ajouter a cette liste Germain de Paris, dont la carriere nest toutefois pas exclusivement monastique et pour qui la nomination royale reste implicite (Venant. Fort. vit. Germ. XII 38-39 [14 Krusch]) de meme que Vaast dArras, pour qui l'implication royale est incertaine (Vita Vedasti 5, ActaSS Feb. vol. I, 795 Henschen).


137

l'un des foyers de recrutement les plus importants pour l'episcopat gaulois.45 Apres 614, la monarchie merovingienne privilegiera a nouveau un recrutement monastique, notamment en faveur des personnalites issues d'etablissementsiro-francs. On peut enfin constater que le palais n'a pas d'attitude unique a l'egard du nepotisme, ni pour l'interdire, ni pour le favoriser. Certes, les successions a l'interieur de la famille etroite semblent nettement plus rares au VF siecle qu'au Ve siecle. Toutefois, a l'occasion, on voit un roi organiser une succession entre cousins sur le siege de Nantes, contre l'avis du metropolitan de la province.46 La famille royale n'est en tout cas pas favorisee par les nominations episcopales: tres peu de membres de la dynastie merovingienne sont designes pour devenir eveques et, dans les rares occurrences connues, il s'agit de collateraux et non de princes du sang.47 II est vrai que les rois chevelus n'avaient nul interet a entrer dans le clerge s'ils entendaient garder des vues sur le trone; deux siecles plus tard, la structure lignagiere de la famille carolingienne predisposerait mieux cadets et batards a accepter la mitre. Au final, on ne peut que souligner l'extreme diversite des candidats soutenus par le palais merovingien. Du referendaire bien en cour a l'exile depourvu de tout bien, le spectre des niveaux sociaux est immense. Ajoutons que la diversite des favoris ne saurait etre interpretee comme la consequence du pur arbitraire du souverain. Jamais un roi ne chercha en effet a donner des preuves de sa puissance en multipliant les scandales patents. La consecration d u n homme notoirement indigne reste ainsi un phenomene rare et plutot limit* aux situations de crise.

Strategies suivies par le palais Des lors, il s'agit d'essayer de comprendre quelles etaient les strategies suivies par le palais lorsqu'il procedait a la nomination directe d u n nouvel eveque. Commencons par reflechir aux accusations de simonie. En temps ordinaire, l'argent et la corruption ne suffisent pas a obtenir l'episcopat; seule la volonte du souverain prime. Ainsi, lors d'une election disputee pour le 45 46

47

F. Prevot, Eveques gaulois dorigine monastique (IVe-VIe siecle), in: Prosopographie et histoire religieuse, ed. par M.-F. Baslez/F. Prevot, Paris, 2005, 379-400. Nonnichius, cousin de Felix de Nantes, lui succede par ordre royal, lors qu'il appert que celui-ci ne peut pas choisir son jeune neveu Bourgondion comme successes (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 15 [285 Krusch/Levison]). Le cas le plus notable est celui de Bertrand de Bordeaux (PLRE III, 227).

138

Bruno Dumezil

siege de Bourges, les candidats viennent au palais avec des cadeaux. lis s'entendent repondre par le roi Gontran: "Ce n'est pas la coutume de notre regne de vendre l'episcopat a prix d'argent et ce n'est pas non plus la votre de l'acheter en faisant des cadeaux".48 Face aux intrigants, le souverain prefere nommer un certain Sulpice, un pur laic certes, mais estime de tous pour sa stature sociale et sa grande maitrise de la rhetorique. Dans le dernier tiers du VF siecle, le monde franc doit toutefois affronter des guerres civiles a repetition, qui vident le Tresor public. Vendre un siege episcopal, surtout si c'est celui d u n e cite depourvue d'interet strategique, peut parfois aider a remplir les caisses. Gregoire de Tours remarque le fait a propos de la nomination d u n eveque d'Eauze en 585. 49 Notons dans ce cas que le palais a demande au candidat d'offrir du numeraire et des objets precieux. Meme dans une situation difficile, l'Etat merovingien n'a pas besoin de terres ou d'esclaves; il exige plutot des biens immediatement mobilisables pour ses activites militaires. D'ailleurs, cette "soif d'or" que denonce episodiquement Gregoire de Tours 50 n'aveuglait pas trop les souverains merovingiens. Ainsi, au milieu des annees 580, un diacre bordelais nomme Waldo chercha a obtenir l'eveche de Bordeaux. Il se presenta au palais avec une forte somme et declara disposer du soutien de la population locale. Pourtant, le roi Gontran refusa de lui conferer le siege. Waldo avait en effet ete recommande par son predecesseur, l'eveque Bertrand, que Gontran soupconnait de haute trahison. Plutot que de voir une nouvelle personnalite douteuse controler Bordeaux, le roi prefera de pas empocher d'argent.51 Dans le monde franc, les eveches constituaient en effet des centres essentiels pour le controle du territoire. La geopolitique suffit ainsi a expliquer beaucoup de nominations royales. Ainsi, lorsqu'une ville venait d'etre annexee et que le clerge local s'y montrait rebelle, le souverain etait naturellement tente de placer un etranger comme eveque. Un tel homme se montrait generalement fidele, ne serait-ce que pour se maintenir en place. C'est ainsi que l'auvergnat Gregoire obtint son poste a Tours et que saint Gery fut nomme a Cambrai par le roi d'Austrasie.52 Plus largement, privilegier des candidats peu soutenus localement permettait au roi de ne pas se faire l'esclave d'une faction aristocratique.

48 49 50 51 52

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 39 (309-10 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 22 (388-9 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 22 (388-9 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 22 (388-9 Krusch/Levison). C. Meriaux, Gallia Irradiata, Saints et sanctuaires dans le nord de la Gaule du haut MoyenAge, Stuttgart, 2006, 55.


139

Parfois, le palais devait aussi accepter de nommer dans des zones sensibles des hommes a poigne, lesquels n'avaient pas toujours de grandes qualites de pasteurs. Ainsi, pour garder le controle de Rodez, cite situee a l'extreme sud de ses possessions, Brunehaut fit consacrer en 584 l'ancien comte de Javols.53 Cet homme etait soupconne d'avoir trempe dans l'assassinat d u n abbe,54 mais sa fidelite a la reine ne faisait pas de doute. De meme, il arriva que les rois merovingiens eprouvent le besoin d'eriger une simple paroisse en siege episcopal, au mepris de l'ordre canonique. Dans ce cas, le nouvel eveque ne devait pas etre embarrasse par les scrupules. Sigebert I" d'Austrasie parvint a recruter de tels individus pour ses nouvelles creations a Arisitum et a Chateaudun. 55 Dans ces derniers cas, l'intervention du souverain etait certainement vecue comme une forme d'ingerence par les populations locales. Et lorsqu'une cite se sentait menacee dune nomination aussi importune, elle cherchait a trouver un consensus autour d u n candidat local pour eviter de subir l'arbitraire royal.56 Toutefois, meme lorsque le clerge et l'aristocratie s'accordaient sur le nom d u n candidat, ils ne pouvaient generalement pas resister a la volonte toute puissante du palais. De temps en temps, une nomination episcopale se deroulait sans aucun versement d'argent, mais egalement sans aucun enjeu strategique perceptible. Pourquoi alors le palais intervenait-il ouvertement? Meme si c'est la faire la part belle aux speculations, on peut supposer que certains postes furent remis a titre de recompense pour services rendus a l'Etat. Pour un palatin vieillissant, un eveche pouvait en effet constituer un conge honorable, voire une forme de pension de retraite. On comprendrait ainsi mieux le nombre important de referendaires qui accederent a l'episcopat. Un siege pouvait egalement venir solder des services plus interlopes. Par exemple, l'abbe parisien Domnole offrit pendant des annees son aide aux espions de Clotaire I". En remerciement, le roi lui proposa l'eveche d'Avignon, puis l'etablit finalement sur celui du Mans. 57 De meme, Ve-

53 54 55

56

57

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 38 (309 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 37 (308-9 Krusch/Levison). Sur Arisitum: Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. V, 5 (200-203 Krusch/Levison). Sur Chateaudun, Concile de Paris (573), Epistola synodi ad Sigisbertum regem (CChr.SL 148a, 216 C. Munier); l'eveque nomme a Chateaudun etait l'ancien pretre de la paroisse locale, Promotus (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VII, 17 [338 Krusch/Levison]). Tel semble etre le cas a Bordeaux en 585, ou le milieu local soutient le diacre Waldo dans l'espoir d'eviter l'irruption d'une personnalite etrangere (Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 22 [388-9 Krusch/Levison]). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 9 (279 Krusch/Levison).

140

Bruno Dumezil

nance Fortunat, qui avait ete pendant trente ans le poete attitre des rois d'Austrasie, put finir sa vie sur le trone episcopal de Poitiers. Au final, on peut toutefois se demander quel fut le facteur determinant dans les nominations d'eveques par le palais. Etait-ce la personnalite du candidat? L'argent qu'il versait? La situation de la cite qu'on lui confiait? Tous ces elements jouaient assurement. Mais l'essentiel ne demeurait-il pas que le roi choisisse l'eveque et que l'eveque se reconnaisse comme designe par le roi? En effet, etre capable de nommer les prelats constituait dans le monde franc une prerogative regalienne majeure. Attenter a ce droit constituait un crime de lese-majeste, dont on ne connait d'ailleurs que peu d'occurrences. Ainsi, en 584, l'aventurier Gundovald s'empara de la majeure partie d'Aquitaine et se proclama roi; a ce titre, il proceda a la designation du nouvel eveque de Dax, en la personne d u n certain Faustien qu'il fait consacrer par l'eveque Palladius de Saintes.58 Or, quelques mois plus tard, le roi de Burgondie Gontran abattit l'usurpateur; immediatement, il fit deposer Faustien et exprima sa colere envers Palladius, juge coupable de complicite avec l'ennemi.59 En effet, seul un roi legitime avait le droit de nommer des eveques. L'affaire Gundovald ne constituait toutefois qu'un conflit au sein de la famille merovingienne elargie. Le veritable danger aurait ete qu'une faction aristocratique regionale profite d'une election episcopale pour confisquer les pouvoirs regaliens. Au VP siecle, le phenomene ne se produisit qu'une seule fois, en 581, lorsque le recteur de Provence Dynamius entra en secession par rapport au palais d'Austrasie. Pour montrer son independance, il proceda a deux reprises a la devolution du siege d'Uzes en faveur de ses amis, contre le candidat soutenu par le palais. Les pouvoirs centraux ne purent pas tolerer qu'un simple fonctionnaire ait lui-meme designe un eveque et on envoya une armee pour abattre l'importun. 60 Le scandale, pour l'heure, resta mineur. Dynamius contestait l'autorite des Grands qui exercaient la regence en Austrasie, mais il reconnaissait la personne du petit roi Childebert II; sa secession n'attentait pas a la securite de la monarchic. L'alerte fut cependant severe pour la dynastie. A titre de legere digression, on peut se demander comment les eveques eux-memes vivaient les strategies dont ils faisaient l'objet: avoir ete nomme par le palais constituait-t-il une fierte ou un opprobre dans la carriere? La documentation est malheureusement trop lacunaire pour etudier ce pro58 59 60

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 2 (371-2 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VIII, 20 (386-7 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 7.11 (276-7. 280-283 Krusch/Levison); voir B. Dumezil, Dynamius, une figure lerinienne et son reseau a la fin du Vie siecle, in: Lerins, une ile sainte de l'Antiquite au Moyen Age, ed. M. Lauwers, Nice, 2010, a paraitre.


141

Heme. On peut toutefois remarquer que la nomination royale ne se trouve que tres rarement evoquee dans les sources hagiographiques et, lorsqu'une mention y est faite, c'est souvent de facon detournee. Ceci signifie sans doute que si ce type Selection n'etait pas contraire aux modeles de saintete, il ne constituait pas non plus un critere remarquable. Naturellement, l'hagiographe preferait evoquer les bonnes relations entre le nouvel eveque et le roi apres l'election plutot que les manoeuvres du candidal 1 Ainsi, comme on l'a vu, le tres bavard Gregoire de Tours se montre etonnamment peu loquace sur sa propre election.62 On peut par consequent suppos e que la protection royale se trouvait largement proclamee au moment de l'election par le biais de preceptes, mais quelle pouvait par la suite etre dissimulee ou niee, surtout si elle s'averait nuisible a l'image de l'eveque ou a son interet politique du moment. Pour le palais comme pour l'eveque beneficiaire, important demeurait, semble-t-il, que la moderation ait preside a la nomination. Le candidat pouvait avoir donne de l'argent au roi, mais il ne se voyait accuse de simonie que si la somme semblait excessive. Le nouvel eveque pouvait avoir ete un simple laic, mais personne n'allait le lui reprocher si son accession au sacerdoce respectait au moins superficiellement les etapes de la procedure canonique. En somme, Intervention du palais n'interdisait pas aux contemporains de penser que c'etait toujours le Ciel qui presidait au choix des nouveaux eveques, meme si c'etait desormais par l'entremise du roi plutot que par celle de l'election populaire. Un diplomate wisigoth ecrivit ainsi a un eveque gaulois nouvellement promu: "Tu as merite, grace a Dieu, d'etre fait eveque par les souverains".63

Conclusion Au final, Gregoire le Grand avait sans doute raison: împlication des Merovingiens dans les elections episcopales constituait une realite troublante mais difficilement contestable et, somme toute, plutot opportune pour la discipline clericale. Rarement contestees en droit car rarement condamnables en pratique, les interventions royales ne nuisaient pas a la qualite 61

62 63

Le point est particulierement remarquable dans la Vita Germani de Venance Fortunat, ou Implication de Childebert Ier dans la nomination de Germain a Paris est plus que probable, mais ou Fortunat esquive habilement la question. Le seul recit que Gregoire fait de son election se trouve dans Greg. Tur. virt. Martin. 2,1 (158-9 Krusch). Ep. wisigothicae 13 (MGH Epp. Ill, 680-681 Gundlach): Domino dignus es dedicatus antestisaprincipes.

142

Bruno Dumezil

d'ensemble du recrutement. Elles permettaient meme de lutter centre ces maladies endemiques de l'Eglise gauloise qu'etaient le regionalisme et le nepotisme. Pour la royaute, le controle des elections importait d'ailleurs plus que la surveillance des elus qui, une fois installed sur leur siege, etaient kisses a une totale autonomie. On en vient done a penser que si le roi nommait des prelats, e'etait avant tout pour que cette prerogative ne soit pas exercee par d'autres personnages, qui auraient trouve la une dangereuse source de puissance. De fait, au VIP siecle, la crise de la dynastie s'accompagna d u n e crise au sein de l'Eglise franque. Pes factions aristocratiques qui controlaient le palais profiterent en effet des elections episcopales pour s'enrichir ou pour attribuer les cites a leurs allies. II en resulta un affaiblissement accru de la royaute, mais aucun profit pour l'ordre ecclesiastique. Donnons un seul exemple. Au milieu des annees 660, le siege de Clermont devint vacant. Un pretre de moyenne extraction, Praejectus, se porta candidat a l'episcopat. On lui demanda alors "s'il savait combien d'or et d'argent il fallait avoir pour pouvoir obtenir cette fonction".64 Faute de disposer des moyens pour acheter son election, Praejectus fut deboute et on lui prefera l'archidiacre local, Garivald. Or celui-ci mourut quarante jours apres son election. Praejectus proposa a nouveau sa candidature. Mais cette fois, le palais ordonna d'elire le comte de la ville, Genesius. Pour des raisons incertaines, ce dernier refusa la promotion. Faute de nouveaux candidats, Praejectus obtint done le siege qu'il convoitait apres une designation clero et populo accomplie dans les regies.65 On aurait pu croire que cet eveque de petite naissance et canoniquement elu donnerait toute satisfaction. Ce fut tout le contraire: pour prendre le controle d u n heritage dispute, Praejectus de Clermont se mela tres maladroitement de politique et apporta son soutien a une faction aristocratique au pouvoir en Burgondie. Ce faisant, il contribua a faire assassiner saint Leger d'Autun. Au niveau local, Praejectus suscita egalement l'inimitie de puissants locaux, derriere lesquels on croit distinguer la grande famille des Aviti.66 L'eveque elu clero et populo finit ainsi assassine clero et populo en 676. En somme, au haut Moyen Age, une election canonique ne constituait pas toujours un gage de stabilite et une nomination royale ne representait 64 65 66

Vita Praeiecti 12 (232 Krusch/Levinson). Vita Praeiecti 13-14 (232-234 Krusch/Levinson). Sur l'implication des senateurs locaux: Vita Praeiecti 31(243-4 Krusch/Levinson). Un Avitus succeda a Praeiectus: Vita Praeiecti 34 (244 Krusch/Levinson); I. N. Wood, The Ecclesiastical Politics of Merovingian Clermont, in: Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society. Studies Presented to J.-M. Wallace-Hadrill, ed. par P. Wormald, Oxford, 1983, 34-57.


143

pas necessairement une catastrophe. Gregoire le Grand, qui devait son poste a l'empereur byzantin Maurice, pouvait comprendre la subtilite de la situation: l'investiture laique n'etait sans doute pas legale, mais elk restait preferable au chaos. En Gaule, la dynastie merovingienne et l'Eglise se confortaient l'une l'autre; en lui-meme, le systeme fonctionnait. Lorsque cet equilibre fut rompu au VIP siecle, le monde franc tomba dans une longue guerre civile. Et lorsque le controle royal fut retabli par les Carolingiens sous la forme de l'Eglise imperiale, un nouvel ordre vit le jour, que l'on peut sans peine qualifier de "medieval".

Geoffrey D. Dunn We scour in vain through the letter of 15 February, 404 from Innocent I of Rome to Victricius of Rouen for any information about how either man was elected to the episcopate.1 Further, there are no amusing or salacious anecdotes from other sources about how they came to be bishops. Such information that may be deduced from elsewhere can be presented briefly. With regard to Innocent, elected in December 402, 2 1 have argued that we * 1

2

Funding for this research has been provided generously by the Australian Research Council. Innoc. I cp. 2 (PL 20, 468-485 = P. Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontifkum et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Clement I usque ad Innocentum III, t. 1, Paris 1721, cols 745-758) = P. Jaffe, Regesta Pontifkum Romanorum, Bd. 1: A S. Petro ad a. MCXLIII, rev. F. Kaltenbrunner, Leipzig 1885 (rev. edn)] [= JK], n. 286. The arguments of K. Holl, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 2, Tubingen 1928, 332-334, for dating the start of Anastasius' episcopate to December 399, contrary to Prosper Tiro, chron. min. 1223 (MGH AA 9, 465 Mommsen), who dated it to 398, have been adopted by M.R. Green, Pope Innocent I: The Church of Rome in the Early Fifth Century, DPhil diss. Oxford 1973, 163, n. 1. Since lib. pont. 41,1 (L. Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire, Paris 1955 2 , 218) gave Anastasius an episcopate of three years and ten days, this would make the start of Innocent's episcopate December 402. This would agree with Prospers commencement date for Innocent. One would need to make a single emendation to lib. pont. 42,1 (220 Duch.), such that the length of Innocent's episcopate was fourteen rather than fifteen years. Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis, ccl-ccli, on the contrary, argued that the fifteen years was correct for Innocent (dating the start of his episcopate to December 401), and emended Anastasius' length of episcopate to two years instead of three, with a commencement year therefore of 399, a rejection of both pieces of evidence in Prosper. He also emended the date of 21 December for Innocent's ordination (mart, hieron., 12 Kal. Ian. [PL 30, 486], although listed as "depositio sancti Innocentii," as is 4 Id. Mart. [PI 30, 447], which is his date of death in 417) to 22 December, so that in 401 Innocent would still have been ordained on a Sunday. See C.H. Turner, The Papal Chronology of the Third Century, JThS 17, 1915-1916, 339. Such emendation is unnecessary if one accepts 402. So, despite the fact that Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (see note 1), cols 737-738; Jaffe/Kaltenbrunner, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (see note 1), 44 (tentatively);

146

Geoffrey D . D u n n

must not take Jerome's statement that he was Anastasius' son literally,3 but rather that he served as deacon in Rome under Anastasius, since deacons were referred to filially and it was not uncommon in Late Antiquity for deacons in Rome to be elected its bishop.4 There seems to be none of the controversy with his election that surrounded that of Damasus in the generation earlier or would surround Boniface a few years after Innocent's death. Writing to Anysius of Thessalonica soon after his ordination, Innocent noted that Christ bestowed the honour of the episcopacy of Rome upon him "with the consent of the holy priests and all the clergy and people...,"5 where we understand the reference to priests (sacerdotes) to mean bishops. However, he does not tell us what bishops had been eligible to be involved in this process, nor how other clergy or lay people had participated. We know that Roman bishops were elected quickly after the

3

4

5

and K. Silva-Tarouca, Epistularum Romanorum Pontificum ad Vicarios per Illyricum aliosque Episcopos. Collectio Thessalonicensis, Textus et Documenta 23, Rome 1937, 20, date the commencement of Innocent's episcopate to 401, I follow E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfangen bis zur Hohe der Weltherrschaft, Bd 1: Romische Kirche und Imperium Romanum, Tubingen 1930, 296, and Green, in dating it to 402. A complication is the fact that lib. pom. 41,3 (218 Duch.) dates Anastasius' burial to 27 April. A.D. Booth, The Chronology of Jerome's Early Years, Phoenix 35, 1981, 242-243, argues on the basis of Hier. ep. 97,1 (CSEL 55, 182 Hilberg), which he seems to date to early 403, that Jerome had dispatched the first two books of apol. con. Ruf in March or April 402 and the third book, before ep. 97, in September or October 402, all while Anastasius was alive. For Booth, Innocent could not have been elected until April or December of 403. Most scholars, however, date ep. 97 to 402 and the sending of the first two books to 401, leaving Innocent's date for election in December 402 unchallenged. See P. Nautin, Etudes de chronologie hieronymienne (393-397), REAug 18, 1972, 212; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies, London 1975, 262; A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, OECS, Oxford 2009, 69. Hier. ep. 130,16 (CSEL 56/1, 196 Hilb.). See G.D. Dunn, Anastasius I and Innocent I: Reconsidering the Evidence of Jerome, VigChr 61, 2007, 30-41. Cf. H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church, Oxford 1976,153. G.D. Dunn, Deacons in the Early Fifth Century: Canonical Developments under Innocent I, in: Diakonia, diaconiae, diaconato: semantica e storia nei padri della chiesa, xxxviii Incontro di studiosi dell'antichita cristiana, Roma 7-9 maggio 2009, SEAug 117, Rome 2010, 335-336. See also Ch. Pietri, Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l'Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son ideologic de Miltiade a Sixte III (311-440), BEFAR 224, 2 vols, Rome 1976, 54. Innoc. I ep. 1 (20 Sil.-Tar. = PL 20, 464 = Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum [see note 1], col 739) = JK 285: ...consentientibus Sanctis sacerdotibus omnique clero acpopulo ... On this letter see G.D. Dunn, Innocent I and Anysius of Thessalonica, Byz. 11, 2007, 124-148.

Canonical Legislation on the Ordination of Bishops

147

deaths of their predecessors, usually within a couple of days, and were ordained bishop on a Sunday, and that, from the middle of the fourth century, the bishop of Ostia had the right to ordain the new Roman bishop.6 In spite of the detail that Paulinus of Nola includes in his letter to Victricius of Rouen about the latter's life as a soldier and conversion to Christianity,7 we are told nothing about his election as bishop other than that it was God who raised him to the dignity of an apostolic see,8 and that when Paulinus had first met Victricius, which must have been about 386, the latter was already a bishop and in the company of Martin of Tours, a fellow bishop but one made a bishop at a different age than Victricius.9 Instead of looking at any particular election, my contribution deals with more abstract and theoretical issues with regard to episcopal elections, namely the developing canon law, as found in that letter of 404, 6

7 8

9

Turner, The Papal Chronology (see note 2), 340-341; lib. pom. 35,2 (202 Duch.). According to lib. pont. 42,1 (220 Duch.) the interval between Anastasius and Innocent was twenty-two days. Paul. Nol. ep. 18,7 (CSEL 29,133-135 Hartel/Kamptner). Paul. Nol. ep. 18,6 (133 Hart./Kamp.). Undoubtedly, Rouen is called an apostolic see because of the presence of relics of the apostles within it (ep. 18,5 [132 Hart./Kamp.]), rather than it having been founded by an apostle. Writing in 397 or 398, Paulinus had read Victricius' de laude sanctorum, possibly delivered to him by Victricius' deacon, Paschasius. See D.E. Trout, Paulinus of Nola: Life, Letters, and Poems, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 27, Berkeley 1999, 239; G. Clark, Victricius of Rouen: Praising the Saints, JECS 7, 1999, 373. Paul. Nol. ep. 18,9 (136 Hart./Kamp.). P.G. Walsh, Letters of St. Paulinus of Nola, vol. 1, ACW 35, New York 1966, 250, n. 40, suggests that Victricius was much older than Martin when he became bishop. The date of about 386 for the encounter is based on events in the life of Paulinus. See E. Vacandard, Saint Victrice. Eveque de Rouen IIV=-V=s., Paris 1903, 36. This age difference could still be true, even if Martin were older than Victricius, as Clark suggests. Since Martin must have been in his midfifties when he became bishop in 371 or 372, for Victiricius to have become bishop say in 385 in his mid-fifties also, he would have been born in about 330 at the latest. This would have made him nearly eighty if he died in 409, on the basis of him not being mentioned in Paulinus' list of good bishops quoted in Gregory of Tours (Paul. Nol. ep. 48 [389-390 Hart./Kamp.]; Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. II, 13 (Gregorii episcopii Turonensis historiarum libri historiarum X, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,1, Hannover 2 1951, 63, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison). If Victricius were even older than that when he became bishop he certainly would have been quite elderly when he travelled to Rome at the end of 403. Sulp. Sev. vit. Martin. 19,3 (SC 133, 292-294 Fontaine), mentions the encounter between Martin and Paulinus, but does not mention Victricius. This he mentions in dial. 2(3),2 (CSEL 1, 200 Halm). Were M.E. Moore, The Spirit of the Gallican Councils, A.D. 314-506, A H C 39, 2007, 2 1 , correct in identifying Eusebius at the Synod of Nimes in 394/396 as Eusebius of Rouen, then Victricius could not have been bishop in 386.

148


that was designed to prevent abuses. Innocent's letter to Victricius includes a number of canons the Roman bishop wished to offer to the Gallic churches for the effective and authentic administration of their churches. This letter was distributed widely during the Middle Ages as an important part of Roman canon law.10 Innocent stands at the very dawn of particular papal letters being placed alongside conciliar canons as containing canonical material. I wish to begin with a consideration of the general context of that letter in order to provide the interpretative framework for appreciating its content. Then I wish to consider Innocent's references to episcopal elections in the letter and compare that with what he says elsewhere in his correspondence and what had been said by his predecessors. From this we should be able to conclude that Innocent's directives were not a general compendium of Roman ecclesiastical law but addressed the particular issues Victricius had raised with him, that episcopal election was not the central topic of concern but was important because control of who became bishops shaped the future direction of churches, and that Innocent appealed to the authority of the Council of Nicaea and the Scriptures, particularly in the light of what his immediate predecessors had said.

Context of the Letter The context in which we must situate this letter is that of the efforts of both Milan and Rome in the late fourth century to cement relationships with western churches. Throughout the last two decades of that century ties had developed between the churches of Milan and Rouen. Herval suggests that Victricius and Martin of Tours were among the eighty bishops who had been to the synod in Rome in January 386, which resulted in the Roman bishop, Siricius, issuing the synodal letter Cum in unum? 10

See in particular F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters, Bd. 1, Graz 1870, 242243, for the distribution of this letter in mediaeval canonical collections, and D. Jasper, The Beginning of the Decretal Tradition: Papal Letters from the Origin of the Genre through the Pontificate of Stephen V, in: D. Jasper and H. Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages, History of Medieval Canon Law, Washington, D.C. 2001,22-28,35-38.

11

Siricius ep. 5 (CChr.SL 149, 59-63 Munier = PL 13,1155-1162 = Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, cols 651-658) = JK 258. The letter is preserved in the acta of the African synod of Zelle or Telepte in 418. See K.J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents, vol. 2: A.D. 326-429, trans. H.N. Oxenham, Edinburgh 1894 (Eng. edn), 386-389. A copy of this letter might well have been sent to the Gallic bishops, as C. Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly


149

that they had visited Ambrose in Milan, where they received the relics of Gervasius and Protasius, discovered there in the middle of 386, 12 and that they saw Paulinus in Vienne later in that year on their way home. 13 On the other hand Thacker thinks that the relics of Gervasius and Protasius only arrived in Rouen in 393, 14 which, if true, means that Gillian Clark's observation that we cannot know how Victricius came to be on Ambrose's distribution list of relics is even more telling.15 In any case, such distribution seems to have been part of a deliberate strategy of Ambrose, who placed himself at the centre of an extensive episcopal network.16 His ready access for much of his episcopacy to the imperial ear was certainly a reason Celibacy, trans. Nelly Marans, San Francisco 1990 (Eng. edn), 10; and S. Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West, San Francisco 2001, 241, believe. 12 That Ambrose had not been to Rome seems clear from the events surrounding his conflict with the empress Justina, the widow of Valentinian I and mother of Valentinian II, exemplified in the demands for the handing-over of a basilica in Milan for use by the Homoians. While N.B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 22, Berkeley 1994, 196-208, dates Ambr. epp. 75 (CSEL 82/3, 74-81 Zelzer) and 75a (82-107 Zel.) to spring 386, J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz/C. Hill, Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, Translated Texts for Historians 43, Liverpool 2005, 124-136, dates them to January. Ep. 76 (108-125 Zel.) comes from Easter 386. On the discovery of the relics see Ambr. ep. 77 (126-140 Zel); McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 209-219; and Liebeschuetz/Hill, Ambrose of Milan, 204. On those relics in Rouen see Victricius de laude 6,32-36 (CChr.SL 64, 78 Demeulenaere). 13

R. Herval, Origines chretiennes, de la if Lyonnaise gallo-romaine a la Normandie ducale (iv=-xi= siecles). Avec le texte complet et la traduction integrate du 'De laude sanctorum' de saint Victrice (396), Paris 1966, 30-31. Trout, Paulinus of Nola (see note 8), 60, following P. Courcelle, Fragments historique de Paulin de Nole conserves par Gregoire de Tours, in: Melanges d'histoire de moyen age dedies a la memoire de Louis Halphen, ed. by Ch.-E. Perrin, Paris 1951, 152, suggests instead that Victricius, Martin and Paulinus were in Vienne to receive the relics there. See Walsh, Letters of Saint Paulinus of Nola (see note 9), 1.249, n. 39, for the date.

14 A. Thacker, Loca Sanctorum: The Significance of Place in the Study of the Saints, in: Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West, ed. by A. Thacker/R. Sharpe, Oxford 2002, 7. 15 Clark, Praising the Saints (see note 8), 374. R. Van Dam, Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 8, Berkeley 1985, 166, presents it differently, arguing that the initiative for acquiring the relics came from Rouen, as part of the effort of as part of an effort of a town on the fringe of empire to remain connected to its heart. 16 R.W. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in FifthCentury Gaul, Washington, D.C. 1989, 11; McLynn, Ambrose of Milan (see note 12), 284; M. Humphries, Communities of the Blessed: Social Environment and Religious Change in Northern Italy, AD 200-400, OECS, Oxford 1999, 55; and Clark, Praising the Saints (see note 8), 370.

150


why bishops in more remote parts of the western empire would have been happy to be connected to Ambrose, as we see in the Priscillianist controversy.17 In 396 Ambrose sent more relics to Victricius, for which the bishop of Rouen composed De laude sanctorum, an expanded homily welcoming these relics into Rouen, a copy of which probably was sent to Ambrose.18 Victricius proposed a theology of relics,19 and was an enthusiastic promoter of the cult of relics with a church-building programme,20 in spite of the legal ban on the translation of human remains.21 On the other hand, Rome also was trying to extend its influence in western Europe. We know that in 378, in response to a request from a synod of Italian bishops, which had gathered in Rome and at which Ambrose was present,22 Gratian agreed to use imperial force to expel bish17

18

E.D. Hunt, St. Silvia of Aquitaine: The Role of a Theodosian Pilgrim in the Society of East and West, JThS NS 23, 1972, 370-371; Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 3), 35; J. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364-425, Oxford 1998 2 , 186-192. See P. Buc, Victricius of Rouen, In Praise of the Saints, in: Thomas Head (ed.), Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology, ed. by T. Head, London/New York 2001, 31-34. Does Victricius name the saints whose relics were in Rouen already in de laude 11,513 (86-87 Demeul.)? Those mentioned earlier in the homily certainly seem to have been arrived in Rouen earlier, while the others mentioned here in section 11 might have been the newly-arrived relics. See J. Mulders, Victricius van Rouaan: Leven en Leer, Nijmegen 1956, 29-30. Could it be, on the basis of de laude 6,40-41 (78 Demeul.) that relics of Paul were sent in 396? See McLynn, Ambrose of Milan (see note 12), 230-232, for Ambrose having contact relics of Peter and Paul in Milan. That Rome distributed only contact relics, would make it impossible for Paul to have been included in the "blood and clay" relics Victricius received (de laude 10,4-5 [84 Demeul.]).

19 Clark, Praising the Saints (see note 8), 367-369. 20 J. Fontaine, Victrice de Rouen et les origines du monachisme dans l'ouest de la Gaule (IV=-VPs.), in: Aspects du monachisme en Normandie (IV=-XVIIPs.), ed. by L. Musset, Paris 1982, 9-29. On the archaeology of early Christian Rouen see J. Le Maho, Le group episcopal de Rouen du IV= au X° siecle, in: Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology at Rouen, ed. by J. Stratford, The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions for the year 1986 12, London 1993, 20-23. 21 G. Clark, Translating Relics: Victricius of Rouen and Fourth-Century Debate, Early Medieval Europe 10,2001, 161-176. 22 Ambr. ep. extra coll. 7,9 (CSEL 82/3, 195-196 Zelzer). On Ambrose's presence at the synod, and being the delegate of the synod to take its letter to Gratian at Sirmium see G. Gottlieb, Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian, Hypomnemata. Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 40, Gottingen 1973, 26-50; P. Nautin, Les premieres relations dAmbroise avec l'empereur Gratien: Le 'De fide' (livres I et II), in: Ambroise de Milan: XVPcentenaire de son election episcopale. Dix etudes, ed. by Y.-M. Duval, CEA.SA 65, Paris 1974, 236-237; Pietri, Roma Christiana (see note 4), 741-748; McLynn, Ambrose of Milan (see note 12), 90-91; D.H. Williams, Am-


151

ops who had been deposed from their sees, or to force them to come to Rome if they refused to appear before an episcopal synod for trial, or before their metropolitan if they were from more remote regions or, if a metropolitan himself, before Rome or Rome's delegated judges. What is novel is that the imperial response, on its own initiative it would seem, expanded the territory in which this would apply to include the prefecture of Gaul as well.23 So, theoretically at least, Gallic bishops were to look to Rome rather than Milan, at least for trials involving metropolitans. Indeed, in the Priscillianist controversy, Priscillian, Instantius and Salvianus had first gone to Rome in 381 or 382 in the vain effort to meet Damasus before going to Milan in the unsuccessful attempt to gain support from Ambrose.24 Further, if Herval is correct, then Victricius and Martin attended the synod in Rome in 386, and Siricius, around the same time, involved himself in what he considered to be the illegal presbyteral ordination of Agroecius, which the usurper emperor Magnus Maximus decided would be decided by a synod of Gallic bishops,25 and sometime earlier either Damasus or Siricius had sent canons from a Roman synod to Gallic

23 24

25

brose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts, OECS, Oxford 1995, 128-153; Humphries, Communities of the Blessed (see note 16), 119; T.D. Barnes, Ambrose and Gratian, AntTard 7, 1999, 164-175; and Liebeschuetz/Hill, Ambrose of Milan (see note 12), 246. Gratian ep. ad Aquilinum (Collectio Avellana 13,12) (CSEL 35, 58 Giinther). Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 3), 38-40; Van Dam, Leadership and Community (see note 15), 88-114, esp. 97. We know that Ambrose was in Trier on his second embassy, probably in the second half of 386, before Magnus Maximus, at the time a synod was considering the fate of Priscillian. Ambr. ep 30,12 (CSEL 82/1, 214-215 Faller), indicates that he was not involved in that matter, being expelled from Trier, and seemed somewhat sympathetic to Priscillian. D.G. Hunter, Resistance to the Virginal Ideal in Late-Fourth-Century Rome: The Case of Jovinian, TS 48, 1987, 57, points out that sympathy from Ambrose, Siricius, and Martin of Tours was not for his views, but an opposition to heresy being treated as a capital offence. On dating this letter and the execution of Priscillian see K.M. Girardet, Trier, der Prozess gegen die Priskillianer, Chiron 4, 1974, 577-608; Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila, 137; A.R. Birley, Magnus Maximus and the Persecution of Heresy, BJRL 66, 1982-1983, 1343; McLynn, Ambrose of Milan (see note 12), 164, n. 25, 217; and Liebeschuetz/Hill, Ambrose of Milan (see note 12), 349-351. For recent arguments in favour of 384 or 385 see T.D. Barnes, Ambrose and the Basilicas of Milan in 385 and 386, ZAC 4, 2000, 282-299; and N. Dorner, Ambrosius in Trier: Zu den Hintergriinden der zweiten Gesandtschaft bei Maximus (Ambrosius, epist. 30[24]), Historia 50, 2001, 217-244. Magnus Maximus, ep. ad Siric. (Collectio Avellana 40,2) (91 Gun.) = [Siric], ep. 3 (PL 13, 1148 = Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (see note 1), cols 640642).

152


bishops {Dominus inter) ,26 All of this does not constitute proof of an actual rivalry between Milan and Rome for a close relationship with the Gallic churches but it does suggest that both churches were active in trying to place themselves at the centre of a network of other churches throughout western Europe. Even though by the time Innocent became bishop Ambrose was dead and the court had just moved to Ravenna,27 when Victricius came to Rome at the end of 403 it must have presented the Roman bishop with an ideal opportunity to try and promote even closer ties between Rome and the Gallic churches as Milan was now a less useful connection for the Gallic churches to have.

26

On Damasus as the author see: E.Ch. Babut, La plus ancienne decretale, Paris 1904; E. Schwartz, Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichskirche, ZRG Kanonistische Abteilung 25, 1936, 63, n.2; M.M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, London 1979 2 , 154; R. Gryson, Les origines du celibat ecclesiastique du premier au septieme siecle, Recherches et Syntheses Section d'Histoire 2, Gembloux, 1970, 127-131; Pietri, Roma Christiana (see note 4), 764-772; Y.-M. Duval, La decretale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur. Texte critique, traduction francaise et commentaire, SVigChr 73, Leiden 2005; and D.G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Crisis, OECS, Oxford 2007, 211, n 19 (eight years earlier, in Vigilantius of Calagurris and Victricius of Rouen: Ascetics, Relics, and Clerics in Late Roman Gaul, JECS 7, 1999, 417, Hunter accepted Siricius as the author). In support of Siricius: Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (see note 1), cols 681-686; K. Silva-Tarouca, Beitrage zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Papstbriefe des IV., V. u. VI. Jahrhunderts, ZKTh 43, 1919, 692; H. Getzeny, Stil und Form der altesten Papstbriefe bis auf Leo der Grofie, Diss. Tubingen 1922, 94-100; Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums (see note 2), 216 n. 1, 264 n. 4; D. Jasper, Die Canones synodi Romanorum ad Gallos episcopos - die alteste Dekretale? ZKG 107, 1966, 319-326; Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy (see note 11), 13; D. Callam, Clerical Continence in the Fourth Century: Three Papal Decretals, ThS 4 1 , 1980, 8, 36; Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church (see note 11), 225; Jasper, The Beginning of the Decretal Tradition (see note 10), 28-32; and P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, OCM, Oxford 2007, 147. Hefele, A History of the Councils (see note 11), 428-430, even attributes it to the time of Innocent himself. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism (see note 16), 9-10, remains undecided as the authorship, although Duval's work must make Damasus the probable author.

27

Matthews, Western Aristocracies (see note 17), 274; M. Dewar, Claudian: Panegyricus de sexto consuktu Honorii Augusti. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Literary Commentary, Oxford 1996, xxxii, xlii-xliv; A. Gillett, Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors, PBSR 69, 2001, 139. The first of the laws from Ravenna is dated to 6 December, 402 (Cod. Theod. VII 13,15 [Codex Theodosianus, vol. 1/2: Theodosiani libri xvi cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, ed. by Th. Mommsen/P. Kriiger, Hildesheim 1990, 339]).


153

What brought Victricius to Rome? We know from Innocent's letter that Victricius had been in Rome at the same time as the emperor, before whom Innocent pleaded for some bishops to be exempted from the imperial requirement that former curiales be returned to duty in their local curiae.™ Honorius had been received in Rome on New Year's Day 404 for an aduentus/mumph over Alaric/consular inauguration.29 Malcolm Green suggests that Victricius might have been in the large group of dignitaries who took the opportunity of visiting Rome at the same time.30 The scant primary evidence suggests something more complicated. We know that Paulinus of Nola invited Victricius to visit him, quite possibly for the anniversary celebrations of St. Felix on 14 January, but that Victricius failed to turn up, 31 a response to his invitations for personal contact with which Paulinus was all too familiar,32 It is from Paulinus that we know that there was some kind of accusation against Victricius,33 who had endured some kind of attack {temptatio) and calls for investigation {quid ergo quaeritur...?), although Paulinus does not say explicitly that Victiricus was involved in any kind of trial process while in Rome,34 Despite Walsh, Trout and Mratschek taking Paulinus' comments about Apollinarianism35 28

Innoc. I en. 2,12,14 (PL 20, 478). For the imperial legislation after Constantine see esp. Cod. Theod. XII 1,59 (677 Momm./Kriig.); XII 1,104 (688 Momm./Kriig.); and A. Di Berardino, The Poor must be Supported by the Wealth of the Church (Codex Theodosianus 16.2.6), in: Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, vol. 5: Poverty and Riches, ed. by C D . Dunn/D. Luckensmeyer/L. Cross (eds), Strathfield, N.S.W. 2009, 249-268. 29 Claud, de sex. cons. (ed. by J.B. Hall, Claudianus. Carmina, BSGRT, Leipzig 1985, 265-288). See A. Cameron, Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius, Oxford 1970, 180-188; M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West, Cambridge 1986, 51; M. Beard, The Roman Triumph, Cambridge, Mass. and London 2007, 326. On the victory over Alaric see most recently C D . Dunn, Easter and the Battle of Pollentia, JRH 34,2010,55-66. 30 Green, Pope Innocent I (see note 2), 98. He states that Victricius' business in Rome is unknown, but probably was not simply for pleasure. I think we can go further than this. 31 Paul. Nol. ep. 37,1 (317 Hart./Kamp.). 32 S.H. Mratschek, Multis enim notissima est sanctitas loci: Paulinus and the Gradual Rise of Nola as Center of Christian Hospitality, JECS 9, 2001, 517-521. 33 Paul. Nol. ep. 37,4 (319 Hart./Kamp.): ... etiam de multitude aduersantium et tolerantiatemptationum... 34 Paul. Nol. ep. 37.7 (323 Hart./Kamp.). See also P. Andrieu-Guitrancourt, Essai sur saint Victrice et la province ecclesiastique de Rouen aux derniers temps gallo-romains, LAnnee canonique 14, 1970, 1-23. Cf. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism (see note 16), 45. 35 Paul. Nol. ep. 37.6 (321-322 Hart./Kamp.).

154


at face value as being the charge against the bishop of Rouen, others, like Mathisen, Stancliffe, Van Dam, and Hunter, have argued that there was a deep division with the Gallic clergy over questions of clerical celibacy, asceticism, and the cult of relics, with bishops like Martin of Tours, Sulpicius Severus, and Victricius being in the minority in their promotion of these practices and their willingness to look outside Gaul for guidance for the Gallic churches.36 Their support of asceticism made them liable to accusations of Priscillianism, and that these were the accusations faced by Victricius is implied by Paulinus when he links Victricius' well-known asceticism with an enduring opposition.37 Any talk about Apollinarianism was a smokescreen for other issues. Whether Victricius went to Rome to answer charges or was there to elicit Rome's support to make a pre-emptive strike against his opponents we cannot know with certainty. Given that some of the unique parts of Innocent's letter deal with issues of clerical celibacy and sexual renunciation in ascetics,38 it would be plausible to suggest the latter, viz., that, in the face of considerable opposition in Gaul, Victricius came to Rome to arm himself with information about Innocent's opinion on these matters to use as ammunition against his opponents and that Epistula 2 is not so much a vindication of Victricius against charges,39 as it is a weapon to be used later to repudiate the opinion of his opponents because it demon36

P.G. Walsh, The Letters of St. Paulinus of Nola, vol. 2, A C W 36, New York 1966, 337, n. 33; Trout, Paulinus of Nola (see note 8), 239, n. 244; Mratschek, Multi enim notissima est sanctitas loci (see note 32), 521. Cf. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism (see note 16), 45-48; C. Stancliffe, St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus, Oxford Historical Monographs, Oxford 1983, 297-312; R. Van Dam, Saints and their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul, Princeton 1993, 14-17; Hunter, Ascetics, Relics, and Clerics (see note 26), 410-429. On asceticism and Victricius see also P. Andrieu-Guitrancourt, Le vie ascetique a Rouen au temps de saint Victrice, RSR 40, 1952, (= Melanges Jules Lebreton, t. 2), 90-116. R.J. Goodrich, Contextualizing Cassian: Aristocrats, Asceticism, and Reformation in Fifth-Century Gaul, OECS, Oxford 2007, 19-64, 110-116, contrast the asceticism of Martin, Sulpicius Severus and Hilary with the non-aristocratic, more "professional" version brought to Gaul by John Cassian.

37 38

Paul. Nol. ep. 37.4 (319 Hart./Kamp.). A. Di Berardino, Initiation aux Peres de l'Eglise, t. 4: Du concile de Nicee (325) au concile de Chalcedoine (451). Les Peres latins, Paris 1986, 741. Walsh, The Letters of St. Paulinus 2 (see note 36), 336, n. 1; Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism (see note 16), 46. One ought to note in passing, with regard to Hunter, Ascetics, Relics, and Clerics (see note 26), 423, who contends that one of the areas of resentment against Victricius was his support of the cult of relics, that this was not a topic addressed in Innocent's letter. Given Rome's different attitude towards relics than that held in Milan and Rouen, it would not be surprising if, knowing this, Victricius did not seek Innocent's support on that particular topic.

39


155

strated Roman support for Victricius' position. That this is the case is suggested by the conclusion to the letter, which states that the regula (the rules contained in the letter) will be the instrument by which ambition, dissension, heresy, schism, and iniquity will be overcome.40 Having taken the trouble to go to Rome in person, Victricius found, in my estimation, that Rome would be an ally and ensured, we can be sure, that he gave Innocent such a depiction of his opponents that the Roman bishop would be prejudiced against anything those opponents might send later to Rome to support themselves. Getting in first is always a key tactic in garnering support. The liber regukrum that Innocent's letter contains was not innovative.41 Much of it repeats the canons to be found in Siricius' Epistula 5 (Cum in unum) of 386, and some of it echoes the letter sent in the previous generation to the Gallic bishops themselves (Dominus inter), both of which appeal to the canons of the Council of Nicaea and to the Scriptures. Let us consider now the sections of the letter relevant to our topic of episcopal elections.

Rights of Metropolitans and Minimum Number to Ordain a Bishop Of the fourteen canons into which Dionysius Exiguus divided Epistula 2, canon 1 is the one most relevant for our purposes. It contains two provisions. The first is that no one is to ordain another without the cognizance (conscientia) of the metropolitan because his judgement (indicium) is essential to make the process of election complete (integrum).'2 The basis of this provision is that it is found in the decisions (sententiae) of the greatest number (plurimorum). This is a reference to the 318 bishops, as tradition would recall it,43 who had gathered in council in Nicaea in 325. Indeed, canon 4 of Nicaea had decreed that a bishop was to be established ( m 40

Innoc. I ep. 2,17 (PL 20, 481): Haec itaque reguk, frater charissime, si plena uigikntia fuerit ab omnibus Deo sacerdotibus obseruata, cessabit ambitio, dissensio conquiescet, haereses et schismata non emergent, locum non accipiet diabolus saeuiendi, manebit unanimitas, iniquitas superata calcabitur, ueritas spiritali feruore flagrabit, pax paredicata labiis cumuoluntateanimaeconcordabit. 41 Innoc. I ep. 2,1 (PL 20, 470). 42 Innoc. I ep. 2,1,3 (PL 20, 471): Primum, ut extra conscientiam metropolitan episcopi nullus audeat ordinare; integrum enim est indicium, quod plurimorum sententiis confirmatur... 43 Athan. ep. ad Afros episc. 2 (PG 26, 1032); Hilary, con. Const. 27 (PL 10, 602).

156


e.WoeaO by at least three bishops of a province, with the written consent of any absent bishops of the province and the confirmation (Kupoc) of the metropolitan bishop.44 The essence of the canon is the desire for episcopal consensus, yet the importance of the metropolitan cannot be denied. Canon 6 was even more explicit about the role of the metropolitan: without his consent (yvconn) the ordination of a bishop would be invalid.45 Canon 6 of Nicaea also decreed that a bishop be chosen by a majority of the votes of all (TTAEUOV).46 "All" here is understood as referring to all the bishops of the province.47 Innocent however makes no reference to this. What is of interest is that Innocent omits reference to the written consent of absent bishops of the province. Is that to be presumed, or has there been an attempt to strengthen the power of the metropolitan by making his consent the only essential one? From this context it is clear that when Innocent refers to ordination he means the ordination of bishops, not other clerics, as is made clear in the canons of Nicaea. In the canonical heading added early in the sixth century, it is clear that Dionysius Exiguus also certainly understood this section as referring to the ordination of bishops.48 The second provision in Innocent's letter is that a single bishop does not ordain.49 The basis for this is stated as being the Nicene synod, where we have noted already that this is contained in canon 4 with its stipulation about the minimum number of ordaining bishops. Innocent does not refer to a specific number, just that it should not be a single bishop as ordaining prelate because of a lack of transparency in the process. This is a part of Innocent's letter that relies upon Siricius' letter Cum in unum of 386 as its source. Green suggests a reason why Innocent would want to cite his predecessor's letter: Innocent was conscious that he was not presenting his personal opinion but the tradition of the Roman church.50 Interestingly 44 45 46 47

Council of Nicaea I, can. 4 (CChr.COGD 1, 21-22 Alberigo et al). CouncilofNicaeaI,can.6(23Alb.). CouncilofNicaeaI,can.6(23Alb.). H. Chadwick, Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea: A Note on the Background of the Sixth Canon, HTR 53, I960, 171-195; and P. UHuillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, Crestwood,N.Y.1996,51. 48 See the two MSS of the Collectio Dionysiana: Paris, BnF, lat. 3837, 108v, and Vatican, BA, lat. 5845, 83v: Quod extra conscientiam metropolitan non ordinetur episcopus. 49 Inn. ep. 2,1,3 (PL 20, 471-472): ... nee unus episeopus ordinarepraesumat; ne furtiuum benefieiumpraestitum uideatur. Hoe enim et in synodo Nieaena eonstitutum est, atque definitum. 50 Green, Pope Innocent I (see note 2), 109.


157

though, Green does not consider the possibility, which I mentioned above, that Victricius had been in Rome for that synod in 386 in which Cum in unum was issued. Why did Innocent consider it worth repeating the provisions of a Roman synod if the original canons had been communicated already to the Gallic churches and if Victricius knew them first hand? It cannot be that Innocent was merely providing a compendium of Roman synodal decisions or else surely we would find in the letter to Victricius many of the provisions found, for example, in Siricius letter (Directa) of 385 to Himerius of Tarragona.51 That letter contains quite explicit statements about a clerical cursus honorum and the length of experience in ministry necessary for someone who is to be ordained bishop, which are not found in Innocent's letter to Victricius but would certainly have been relevant in such a compendium. 52 Further, we know that Innocent made reference to the canons of the Synod of Serdica in his letter to Victricius, considering them to have been issued at Nicaea.53 Had Innocent wanted simply to provide Victricius with a compendium of canon law then surely more of the canons from Serdica, like those others from Serdica dealing with the election of bishops, would have been included.54 From this it would seem reasonable to infer that Innocent contained in his letter a response only to those specific matters raised with him by Victricius, which would suggest that the teaching of Nicaea on the approval of the metropolitan or on the minimum number of ordaining bishops was being flouted in this part of Gaul. However, as Duval points out, for the years from 360 onwards we have no evidence that this was occurring.55 One suspects that is was and that the proof simply has not survived. While Green does not notice it in this particular instance, Hefele had noticed the differences between Siricius' expression and that used by Innocent. We have seen that Innocent referred to the cognizance of metropolitan bishops. Siricius refers to the conscientia sedis apostolicae, hoc est prima*. 5 6 Hefele's sensible conjecture is that the original synodal decision,

51 52

53 54 55 56

Siricius en. 1 (PL 13, 1131-1147 = Constant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontifkum (see note 1), cols 623-638 ) = J K 255. Siricius ep. 1.IX.13- 1 X 1 4 (PL 13, 1142-1143). Perhaps one could argue that Innocent's letter only contained the rulings of synods rather than the opinions of individual Roman bishops and that is why Directa was not referenced. H. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, OECS, Oxford 2002, 125-129. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law (see note 53), 146-161. Duval, La decretale (see note 26), 121. Siricius ep. 5.1 (60-61 Mun.).

158


made for the Italian situation, contained the reference to the apostolic see and that when the canons were sent to the Africans either Siricius or the Africans substituted the involvement of the apostolic see with that of the primate, there being no metropolitans in Africa. Innocent likewise changed the language to reflect the equivalent reality in Gaul where there were metropolitans.57 In other words, Siricius' reference to the apostolic see is not a claim of Roman universal primacy but must be understood in the context of the particular Italian geographical situation where the Roman bishop was the metropolitan. All three variations (apostolic see, primates, metropolitans) remain faithful to the Nicene position that the leading bishop of a province have particular responsibility in the approval process for a new bishop. Other differences between Siricius and Innocent on this point are minor, due probably to manuscript transmission, and need not concern us. What we should note, though, is that there is a reference to canon 4 of Nicaea in Damasus' earlier letter to the Gallic bishops, Dominus inter, and the requirement of a minimum of three ordaining bishops.58 That such an injunction is repeated on at least three occasions from Rome to the churches of Gaul could well suggest that this was an ongoing issue there. It does not seem to have been an issue that affected Exsuperius of Toulouse, judging by Innocent's lack of reference to it in his reply in 405 to Exsuperius.59 It is also a topic Innocent does not mention elsewhere in his correspondence. This strengthens the sense of Innocent's comments to Victricius being limited to responses to questions raised. One could note that it is possible to distinguish conceptually the idea of episcopal election and episcopal ordination, and that canon 4 of the Council of Nicaea and Innocent's letter refer only to preconditions for ordination and are not explicitly about the election process itself. Some reference is made to the involvement of bishops in that electoral process in canon 6 of Nicaea. Does this mean that the bishops at Nicaea envisaged bishops having a dual role in expressing their choice for a bishop: first at the election and second at the ordination? This becomes an issue if the 57

58 59

Hefele, A History of the Councils (see note 11), 389. Green, Pope Innocent I (see note 2), 102, suggests on the basis of what is found in Innoc. I en. 2,3,6 (PL 20, 473) that parts of northern Gaul did not have metropolitans. On the basis of what Innocent writes in 2.1.3 (PL 20, 471-472), however, it is clear that there must have been some. See J. Gaudemet, L'Eglise dans l'cmpirc romain (IV=-V= siecles), Paris 1989 2 , 339. Damas. ep. ad Gallos episc. 18 (46 Duv.). For commentary see Duval, La decretale (see note 26), 120-121. Innoc. I ep. 6 (PL 20, 495-502 = Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum [see note 1], cols 789-796) =JK 293.


159

two events are separated by some time. Did the metropolitan, if he was going to be absent from the ordination (presumably if he were present for the ordination his very participation would be such permission), have to provide permission for the ordination to take place even if he had been involved in the election? If so, he could veto a winning candidate for whom he had not voted. But what of other bishops of the province who had voted but were then absent from the ordination: did they have any power to stop the ordination of a candidate for whom they had not voted by absenting themselves from the ordination and withholding written consent? Alternatively, is the consent of the metropolitan (and absent bishops) before the ordination, as mentioned by Nicaea and Innocent, merely the way for those who were not present for the election to have some involvement, since they had missed out on the voting? In this latter interpretation, which seems to be the natural sense of the Nicene canons, instead of casting a vote for someone bishops absent from the election were acknowledged as having some veto over an unacceptable winning candidate. This would apply to the metropolitan if he had not been present for the election. The canon is trying to promote unanimity but what if an absent suffragan bishop objected, would that veto the ordination? This potential confusion had not been foreseen by the bishops of Nicaea or by Innocent. Whatever the case, the central and indispensable role of the metropolitan actually means that his was the only choice that mattered. Perhaps this is a reason why Innocent said nothing about the involvement of other clergy or the laity in the process of the election of a bishop, something which we find highlighted in the third century, for example, among the letters of Cyprian of Carthage.60 While we may presume that other clergy and the laity continued to be involved somehow, the emphasis on metropolitans seems to make them somewhat superfluous.

Ineligibility for Episcopal Office: Prior Civil Office No other canon in Innocent's letter touches directly on the process of the election of bishops. A couple, however, do make reference to the eligibility criteria for ordination, and for this reason they are worth considering. In the first of these Innocent states that anyone who has held the cincture of office of the imperial service after baptism is not to be admitted at all to 60

G.D. Dunn, Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church, ECS 11, Strathfield, NSW 2007, 10-15.

160


the clergy.61 The reference to clergy is broad but certainly includes bishops. Throughout the Codex Theodosianus we find reference to the cingulum militiae saecukris. Most of the laws deal with the loss of this badge of office for various misdemeanours or with penalties for those who falsely claim it.62 The references are to members of the imperial civil service, who, from the time of Diocletian and Constantine, had belonged technically to the army, although clear distinctions existed between those in military service and those in civil service.63 Only one or two of the laws refer to those in active military service.64 Of particular concern to the emperors was that of ensuring that curiales did not evade their local obligations by seeking exemption through membership of the civil service. Repeated legislation indicates just how unsuccessful those attempts were.65 This is most likely to have been the basis for the church's prohibition of those who have worked in the imperial administration from seeking clerical office. Many of them were likely to have been curiales and great disruption would be caused to the church if curial members of the civil service who had been ordained were ordered back to their curial obligations. We have noted that Victricius had been with Innocent when they pleaded with Honorius face-to-face for former curiales among the bishops and other clergy to be able to remain as clerics. A ban on the ordination of those who had been in the civil service, where many curiales had sought refuge, ought to prevent future incidents of the emperor demanding bishops leave their positions. Innocent's provision is a verbatim repeat of what is found in Siricius' letter Cum in unum" Innocent has added the word omnino, drawing at-

61

Innoc. I ep. 2,3,4 (PL 20, 472): "Item si quis post remissionem peccatorum cingulum militiae saecularis habuerit, ad clericatum omnino admitti non debet." 62 Cod. Theod. I 12,4 (49 Momm./Kriig.); VI 30,8-9 (298 Momm./Kriig.); VI 30,18 (300 Momm./Kriig.); VIII 1,11 (363 Momm./Kriig.); VIII 4,16 (371 Momm./Kriig.); VIII 4,23 (372 Momm./Kriig.); VIII 4,29 (374 Momm./Kriig.); VIII 8,9 (403-404 Momm./Kriig.); IX 38,11 (498-499 Momm./Kriig.); X .20,14 (564 Momm./Kriig.); X 26,1-2 (569-570 Momm./Kriig.); XI 20,4 (608-609 Momm./Kriig.); XII 1,147 (698 Momm./Kriig.); XIV 10,1 (787-788 Momm./Kriig.); XVI 4,4 (854 Momm./Kriig.); XVI 8,24 (893 Momm./Kriig.). 63 A. Miiller, Das Cingulum Militiae, Ploen, 1873; A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, Oxford 1964, 563566. 64 Cod. Theod. II 10,6 (93 Momm./Kriig.); XII 1,181 (707 Momm./Kriig.). 65 Jones, The Later Roman Empire (see note 63), 739-752. 66 Siricius ep. 5.3 (61 Mun.).


161

tention to and emphasising the extent of the ban on the ordination of such people into the clergy. Victricius' own previous military service and the suffering he endured when he rejected his military oath in terms of physical abuse and imprisonment gave Paulinus the opportunity to describe Victricius as a living martyr, perhaps self-conscious that he had not been that positive towards Victricius when they had met in Vienne.67 Victricius as a bishop was happy to describe himself and the martyrs whose relics he received as soldiers for Christ.68 While it might have been a fairly standard Christian topos it certainly was one that was entirely natural coming from Victricius. Perhaps Martin of Tours also had been a soldier at the time of his conversion to Christianity and for several years afterwards.69 One cannot imagine that Innocent, whose letter to Victricius was really one of affirmation and support in the face of being the subject of criticism among his episcopal colleagues, would have been careless enough to have issued a provision which Victricius' enemies could have used as further ammunition in their opposition to the bishop of Rouen/ 0 The reference to the cingulum militiae must have been understood clearly not as reference to military service but to service in the imperial civil administration as being a disqualification for ordination, and that the English translation of Hefele, for example, is quite misleading when it translates this part of Siricius' letter as a prohibition of those who have "served in war" from ordination/ 1

67 68 69

Paul. Nol. ep. 18, 7 (133-135 Hart./Kamp.). Victric. De laude 1.28 (70 Demeul.); 6.58 (79 Demeul). T.D. Barnes, The Military Career of Martin of Tours, AnBoll 114, 1996, 25-32, demonstrates that if Martin had been discharged from the army in November 357 he could not have met Hilary before the latter's exile in spring 356. While this raises questions about Sulpicius as an author, it does not resolve the issue of whether or not Martin was ever a soldier. The appeal by A.S. McKinley, The First Two Centuries of Saint Martin of Tours, Early Medieval Europe 14, 2006, 176-177, to Victricius to demonstrate that any previous military service by Martin was not the cause of opposition to him does not take into account the fact that both bishops were not highly regarded by their peers, and their previous military service might have been in part a reason for that antagonism.

70

It could well be that Victricius had left military service as part of his conversion process, before initiation, in which case Innocent's prohibition would not have applied to him Hefele, A History of the Councils (see note 11), p. 387. Green, Pope Innocent I (see note 2), 99, makes the reference apply to both those who had served in the military and or the higher ranks of the civil services, but does not address the issue of the light in which this must have placed Victricius if that is how cingulum militiae was understood.

71

162


Support for this interpretation may come from the fact that in the earlier letter Dominus inter, if we accept Damasus as its author, we find a more explicit prohibition on the ordination of those who have served in the military/ 2 Duval's assertion, however, that this is based on canon 12 of the Council of Nicaea, however, could be challenged, in that Nicaea could be referring more to civil service rather than military/ 3 Whatever the case about that, I would like to suggest that the change of language between Damasus, on the one hand, and Siricius and Innocent on the other was not accidental. Any antipathy towards clerics being drawn from a military background became a more sensitive issue after men like Martin and Victricius became bishops. Further, in his response to the synod of Toldeo Innocent would use the verb milito, as had Damasus, as well as referring to curiales.7* There seems to be a deliberate removal of explicit reference to military service in the letter to Victricius, and the bishop of Rouen's personal background might well have been the reason for that.

Ineligibility for Episcopal Office: Marriage to PreviouslyMarried Women or Married a Second Time The topic of clerical marriage in early Christianity is a complex one and cannot be investigated fully here. It is sufficient for our purposes to outline the degree to which issues of a person's marital status was of interest in the question of episcopal election for Innocent. He was concerned with the number of husbands a cleric's wife has had and the number of wives a cleric has had. Clerics {clerici) are forbidden from marrying mulieresP By definition a mulier is a married female person. This means that clerics should not marry widows or divorced women, but only virgins. The justification for this is taken from the Scriptures, viz., Leviticus 21:13-14 (see also Leviticus 21:7; Ezekiel 44:22). The prohibition on clerics marrying women, although limited only to widows and without the quotation from Scripture, is found in Siricius' letter after the synod of 3 8 6 / 6 Innocent himself 72 73 74 75 76

Damas. ep. ad Gallos episc. 7 (34 Duval): "Item, de eo qui militauerit iam fidelis militiaesaecularis..." Council of Nicaea I, can. 12 (26 Alb.). Duval, La decretale (see note 26), 84. Innoc. I ep. 3,6,9 (PL 20, 492) = JK 292. Innoc. I ep. 2,4,7 (PL 20, 473). See Gaudemet, L'Eglise dans l'empire romain (see note 57), 116. Siricius ep. 5,4 (61 Mun.). Siricius does provide the quotation from Lev 21 in his letter to Himerius (ep. 1,VIII,12 [PL 13, 1141).


163

would repeat this prohibition in his letter responding to the synod of Toledo and in his 414 letter to the Illyrian bishops/ 7 Again, one has the sense in our letter that Innocent is not merely providing a compendium of Roman ecclesiastical law for Victricius because he has added a sentence that anyone who has ambition for the higher clerical office of the priesthood (sacerdotium), which for Innocent meant the episcopate and sometimes the presbyterate, where good works and an upright life are needed, would be ineligible for that position if they married a woman previously married. Put into the context of the ecclesiastical factionalism in Gaul that Mathisen and others have outlined it would be fair to conclude that this canon was targeting a widespread practice among Gallic bishops that supporters of asceticism like Victricius and Innocent wanted to eliminate. This halt to someone's advancement up the clerical ladder is the only penalty mentioned for a cleric who breaks the prohibition/ 8 The next provision targeted laymen who, either before or after baptism, married a previously married woman. They were ineligible from becoming clerics/ 9 Like the previous canon, this is an expanded version of what is found in Siricius' Cum in unum™ Siricius had only mentioned widows and made no reference to whether the layman had married such a woman before or after his baptism. The question about whether or not baptism nullified any previous marriages is one that Innocent tackled in his response to the synod of Toledo and to the Illyrian bishops, and it was one that had been dealt with Jerome and Ambrose, but that is beyond the scope of our focus here.81 So any cleric who aspired to higher clerical office or any layman who aspired to become a cleric was forbidden from marrying a woman previously married. The next canon in Innocent's letter considers the number of marriages of the man. Only a once-married man is eligible to be ordained a cleric. Again there is scriptural support for this position (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit.l:6). 82 Further, the idea that a layman's second marriage should 77

78 79 80 81 82

Innoc. I epp. 3.VI.10 (PL 20, 492); 17,1,2 (PL 20, 528) = JK 303. For analysis of ep. 17 see G.D. Dunn, Innocent I and the Illyrian Churches on the Question of Heretical Ordination, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 4, 2008, 65-81. Cf. David Hunter's contribution to this volume for more on clerical celibacy. Innoc. I ep. 2,5,8 (PL 20, 474). Siricius ep. 5,5 (61 Mun.). Innoc. epp. 3,VI,10 (PL 20, 493); 17,11,3-4 (PL 20, 528-529). Innoc. I ep. 2,6,9 (PL 20, 474). Innocent offered three scriptural verses: unius uxoris uirum (1 Tim 3:2; virtually identical with unius uxoris uir of Tit 1:6); sacerdotes mei semelnubant, and sacerdotes mei non nubent amplius. Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (see note 1), col. 751, mistakenly identified the third of these as Tit 1:6. Sacerdotes mei semel nubant and Unius uxoris uirum also appear in Innoc. I ep. 3,6,10

164


count as only his first if his first marriage had ended with his wife's death before his baptism was dismissed by Innocent, in line with what we have seen him say in the previous canon about a woman's pre-baptismal marriage.83 Eligibility for clerical ordination or advancement within the ranks of the clergy to episcopal office depended in part, according to Innocent's letter to Victricius both upon the candidate or the cleric and his wife being people only once married (i.e. to each other), the timing of baptism notwithstanding. This argument was not based upon the Council of Nicaea but upon the Pastoral Letters.

83

(PL 20, 493). Unius uxoris uirum is to be found also in Innoc. I en. 17,2,3 (PL 20, 529), identified by Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (see note 1), col. 831, as 1 Tim 3:2 and Tit 1:6, and in ep. 37.II.4 (PL 20, 604) = JK 314, identified by Coustnat, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (see note 1), col. 911, as 1 Tim 3:2. Prior to Innocent, in Damas. ep. ad Gallos episc. 8 (36 Duv.) we find unius uxoris uir and in Siricius ep. 1.VIII.12 (PL 13, 1141) unius uxoris uirum and sacerdotes mei semel nubant, the latter of which Siricius claimed was from the law of Moses, but it certainly is not the Lev 21:13-14 passage, which is quoted immediately after. In Siricius ep. 5.3 (61 Mun.) we find unius uxoris uirum. For earlier evidence of Innocent's third passage in ep. 2 {sacerdotes mei non nubent amplius) we have to turn to Tert. cast. 7.1 (CChr.SL 2, 1024 Kroymann) where he claimed the passage sacerdotes mei nonplus nubant comes from Leviticus. No such passage can be found there. The issue from these particular letters that attracts most scholarly attention is not that of clerical marriage but of clerical celibacy within marriage. See Gryson, Les origines du celibat ecclesiastique (see note 26), 136-142, 157-160; Callam, Clerical Continence in the Fourth Century (see note 26), 24-35; Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy (see note 11), 255-259; Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church (see note 11), 240-245; Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy (see note 26), 208-219. The second and third of our scriptural verses, which are nearly identical, therefore, cannot be identified. The parallel is not exact. In Innoc. I ep. 2,6,9 (PL 20, 474) the man's two marriages are separated by his own baptism while in Innoc. I ep. 2,5,8 (PL 20, 474) the woman has two marriages but it is not her baptism that is under consideration but that of her second husband. It is obvious in this latter instance that were his marriage to the previously married woman to occur after his baptism then his ineligibility for ordination is incontrovertible. However, if he had married her before his baptism, what effect could that baptism have on the relationship? It is not that the wife is now considered to be once married because her baptismal status and the possible wiping away of a previous marriage is not at issue (as it is for the man in canon 9). The argument, which Innocent rejects, is that even though it is the man's first marriage there is a problem because he is marrying a previously married woman, but if he has married her before his baptism, then, since baptism wipes all things away, he can be considered not to be married at all, and therefore eligible for ordination.


165

Conclusion Innocent's letter of 404 to Victricius of Rouen stands at the very threshold of the development of Roman ecclesiastical legislation, as the widespread copying of it into the canonical collections of the Middle Ages attests. The appointment of bishops is not the dominant issue in the letter, but it is the first one raised, and its importance is magnified when we include a few other canons in the letter that deal with the matter of the eligibility criteria The examination of the context of this letter has highlighted how, during the last decades of the fourth century both Rome and Milan sought to include the Gallic churches as parts of a network of influence. The Gallic churches themselves were deeply divided over the issue of asceticism because of the fears held by some of Priscillianism and of the extent to which imperial intervention was needed to combat it. Victricius' visit to Rome late in 403 was not, I would suggest, because he was being tried on any charges but was because he was under suspicion of Priscillianism from many of his episcopal colleagues (or at least opposed by many episcopal colleagues who expressed that opposition in terms of Priscillianism) for his support of asceticism, and because he wanted to take pre-emptive action in gaining the support of the Roman bishop for his embattled position. Such support was readily forthcoming. The provisions contained in Innocent's letter were not, I believe, simply a compendium of Roman ecclesiastical law but were those dealing only with the particular issues Victricius had raised during his time in Rome, responding to the situation in Gaul. Not only did Innocent come out in support of ascetical practices but by dealing with the question of episcopal ordination indicated the way that all problems in the church ultimately would be overcome. It was all well and good to issue directive to incumbent bishops, but by exercising control over who would be future bishops one could eventually ensure support for particular theological and disciplinary positions. Innocent's letter suggests that the rights of a metropolitan to have a veto over the election of bishops within his province and the minimum number of bishops needed to ordain a fellow bishop were not being respected in some of the Gallic churches. The absolute requirement for the consent of the metropolitan before the ordination could occur would ultimately make the electoral process involving laity, other clergy, and even other provincial bishops less of a requirement, and Innocent indeed had nothing to say about that. Innocent's source of authority for his statements was the Council of Nicaea, with regard to the election process for bishops and the reference to the cingulum militiae, and the Scriptures, with regard to the number of

166


marriage for a cleric and his wife. In particular, Innocent was guided by the ways in which his predecessors, Damasus and Siricius, had interpreted the council and the Scriptures on those topics, although he was not limited entirely by that. So keen was Innocent to support a bishop who was prepared to look to Rome for support, that he tempered the language used by his predecessors and himself on other occasions in this letter. In the light of Victricius' previous military service Innocent here interpreted the church's ban on accepting those who had held the cingulum militiae only to those who had service in the civil administration rather than the military. Through Innocent's letter to Victricius we gain some insight into the Gallic churches at a critical turning point in Late Antiquity just before the barbarian invasions at the end of 406. It adds to and reflects the picture we have of troubles plaguing the Gallic churches at this time, in which the question of what kind of person becomes a bishop and how they reach that position were of immense importance.

Christlicher Euergetismus ob honorem? Die Einsetzung von Klerikern in ihre Amter und die von diesen vorangetriebenen Bauprojekte Rudolf Haensch Ein Teil der neueren Forschung zur Geschichte des Christentums in der Spatantike geht n i c k nur davon aus, daE sich der spatantike Episkopat zu einem erheblichen Teil aus den sozialen FUhrungsschichten des Reiches und insbesondere den stadtischen - rekrutiert habe.1 Vielmehr nimmt man auch an, diese Personen bitten ihre bisherigen Wertvorstellungen ohne Bruch von ihren alten Zielen, den stadtischen Amtern, auf die neuen, die kirchlichen Funktionen, ubertragen.2 Das muEte dann unter anderem zur Konsequenz gehabt haben, da£ sich diese Personen auch weiter-

kanntlich mit dem von A. Boulanger erstmals gebrauchten Terminus Euergetismus ein Phanomen bezeichnet, das nach Veyne - und die Forschung ist ihm bei alien Modifikationen4 grundsatzlich gefolgt - fur die

1

2 3 4

Vgl. die Zusammenstellung der Forschung bei R. Haensch, Die Rolle der Bischofe im 4. Jahrhundert: Neue Anforderungen und neue Antworten, Chiron 37, 2007, 153181, hier 159-161, besonders in Anm. 25; s. z.B. auch R. Lizzi Testa, The Late Antique Bishop: Image and Reality, in: Ph. Rousseau/J. Raithel (ed.), A Companion to Late Antiquity, Oxford 2009, 525-538, hier 533. Zu einer solchen Sicht schon Haensch, Rolle (s. Anm. 1), 158 fi, 180 f. (in Bezug auf andere Aspekte eines bischoflichen Lebens). P. Veyne, Le pain et le cirque, Paris 1976. Zum Euergetismus jetzt insbesondere A. Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire, Cambridge 2009. Dazu insbesondere M. Christol/O. Masson (ed.), Actes du X° congres international d'epigraphie grecque et latine. Nimes, 4-9 octobre 1992, Paris 1997 (u.a. 371-396, Y. Duval/Y. Pietri, Evergetisme et epigraphie dans loccident chretien [IV= - VP s.]) zur Frage, inwieweit in den christlichen Inschriften des spatantiken Westens des romischen Reiches ein solcher Euergetismus zu fassen ist; 305-331, W. Eck, Der Euergetismus im Funktionszusammenhang der kaiserzeitlichen Stadte, mit Warnungen vor einer Uberschatzung des Phanomens); vgl. auch H.-J. Gehrke, in: D N P IV, 1998, 228 f.s.v. Euergetismus.

168

Rudolf Haensch

Antike seit dem Hellenismus von grower Bedeutung war. Euergetismus meint die Finanzierung offentlicher Gebaude (oder anderer offentlicher Anliegen) durch eine innerhalb der jeweiligen politischen Gemeinde sozial herausragende Person, ohne da£ diese ursprunglich dazu verpflichtet gewesen ware. Der entscheidende Anreiz fur die euergetische Tat soil nach Veyne das soziale Prestige gewesen sein, das dem Euergeten aufgrund seiner Tatigkeit zufiel und das zudem seine soziale Position legitimiert habe. Veyne hatte zwei verschiedene Formen des Euergetismus definiert: den „freien" Euergetismus - also die wohltaterische Bemuhungen ohne spezifischen (offentlichen) AnlaE - und den Euergetismus ob honorem, d. h. Wohltaten anlafflich der Ubernahme eines offentlichen Amtes. Mit Veynes eigenen Worten: „L'evergetisme est le fait que les collectives (cites, colleges ...) attendaient des riches qu'ils contribuassent de leurs deniers aux depenses publiques, et que leur attente n'etait pas vaine: les riches y contribuaient spontanement ou de bon gre. Leurs depenses en faveur de la collective allaient bref, a des plaisirs et a des constructions, a des voluptates et a des opera publica. Tantot les evergesies etaient offertes par les notables en dehors de toute obligation definie (c'est ce que nous appellerons l'evergetisme libre), tantot dies etaient offertes a l'occasion de leur election a un 'honneur' public, a une magistrature ou fonction municipales; dans ce deuxieme cas, nous parlerons d'evergetisme ob honorem; et cet evergetisme-la etait moralement ou meme legalement obligatoire."5 Dieser Euergetismus ob honorem von stadtischen Magistraten hatte sich vor allem in drei Formen von Stiftungen geauEert - der Finanzierung von Schauspielen aller Art, der Vergabe von Geld- und Sachspenden an ausgewahlte Bevolkerungsgruppen und der Stiftung von fur die Offentlichkeit bestimmten Bauten. DaE insbesondere diese letzte Form des Euergetismus von Bischofen aus den alten Fuhrungsschichten praktiziert worden sei, dies war z.B. die Ansicht von Claude Lepelley: „Toutefois, on constate que ces eveques issus de l'ancienne couche dirigeante ont, pour une large part, transpose dans leur fonction les usages et les mentalites de leurs ancetres,

5 6

P. Veyne, Le pain et le cirque, Paris 1976, 20 f. C. Lepelley, Evergetisme et epigraphie dans 1' Antiquite tardive: les provinces de langue latine, in: M. Christol/O. Masson (ed.), Actes du X° congres international d'epigraphie grecque et latine. Nimes, 4-9 octobre 1992, Paris 1997, 335-352, hier 352, vgl. 348. Vorsichtiger Duval/Pietri, Evergetisme (s. Anm. 4), passim; P.-A. Fevrier, Qui construit et le dit? Quelques remarques sur la fin de lAntiquite, in: X. Barral i Altet (ed.), Artistes, artisans et production artistique au moyen age, II. Commande et travail, Paris 1987, 9-14, besonders 14; vgl. auch P. Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, Hanover NH/London 2002, 29. Recht haufig finden sich unprazise Angaben von der Art „Diese Form des Engagements fur die

Christlicher Euergetismus ob honorem?

169

Trifft diese These zu, gab es also einen Euergetismus ob honorem von Klerikern, speziell Bischofen? Das einzige reck eindeutige Beispiel fur die Orientierung an einem derartigen Verhalten, das man in der bisherigen Literatur zu den spatantiken Bischofen und deren Wahlen m. W. finder, ist der Fall des Bassianos von Ephesos.7 Diese cause celebre war Gegenstand zweier Sitzungen des Konzils von Chalkedon. 8 Bassianos war ein reicher Burger von Ephesus, der sich entsprechend den Angaben, die er beim Konzil machte, seit seiner Jugend in seiner Stadt durch seine philanthropise!™ Aktivitaten beliebt gemacht hatte. Inbesondere hatte er ein Hospital mit 70 Betten gestiftet. Seinen Angaben nach, hatte diese seine Beliebtheit den Neid des damals amtierenden Bischofs von Ephesos, Memnon, hervorgerufen. Er hatte ihn daraufhin zum Bischof des ganz und gar unbedeutenden Bischofssitzes Augaza ordiniert - nach Bassianos mit Hilfe brutaler Gewalt. Bischof von Augaza zu werden, entsprach aber nicht den Vorstellungen des Bassianos. Er hatte sich daher nie dorthin begeben und war auch nicht in Kommunion mit dieser Gemeinde getreten, sondern hatte abgewartet, bis schliefflich der Nachfolger des Memnon, Basilios, seine Ordination zum Bischof von Augaza fur ungultig erklart hatte. Nach dem Tod des Basilios von Ephesos gelangte Bassianos endlich an das eigentliche Ziel seiner Wunsche. Mit Unterstutzung eines betrachtlichen Teils der Glaubigen von Ephesos und zumindest eines Teils des dortigen Klerus sowie anscheinend nur eines herbeigerufenen Bischofs, namlich desjenigen des kleineren Bischofssitzes Theodosiopolis, wurde er zum Bischof von Ephesos gewahlt und geweiht. Auch der Kaiser, den er schriftlich uber seine Wahl informiert hatte, und der damalige Erzbischof

7 8

Biirgerschaft (d. h. Baustiftungen jeglicher Art; R. H.) entsprach traditionellen Erwartungen an stadtische Oberschichten" (Ch. Markschies, Die politische Dimension des Bischofsamtes im vierten jahrhundert, in: j . Mehlhausen, Recht - Macht - Gerechtigkeit, Giitersloh 1998, 438-469, hier 462). Vgl. z.B. auch S. Baumgart, Die Bischofsherrschaft im Gallien des 5. Jahrhunderts, Miinchen 1995, 137, 159, 166 Anm. 29, 169, 195. Zu ihm jetzt insbesondere S. Destephen, Prosopographie chretienne du Bas-Empire 3. Prosopographie du diocese d'Asie, Paris 2008, s. v. Bassianos. ACO II.1.3 act. XII und XIII [versio Graeca] (42,18-56,2 Schwartz); ACO II.3.3 act. XI und XII [versio Latina] (52,17-65,11 Schwartz); Ubersetzung: R. Price/M. Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 3, Liverpool 2007, 1-22. Zur Episode zuletzt P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007, 223-231. Gegen die Darstellung von Norton gibt es aber schon eine Reihe von Untersuchungen zu dieser Affare: S. Scholz, Transmigration und Translation, Koln, Weimar, Wien 1992, 86 f; A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 2 Bande, Baltimore 1986, 916 f, 919.

170

Rudolf Haensch

Proklos von Konstantinopel, den er aufgesucht hatte, hatten ihn anerkannt. Erst nach vier Jahren war er - wiederum gewaltsam - von dem Priester Stephanos (der zum Zeitpunkt des Konzils 50 Jahre zum Klerus von Ephesos gehort hatte) und anderen aus seinem Amt gedrangt worden und sein Vermogen anscheinend zwischen den an diesem Akt Beteiligten aufgeteilt worden. Der Anfuhrer Stephanos wurde, wie dieser in seiner Stellungnahme behauptete, von einem Konzil von 40 Bischofen und alien wichtigen Vertretern von Ephesos (den viri clarissimi, den ubrigen Mitgliedern der Fuhrungsschicht, dem Klerus und der gesamten ubrigen Bevolkerung) zum neuen Bischof von Ephesos gewahlt. Das Konzil setzte letztlich beide als Bischofe von Ephesos ab, billigte beiden aber weiterhin den Titel Bischof und erhebliche Gehaltszahlungen aus den Mitteln des Bistums Ephesos zu. Das Vermogen des Bassianos sollte diesem zuruckerstattetwerden. Zweifellos hatte Paul Veyne, wenn er seine Fragestellung im groEeren Masse in die Spatantike verfolgt hatte, dieses Geschehen als ein Beispiel fur Euergetismus ob honorem anfuhren konnen. Ganz offensichtlich hatte Bassianos von Ephesos sein Vermogen bewuEt eingesetzt, urn Bischof von Ephesos zu werden, und das war auch sowohl von denjenigen, die ihn gewahlt hatten, wie auch von denen, die ihn dann absetzten, so gesehen worden. Aber wie typisch war Bassianos? Oder gilt hier, exemplum unum, exemplum nullum} Bevor diese Frage weiter untersucht werden soil, sind noch einige Klarstellungen notig. Im Zusammenhang mit der Frage nach Euergetismus ob honorem geht es nicht urn kleinere (oder grofere) Geldbetrage, die als „Gebuhren" bei der Ordination gezahlt wurden, wie dies zumindest im Osten des Reiches im 6. Jh. ublich war und wie dies dann von Justinian geregelt wurde.9 Euergetismus ob honorem liegt auch dann nicht vor, wenn sozial geachtet,11 wahrend der Euergetismus ob honorem in den Stadten des 9

lust. Nov. 123, 3 (aus dem Jahr 546) [CIC(B).N 597-598 Schoell/Kroll], vgl. 16 (fur Kleriker) [606-607 Schoell/Kroll]. DazuJones, Empire (s. Anm. 8), 904 f, 909; Norton, Elections (s. Anm. 8), 114, 144, 183, 189. 10 Derartiges scheint mit den promissiones gemeint gewesen zu sein, gegen die sich Justinian in Nov. 123, 1 pr. (593 Schoell/Kroll) und 123, 2.1 (596 Schoell/Kroll) wendet. Vgl. Just. Nov. 123, 16 (606-607 Schoell/Kroll) und den Sprachgebrauch in Nov. 137, 2: u r e s e s (697 Schoell/Kroll). Grundsatzlich C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 2005, 211 f. 11 Jones, Empire (s. Anm. 8), 909 f; R. J. Macrides, Simony, in: A. P. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford 1991, III 1901 £; Norton, Elections (s. Anm. 8), 179-191; K. L. Noethlichs, Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Fehlverhalten und


171

Hellenismus und der Hohen Kaiserzeit ein allgemein geschatztes und anerkanntes Verhalten gewesen war. Im Einzelfall wird freilich bei manchen knappen Nachrichten liber Bischofswahlen in der Spatantike nicht ausgeschlossen werden konnen, da£ das von unserer Quelle als Bestechung bezeichnet wird, was der Kandidat selbst eher als euergetischen Akt betrachtet haben mochte. Mit dieser Moglichkeit sollte man insbesondere dann rechnen, wenn von einem grofen Empfangerkreis der Geldgeschenke die Rede ist. Wie weit es in der Fulle der spatantiken patristischen Literatur eher versteckte Hinweise fur Euergetismus ob honorem von Klerikern gibt, ist fur mich nicht zu ubersehen.12 Aber es geht auch nicht urn Einzelfalle, sondern urn die Frage, ob tatsachlich groEere Gruppen unter den Fuhrungsschichten das Verhalten, das sie nach Veyne bei der Ausubung stadtischer Magistraturen Jahrhunderte lang gezeigt hatten, weiterhin dann praktizierten, wenn sie Amter im kirchlichen Bereich ubernahmen. Urn diese Frage zu beantworten, mussen geschlossene groEere Gruppen von Klerikern untersucht werden. Dabei versprechen insbesondere solche Regionen zuverlassige Ergebnisse, in denen erstens die stadtischen Fuhrungsschichten vergleichsweise wenig von den Auswirkungen der verschiedenen Krisen des Romischen Reiches seit dem dritten Jahrhundert n. Chr. betroffen worden waren, in denen sie also aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach am wenigsten die Notwendigkeit empfanden, ihre Verhaltensmuster zu andern. Zweitens sollten es Regionen sein, die sehr viele oder die meisten Belege der Quellengattung aufweisen, die immer die zentrale Quelle fur alle Untersuchungen zum Euergetismus darstellte, namlich der Inschriften. Beiden Anforderungen entsprechen die Gebiete der Patriarchate Antiocheia und Jerusalem. Knapp uber tausend Inschriften berichten aus Amtspflichtverletzungen des christlichen Klerus anhand der Konzilskanones des 4. bis 8. Jahrhunderts, ZRG KA 107, 1990, 23-24, 35, 42, 44; ders., Materialmen zum Bischofsbild aus den spatantiken Rechtsquellen, JbAC 16, 1973, 28-59, hier 33-35, 49, 55; Rapp, Bishops (s. Anm. 10), 211 f, G. Schmelz, Kirchliche Amtstrager im spatantiken Agypten nach den Aussagen der griechischen und koptischen Papyri und Ostraka, Leipzig 2002, 69 F; E. Wipszycka, Les ressources et les activites economiques des eglises en Egypte du IVe au Vllle siecle, Bruxelles 1972, 95 Anm. 2; dies., Fonctionnement de Feglise egyptienne aux IV=-VIIP siecles (sur quelques aspects), in: C. Decobert (ed.), Itineraires d'Egypte. Melanges ofFerts au pere Maurice Martin, Le Caire 1992, 115-145, hier 116fF. 12 Ein reicher Alexandriner soil einen erheblichen eigenen Beitrag zu einer von Johannes dem Almosengeber veranstalteten Sammlung angesichts einer Hungersnot mit der Bitte verkniipft haben, Johannes moge ihn zum Diakon machen, damit er an seiner Seite am Altar stande und so Vergebung Fur seine Siinden erhielte: V. Joh. Eleem. 11, 43-46 (ActaSS Ian II, 500 and 507 Bollandus/Henschen) dazu Rapp, Bishops (s. Anm. 10), 212. Brown, Poverty (s. Anm. 6), 41 F. erwagt ein solches Verhalten Fur Basilios von Kaisareia, gibt aber zu, dafi seine Interpretation ganz von dem unsicheren Datum der BischoFsweihe des Basilios abhangt.

172

Rudolf Haensch

Wie immer bei der Untersuchung einer Fragestellung am Beispiel einer Region ist allerdings grundsatzlich nicht auszuschlieEen, da£ es n i c k in anderen Regionen eigene Entwicklungen gegeben hat. Das gilt ganz besonders fur das spatantike Romische Reich und die dort bestehenden ChristentUmer, die so viele regionale Besonderheiten aufwiesen. Es wird daher

Befragt man die uber 1000 Inschriften aus diesen beiden Patriarchaten danach, ob es einen Euergetismus ob honorem im Zusammenhang mit der Ubernahme kirchlicher Amter gab, so ist erstens ein zentrales negatives Ergebnis festzuhalten: Keine einzige dieser Inschriften erwahnt explizit, daE der betreffende Bischof (oder Kleriker) den entsprechenden Bau im Gefolge seiner Wahl (bzw. Ordination) errichtet hatte. Im Gegenteil, die einzige Inschrift, die in dieser Hinsicht ein wenig AufschluE gewahrt, die Bauinschrift der Kirche der Gottesmutter in Bostra urn die Mitte des 5. Jh., erwahnt, der Bischof habe sie nach zahlreichen siegreich bestandenen Kampfen (gemeint waren wohl gegen die Origenisten) errichtet,15 also doch wohl nach einer langeren Amtsdauer.16 Im Gegensatz zu dem, was Jahrhunderte lang der Fall gewesen war, erwahnte man zumindest in den inschriftlich festgehaltenen Stellungsnahmen nicht, da£ es einen Zusammenhang zwischen der Ubernahme eines kirchlichen Amtes und der von dem entsprechenden Amtsinhaber gestifteten Bauten des christlichen Kultes gegeben hatte. Wenn es eine solche Beziehung gab, redete man nicht daruber. Zumindest in der offentlichen Selbstdarstellung ist also schon einmal ein wesentlicher Wandel festzustellen. Dieser ist umso eindeutiger, als es durchaus Inschriften gibt, in denen ein Bischof fur die in seiner Amtszeit entstandenen Kirchenbauten geruhmt wird. Ein besonders ausfuhrliches und explizites, leider nur generell in die zweite Halfte des 5. bzw. die erste des 6. Jh. datierbares Beispiel 13

14 15 16

Zur Quellensituation ausfiihrlicher R. Haensch, Le financement de la construction des eglises pendant lAntiquite Tardive et l'evergetisme antique, An.Tard 14, 2006, 47-58, hier 49 f. Zum Euergetismus der Hohen Kaiserzeit im hier untersuchten Raum insbesondere M. Sartre, L'Orient romain, Paris 1991, 147-166. IGLS XIII 9119 = R. Merkelbach/j. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 5 Bande, Stuttgart und Leipzig 1998, 22/42/05. Das Gleiche gilt auch fur die Grabinschrift des M. Iulius Eugenius, so stolz dieser auch auf die wahrend seiner Amtszeit wieder erbaute Kirche war: AE 1910, 165 = ILS 9480 = W. Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, Macon 1997, p. 426444 no. 69.


173

stammt aus Birsama, dem Zentrum des saltus Gerariticus, in der Palaestina I. Die entsprechende Inschrift sagt zum Lob des damaligen Bischofs, unter ihm seien Tempel aufgefiihrt und glanzend ausgestattet worden, so daE die Heiligen geehrt warden und die Gemeinde sich so freue, da£ sie bei seiner Herde bleibe.17 Doch trotz all dieses recht unverbliimten Lobes verlautet nichts von einem fmanziellen Engagement dieses Mannes. Das gilt ebenso auch fur eine andere, ebenfalls nicht genau datierbare, nach Ansicht des Erstherausgebers um 400 entstandene, moglicherweise aber auch Jahrzehnte oder gar ein ganzes Jahrhundert sparer zu datierende Inschrift aus Kanatha in Arabia. Der dort genannte Bischof wird dafur geruhmt, da£ er mit Eifer und Schnelligkeit einen Bau vollendet habe, der

die Schonheit des errichteten Baues geruhmt wird, ohne da£ uber den

gen Inschriften, die die Frage der Finanzierung beruhren, belegen bezeichnenderweise, da£ nicht der Bischof den Bau fmanziert hatte. Im Falle der 533 vollendeten Kirche der hll. Kosmas und Damianos in Gerasa hatte der entsprechende Bischof einen zumindest vor Ort bedeutenden Laien (anrp apiaros) dazu gewonnen, den Bau zu wesentlichen Teilen zu fi-

Madaba im Jahre 608 gelten, bei dem die Gaben zweier Bruder hervorgehoben werden. Dabei wird vorausgesetzt, dafi mit iepeus in dieser Inschrift ein Bischof in einer poetischen Formulierung angesprochen wird.21 Es ist aber nicht nur so, dafi explizite Hinweise auf eine Finanzierung von Kirchenbauten durch Bischofe im Zusammenhang mit ihrer Wahl in Inschriften und in den literarischen Quellen fur diese Region fehlen. Vielmehr lafit sich auch auf dem Wege der indirekten Beweisfuhrung untermauern, dafi es keinen Euergetismus ob honorem von Bischofen gab. Die theoretisch denkbare Moglichkeit, dafi man anhand der Daten der Kirchenbauten feststellen wurde oder widerlegen konnte, dafi sehr viele

17

SEG 46, 2009, no. 6/7 = A E 1996, 1568: o6en e^ [auxou]/ naoi anleyeiponxai]/ a i Xamrpoino(n)/Tai Kai oi a y i o i / Koomounxai a i l o Aaos ayaXXeT(ai)/ Siameinai xr,/ ayeA^ auxou.

18 SEG 37, 1537 = Merkelbach/Stauber, Steinepigramme (s. Anm. 15), 22/35/02. 19 SEG 8, 119; SEG 26, 1629 = 38, 1555; SEG 31, 1774 = IGLS XXI 2, 135 (vgl. SEG 31, 1472 = IGLS XXI 2, 140); I. Gerasa 299; I. Gerasa 327. 20 I. Gerasa 314 = Merkelbach/Stauber, Steinepigramme (s. Anm. 15), 21/23/08. 21 IGLS XXI 2, 145, cf. BE 1989, 987; SEG 38, 1657.

174

Rudolf Haensch

Bauten von Bischofen in den Jahren kurz nach ihrer Wahl begonnen oder gar vollendet worden waren, ohne daE dies explizit erwahnt wurde, besteht realiter zwar nicht. Zwar sind vergleichsweise sehr viele der 1000 Inschriften prazis datiert - mindestens ein Drittel - , es ist aber andererseits nur ganz selten bekannt, wann die entsprechenden Kleriker ihre Amter antraten. Aber ganz grundsatzlich belegen von den uber 1000 Inschriften nur neun (unter EinschM aller unsicheren Falle maximal 12) epigraphische Zeugnisse, da£ ein Bischof den Bau einer Kirche entscheidend vorangetrieben hatte. In dieser Zahl sind auch schon die gerade diskutierten Inschriften eingeschlossen, die Bischofe fur die wahrend ihrer Amtszeit erbauten Kirchen loben. 120 Inschriften erwahnen zwar den amtierenden Ortsbischof in Formulierungen mit Hilfe der Proposition em, weisen also daraufhin, daE die BaumaEnahme in der Amtszeit von Bischof X bzw. unter dessen Oberaufsicht erfolgt war (Die Bedeutung des Formulars ist nicht eindeutig zu bestimmen, u. a. deshalb weil es in den verschiedenen lokalen Kontexten unterschiedlich gebraucht wurde). Aber Hinweise auf ein konkreteres Engagement eines Bischofs als der generellen Oberaufsicht ergeben sich nur aus den genannten neun (maximal 12) Inschriften, die die Rolle des Bischofs naher charakterisieren als diesen nur mit Hilfe der Proposition em anzufuhren. Nur im Falle einer einzigen dieser neun (12) Inschriften konnen kaum Zweifel daran bestehen, da£ der betreffende Bischof private eigene Mittel im groEerem Umfang eingesetzt hatte: In Sakkeia (Arabia) entstand im Jahr 566 eine heute nicht mehr erhaltene Kirche des hi. Georgios eK ipoocop(as) eines Bischofs, also anscheinend auf der Basis eines (finanziellen) Beitrags dieses Bischofs.22 Einen moglichen zweiten Beleg liefert eine Inschrift aus Kafr Kama (wohl dem antiken Helenopolis) in der Palaestina II. Nach diesem epigraphischen Zeugnis wurde eine Kapelle einer groEeren Kirche urep acoxnp.'as eines Bischofs und eines vir gloriosissimus und magister militum vollendet und mit Mosaiken versehen.23 In derselben Inschrift heifo es zwar auch: Jesus, nimm den Beitrag eines Diakons namens Arianos an: Seê Tnv mooôpav 'Ap.avou 5>aK(ovou). Dies legt zweifelsohne zunachst nahe, da£ der Diakon den Bau bezahlt hatte. Und man konnte zunachst vermuten, da£ sich der Hinweis auf den Bischof nur daraus ergab, da£ er die Errichtung dieser Kapelle angeregt oder zumindest genehmigt hatte. Aber auf diese Weise lafit sich kaum die parallel gebaute Erwahnung des magister militum erklaren. DaE er genannt wird, kann eigentlich nur bedeuten, daE er finanziell

22 Wadd.2158. 23 SEG45.1954.


175

zumindest einen Teil der Kosten Ubernommen hatte; denn in anderen Zusammenhangen werden weltliche Amtsinhaber bei Kirchenbauten im Gegensatz zu dem, was bei paganen Bauten ublich gewesen war, nicht mehr genannt. So muE man entweder davon ausgehen, da£ in diesem Fall der soziale Abstand zwischen den drei genannten Personen zu unterschiedlichen Formulierungen fur ein ahnliches Handeln gefiihrt hatte, da£ also die Kapelle von alien dreien finanziert worden war. Oder aber der Diakon meinte mit seinem „Beitrag" nur seine Bemuhungen um die Inschrift oder die Baudurchfuhrung. Schliefflich ist eine dritte Inschrift aus Gerasa zu erwahnen, in der der Ortsbischof zwar eingangs nur mit Hilfe der Proposition em angefuhrt wurde, dann aber gesagt wurde, daE der Bau aus den preisenswerten (Gaben) dieses (Bischofs) und denen eines zweiten Klerikers, eines Diakons, finanziert worden ware.24 Drei Belege fur ein finanzielles Engagement eines Bischofs bei uber 1000 Inschriften (mit 120 Nennungen von Bischofen) ist zweifellos keine grosse Zahl. Aber auch die literarischen Quellen fur die untersuchte Regi-

meinen sie seine Rolle als Organisator, wie es z.B. Euseb zu Beginn seiner Rede bei der Weihe der neu erbauten Bischofskirche in Tyros 2anz deutlich sagt (ou dia spoudhj newj filoti/mwj epeskeu/astof5 und Johannes Chrysostomus anlafflich des Neubaus des Martyrions fur den hi. Babylas ausfuhrlich beschreibt.27 Man sollte den Unterschied zwischen Bischofen, die aus eigenen Vermogen Kirchen erbauten, und solchen, die ihre Gemeinde und besonders deren finanzkraftige Mitglieder zu Kirchen24

SEG 7, 872 = I. Gerasa 3 0 4 : ' E p i Pau/lou t o u q e o f i l e ] s t a / t o [ u k]ai o s i s t a / [ t o u ] / episko/pou eplhrw/q[h] t o agion [ma]rtu/rion a [ p ] o / eulogiwn autou ka[i] S a w / l a eul[abes]t(a/tou) diako/nou/ kai paramon(ariou) e p i s t o t o j (1. e f e s t w t o j ) P r o kopi/o[u t ]ou kaqos(iwme/nou)/ tw q p f ' e t e i T p e r b e r e t a i o u xro/n(wn) [ e ' ? i ] n d [ i ] k (tiwnoj).

25

Nur die Passagen aus den in griechischer Sprache verfafiten (bzw. erhaltenen) Quellen werden zitiert. Theod. h.e. I 3, 1-2 (GCS Theodora, 7 Parmentier/Hansen): wkodo/mhsen; Theod. h.e. Ill 7: edei/mato (184 Parmentier/Hansen); Eus. h.e. X 4: epeskeuasto u.a. (SC 55 81-104 Bardy); Marc. Diac. v. Porph. 18 (ed. by Societas Philologa Bonnensis, BSGRT, Leipzig 1895, 16): ektisen (ganz ahnlich Marc. Diac. v. Porph. 20 [18 Soc. Phil. Bonn.]).

26

Eus. h.e. X 4, 1 (81 Bardy); zu spoudh vgl. I. Cilicie p. 166 f. und P. Donceel-Voute, Les pavements des eglises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban, Louvain-la-Neuve 1988, 471.

27

Joh. Chrys. horn, de s. Babyla (PG 50, 533 £): meta t w n prosedeuo/ntwn a u t w , kaq' eka/sthn eba/dizen ekei t h n hme/ran, oux w j q e a t h j mo/n on a l l a kai w j k o i n w n o j t w n ginome/nwn eso/menoj. Kai g a r li/qou sunefh/yato p o l l a / k i j , kai sxoinon eilkuse, kai oikodomaiaj deome/nw t i n o j , p r o t w n upourgou/ntwn uph/kousen.

176

Rudolf Haensch

bauten antrieben und dann auf dieser Basis und der freiwilligen Mitarbeit der armeren Gemeindemitglieder Kirchen errichteten, n i c k verwischen, auch wenn dies wohl schon in der Antike n i c k ganz selten geschah. „Baupfarrer" gibt es noch heute und fur den Stolz auf das erbaute Gebaude bot die Bibel mit dem Lob des Tempels Salomons ein allgemein akzeptiertes Vorbild (1. Kon. 5-6). Aber all dies ist kein Euergetismus ob honorem im definierten Sinn. Und ahnliches gilt auch fur andere Teile des Reiches. Wenn die Inschriften zweier nordafrikanischer Bischofe im Zusammen-

die Abgrenzung von den bisherigen Fukungsschicken und deren Modell

Wenn aber Bischofe in den untersuchten Patriarchaten Antiocheia und Jerusalem generell sehr selten den Bau von Kirchen in ihren Diozesen mit groEeren Betragen aus ihren eigenen finanziellen Mitteln unterstutzten, dann ist auch speziell ein Euergetismus ob honorem von Bischofen im groEeren MaEe unwahrscheinlich. Dieses weitgehend negative Ergebnis fur die Bischofe wird durch recht ahnliche Beobachtungen fur die ubrigen Kleriker bestatigt. Eine Finanzierung eines Kirchenbaus aus privaten Mitteln ist nur bei einer von einem Periodeutes geschaffenen Kapelle und sieben von Presbytern und vor allem Diakonen erbauten Kirchen sicher oder wakscheinlich - wobei sich im Falle der Presbyter und Diakone zudem zumeist noch eine weitere Person beteiligt hatte. Dazu kommt noch eine von einem Subdiakon erbaute und vielleick eine von einem Okonomen errichtete Kirche. Insgesamt ergibt sich angesichts der viel groEeren Gesamtzahl dieser Kleriker und angesichts dessen, daE die Kleriker in den Inschriften insgesamt ungefahr doppelt so haufig wie Bischofe faEbar sind (insgesamt uber 310 Belege), kein wesentlich anderes Bild als bei den Bischofen. Was generell zu beobachten ist, gilt auch im Detail: Nur ein einziger Befund konnte im Zusammenhang mit der Frage nach einem Euergetismus ob honorem von Klerikern unterhalb der Ebene der Bischofe einschlagig sein: Aus dem heutigen Rihab der Bene Hasan sind drei Kirchen bekannt geworden, die unter demselben Diozesanherren, dem Erzbischof Polyeuktos von Bostra, zu Beginn des 7. Jh. errichtet wurden. Zu nennen ist erstens die Hauptbauinschrift einer heute vollig verschwunde-

28 29

CIL VIII 20903; AE 1922,25. Anders C. Lepelley, Les cites de l'Afrique romaine au bas-empire, Paris 1979, I 384; ders,Evergetisme(s.Anm. 6), 348-350.


177

nen und nie hinreichend publizierten kleinen dreischiffigen Kirche der hi. Sophia. Nach dieser Inschrift wurde diese Kirche (o naoj ou(toj) t h j agi/aj S o f i a j ) gegrundet, vollendet und mosaiziert - eqemeliw/q(h) eteliw/qh (kai) eyhfw/qh - im Februar 605 zur Zeit des Erzbischofs Polyeuktos aus einem Beitrag - ek p r o s f o r a j ) - eines Diakons und zweierBruder(vonihm?). 30 Unter demselben Erzbischof, aber 15 Jahre sparer, also im Jahr 620, srifrere ein Priesrer Sergios mit seinem Bruder auf vom Varer ererbren Grund und Boden (en t w p a t r i k w autwn to/pw ) eine heure ebenfalls

594 eine heure nur noch teilweise erhalrene und ebenfalls nicht genauer publizierte dreischiffige Kirche des hi. Basilios anscheinend unter der Aufsicht - ec epim]el(eiaj) - einer Diakonissin und von fiinf Laien wegen der ewigen Reihe - [uper] anapau/sewj - eines gewissen Prokopios und ihrer Eltern erbaut worden. 32 Offensichtlich wurde in diesem Fall eine Kirche zu wesentlichen Teilen aus testamentarisch hinterlassenen Mitteln finanziert. Insbesondere die beiden erstgenannten, zeitlich spateren, Inschriften ahneln einander auch in ihren Formulierungen sehr. Zudem fallt es gerade angesichts der Sparlichkeit sonstiger Hinweise auf Stiftungen ganzer Kirchen durch niedrige Kleriker auf, wenn zwei bzw. bei EinschluE der Dia-

30

M . Piccirillo, Chiese e mosaici d e l k Giordania settentrionale, Jerusalem 1 9 8 1 , 68 ff. En ono/mati t h j a g i a j (kai) omoousti/ou) T r i a / d o j ep[i] t o u a g i w t ( a / t o u ) Polueu/ktou hmwn arxiepiskoCpou) (kai) mhtropo(li/tou) eqemeliw/qCh) o n a o j o u ( t o j ) t h j a g i a j Sofiaj (kai) ete/liw/qh (kai) eyhfw/qh ek p r o s f o r ( a j ) Iwa/nnou qeof i l e s t a / t o u ) diako(nou) Sergi(ou) (kai) Pro/klou uiwn R i s w n o j en etei uoq/mhn(oj) Febrou(ariou) xr(o/noij)ogdo/hj i n d i k t i ( w ) n o j .

31

Picirillo, Chiese Giordania (s. A n m . 30), 73 £, cf. P.-L. Gatier, Les inscriptions grecques et latines de Samra et de Rihab, i n : J.-B. H u m b e r t u n d A . Desreumaux (ed.), Khirbet es-Samra 1, Jordanie. La voie romaine. Le cimetiere. Les documents epigraphiques, 1998, 3 6 1 - 4 3 1 , hier 363 f. m i t A n m . 23:'En ono/mati t (hj) a g i a j (kai) omoous(iou) Tria/doj [epi t ] o u agiwt(a/tou) Polueu/k(tou) arxiepisko/pou eqemeliw/q(h) o n a o j o u t o j t o u agi/ou Stefa/nou (kai) eyhfw/qfh) (kai) eteliw/q(h) ek p r o s f o r ( a j ) Sergiou p r e ^ u t e / r o u ) (kai)/ Ste fa/nou) uiwn Gewgriou en t w p a t r i k w a u t w n to/pw Iwa/nnou Karkousou paramo(nariou) en mh(ni) Mai/w x r (o/noij) h i n d ( i k t i w n o j ) t o u et(ouj) fie .

32

Piccirillo, Chiese Giordania (s. A n m . 30), 70 ff. Pronoi/a q(eo)u eqem e l i w i q h k(ai) eteliw/qh o n a o j t o u endoôta/tou) ma/rtur[(oj) t o ] u a g (i/ou) B a s i l [ i o u ep]i t o u a g i w t ( a / t o u ) k(ai) osiwt(a/tou) Polueu/kt[ou a]rxiepirsko/(pou) ec epim]el(eiaj) Zw/hj diako(ni/sshj) kai Stefa/nou k(ai) Gewrgiou kai Ba/ss[ou (kai)] Qeodw7rou k(ai) Bad[agiou uper] anapau/s(ewj) P r o k o p i o u k(ai) g(o)ne/wn. Egra/f(h) t o u e t ( o u j ) upq x r o ( n o i j ) ib i n ( d i k t i w n o j ) .

178

Rudolf Haensch

konissin drei soldier Bauten unter ein und demselben Erzbischof entstanden. Andererseits sind zwei bzw. drei, auf fast 25 Jahre verteilte, Beispiele letztlich doch zu wenig, um audi nur mit einiger Sicherheit behaupten zu konnen, dieser Erzbischof habe seine Kleriker zu Kirchenbauten gedrangt. Noch unsicherer muE dementsprechend bleiben, ob er dies im Zusammenhang mit ihrer Ordination getan hatte. Insgesamt gibt es also aus der untersuchten Region hochstens einzelne Beispiele fur einen Euergetismus ob honorem und audi insgesamt vergleichsweise wenige Beispiele dafiir, daE Kleriker und Bischofe auf der Basis ihres eigenen privaten Vermogens Kirchen gebaut bitten. Vielmehr war der Bau von Kirchen in der untersuchten Region, wie im anderen Zusammenhang erlautert wurde, ganz uberwiegend das Werk groferer Gruppen von Personen, also von Stadten, Dorfern oder kleineren lokalen „Einzugsbereichen."33 Offensichtlich trugen sehr viele Christen entsprechend der GroEe ihres Vermogens ihr Scherflein bei. Wer kein Geld beisteuern konnte, ubernahm die Arbeiten, fur die es keiner besonderen Qualifikation bedurfte. Die Finanzierung ganzer Kirchen auf der Basis einzelner Privatvermogen von Mitgliedern der Fuhrungsschichten war ebenso selten wie diejenige auf der Basis der privaten Mittel von Klerikern. Im Falle beider Gruppen scheinen maximal 10% aller Kirchenbauten von ihnen allein finanziert worden zu sein. In anderen Regionen - insbesondere wird immer wieder Gallien angefuhrt - sollen Kleriker und speziell Bischofe in wesentlich groEerem AusmaE aus ihrem eigenen Vermogen zum Kirchenbau beigetragen haben.34 Sollte diese These zutreffen und nicht nur in vielen Fallen aus dem Lob auf den Erbauer einer Kirche ruckgeschlossen worden sein, daE er sie auch finanziert hatte, dann ware in diesen Regionen unter Umstanden mit einem groEeren AusmaE an Euergetismus ob honorem von Klerikern zu rechnen. Konkrete eindeutige Belege in groEerer Zahl fur ein solches Verhalten gibt es m. W. aber auch aus Gallien nicht. Im Falle eines von Sidonius Apollinarius gelobten Kandidaten fur einen Bischofssitz unterstreicht Sidonius explizit, daE dieser verschwieg, daE er in seiner Jugend schon eine Kirche gestiftet hatte.35 Wenn es aber keine groEere Zahl von Baustiftungen ob honorem gab, so ist auch ein daneben denkbarer, sich in Akten der cantos auEernder Euergetismus ob honorem eher unwahrscheinlich. Da£ trotz der prinzipiellen Unterschiede zwischen christlicher cantos und 33 34 35

S. vorlaufig Haensch, Financemem (s. Anm. 13), 53 f. S. Baumgart, Bischofsherrschaft (s. Anm. 6), allerdings ohne diese Aussagen im Detail zudokumentieren. Sid. cp. VII 9, 21 (ed. by W.B. Anderson, Sidonius. Poems and Letters, LCL, London/Cambridge 1965, 352-354).


179

antikem Euergetismus sich in der Realitat beide Formen der Wohltatigkeit vermischen konnten, zeigt das Beispiel der Forderung der Gemeinde von Hippo, der schwerreiche romische Aristokrat Valerius Pinianus solle zum Priester ihrer Gemeinde geweiht werden.36 Aber bezeichnenderweise war es die dortige Gemeinde, die entsprechende Forderungen an ein Mitglied der ReichsfUhrungsschichten stellte, und n i c k der Aristokrat, der eine einschlagige Taktik benutzte, urn in den GenuE eines kirchlichen Amtes zukommen. Fur einen entsprechenden, von einem Kandidaten fur einen Bischofssitz inszenierten Akt eines Euergetismus ob honorem eines Klerikers kenne ich auch aus Gallien nur ein mogliches Beispiel: Es ist dies einer der drei von Sidonius Apollinarius getadelten Kandidaten fur den Bischofssitz von Cabillonum (Chalon-sur-Saone). Sidonius kritisierte einen unter ihnen mit dem Argument, er stutze sich ja nur auf den Anhang, der von seiner Kuche profitiere (ep. 4, 25, 2). Mir ist aber z. B. kein Bischof bekannt, der unmittelbar nach seiner Wahl sein Vermogen unter den Armen verteilt hatte. Nur mit einem solchen Akt aber hatte man sich letztlich gegenuber den ubrigen Gemeindemitgliedern entscheidend profilieren konnen, denn das Gebot, entsprechend seinem Vermogen karitativ tatig zu werden, gait ja fur alle Gemeindemitglieder. Den radikalen Schnitt des vollstandigen Vermogensverzichtes vollzog man aber nicht aus Wahltaktik, sondern nur aus tiefer christlicher Uberzeugung und die entstand nicht angesichts einer Vakanz im Bereich kirchlicher Amter, sondern vielmehr insbesondere bei der Entscheidung fur ein monastisches Leben. DaE es also insgesamt einen Euergetismus ob honorem von Klerikern kaum gab, lag z. T. in den Charakteristika des antiken Euergetismus begrundet und ergab sich z. T. aus der neuen christlichen Lehre. Der Euergetismus ob honorem von stadtischen Magistraten hatte sich, wie erlautert, vor allem in drei Formen geauEert - der Finanzierung von Schauspielen aller Art, der Vergabe von Geld- und Sachspenden an ausgewahlte Bevolkerungsgruppen und der Stiftung von fur die Offentlichkeit bestimmten Bauten. Die erste Form des Euergetismus war schon deshalb fur kirchliche Amtsinhaber in spe ausgeschlossen, weil Schauspiele generell von den geistlichen Fuhrern des spatantiken Christentums aus theologischen Grunden bekampft wurden. 37 Die zweite Form des Euergetismus 36

37

Dazu G. A. Cecconi, Un evergete mancato: Piniano a Ippona, Athenaeum 76, 1988, 371-389; vgl. auch Lepelley, Cites (s. Anm. 29), I 385-388; Rapp, Bishops (s. Anm. 10), 200. Markschies, Dimension (s. Anm. 6), 462; Ch. Pietri/L. Pietri (Hg.), Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit, Freiburg u.a. 1995, 659; vgl. insbesondere W. Weismann, Kirche und Schauspiele, Wiirzburg 1972. Fur die verschiedenen Verbote nordafrika-

180

Rudolf Haensch

wies zwar oberflachliche Ahnlichkeiten mit Speisungen aus dem Geist der chrisdichen cantos auf, aber da diese erstens ein generelles Gebot an alle Christen darstellten, dessen ErfUllung zudem im Verhaltnis zu dem vorhandenen Vermogen bewertet wurde,38 und zweitens zu den selbstverstandlichen39 Aufgaben eines Bischofs gehorte, fur die er auch immer kirchliche Mittel einsetzte, war es nur schwer moglich, sich in diesem Bereich besonders zu profilieren. Der Kirchenbau aber wurde in vielen Regionen des Reiches von so breiten Schichten getragen, da£ es gleichfalls kaum moglich war, sich auf diesem Gebiet besonders hervorzutun. Zudem gab es Theologen wie Palladios, Augustinus oder Rabbulas von Edessa, die den Kirchenbau auf ein Minimum beschranken wollten, urn die dadurch freiwerdenden Mittel fur karitative Zwecke verwenden zu konnen. 40 Noch gewichtiger waren wohl die Grunde jenseits der Charakteristika des antiken Euergetismus. Als Leiter der Gemeinde wunschten sich viele spatantiken Christen ganz offensichtlich entweder einen holy man, der der Gemeinde durch seine besondere Nahe zu Gott helfen wurde, oder einen erfahrenen (Kirchen)politiker, der sie durch die Sturme der inneren und auEeren Bedrohungen hindurchfuhren wurde, oder, wenn moglich, einen Kandidaten wie Basilios von Kaisareia, der beides vereinte. Die Finanzkraft des potentiellen Kandidaten spielte demgegenuber eine vergleichsweise geringe Rolle. Die Verstetigung der kirchlichen Laufbahn - gerade im Falle der nicht so im Rampenlicht der Kirchenpolitik stehenden kleineren Bischofssitze - durfte es zudem mit sich gebracht haben, daE sich ein Presbyter oder Archidiakon oder Diakon, der vor der Wahl zum Bischof stand, nicht mehr so nachhaltig in Erinnerung rufen musste, wie dies fur

38 39 40

nischer concilia, dafi Sonne von Bischofen offentliche Spiele gaben, s. C. Munier, Concilia Africae. A. 325 - a. 525, CChr.SL 149, Turnhout 1974, 37 Z. 87 £; 105 Z. 144 f, 122 Z. 145-149; 138 Z. 156-158, 290 § 39 (schief Rapp, Bishops [s. Anm. 10], 213). Eine sehr lebendige Beschreibung eines spielegebenden Euergeten und seines Empfangs bei Joh. Chrys. De inani gloria 4-5. L. Robert hat eine Reihe solcher Beschreibungen bei den kappadokischen Kirchenvatern zusammmengestellt, die diesen dann als Folie dazu dienten, die wahren Lobeshymnen durch Glaubige oder Engel im Himmel darzustellen: Tpo^suc et 'Apioxsuc, Hellenica 11-12, 1960, 569-576. Fur den Westen s. z.B. Amb. Off. II 109-111 (CChr.SL 15, 136-137 M. Testard) und dasjenige, was Lepelley, Cites (s. Anm. 29), I 298-302, 376-388 aus Augustinus zusammenstellte. B. Ramsay, Almsgiving in the Latin Church: The Late Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries, Theological Studies 43, 1982, 226-259. Vgl. z. B. Brown, Poverty (s. Anm. 6); Rapp, Bishops (s. Anm. 10), 223-226. Pall. Dial. 6, 62; 13, 91 f (SC 341, p. 132; 268); Possid. v. Aug. 24,13 (Possidius, Vita Augustini, ed. W. Geerlings, Paderborn 2005, 74); V. Rabb. (Bickell, BKV 44) p. 194; vgl. auch Amb. Off. II 111 (CChr.SL 15, 137 M. Testard). Dazu Haensch, Financement(s.Anm.l3),47f;57.


181

einen stadtischen Honoratioren notig gewesen sein mochte, der sich fiinf oder zehn Jahre nach seinem ersten Amt jetzt um das hochste stadtische Amt bewarb. Vor allem aber hatte sich die Bewertung des Einsatzes finanzieller Mittel fur den Amtserwerb geandert. Was in den vorausgegangenen Jahrhunderten zumindest von der breiten Bevolkerung als individuelle GroEzugigkeit bewertet worden war, geriet jetzt leicht in den Geruch der Simonie und verringerte damit eher die Wahlchancen als das es sie erhoh-

41

S. z. B. lust. Nov. 6, 1, 9 (aus dem jahr 535) [38 Schoell/Kroll]: et banc (das Bischofsamt) nonpecuniis emere nequeper rerum aliquarum dationem suscipere... (und andere PassagendergldchenArt).

Clerical Marriage and Episcopal Elections in the Latin West: From Siricius to Leo I David G. Hunter Introduction1 The origin of priestly celibacy in the Christian church is still quite poorly understood. While there is general agreement about the basic evidence, debate continues about the interpretation of this evidence. For example, there is universal agreement that the earliest appearance of a canonical requirement of sexual continence to be imposed on married clerics is found in the canons of the Council of Elvira early in the fourth century (ca. 305). 2 Later in the fourth century a letter to bishops of Gaul, probably to be attributed to Pope Damasus (366-384), and several decreta of his successor, Pope Siricius (384-399), present clear evidence of an attempt to impose the discipline of permanent sexual continence on the higher ranks of the clergy throughout the Western church.3 While some Catholic scholars have recently tried to argue that the continence requirement is of apostolic origins, these efforts have not proved convincing to most scholars.4 1

2

3

4

After its delivery at the Leuven conference in October 2009, this essay benefited much from the comments and criticisms of George Demacopoulos, Mark Humphries, Ralph Mathisen, and Claudia Rapp. Can. 33: Pkcuit in totum prohibere episcopis, prebyteris et diaconibus vel omnibus clericis positis in ministerio abstinere se a coniugibus suis et non generare filios. Quicumque vera fecerit, ab honore clerkatus exterminetur. Text in E. J. Jonkers, ed., Acta et symbola conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt, Textus Minores 19, Leiden 1954, 1213. A persuasive case for attributing the letter Ad Gallos episcopos to Damasus (with the assistance of Jerome) has been stated by Y-M. Duval, La decretale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur, SVigChr 73, Leiden 2005. The "apostolic origins" thesis has been defended, most recently, by Stefan Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginning of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West, San Francisco 2000.

184

David G. Hunter

Nevertheless, there remain unresolved questions. What was the original reason for the requirement? In what is still the best study of the emergence of clerical celibacy, Roger Gryson has argued that a concern with ritual purity lay behind the requirement.5 As the practice of daily eucharist developed, Gryson suggested, an earlier tradition of temporary sexual abstinence became a rule of permanent abstinence. But others have taken issue with Gryson's claims, both about the prevalence of daily eucharist in the Western church in the fourth century and about the concern with ritual purity.6 The alternative view is that fourth-century ascetic ideals were the primary influence that shaped the emergence of permanent sexual continence as a discipline for the higher clergy/ It is not my intention here to engage in these particular controversies.8 My aim, rather, is to relate the emergence of the requirement of permanent sexual continence in the late fourth century directly to the theme of this volume. A constellation of questions will guide my inquiry. First, is it possible to detect some influence of the new requirement on the recruitment and election of bishops in Late Antiquity? Second, given the inherent difficulty of enforcing this requirement, what were the means by which ecclesiastical authorities attempted to ensure the appointment of the best candidates, that is, those most suited to sexual continence? Third, were there other requirements for those in higher orders that would have lent support to the practice of sexual continence? In the course of addressing these questions, I hope to shed further light on the nature and purpose of the continence requirement itself. Before I proceed any further, however, I must address one rather tempting answer to my first question, a temptation that I believe must be resisted.

5 6

7 8

Les origines du celibat eccl&iastique du premier au septieme siecle, Gembloux 1970. See, especially, Daniel Callam, Clerical Continence in the Fourth Century: Three Papal Decretals, TS 41, 1980, 3-50; id., The Frequency of Mass in the Latin Church ca. 400, TS 45, 613-50. Richard M. Price, Zolibat II: Kirchengeschichtlich, TRE 36, 2004, 722-39. Let it suffice to say that on the question of the historical origins of the requirement, I think it is best to stick to the extant evidence and to place the origins of the requirement in the fourth century, although it also seems likely to me that an informal custom of sexual continence for the higher ranks may have existed at some point in the third century prior to its establishment as law in the fourth century. And on the question of the "ascetic" versus "ritual" dimensions of the requirement, I note that both reasons are given in the sources, a fact which suggests that it might not be wise to try to isolate a single theological or moral motivation for the discipline.

Clerical Marriage and Episcopal Elections in the Latin West

185

The Limits of the'Monk-bishop' It would be easy to assume that a requirement of permanent sexual continence immediately encouraged the appointment of monastic candidates to clerical office. Recent studies, such as Andrea Sterk's Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church and Claudia Rapp's Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, have focused attention on the role played by distinguished monks who entered the episcopacy in the fourth century and exerted significant influence on ideals of clerical office.9 But the evidence treated by Sterk is entirely from the Eastern church and does little to illuminate the Western context. Rapp, by contrast, treats evidence from both the East and West. In a chapter on "Ascetic Authority" she discusses at length "Monks as Bishops and Bishops as Monks" and cites the usual examples of Western clergy drawn from the monastic life: Eusebius of Vercelli, Martin of Tours, and Augustine of Hippo. 10 Although most of the evidence Rapp presents comes from Eastern sources, nonetheless she suggests that the "practice of clergy living as monks seems to have been more common in the West, where the celibacy of priests was more widespread, than in the East."11 Noting that the hagiographical and theological literature on which she relies presents ordination as a confirmation of personal virtue, Rapp concludes her discussion of the monk-bishop with the suggestion that "monks and holy men were prime candidates for ecclesiastical office."12 I believe there are serious reasons to doubt Rapp's conclusion, at least as a valid generalization about Western practice regarding the recruitment of monks into the clergy, especially in the fourth and early fifth centuries. We must recall that the election of bishops required the affirmation of several different constituencies. According to Pope Leo I, both the clergy and the people retained active roles in the elections of bishops, and we cannot assume that all of the clergy and people in the Western church would have been equally eager to elect monks into the episcopacy.13 Sever-

9

10 11 12 13

A. Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, MA 2004; C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2005. Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 137-52. As I will argue below, none of these cases was as straightforward as it appears at first glance. Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 151. Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 152. As Leo I put it in his Ep. 167.1 to Rusticus of Narbonne (PL 54, 1203): Nulla ratio sinit ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nee a clericis sunt electi, nee a pkbibus sunt expetiti, nee aprovineialibus episeopis eummetropolitan judieio eonseerati. Cf. Ep. 14.5 (PL 54, 673): Cum ergo de summi saeerdotis eleetione traetabitur, ilk omnibuspraeponatur quern

186

David G. Hunter

al fourth and fifth-century Western authors, in fact, suggest just the opposite. In Adversus Iovinianum Jerome lamented that married men were often preferred to celibates as candidates for ordination, both by the clergy and the laity, and in Contra Vigilantium Jerome complained that some Gallic bishops would ordain only married men who had already produced children. Later Sidonius Apollinaris, writing about 472, suggested that some people opposed the election of monks into the episcopate, arguing that the monastic candidate is "better qualified to intercede with the heavenly Judge for our souls than with an earthly judge for our bodies."14 The comment of Sidonius indicates that at some times and in some places (especially, perhaps, in territories where imperial administration had begun to break down, such as late fifth-century Gaul) bishops were expected to exercise functions formerly reserved to secular officials, and it was not clear to all that monks were always up to the job. 15 One problem was that in the late fourth century Western monasticism was still something of a novelty, and monks were often perceived as disruptive to church order or as rivals to clerical authority. It is instructive to read the late fourth-century Latin apologetic treatise, The Conversations of Zacchaeus and Apollonius, which contains an elaborate defense of the monastic life addressed to Christian opponents of monasticism. In it the Christian apologist Zaccheus must meet the following objection placed on the lips of the newly-baptized Apollonius: "Now explain to me: what is that gathering or faction of monks, and why are they despised, even by our own people? Certainly, if they are engaged in honorable pursuits and are not violating the unity of the faith, they ought to be imitated, rather than

cleri plebisque consensus concorditer postulant. Leo went on to insist that no bishop should be forced upon an unwilling congregation; ... nullus invhis et non petentibus ordinetur; ne civitas episcopum non optatum aut contemnat, aut oderit. The active role of the laity in episcopal elections has recently been stressed by P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007. 14 Hier. adv. Iovin. 1.34 (PL 23, 289); Hier. c. Vigil. 2 and 17 (PL 23, 355-56 and 368); Sid. ep. VII 9,9; tr. W.B. Anderson, Sidonius: Letters HI-DC, LCL, Cambridge, MA 1965, 343. 15 On the many, formerly secular functions that the Christian clergy in Gaul began to exercise, see the discussion in R. Mathisen, Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul: Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition, Austin 1993, 89-104. Mathisen argues that by the fifth century Gallic aristocrats had begun to see careers in the clergy as an acceptable path for aristocratic advancement. On this theme, see also Richard Bartlett, Aristocracy and Asceticism: The Letters of Ennodius and the Gallic and Italian Churches, in: Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul: Revisiting the Sources, ed. by R. W. Mathisen/D. Shanzer, Aldershot 2001, 201-216. Bartlett sees a difference between Italian and Gallic practice.


187

avoided. A, I see it, it is a crime and a sin in the eyes of God to hate good people and not to avoid wicked people." 16

In his response to Apollonius, Zaccheus tried to defend the monastic way of life, arguing that the profession itself is "irreproachable and holy." But he had to admit that some abuses took place, as, for example, when allegedly holy men used their way of life as a pretext to gain access to women and deprive them of their wealth or chastity.17 One is reminded of the sort of accusations that Jerome raised against his follow ascetics, or the charges to which he himself was subject and which led to his banishment from the church at Rome in the spring of 385. 18 In addition to these more general suspicions of monastic piety, it seems that even the best-known examples of monk-bishops in the West did not always achieve unqualified success in their endeavors. Eusebius of Vercelli is usually invoked as the earliest example of a bishop devoted to monastic discipline. In a letter written to the church at Vercelli near the end of his life, Ambrose of Milan spoke enthusiastically of the pioneering efforts of Eusebius to establish a monastic model of clerical life: "Eusebius of blessed memory was the first in the lands of the West to bring together these diverse practices, so that living in the city he observed the rules of monks and ruled the church in the temperance of fasting. For one adds much support to the grace of the priesthood, if one binds youth to the pursuit of abstinence and to the guidance of purity, and forbids to them, while living in the city, the customs and way of life of thecity" 1 9

Rapp refers to Eusebius's "successful experiment of combining monastic life and ministry," but this view is based entirely on Ambrose's partisan account and on Eusebius's own idealized picture of his community of fellow-priests (Eusebius called his followers "a gathering not so much of

16 17

Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii 3.3.1-2 (SC 402, 178 Feiertag). Consultationes 3.3.6 (180 Feiertag). On the date and provenance of the Consultationes, see M.A. Claussen, Pagan Rebellion and Christian Apologetics in FourthCentury Rome: The Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii, JEH 46, 1995, 589-614; and the discussion in D. G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy, Oxford 2007, 250-56. 18 Hier. ep. 22.28.1-2 (CSEL 54, 185). For a recent discussion of Jerome's forced departure from Rome, see A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2009, 105128. 19 Ambr. ep. extra collectionem 14.66 (CSEL 82/3, 270). On Eusebius and his monastic efforts, see J.T. Lienhard, Patristic Sermons on Eusebius of Vercelli and their Relation to his Monasticism, RBen 87, 1977, 163-72; and Paulinus of Nola and Early Western Monasticism, Theophaneia 28, Koln-Bonn 1977, 89-93, 107-10.

188

David G. Hunter

men but of virtues").20 We know, however, that Ambrose wrote his letter to the church of Vercelli because the Christian citizens of Vercelli refused to elect another monk-bishop upon the death of Eusebius. As Peter Brown has observed: "Rather than choosing to be ruled by a lifelong celibate drawn from the local monastery, the city decided, as many a city would do in later centuries, to select a powerful landowner as their next bishop."21 It is revealing that the church of Vercelli declined to follow the precedent of their path-breaking monk-bishop and that Ambrose felt it necessary to attempt to intervene in the selection process. The case of Martin of Tours in the next generation presents an even more problematic example. Most of what we know about Martin is derived from Sulpicius Severus' Life of Martin, completed around 396, his letters, and his Chronicle and Dialogues, composed early in the fifth century.22 Sulpicius' writings are, to put it mildly, a sustained polemic against most of the bishops of the Gallic church. He presents Martin as the perfect fusion of monk and bishop, but does not hide the fact that Martin had many detractors, especially among his fellow bishops. These bishops, as Sulpicius put it, "hated in him what they did not see in themselves and could not imitate."23 According to Sulpicius, Martin spent much of his episcopate in schism from the rest of the Gallic bishops, refusing to attend synods or share communion with bishops who had been tainted in any way by the events surrounding the execution of Priscillian in 386. 24 Perhaps of even greater significance is the fact that at Martin's death in 397, one of his chief rivals, the presbyter Brictius, was elected to replace him. According to Sulpicius, Martin and Brictius had numerous occasions to quarrel, especially when Brictius accused Martin of falling prey to "empty superstitions" and "the ridiculous phantasms of his visions."25 20 21 22 23 24

25

Cited in Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 150. P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York 1988, 361. For the dates, see C. Stancliffe, St Martin and his Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus, Oxford 1983, 71-85. Sulp. Sev. vit. Martin. 27.3 (SC 133, 314): ... in Mo oderant quod in se non videbant et quod imitarinon valebant. Cf. Sulp. Sev. dial. 3.13 (CSEL 1, 211), who notes that Martin nullum synodum adiit, ab omnibus episcoporum conventibus se removit. Sulpicius also suggested that it was the clergy and bishops who were most skeptical of Martin's alleged wonder-working: "These unfortunates, these sleepyheads, these degenerates are ashamed that Martin has done what they themselves cannot do. They deny his miracles rather than confess their own impotence." See Dialogus 1.26 (CSEL 1, 179). Sulp. Sev. dial. 3.15 (CSEL 1, 214): inanes superstitiones.. .fantasmata visionum ridicu-

k.


189

Martin, it appears, was in the habit of conversing with saints Agnes, Thecla, Mary, and the apostles Peter and Paul. Brictius, for his part, was not above reproach, according to Sulpicius. He had capitulated to luxury upon joining the clergy and had taken to keeping horses and buying slaves (especially barbarian boys and pretty girls). It is a telling commentary on the so-called "success" of Martin's monastic episcopacy that his chief rival was chosen to replace him. At the very least, it indicates that the clergy and people at Tours, as elsewhere, were not convinced that monks always made the best bishops.26 Similarly, Augustine's experiment with a clerical monastery at Hippo was not altogether successful. Monasticism came late to North Africa, and not without contention. In his Retractation* Augustine says that when he wrote De opere monachorum, in the early years of the fifth century, monasteries had only recently begun to appear at Carthage, and that they had brought in their wake "roiling controversies" {tumultuosa certamina) on issues such as whether monks should do manual labor or let their hair grow long.27 Everyone from Jerome to Cassian to Benedict of Nursia regarded as a nuisance those monks who wandered from place to place (the notorious gyrovagi); in his famous Letter 262 to Ecdicia, Augustine had to deal with the case of a Roman matron who had distributed most of her property to two wandering monks, without the permission of her husband.28 Elsewhere Augustine also had to address the problem of monks who abandoned their monasteries out of ambition to join the clergy. In Letter 60 to Aurelius, composed around 402, Augustine warned Aurelius not to accept into the clergy two monks who had fled from his monastery at Hippo. He noted that monastic flight into the clergy had led some people to joke: "A bad monk makes a good cleric." But Augustine had his doubts about whether even good monks were suited to pastoral ministry purely in virtue of their celibate lives. Sexual continence alone, he observed, was not sufficient qualification for office; one also needed a minimal degree of education {instructio necessaria) and personal integrity

26

27 28

On the subsequent, controversial career of Brictius, see R. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul, Washington, D C 1989,20-22. Aug. retr. 11.21 (CChr.SL 57, 107). Hier. ep. 22.34 (CSEL 54, 196,10-197,13 Hilberg); Cassian. coll. 18.7 (SC 64, 18-21 Pichery); Bened. Reg. 1 (CSEL 75, 18-20 Hanslik). Ecdicia had also adopted sexual continence without the permission of her husband.

190

David G. Hunter

{personae regukris integritas) ? As George Demacopoulos has recently observed: "Like many bishops of his era, Augustine noted the paucity of qualified priests. However, unlike many of his colleagues, he centred his criteria for ordination on education and social class."'"0

The problem, however, was not simply that monks might lack the requisite training in rhetoric or theological expertise necessary to ensure good preaching. It was also the case that Augustine's own experience with monastic clergy had caused him to become well acquainted with the problem of moral scandal.31 For example, after nearly thirty years of fostering the communal life among his clergy, Augustine was shocked to discover that one of his own monastic presbyters, Januarius, had been secretly in possession of property, which he failed to disclose upon entering the monastery. Moreover, Januarius had willed his goods to the church and thereby caused scandal upon his death for deliberately disinheriting his two children. The event forced Augustine to reject the legacy from Januarius and to conduct a painful, public accounting of all his monastic clergy, detailed in sermons 355-356. But the greatest clerical scandal that Augustine had to face also emerged from within his own monastic community: the notorious case of Antoninus of Fussala, a young man who had been raised from childhood in Augustine's monastery. Rashly appointed to be bishop of Fussala, Antoninus recruited two other monks from Augustine's monastery, and the threesome began systematically to deprive the inhabitants of Fussala (quite literally) of hearth and home. Augustine described the result: "Whoever fell into their hands lost money, furniture, clothing, cattle, harvests, timber, and even building stones. The homes of some were occupied; those of others were torn down in order that what the construction of new buildings demanded might be carried off from there. At times they made purchases but did not pay the price. The fields of some were invaded and were returned after the harvests had been seized over

29

Aug. ep. 60.1 (PL 33, 228): ... aliquando etiam bonus monachus vix bonum dericum faciat, si adsitei sufficient continentia, et tamen desk instruct*, necessaria, autpersonae regukris integritas. It is noteworthy that around the same time the Council of Carthage of 401 decreed deposition for any bishops who admitted into their clergy monks who had departed from a monastery in another diocese. See Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis exerpta 80 (CChr.SL 149, 204). Further discussion in F. van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop: The Life and Work of a Father of the Church, London, 1961, 209-10. 30 George E. Demacopoulos, Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church, Notre Dame, IN 2007, 85. 31 For a good overview of the problem of monastic scandal, see C. Leyser, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great, Oxford 2000, 19-26.


191

the course of several years, but some of them were retained and occupied up to the time of the episcopal judgment. 32

Augustine was profoundly embarrassed by Antoninus' behavior, especially because "this miserable monk" 33 had been appointed bishop at Augustine's suggestion. In a letter to Pope Celestine on the Antoninus affair, Augustine admitted that he had considered resigning over the matter,34 Such spectacular examples of the failure of monk-bishops ought to make us reconsider the notion (as many ancient Christians must have done) that monks always made good bishops. Even if all monk-bishops had been outstanding in character or administrative expertise, simply in terms of numbers, they would have made a limited impact on the character of the clergy as a whole. To stay with the example of North Africa, Possidius tells us that he knew of "about ten holy and venerable men of continence and learning, some of them quite outstanding, whom blessed Augustine gave upon request to the various churches."35 But we know that nearly three hundred Catholic bishops attended the conference at Carthage in 411, and there were double that number, if the Donatist bishops are included,36 Monk-bishops would have remained a small minority, and most of the higher clergy would have continued to come from within the regular ranks of the Christian community, that is, from among the married, not from the monastic ranks. Finally, I should note that Claudia Rapp and numerous other scholars have demonstrated that by the early fifth century there was an increasing tendency for the higher clergy, especially bishops, to be drawn from the ranks of the municipal elite, the curiales, and even (though to a lesser extent) from the senatorial aristocracy. This led to the development of family traditions of ecclesiastical office-holding and an increasing correlation between personal wealth and the episcopal office,37 This leads us back to 32

Aug. ep. 20*.6 (CSEL 88, J. Divjak); tr. R. Teske, Letters 211-270, l*-29*, WSA II/4, Hyde Park, NY 2005, 303. 33 Aug. ep.20*.31. (CSEL 88, J. Divjak). 34 Aug. ep. 209.10 (CSEL 57, 352-353 Goldbacher). 35 Possid. vit. Aug. 11,3 (Possidius, Vita Augustini, ed. W. Geerlings, Paderborn 2005, 44. 46); tr. M. O'Connell, The Life of Saint Augustine, Villanova 1988, 59. 36 The precise numbers are disputed. For a recent accounting see R. MacMullen, The Second Church: Popular Christianity A.D. 200-400, Atlanta 2009, 51, who places the number at 284 each: "Though some of these were rivals for the same see, many were not; and it is often supposed, and reasonably enough, that the total of sees may thus have been close to 500 or even more." 37 Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 183-207. See also the studies of Mathisen and Bartlett, cited in note 15 above. In places such as fifth-century Gaul, where some distinguished bishops were drawn from the monastic life (e.g. Honoratus of Lerins and

192

David G. Hunter

the question with which I began. Can we discern procedures by which bishops in the West attempted to recruit into the clergy married men who were prepared to adopt perpetual sexual continence? In the remainder of this paper I will argue that an answer to this question can be found in the extensive collections of conciliar decisions from the Western churches and the decreta of the bishops of Rome from Siricius to Leo I. In these documents one finds a number of criteria of selection that helped to foster the discipline of "post-marital celibacy."38

Married Clergy and Clerical Preferment There are three specific criteria that are repeatedly mentioned in the canonical literature and that can be seen as supporting, both directly and indirectly, the new discipline of clerical sexual continence. The first of these pertains to the process of selection of clerics, namely that the ideal candidate should have proceeded through all of the ranks of the clerical ordo and should have spent a requisite time in each rank; the second two criteria pertain to the qualifications of clergymen: that they should have been married only once and that they should have married only a woman who was a virgin (that is, a woman who was neither widowed nor divorced). These, of course, were not the only criteria employed or qualifications desired in clerical candidates; the extant canons present many other restrictions on the clergy,39 These three criteria, however, are unique in that they are not found among the criteria given at Nicaea, but they are frequently mentioned in the canonical texts that come from the period between Siricius and Leo. In each case, the rationale presented for each requirement became more elaborate as time went on, which suggests that each requirement was acquiring greater importance as an item that served to characterize clerical identity and competence. Finally, I will suggest, in

38

39

Hilary of Aries), it is not clear that their monastic connections were as important as their aristocratic status and family connections. See especially the discussion in Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism, (see note 26) 85-92. I borrow the term from P. Brown, The Body and Society (see note 21), passim, who uses it to describe the requirement of permanent sexual continence imposed on married clerics. For example, clerics were told to refrain from all external business, especially moneylending (faenus); unmarried clerics were instructed to avoid living with unrelated women; ordination was regularly prohibited to anyone who had engaged in military service after baptism. Criteria such as these were present already in the canons of the Council of Nicaea, and they are repeated ceaselessly in the later canonical literature.


193

each case the criterion in question functioned to help enforce the discipline of perpetual sexual continence, especially among married clerics. First, let us address the matter of promotion through the ranks. Concern with the orderly succession of clerical ranks was not a creation of the fourth century. As early as the time of Cyprian, we know that promotion through the ranks was considered a mark of distinction. For example, in one letter Cyprian praised the Roman bishop Cornelius first and foremost because: "Cornelius did not get to the episcopate by one sudden step; rather, having advanced through all the successive clerical offices and having served the Lord honourably in these services of religious administration, he reached the lofty pinnacle of the episcopacy by climbing up through every grade in the Church's ministry." 40

It is revealing that in Cyprian's list of Cornelius's qualifications for the episcopate his "modesty and virginal chastity" took second place to his participation in the clerical cursus honorum. Nevertheless, it is not until the time of Siricius that we find a bishop of Rome trying to legislate in detail the precise steps and even times to be spent at each rank. The evidence is found in the earliest document from his episcopate, a letter to the Spanish bishop Himerius, who had posed a number of questions to Damasus, Siricius'predecessor.41 Siricius' letter is especially significant because it contains a separate cursus for those who have been raised as Christians and another for those who were baptized as adults. Moreover, he provides specific injunctions for monastic candidates who wished to enter the clergy. The first list reads as follows: "Whoever then vows himself to the service of the Church from his infancy should be baptized before the years of puberty and given a share in the ministry of the readers. If he lives honorably from the period of adolescence to his thirtieth year and is content with one wife, one whom he receives as a virgin through the priest with the general benediction, he should be made an acolyte and a subdeacon. If thereafter he maintains the level of his previous continence, he should receive the rank of deacon. If then he performs his ministry commendably for more than five years, he should appropriately be granted the priesthood (presbyterium). Finally after ten more years he may rise to the episcopal chair, if through all this time he is approved for uprightness of life and faith" 4 2

40 41 42

Cypr. ep. 55.8.2 (CChr.SL 3B, 264,119-122 Diercks); tr. G. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian, A C W 46, New York 1989, 37. For a full discussion of Siricius's legislation, see A. Faivre, Naissance d'une hierarchie: Les premieres etapes du cursus clerical, Paris 1977, 313-318. Siricius ep. 1.9.13 (PL 13, 1142-43): Quicumque itaque se Ecclesiae vovit obsequiis a sua infantia, antepubertatis annos baptizari, et lectorum debet ministerio sociari. Qui accessu adolescentiae usque ad trkesimum aetatis annum, si probabiliter vhcerit, una tan-

194

David G. Hunter

After treating the first case of clerical aspirants, Siricius turned to the case of those candidates who were baptized later in life. For them he proposed a similar, though abbreviated cursus* Later in the letter he turned to the case of monks. While he did not reject monastic candidates, Siricius indicated that they, too, had to follow the established canonical order: "They should not at one bound rise to the height of the episcopate until they have served out the terms (tempera) which we have just prescribed for each office."44 Siricius' letter is important for several reasons. First, it shows us that while the bishop of Rome allowed that monks could enter the clergy, he did not grant to them any special privileges or prerogatives. As Philip Rousseau once observed, Siricius' opinion was that "all clerics, whether or not their background was monastic, must rise through the ranks."45 In other words, monastic life, in Siricius' view, did not confer any special recommendation on candidates for the clergy; conversely, the very progression through the ranks itself is presented as sufficient evidence of a clergyman's suitability for higher office. Especially relevant to my present argument is Siricius' careful attention to the marital status of the prospective clergyman. He specifies that he should be "content with one wife, one whom he receives as a virgin through the priest with the general benediction." I will return to these two criteria shortly, but first I should note that decrees from subsequent bishops of Rome strongly confirm the tenor of Siricius' directives.46 If anything, later popes insisted even more strongly on the importance of candidates progressing through the ranks and not ordaining neophytes to the higher orders.

43

44 45

46

turn, ft fa, quam virginem communi per sacerdotem benedictioneperceperit, uxore contends, acolythus et subdiaconus esse debebit; postque ad diaconii gradum, si se ipse primitus continentiapraeeunte dignum probarit, accedat. Ubi si ultra quinque annos kudabiliter ministrarit, congrue presbyterium consequatur. Exinde, post decennium, episcopalem cathedram potent adipisci, si tamen per haec tempora integritas vitae ac fidei ejus fuerit approbate, tr. T. Shotwell/L. Loomis, The see of Peter, New York 1927, 705. Siricius ep. 1.10.14 (PL 13, 1143). The shortened cursus for those baptized as adults involves two years among the readers or exorcists immediately after baptism, five years as acolyte and subdeacon, and a unspecified time at the higher ranks. Siricius ep. 1.13.17 (PL 13, 1144-45); tr. Shotwell/Loomis, See of Peter (see note 42), 706. P. Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian, Oxford 1978, 129; and the discussion in Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy (see note 17), 208-13. See, e.g., Innoc. I ep. 3,10 (PL 20, 492-493) and 37,4,6 (PL 20, 604), where he refers to the specific "times" {tempora) set by his predecessors, i.e., by Siricius.


195

Pope Zosimus, for example, who reigned briefly from 417 to 418, vociferously protested against the hasty promotion of both monks and laymen to the episcopate. He regarded such ordinations as an example of ambitio inefficax, "fruitless ambition," something he found all too familiar in Gaul, Spain and Africa (though apparently not in Italy).47 He urged his episcopal addressee, Bishop Hesychius of Salona in Illyria: "Resist such ordinations! Resist the approach of pride and arrogance!"48 Zosimus put the blame for such irregular ordinations squarely on the shoulders of lax bishops, who sought to curry favor with the multitudes by recruiting popular local figures into the clergy. Similarly, another bishop of Rome, Pope Celestinus (422-432), in a letter to bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne argued that a period of apprenticeship in the clergy was as necessary to the clerical profession as to any other career: "Whoever wants to be a teacher ought first to be a pupil, so that he can learn what he is to teach. Training in every way of life strengthens itself for its ultimate end by this procedure. A person who devotes no time to letters cannot be a teacher of literature. A person who has not progressed through each rank of military service cannot reach the rank that is due to his service. Is it only the priesthood that is something cheap among these things? It is rather easy to bestow, although it is rather difficult to fulfill" 49

The tendency to professionalism inaugurated by Siricius's insistence on the cursus honorum, though continually violated in actual practice, expresses nonetheless a desire among the bishops of Rome for a stable, continuous process of clerical formation. It is worth noting that Pope Leo I

47

48

Zos. ep. 9,1,1 (PL 20, 670): Exigit Mectio tua pmeceptum apostolkae sedis, in quo Patrum decreta consentiunt, et signifies nonnullos ex monachorum popukri coetu, quorum solitudo quavisfrequentia major est, sed et lakos ad sacerdotium festinare. Hoc autem specialiter et sub praedecessoribus nostris, et nuper a nobis interdictum constat, litteris ad Gallias Hispaniasque transmissis, in quibus regionibus familiaris est ista praesumptio, quamvis nee Africa super hac admonitione nostra habeatur aliena, ne quis penitus contra patrum praecepta, qui ecclesiasticis disciplinisper ordinem non fuisset imbutus, et temporis approbatione divinis stipendiis eruditus, nequaquam ad summum Ecclesiae sacerdotium aspirarepraesumeret: et non solum in eo ambitio inefficax haberetur, verum etiam in ordinatores ejus, ut carerent eo ordine, quern sine ordine contra praecepta Patrum crediderantpraesumendum.

Zos. ep. 9,1,2 (PL 20, 670-71): Obsiste talibus ordinationibus, obsiste superbiae et arrogantiaevenienti. 49 Coelest. ep. 4.3.4 (PL 50, 433): Debet enim ante esse discipulus, quisquis doctor esse desiderat, utpossit docere quod didicit. Omnis vitae institutio hac ad id quo tendk se ratione confirmat. Qui minime litteris operam dederit, praeceptor esse non potest litterarum. Qui non per singula stipendia creverit, ad meritum stipendii ordinem non potestpervenire. Solum sacerdotium inter ista, rogo, vilius est? quodfacilius tribuitur, cum difficilius impleatur.

196

David G. Hunter

took this "professionalism" one step further by arguing that failure to reward loyal service in the clerical ranks undermined all ordo within the church.50 I would argue that the emergence of a careful sequence of clerical promotion functioned as part of a strategy for developing the kind of men who would be suitable for embracing sexual continence by the time they reached higher orders. It is not likely a mere coincidence that Siricius was the first bishop of Rome to articulate the clerical cursus and the first to articulate at length the rationale for clerical sexual continence. The cursus itself, in its ideal form, took a young man, even before puberty, and entered him among the lectors. As Siricius' procedures indicated, the young man was to choose a wife upon reaching puberty, though only a woman who had not been previously married. The cursus would have made it possible for the young man to learn about the requirements of higher orders, ignorance of which was one of the main problems encountered by proponents of the new discipline.51 It was the custom in North Africa to require a lector at puberty to commit himself either to marriage or to continence; if he refused to make a decision, he was excluded from the lectors until he either married or vowed continence.52 It seems clear that progressing gradually through the various ranks not only served to consolidate the clerical body itself, but also provided a process by which a young man-whether he chose to be married or perpetually continent-was directed towards the higher orders wherein continence would be required. It gave him the opportunity to decide, after some consideration, whether to advance in rank. Most importantly, it provided time. That is, if the lengths of time recommended by Siricius were actually enforced, the young clergyman could not proceed to the diaconate until he was at least thirty-five years old. Episcopacy would not come for another fifteen years. Such procedures provided time for the aspiring cleric to pursue marriage and produce a family, and subsequently to pursue higher orders, if he wished. It was a regular procedure that would have prepared a man to adopt the "post-marital celibacy" of the Western clergy.

50 51

52

Leo cp. 12.4 (PL 54, 661): Quibus si mercespro devotione non redditur, omnis obedientiaresolvitunomnisordoturbatur. See, eg., the comment of Ambr. off. 1.249 (CChr.SL 25, 91,36-92,50 Testard), which may imply ignorance of the continence requirement in some rural churches. Siricius en. 1.7.11 (PL13, 1140), allowed that a clergyman who lapsed out of ignorance could keep his office as long as he embraced continence thereafter. Council of Hippo (393), can. 2 (CChr.SL 149, 20-21 Munier); Breviarium Hipponense, can. 18 (CChr.SL 149, 38-39 Munier); Council of Carthage (419), can. 16 (CChr.SL 149, 105 Munier).


197

Let us turn now to the two other qualifications for ordination that are mentioned frequently in the canonical sources: that is, the requirements of strict monogamy, both for the clergyman and for his bride. The former restriction on clerical marriage was, of course, an ancient one. It goes back to the Pastoral Epistles and the statement that the bishop should be "a man of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6). By the third century this was widely interpreted as a prohibition of any second marriage on the part of the clergy, as is evident in Tertullian's appeal to this practice to endorse his repudiation of second marriages for all Christians.53 Of all the qualifications for the higher clergy, this is probably the one mentioned most frequently in the canonical literature. This suggests, perhaps, that it was one of the most difficult to enforce. A high mortality rate, especially for women in childbirth, would have produced a significant number of widowed men who remarried, thus making the "man of one wife" something of a distinction. If this was the case, then a "man of one wife" often would have been someone predisposed or perhaps already committed to sexual continence (i.e., a widower who had not remarried). In other words, the requirement of strict monogamy for married clerics in practice would have led in many cases to the adoption of permanent sexual renunciation. If the two requirements were actually linked in this way, this would explain a curious phenomenon in the canonical sources. In the century that stretched between the pontificate of Damasus and that of Leo we find an animated discussion of the interpretation of the monogamy requirement. It seems to have begun in a debate between Ambrose and Jerome over the question of whether a first marriage contracted before baptism counted as a true marriage for a "man of one wife." Ambrose argued that baptism washed away sins, but not legitimate marriages; Jerome argued that a first marriage, like any other sin, is washed away in baptism.54 The subsequent tradition, as evidenced in the papal decrees, unanimously followed Ambrose, although it must be noted that Jerome's argument was raised and refuted so frequently that it must have been attractive to some Christians. In any case, it is significant that the bishops of Rome began to articulate stronger and stronger reasons for the requirement of strict monogamy.

53 54

Ten. castit. 7 (CChr.SL 2, 1024-1026 Kroymann); Ten. monog. 12 (CSEL 76, 6971 Bulhart). For a discussion of the conflict between Ambrose and Jerome on this point, among others, see D. G. Hunter, The Raven Replies: Ambrose's Letter to the Church at Vercelli (Ep.ex.coll. 14) and the Criticisms of Jerome, in Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy, edited by A. Cain and J. Lossl, Burlington 2009, 175-89.

198

David G. Hunter

Several letters of Pope Innocent I. show us this process clearly. In a letter to Victricius of Rouen, composed in 404, Innocent drew attention to the usual texts in support of the monogamy requirement: 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. 55 But he went on to defend the discipline based on the goodness of marriage as a union created by God and on the nuptial blessing bestowed on the Christian couple. The nuptial blessing, Innocent noted, recalled the blessing of the first human couple in paradise; hence there is no reason that it should be washed away in baptism.56 Later, in a letter to Spanish bishops gathered at a synod in Toledo, Innocent restated the argument but added a reference to Matthew 19:6 ("What God has joined, man should not separate").57 Although Innocent did not explicitly invoke the language of "sacrament" in regard to marriage, his reference to the nuptial blessing and Matthew 19:6 recalls Augustine's nearly contemporary argument that strict monogamy was incumbent on the clergy because of the new sacramentum or "sacred significance" now present in Christian marriages.58 Still later in a letter addressed to bishops in Illyria in 414, Innocent offered his fullest justification of the monogamy requirement and of the abiding relevance of marriages contracted before baptism. Citing all the same biblical texts he added several new arguments. Noting that Jesus addressed the words of Matthew 19:6 to unbaptized Jews, Innocent observed that Jesus must have been speaking of the permanence of a marriage

55

For a more detailed discussion of the letter of Innoc. I en. 2 to Victricius, see G. Dunn, Canonical Legislation on the Ordination of Bishops: Innocent's Letter to Victricius of Rouen, in the present volume. 56 Innoc. I ep. 2,6,9 (PL 20, 474-5): ...cum utique uxor ex legis praecepto ducatur in tantum, ut et in paradise cum parentes humani generis conjungerentur, ab ipso Domino sint benedicti; et Salomon dicat, A Deo praeparabitur viro uxor. Quamformam etiam sacerdotes omnes servare usus ipse demonstrat Ecclesiae. Satis enim absurdum est aliquem credere, uxorem ante baptismum acceptam, post baptismum non computari; cum benedictio, quae per sacerdotem super nubentes imponitur, non materiam delinquendi dedisse, sed formam tenuisse legis a Deo antiquitus institutae doceatur. Quod si non putatur uxor esse computanda, quae ante baptismum ducta est, ergo nee filii, qui ante baptismum geniti sunt, pro filiishabebuntur. 57

Innoc. I ep. 3,6,10 (PL 20, 493): Nam si a Deo, ut scriptum est, praeparatur viro uxor, et quod Deus junxit, homo non separet; et ipsi auctores generis humani in origine a Domino benedicuntur: quomodo interpeccata, ista credunturposse dimittR 58 Aug. bon. coniug. 18.21: ...propterea sacramentum nuptiarum temporis nostri sic ad unum uirum et unam uxorem redactum est, ut ecclesiae dispensatorem non liceat ordinari nisi unius uxoris uirum, quod acutius intelkxerunt qui nee eum qui catechumenus uelpaganus habuerit alteram ordinandum esse censuerunt. De sacramento enim agitur, non de peccato. Text in P.G. Walsh (ed.), Augustine: De bono coniugali. De sancta uirginitate, Oxford 2001, 38.


199

that occurred before baptism since his audience was entirely unbaptized.59 He also argued that no one considers children born before baptism as illegitimate and unable to inherit; why should the marriage contracted before baptism be considered illegitimate?60 Finally, Innocent appealed to the example of Cornelius the centurion in the Acts of the Apostles and the apostle Peter himself. Just as the virtues of these men (and, indeed, of any catechumen) are not wiped out in the waters of baptism, he argued, so baptism does not invalidate a legitimately contracted marriage.61 Innocent's persistent concern with the rule of clerical monogamy is significant not only because it shows how contentious the requirement was, but also because in order to defend it Innocent resorted to an implicitly "sacramental" understanding of marriage. As we shall see shortly, this appeal to the unique sacred significance in clerical marriages was to become explicit in the writings of Pope Leo. This emphasis on a particular kind of clerical marriage is especially evident in the final restriction on the married clergy that I wish to consider: their wives also had to be married only once. Unlike the requirement of monogamy for the bishop, presbyter or deacon himself, this requirement is not found in the New Testament. It is the result of applying to Christian ministers Levitical purity laws that were once imposed on Jewish priests. This requirement, based on passages such as Leviticus 21:13-14 and Ezekiel 44:22, is mentioned as early as the Gallic council of Valentinum in 374 and, a decade later, in the passage from Siricius' Letter to Himerius cited above. Like the discipline of sexual continence itself, the restriction on clerical wives appears to derive from an effort to enhance the 59

60

61

Innoc. I ep. 17,2,5 (PL 20, 529): Ipse Dominus, cum interrogaretur a Judaeis si liceret dimittere uxorem, atque exponeret fieri non debere, addidit: Quod ergo Deus junxit, homo non separet. Ac ne de his locutus esse credatur, quae post baptismum sortiuntur, meminerint hoc et a Judaeis interrogatum, et Judaeis esse responsum. Innoc. I ep. 17,2,5 (PL 20, 529-30): Quaero, et sollicitus quaero, si una eademque sit uxor ejus qui ante catechumenus, postea sit fidelis, filiosque ex ea, cum esset catechumenus, susceperit, ac postea alios, cum fidelis: utrum sint fratres appelkndi, an non habeantpostea, defuncto patre, herciscundae haereditatis consortium, quibus filiorum nomen creditur abstulisse regeneratio spinalis? Quod cum ita sentire atque judicare absurdum est, quae (malum) ratio est hoc defendi, et vacua opinione magisjactari, quam aliqua auctoritate roborari, cum non possit inter peccata deputari, quod Lex praecepit, et Deus junxit? Innoc. I ep. 17,2,6 (PL 20, 530): Numquid si quis catechumenus virtutibus studuerit, humilitatem secutus fuerit, patientiam tenuerit, eleemosynas fecerit, morti destinatos qualibet ratione cripuerit, adulteria exhorruerit, castitatem tenuerit; quaero si haec, cumfactus fuerit fidelis, amittit, quia per baptismum, totum quod vetus homo gesserit, putatur auferri? Aspiciamus gentilem hominem Cornelium, orationibus atque eleemosynis revelationem, Petrumque ipsum vidisse: numquid per baptismum haec illi ablata sunt, propter quae baptismum ei videtur esse concessum?

200

David G. Hunter

"priestly" character of the Christian minister by overlaying him with yet further sacral significance derived from the Levitical priesthood. Also like the continence requirement, it appears to be an innovation of the fourth century. This is strongly suggested by Letter 17 of Pope Innocent, in which he declared to the apparently skeptical bishops of Illyria: "No defense can opposed to this precept [the passage from Leviticus], which has been granted by divine authority, except your custom. But you yourselves admit that this custom of yours was established out of ignorance, not on the basis of apostolic tradition and sound reason." 62

It is clear that the bishops in question had employed a different argument from tradition and had followed a different custom in the matter of clerical wives. For the purposes of this paper, the significance of the new restriction on clerical wives is twofold. On the one hand, it provides another example of the way in which clerical marriages were being managed to support the discipline of sexual continence. By reinforcing the persona of the Christian minister as "priest," the limitation on clerical wives reinforced the grounds on which the discipline of sexual continence was imposed, that is, as a ritual requirement of ministers of the altar. On the other hand, the increasing restrictions on clerical marriage could only be justified by an increasingly sacred conception of clerical marriage. This paradoxical development is most evident in the letters of Pope Leo who took the theme of the priest as "man of one wife" and his wife as "a woman of one husbandone step further than Innocent. Rather than justifying the practice of monogamy primarily on the basis of 1 Timothy 3 (for the priest) and Leviticus (for his wife), Leo linked the two together and offered an explicitly "sacramental" interpretation of both requirements: "The Apostle says, among his other requirements for choosing a bishop, that a man should be consecrated who, by common knowledge, was or is the husband of but one wife. And that precept has been considered so sacred that the condition was thought binding even on the wife of the bishop-elect; otherwise, while possibly marrying a man without a previous wife, she herself might have been married to a previous husband. Who, then, would dare tolerate anything done to injure so great a sacrament when regulations concerning this great and venerated mystery were not lacking even in the divine Law? In them it is clearly set down that a priest is to marry only a virgin, and that she who is to become a priest's wife is not to have been married to another man. Even in those times the spiritual marriage of Christ and the Church was prefigured in priests, so that "because a husband is head of the wife," the bride of the

62

Innoc. I ep. 17,1,2 (PL 20, 527-28;.- Contra quod praeceptum, divina auctoritate submissum, nulla defensio mandati alterius opponitur, nisi consuetudo vestra: quae, ut ipsifatemini, ex ignorantia, ut verecundius dicam, non ex apostolica traditione et Integra ratione constitutaest.


201

Word might learn to know no other husband than Christ, who rightly chooses her alone, and marries no other but her." 63

For Leo, the monogamy practiced by the clergy of the Church was prefigured by the Old Testament priesthood and found its ultimate fulfillment in the monogamous union of Christ and the Church. Hence Leo could speak explicitly of the "chaste lives of the married" {matrimoniorum castimoniam) as a prerequisite for episcopal ordination, along with, of course, laborum merita or long-standing service in the Church." This conjugal "chastity," as I have suggested here, was not identical with sexual continence, although it could lead directly to it.

Conclusion In this essay I have argued that the emergence of a requirement of permanent sexual continence for higher clergy in the West did not lead immediately to a preference for monastic candidates to the priesthood or episcopacy. On the contrary, I have suggested that the canonical literature, especially the letters from the bishops of Rome, indicates a certain prefer63

Leo, ep. 12.3 (PL 54, 648): Dicente enim Apostolo ut inter alias electionis reguks is episcopus ordinetur quern unius uxoris vimm fuisse aut esse constiterit, tarn sacrata semper habita est ista praeceptio, ut etiam de muliere sacerdotis eligendi eadem intelligeretur servanda conditio; ne forte ilk, priusquam in matrimonium ejus veniret, qui aliam non habuisset uxorem, alterius viri esset experta conjugium. Quis igitur tolerare audeat quod in tanti sacramenti perpetratur injuriam, cum huic magno venerandoque mysterio nee divinae quidem legis statuta defuerint, quibus evidenter est definitum ut virginem sacerdos accipiat uxorem, et alterius torum neliat conjugis, quae uxor futura est sacerdotis? Jam turn enim in sacerdotibus figurabatur Christi et Ecclesiae spiritale conjugium, ut quoniam vir caput est mulieris, discat Sponsa Verbi non alium virum nosse quam Christum, qui merito unam eligit, unam diligit et aliam praeter ipsam suo consortio non adjungit. Trans. E. Hunt, St. Leo the Great: Letters, Fathers of the Church 34, New York 1957, 50-51.

64

Leo makes both of these points explicitly in the paragraph immediately following the one just cited: ep. 12.4 (PL 54, 649-50): Monente vero Apostolo, atque dicente: Et hi autem probentur primum, et sic ministrent, quid aliud intelligendum putamus, nisi ut in hisprovectionibus non solum matrimoniorum castimoniam, sed etiam kborum merita cogitemus, ne aut a baptismo novellis, aut a saecukri actu repente conversis officium pastorale credatur; cum per omnes gradus militiae Christianae de incrementis profectuum debeat aestimari anpossint cuiquam majora committi? Merito beatorum Patrum venerabiles sanctiones cum de sacerdotum ekctione loquerentur, eosdem ut idoneos sacris administrationibus censuerunt, qui multo tempore per singulos officiorum gradus provecti, experimentum suiprobabilepraebuissent, ut unicuique testimonium vitae suae actuum suorum ratio perhiberet. Leo's generous estimate of the marriage bond and its significance for clerical identity helps to explain why he required married clergy to continue to live with their wives, despite the practice of sexual continence. See ep. 167.3 (PL 54, 1204).

202

David G. Hunter

ence for candidates who had spent many years in clerical service, passing through all of the lower ranks and serving for a requisite time in each rank. Moreover, I have argued that papal letters from Damasus to Leo show an increasing preoccupation with the character of the marriages of the clergy, that is, with the requirement of strict monogamy both for the priest and for his wife. These restrictions on clerical marriage, along with the emphasis on the cursus honorum, can be seen as supporting the incipient discipline of permanent sexual continence, indirectly or directly. But, I would argue, there was something more at work. The century that stretched from Damasus to Leo was one of the most traumatic in all of Roman history. It witnessed the gradual fragmentation of the social fabric and disintegration of Roman order. Discontinuity was the order of the day, and there was desperate need for stable and continuous forms of authority. The clerical ordo that took shape in these decades, therefore, could not wholly abandon traditional forms of social life. While sexual continence had emerged as the privileged coin of spiritual capital, more traditional models of authority persisted.65 A clergy consisting of oncemarried men, who had served their times in the ranks of militia Christi, was a potent reminder of older continuities. Despite the best hopes of Ambrose and Eusebius, the time for a perpetually celibate clergy had not yet come. As Leo and Augustine realized, it was still possible to see in the marriages of the clergy an image of Christ and the Church.

65

In his essay, "Bishops and Society," in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume II. Constantine to c. 600, ed. by A. Casiday and F. W. Norris, Cambridge 2007, 343-66, Raymond Van Dam has noted the ways in which the hierarchy of the Church increasingly mirrored the imperial hierarchy.

The Saint and the Bishop: Severinus of Noricum Veit Rosenberger Wenn Sie etwas Trostliches lesen wollen, so suchen Sie ... das Leben des heiligen Severin. Der hat unter dem Umsturz aller Dinge ausgehalten. (J. Burckhardt, letter March 4, 1848, in: W. Kaegi, Jacob Burckhardt III, 1956, 379).

Severinus of Noricum was a remarkable person in many respects. He set out from his cell somewhere east of Noricum, founded a monastery in Favianis (Mautern), dealt with Germanic kings, rejected the episcopate, and became one of the most influential individuals in the province and kept silence about his past. The exact date of his arrival in Noricum, some time around 460, is heavily disputed.1 Other dates are not doubted: Severinus died in 482 in his monastery. When Noricum Ripense was given up in 488, the monks exhumed the body of Severinus and transferred him to Castrum Lucullanum near Naples - the same place where Romulus Augustulus had been banished in 476. In 902 the remains of Severinus were brought to Naples, and later in the early 19th century to Frattamaggiore near Naples. Much has been speculated about the former rank of Severinus.2 Herwig Wolfram observed the contrast between the "minimal Severinus" of Rudolf Noll, who regarded Severinus only as a regular monk, and of the "maximal Severinus" of Friedrich Lotter, who identified him 1

2

453: L. Bieler, Eugippius, The Life of Saint Severin, FaCh 55, Washington D.C. 1965, 57; the mid- to late 450s: P. Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire, London 2005, 407; shortly after 460: G. Alfoldy, Noricum, London 1974, 214; 462: F. Lotter, Severinus von Noricum. Legende und Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart 1976, 246-247. About the life of Severinus cf. A. Schwarcz, Severinus of Noricum between Fact and Fiction, in: Eugippius und Severin. Der Autor, der Text und der Heilige, ed. by W. Pohl and M. Diesenberger, Wien 2001, 25-31; R. Noll, Die Vita Sancti Severini des Eugippius im Lichte der neueren Forschung, phil.-hist. Klasse der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 112. jahrgang, Wien 1975, 61-75, especially 74: „Wenn Forschungsergebnisse derart disparat ausfallen, dann ist doch die Vermutung nahe liegend, dass der Wurm in der Methode steckt. Und in einer Uberforderung der Quelle."

204

VeitRosenberger

with Flavius Severinus, consul in 461.3 Discrepancies of this sort stem from the evidence. In 511 Eugippius, the abbot of the monastery at Lucullanum in Campania, wrote the Vita Sancti Severini. Although Eugippius had spent some time in the monastery of Favianis, it seems likely that he had not met Severinus. Eugippius, closely connected to the monastery of Severinus, is the only major source of information about the saint. The account of Eugippius is hardly unbiased, but it shall not be the task of this paper to uncover the historical "kernel of truth" or to distinguish between reliable facts and fantastic fiction in Eugippius: instead, Severinus shall be dealt with on the narrative level. The history of episcopal elections is on the one hand often an account of competition, strife, and open conflict. On the other hand, many candidates refused to become bishop before, during or immediately after their election. Severinus was one of only a few who successfully refused the episcopacy. His is a singular case which allows us to highlight the problems of the election of a bishop; it deserves further investigation. In the first part I should like to compare other cases of refusal of the episcopal dignity. Second, I should like to take a close look at Severinus: although he was not bishop, he seems to have acted like a bishop. He gave spiritual advice, he organised the defence of the region, and, depending on the interpretation of a passage in the Vita Severini, he even dedicated a church.

The Refusal of the Episcopate Since the days of Augustus Roman emperors were expected to show a demonstrative cunctatio at the moment they came to power, a reluctance to underline the modesty of the new ruler/ This ritual - our evidence certainly does not cover all emperors - had some parallels in early Christianity: there is a long tradition of clerics regarding themselves as unwor-

3

4

R. Noll, Eugippius, Das Leben des Heiligen Severin. Lateinisch und Deutsch, 2nd ed. Passau 1981; F. Letter, Severinus (see note 1), 242-260; H. Wolfram, Die Geburt Mitteleuropas. Geschichte Osterreichs vor seiner Entstehung, Wien 1987, 482 n. 51. T a c , ann. I 11-12 about Tiberius (ed. by P. Wuilleumier, Tacite, Annales, vol. 1, 1517); Plin., Paneg. 12 about Traian (ed. by M. Durry, Pline le Jeune. Lettres: livre X, Panegyrique de Trajan, Paris 1964, 12-13); cf. J. Beranger, Le refus du pouvoir, in: j . Beranger, Principatus. Etudes de notions et d'histoire politiques dans l'Antiquite greco-romaine, Geneve 1973, 165-190; a list of the evidence: 168, n. 15. Even the freedman Pallas, donated by the senate with 15 million sesterces under Nero, turned the money down: Plin. ep. VII 29 and VIII 6 (ed. by A.-M. Guillemin, Pline le Jeune. Lettres, vol. 3, CUF, Paris 1967, 43-44 and 56-61).

The Saint and the Bishop: Severinus of Noricum

205

thy of their office, be it the episcopate or simply priesthood.5 When the apostle Jacob made Clement a bishop, "Clement's vehement protestations of his own unworthiness only confirmed for Jacob that he had made the right choice."6 Whatever be the correct date of the Pseudo-Clement's letter to James, it is almost a topos in ancient hagiography that a bishop would first decline his office/ One reason for the development of this habitual refusal might have been the ambition of many clerics: a demonstration of humility suited most clerics well, especially if their ordination was not undisputed. Some examples might help to highlight the options of a cleric who wanted to reject the episcopate. One of the most striking cases is Ambrosius of Milan.8 In the report of his biographer, Ambrose was desperate to avoid the bishopric. He was hiding away, he fled from the town twice, in the brief interval between his election and his ordination, Ambrosius invited female entertainers to his house and ordered the execution of criminals.9 If we leave aside questions about the credibility of this episode (cf. T.D. Barnes' essay in this volume), Ambrose delivered the most spectacular refusal of the episcopate, but was not successful. When Martin of Tours was asked to become bishop of Tours he hid in his monastery. A certain Rusticus, citizen of Tours, tricked Martin into leaving his hiding place. He went to Martin, pretended that his wife was ill, and persuaded Martin to come to town. Once underway they were confronted by the inhabitants of Tours standing along the road. Miraculously, a great number not just from Tours, but also from other towns, had gathered in Tours to vote for Martin. 10 As bishop he lived not in Tours but in a monastic community outside the town. Many members of this community became bishops - "For what city or church would there 5 6 7

8 9

10

Not mentioned for Nero in T a c , ann. XII 69 (vol. 3, 99-100 Wuilleumier). (Ps.-)Clement, Letter to James 3,1-3 (GCS Die Pseudoklementinen I, 7 J. Irmscher). L. Hagemeier, jenseits der Topik. Die karolingische Herrscherbiographie, Husum 2004. If I understand Th. Pratsch, Der hagiographische Topos. Griechische Heiligenviten in mittelbvzantinischer Zeit, Berlin/New York 2005 correctly, the refusal of the episcopate is not a topos in the middle-byzantine period. N.B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, Church and Court in a Christian Capital, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1994. Life of Ambrose 3,7 (PL 14, 31); C. Rapp, Holy Bishops, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 2005, 145. Cf. R. Cherubini, Ammonas di Sketis ( + 375 circa): Un esempio di influsso monastico in un vescovo egiziano del IV sec, in: Vescovi e pastori in epoca teodosiana, 2, Rome 1997, 334-342 about forced bishops in Egypt. Chapter 9 in j . Drumm (ed.), Martin von Tours. Der Lebensbericht von Sulpicius Severus, Ostfildern 1977. About Martin: C. Stancliffe, St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus, Oxford 1983.

206

VeitRosenberger

be that would not desire to have its priests from among those in the monastery of Martin?"11 Even in his earlier career as cleric Martin showed the virtue of humility: when St. Hilarius, the bishop of Poitiers, wanted to ordain Martin as diaconus, he refused several times, claiming that he was not worthy of the office. Hilarius finally realized that he could bind Martin only by offering him an office which included a humiliation. Therefore, he suggested Martin the position of an exorcist. "Martin did not refuse this appointment, from the fear that he might seem to have looked down upon it as somewhat humble." 12 The elections of both Ambrose and Martin were not undisputed; tales about their refusal might have been constructed to balance the strife. Different is the case of Germanus of Auxerre. Constantius of Lyon, the author of the biography of Germanus of Auxerre, gives in the first chapter a brief description of the early years of Germanus: born from upper class parents, he received a thorough training in Gaul, went to Rome to study the law, became a successful and wealthy advocate, married, and was made governour of a province. His eloquence prepared him for preaching, his knowledge of the law for justice, his marriage for chastity, as Constantius remarks. And then, apparently out of the blue, Germanus was ordained bishop. Suscepit sacerdotium invitus, coactus, addictus: Germanus had to be forced, but Constantius gives no details about the refusal.13 Nilammon, a very aged and sick monk, managed to die before his ordination; it is not clear whether Athanasius of Alexandria wanted to ordain Pachomius; in any case, Pachomius escaped the episcopate by hiding among his monks. 14 Not all bishops declined the episcopal honour: in the fairly long Vita Sancti Honorati by Hilarius of Aries, we find a slight reluctance only during his rise to the priesthood: et qui venire ad dignita-

11

Sulp. Sev. vit. Martin. 10,8-9 (SC 133, 274 Fontaine): pluresque ex eispostea episcopos vidimus. Quae enim esset civitas aut ecclesia, quae non sibi de Martini monasterio cuperet sacerdoteml 12 Sulp. Sev. vit. Martin. 5 (NPNF II, vol. 11, 10-11 A. Roberts). 13 Constantius of Lyon, Vita S. Germani 2 (SC 112, 124 Borius). Cum subito divina proceditauctoritas, quam consensus univershatis exsequitur. Nam ckrici omnes cunctaque nobilitas, plebs urbana vel rustica in unam venere sententium: Germanum episcopum omnium una vox postulat. Bellum indicitur potestati, cuius subiectio facilis fuit, cum etiamabhisquosproseparaverat, vinceretur. Suscepit sacerdotium invitus, coactus, addictus; sed repente mutatur ex omnibus. Deseritur mundi militia, caelestis adsumitur; saeculi pompa calcatur, humilitas conversationis eligitur; uxor in sororem mutatur ex coniuge, substantia dispensatur in pauperes, paupertas ambitur. 14 Athanasius, Life of Pachomius 11 (transl. A. Stegmann, Athanasius, Ausgewahlte Schriften, BKV 31, 47-50); Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 144- 148 about monks who became bishops in Syria.


207

tern detrectaverat, ad ipsum dignitas veniP, the acceptance of the bishopric was not an issue.15 Augustine, elected bishop although the bishop Valerius was still alive, seems never to have refused the office. On the discursive level, it is quite clear why the bishopric was not so attractive for some of the candidates. Monks and holy men were often ordained as priests and were soon after candidates for the episcopate. In general, once a monk accepted a position in the world there was the danger of losing his spiritual gifts and of easing his ascetic discipline. One example might suffice. When the ascetic Netras had been ordained bishop of Pharan in the fifth century, he intensified his ascetic lifestyle and explained: "I do this in order not to destroy the monk in me." 16 Athanasius of Alexandria wrote a letter to Dracontius, who wanted to avoid the episcopate offered to him. Although Athanasius admitted that "the bishop's office is an occasion for sin" and "from it comes opportunity for sinning", he wanted Dracontius to accept the episcopate of Hermopolis Parva.17 In the council of Valencia in 374, it was considered one of the signa sanctitatis if men made false statements about themselves in order to avoid ordination."18 Laws offer a different perspective on episcopal elections. In 469, the emperor Leo passed a law about the ordination of a bishop. He stressed that no one shall buy the office with money, and that the bishop shall be castus et humilis. The law further reads: Tantum ab ambitu debet esse sepositus, ut quaeratur cogendus, rogatus recedat, invitatus effugiat. ...perfecto enim indignus est sacerdotio, nisi fuerit ordinatus invitus. The bishop shall not be ambitious, if he is asked to take the office, he should be compelled, having been requested, he should decline, and having been invited, he should flee; he is unworthy of the priesthood unless he is ordained against his consent.19 If the old rule applies that a law always reflects the existence of the facts or deeds it threatens to punish, this law proves that a number of candidates were eager to become bishop and were even willing to pay for the office. Humility, as displayed in the ancient biographies of the holy bishops, seems to have been the exception of the rule. Having this tension in mind, we can now take a closer look at Severinus. 15 16 17 18 19

Hilarius of Aries, Vita Honor*.: priesthood, 16,2 (SC 235, 112 Valentin); episcopate, 25 (SC 235, 140-142 Valentin). Apophtegmata patrum, Netras 1 (SC 474, 44 Guy); Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 143. Athanasius, Letter to Dracontius 9 (PG 25, 532-533); D. Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism, Oxford 1995, 100-110; Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 143. Conciles gaulois du IVe siecle, ed. C. Munier, SC 241, Paris 1977, 110; Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9)145. CJ 1.3.30-3-5 (CIC(B).C, 22 Krueger).

208

VeitRosenberger

The itinerary of Severinus reveals that he was for some time a wandering holy man. He entered Noricum from Pannonia and moved west along the Danube. His first station was Asturis, where he prophesied that the city would be destroyed. Since he found no belief, he left Asturis and went upstream to Comagenis, a city already occupied by barbarians. At Comagenis he was recognized by the only survivor from Asturis, and his reputation as a man of God was established at that moment. The people of Comagenis followed Severinus' instructions: prayer, fast and almsgiving. Soon an earthquake confused the barbarians to such a degree that they rushed out of the city and killed each other. After that the inhabitants of Favianis, a city befallen by a cruel famine, requested that Severinus come to their aid. Having solved their problem Severinus retreated to a place called "at the vineyards", where he wanted to live in solitude. But soon he returned to a cell near Favianis. There he became famous for his miracles and for his extraordinary gift of abstinence. He walked barefoot in the chilly Austrian winter, persuaded the king of the Rugii to become catholic, and helped him to stay in power. When the young and still poor Odovacar visited the saint Severinus foretold his rise to power. In the ninth chapter of the Vita Severini the saint is offered the opportunity to become bishop. Immediately prior to this proposal Severinus had purchased the relics of the martyrs St. Gervasius and St. Protasius and located them in his monastery, thus establishing once more his religious qualities. The text reads as follows: Episcopatus quoque honorem ut susciperet postulate praefinita responsione conclusit, sufficere sibi dicens, quod solitudine desiderata privatus ad illam divinitus venisset provinciam, ut turbis tribulantium frequemibus interesset.20

Which episcopate was offered to Severinus? One option is the bishopric of Lauriacum, seemingly the only episcopate in Noricum Ripense. The other possibility is that he was offered to be bishop of the place mentioned before this passage: Favianis, where Severinus had founded a monastery; Favianis would then be a new episcopate. Alas, the text allows us only to speculate.21 Eugippius does not even bother to inform the reader if another man replaced Severinus as bishop. The author mentions no further pressure on Severinus in this matter; the decision was accepted. Contrary to many other descriptions of episcopal elections, the people play no role.

20 21

Eugippius, V. Severin. 9,4 (SC 374, 206 Ph. Regerat); transl. L. Bieler, Eugippius, The Life of Saint Severin (see note 1), 68. Cf. I. Zibermayr, Noricum, Bayern und Osterreich, 2. Aufl. Horn 1956, 44f, Ph. Regerat, Eugippe. Vie de Saint Severin, Introduction, texte latin, traduction, SC 374, Paris 1991, 108.


209

The refusal of the episcopal honour has been interpreted in various ways. Friedrich Lotter diagnosed a massive difference between Severinus and the other bishops who first refused the episcopate. While most other bishops acted in affected humility, Severinus' refusal was honest. Lotter regarded only Martin of Tours as credible as Severinus.22 For Philippe Regerat, Severinus denied the episcopate out of humility.23 If we follow Eugippius, the motive of Severinus was that he had done enough by giving up the solitudo desiderata - the solitude he wished for - in order to help the people of Noricum. He does not want to be bothered with the bishopric, which includes further administrative duties. In all, Severinus situates himself well within the ascetic discourse about ecclesiastical offices. It is interesting to see how this passage continues: daturas nihilominus monachis formam sollicitius admonebat... ("His monks, however, whom he wished to give a pattern of life, he admonished earnestly ...") Although he refuses to be bishop, Severinus acts as a religious authority. As the above cases have showed, it was almost impossible for a candidate not to become bishop once he was chosen. It was equally difficult to step down from the office. Some bishops were forced to abdicate. Paul of Samosata was deposed in 268 because he had used the episcopate to enrich himself.24 Basil of Ancyra abdicated because he had tortured prisoners.25 One bishop, however, who did manage to be relieved of his office was Theodore of Sykeon. Born under Justinian (527-565), died in 613, his situation differed massively from Severinus.26 While we have no information about Severinus' life before his arrival in Noricum, the author of the Life of Theodore has much to tell about the saint's childhood in Galatia.

22

F. Lotter, Severinus (see note 1), 81: „Diese Haltung hebt sich deutlich ab von jener affektierten Demut des auf den Bischofsthron Erhobenen, fur den es moralisches Gebot war, die ihm iibertragene Stellung zunachst abzulehnen, so dass der Hinweis, der Gewahlte habe sein Amt nur gezwungen iibernommen, zum feststehenden Topos der Bischofsviten geworden ist". Cf. Pont. V. Cyprian. 52, S. 110f; V. Hil. Arel. 9, S. 88; Possid. vit. Aug. 16 (PL 32, 46-47); Ennod. V. Epiph. 40, S. 89; G. Marie Cook, The Life of St. Epiphanius by Ennodius, Washington 1942, 150 compares to the biographies of ancient rulers.

23 24

Ph. Regerat, Severin (see note 21), 92. Eus. h.e. VII 30,7-9 (SC 4 1 , 215-216 G. Bardy); R. Haensch, Die Rolle der Bischofe im 4. jahrhundert: Neue Anforderungen und neue Antworten, Chiron 37, 2007, 157f. Socr. h.e. II 42,5 (SC 493, 224 Maraval); T.D. Barnes, The Crimes of Basil of Ancyra, JThS N.S. 47, 1996, 553f; R. Haensch, Bischofe (see note 24), 164. Vie de Theodore de Sykeon (BHG 1748), 2 Bd., ed. A.J. Festugiere, SHG 48, Bruxelles 1970; cf. S. Hiibner, Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft des spatantiken Kleinasiens, Stuttgart 2005; Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 142.

25 26

210

VeitRosenberger

Theodore, the son of an acrobat and a whore, grew up with his mother; from his earliest childhood he felt inclined to an ascetic life. After some years, Theodore was literally forced to accept the bishopric of Anastasioupolis. While living in a cave near his monastery the clerics and the landowners dragged him out of the cave, put him on a cart and drove him to the archbishop of Ancyra, who ordained him. Eleven years later Theodore wanted to resign from his position. He was afraid to neglect his lifestyle of asceticism and contemplation by acting as a bishop. The villages belonging to his episcopate were a continuous source of trouble and he feared to neglect his monks. The process of his decision to step down is amply illustrated by the author of his vita. Several episodes legitimize Theodore's decision. He was visited by the hundred-year-old Antiochus, a saint with holiness evident even in his appearance: endowed with a long white beard and long white hair, Antiochus was a master of fasting. With him Theodore discussed the difficulties and worries which beset him in his episcopal work, the slackness in his monasteries which was caused by his absence, and his wish to relinquish the office of bishop in order to return to the company of his monks. Antiochus supported the ideas of the unwilling bishop and advised him to do it quickly "that he might be innocent in the eyes of God". 27 In the next step Theodore prayed to St. George, his personal saint, and asked him whether he might without condemnation deliver up his bishopric. Having received assurance that his request was granted, Theodore applied to the authorities: ordinary people seem not to be important. He summoned a meeting of the clergy and landowners of the town, the same people who had forced him to the office of bishop years ago. They had refused to listen to his protests, he said, and had persisted in making him their bishop, though he knew that he was unfitted for the government of the church. He told them: "And now this is the eleventh year that I have troubled you and been troubled by you, I beseech you, therefore, choose for yourselves a shepherd in whom you may find satisfaction, one who can take charge of your affairs."(78) After his speech Theodore regarded his withdrawal accomplished. But things became more complicated. In the end it took Theodore remarkable effort to be allowed to resign. Since the archbishop of Ancyra, Paul, did not want to release him from office, they decided to ask the patriarch of Constantinople. While the patriarch was irresolute, Theodore wrote a letter to the emperor Maurice, whom he had helped before. Finally, the intervention of the emperor decided the case: Theodore was allowed to step down, but he still had to

27

Vie de Theodore de Sykeon 74 (61-62 Festugiere).


211

wear the omophorion, the distinguishing mark of the bishop. Theodore could have his will because there was a distinct hierarchy and a powerful emperor who commanded the province Theodore lived in.

Severinus, the Quasi-bishop The connection between the religious position of a bishop and his worldly power has been often analysed in the last 30 years.28 In 1979 Peter Brown interpreted the bishop or the holy man as patronusP Bishops acted as defenders of all in need, sometimes even as advocates of an entire city.30 Lately, the importance of the concept of patron* for Roman society has been challenged.31 This is, in my opinion, an overreaction: although the terms patronus or aliens do not occur too often in Latin texts, the system of patronage can be traced in many fields of Roman society. In a later article, Brown readjusted his interpretation of the holy man as patronus. While it is beyond doubt that God was the find patronus, stories about the efficiency of the holy man might convey more than that he was an efficient patronus. The help given by the holy man was rewarded in many cases. Therefore, a story about the efficiency of a holy man might have been invented in order to explain why a church or a monastery had accumulated wealth. In the case of Severinus Brown's thoughts do not apply. Eugippius can have no intention to explain the riches of his monastery by the saint. Severinus had founded a monastery that was given up. 28

H. Chadwick, Bishops and Monks, in: StPatr 24, 1993, 45-61; Ph. Rousseau, The Spiritual Authority of the Monk-Bishop: Eastern Elements in Some Western Hagiography of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, JThS N.S. 22, 1971, 380-419; R. Niirnberg, Askese als sozialer Impuls: Monastisch-asketische Spiritualist als Wurzel und Triebfeder sozialer Ideen und Aktivitaten der Kirche in Siidgallien im 5. Jahrhundert, Bonn 1988; A. Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, MA/London 2004; J.R. Lyman, Ascetics and Bishops: Epiphanius on Orthodoxy, in: Orthodoxie, Christianisme, Hist o i d Orthodoxy, Christianity, History, ed. S. Elm/E. Rebillard/A. Romano, Oxford 2000.

29

P. Brown, The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, JRS 61, 1971, 80-101; P. Brown, The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, 19711997, JECS 6, 1998, 353-376. R. Haensch, Bischofe (see note 24), 173f; C. Lepelley, Le patronat episcopal aux IVe et Ve siecles, in: E. Rebillard/C. Sotinel (ed.), U eveque dans la cite du IVe au Ve siecle, 1998, 17-33. C. Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, Oxford 2002; contra J. Nicols, Epictetus, the Rhetorician from Cnossos, and the Practice of Patronage, Historia 58, 2009, 325355,esp.354f.

30

31

212

VeitRosenberger

Taking into account the relocation of the monastery and the fact that Eugippius had his information about the saint from older members of the monastery, the figure of Severinus was open to inventions and constructions. Whereas it is a topos in ancient biographies to mention the place of birth and the family of a person, Eugippius does not even tell us where Severinus came from. Saints had to be strangers where they exercised their ministries, as Peter Brown has pointed out: by not revealing his origins, Severinus is the perfect outsider.32 One can argue more along these lines. In 2001 Walter Goffart asked whether the Vita Severini has an underside, namely that the text with its overarching theme of the tensions between Romans and barbarians played an important role in describing the barbarians in the time of Eugippius.33 In the same volume Ian Wood tried to read Severinus as a saint between the worldly and spiritual spheres,34 Peter Heather pointed out that the absence of Roman military might be emphasized in order to enhance the achievements of Severinus,35 To understand the figure of Severinus one has to take into account his numerous prophecies. He gives a prophecy in at least 50 instances, including two apparitions of Severinus in the dreams of others; and in two cases, a J o t more prophesies" are mentioned. It is hard to find a saint with more prophecies than Severinus. The prophecies were inserted in order to enhance his authority and to justify his last prophecy: that his monastery had to be given up, that the people had to leave Noricum. This extraordinary gift seems to underline the closeness of Severinus to God; nobody else had better connections to the divine,36 Although Severinus had successfully refused the episcopate he acted in many respects like a bishop. As a "holy man" he surpassed the activities of a regular bishop: he healed the sick, he helped in a famine, and he was able to restore the social order,37 Like bishops, Severinus offered free jurisdiction, he was an important person of public life and had a widespread social network. Unlike a bishop, he did not administer the finances of the dio32 33 34 35

36 37

P. Brown, The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, in: id., Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity, London/New York 132, n. 143. W. Goffart, Does the Vita s. Severini Have an Underside?, in: W. Pohl/M. Diesenberger, Eugippius und Severin (see note 2), 33-39. I. Wood, The Monastic Frontiers of the Vita Severini, in: W. Pohl/M. Diesenberger, Eugippius und Severin (see note 2), 41-51. P. Heather, Fall of the Roman Empire (see note 1), 409; B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford 2005, 17-20 and 134-136 reads Eugippius as a source for the decline of the empire. Even E. Gibbon speaks of the "prophetic tone" of Severinus; Everyman's Library vol. 6,455. Cf. Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 9), 6 and 156.


213

cese, he did not ordain priests, and he had not the power of excommunication. Three bishops are mentioned in the vita Severini, and the saint has a special relationship with all of them. First is Mamertinus, a tribune whom Severinus asks for military help against robbers. Eugippius informs us that Mamertinus was consecrated bishop at a later time: (4) Me vera Mamertinum percontatus est, tunc tribunum, qui post episcopus ordinatus est, utrum aliquos secum haberet armatos, cum ambus latrunculos sequeretur instantius. Second is Paulinus, who came as a priest to St. Severinus, attracted by his spreading fame. Having stayed some days in the company of the blessed man, and wishing to go home, he was told by him: "Hurry, venerable priest, for soon, my beloved friend, will you be adorned by the dignity of episcopal rank, much as the will of the people - so we believe - may be against your wish." Paulinus, later called sanctus Paulinus episcopus (25,1), had hardly come home when the words of the prophet concerning him were fulfilled. For the citizens of Tiburnia, the metropolis of Noricum, forced him to accept the episcopate.38 It remains unclear if Tiburnia was the metropolis of Noricum mediterraneum or of both Norican provinces. To some degree, Severinus seems to be responsible for the ordination of Paulinus. After only a few days with the saint, Paulinus was made bishop and Severinus knew it beforehand due to his prophetic insights. Severinus even prophesied that Paulinus would be reluctant. The third is Constant s , bishop of Lauriacum. When the pressure by the barbarians increased, Severinus advised the citizens of Lauriacum to bring all their goods and property into the city so that the enemies would find no food. Severinus repeated his advice four days, and finally he sent a monk to Constantius, ordering the bishop and the inhabitants to guard the walls at night. When they testified that their scouts had seen no enemies in the area outside the city, the monk, instructed by Severinus, told them again to guard the walls. "Stone me, if I am found to have lied", he exclaimed. In the same night the barbarians attempted to take the city, but were defeated thanks to the saint. Severinus had contact with three bishops: Mamertinus, Paulinus and Constantius. And he seems to stand far above the three, even though both Paulinus and Constantius have the epithet sanctus. He gives

38

Eugippius, V. Severin. 21 (236 Regerat): Paulinus quidampresbyter ad sanctum Severinumfama eius latius excurrente pervenerat. Hie in consortia beati viri diebus aliquot remoratus, cum redire vellet, audivit ab eo: "festina, venerabilispresbyter, quia cito dilectionem tuam, populorum desideriis, ut credimus, obluctantem, dignitas episcopatus ornabit. " Moxque remeante adpatriam sermo in eo praedicentis impletus est. nam cives Tiburniae, quae est metropolis Norici, coegeruntpraedictum virum summi sacerdotii suscipere principal.

214

VeitRosenberger

orders to Mamertinus (admittedly, before Mamertinus was made bishop); he instructs Constantius, and he is somehow connected to the ordination of Paulinus. Mamertinus, Paulinus and Constantius might be bishops, but Severinus had a much better connection to God. Even the death of Severinus is constructed around a bishop. More than two years before his death Severinus foretold the day it would occur. It would be the burial day of sanctus (and beatus) Valentinus, once bishop of both Raetian provinces {Raetiarum episcopus). In his death Severinus is in one line with the former bishop of Raetia (41). A close reading of the vita Severini can reveal more about the spiritual activities of the saint. When Severinus received relics of John the Baptist he seems to have dedicated a church. Eugippius writes: quas dei servus debita veneratione suscipiens basilicam sancti Iohannis, sicut praedixerat, ultronea benedictione collate sacravit officio sacerdotum... (23) "The servant of God received them with due reverence, and solemnly dedicated to the service of the priests the basilica of St. John." As Lotter has pointed out, the dedication of a church was the task of a bishop. Because Severinus was not a bishop, it is usually argued, the passage cannot mean that Severinus dedicated the church. Lotter would expect the terminus technicus for the act of dedication: dedicate or consecrate. According to Lotter, sacrare means "einem Ort oder Gegenstand religiose Weihe verleihen". So Lotter interprets this passage as follows: Severinus gave the relics to the church, which then gained the necessary religious aura (erforderliche Weihe).39 The argument is not convincing. First, the two terms sacrare and consecrare are not so different and might have been used synonymously. The point is not whether Eugippius uses the right terminology. Terminology is more fluid than one might wish: for example, Eugippius calls Severinus sanctus and beatus, obviously not making much of a precise distinction between the two terms. Secondly, and more importantly, Severinus acts very much like a bishop: Eugippius seems to have toyed with the notion of the episcopate in writing the life of Severinus.40 If Severinus acted like a bishop, was superior to bishops, and even died like a bishop, the key question facing us cannot be why he refused to become bishop. He did it because everyone was at least expected to do so. Rather, the question is: why could Severinus successfully refuse the episcopate?

39 40

L. Bieler, Eugippius. The Life of Saint Severin (see note 1), 80, n. 24 argues the same way. A layman can dedicate a church he has financed: Theod. ep. Sirm. 67 (SC 98, 148 Azema); I thank Rudolf Haensch for this reference.


215

It is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the situation in Noricum at the time of Severinus. When Severinus arrived in Noricum about 454, there was no longer any imperial civil administration.41 With the exception of only a few soldiers the army had left. A close look at the structure of the country is revealing: the province Noricum installed by Augustus was divided in two parts in Late Antiquity, Noricum ripense and Noricum mediterraneum, divided by the natural border of the mountain ridge of the Alps. In the time of Severinus the two provinces differed massively. The southern region, Noricum mediterraneum, was densely populated; there are more archaeological finds than in Noricum ripense, for example Fluchtburgen (refuge centres). In all, Noricum mediterraneum was wealthier and more Roman than the Noricum on the Danube, 42 where Severinus lived: here the Roman state had almost completely vanished. The country was often raided by neighbouring barbarians. It was possible to successfully refuse the episcopate in this borderland because it lacked an infrastructure to put pressure on a reluctant candidate - especially if he was a well-known and influential holy man. Cities like Milan or Tours offered more compelling and persuading possibilities for the ones who wanted a bishop. Furthermore, there seems to have been no imperial or provincial authority to enforce the popular will to make Severinus bishop.

Conclusion In this paper the question of "episcopal elections" has been dealt with upside down: when Severinus of Noricum was asked to become bishop, he refused; he was never again molested in this matter. Speculations regarding the historicity of the offer of episcopal office or the city which wanted him as bishop are fruitless. If we remain focused on the narrative itself the following results are probable. 1. In the world described by Eugippius the authority of bishops is not disputed. Eugippius does not even bother to describe who wanted to vote for Severinus, the people play no role. If a candidate refuses the episcopate, it is not worth more than the bare notice. Debate, discussion and doctrinal strife about the candidates are not an issue. God will finally decide. 2. The case of Severinus shows that it is not just a hagiographical topos if a bishop

41 42

E.A. Thompson, Romans & Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire, Madison.WI/London 1982, 116-118. G. Alfoldy, Noricum (see note 1), 219-220; cf. P. Heather, Fall of the Roman Empire (see note 1), 410; Th. Fischer, Noricum, Mainz 2002, 129-146.

216

VeitRosenberger

was reluctant to become ordained. 3. In many respects, Severinus acted like a bishop. 4. The situation in Noricum was so chaotic that Severinus could successfully refuse the episcopate. Synesios of Cyrene organised the defence of his see against nomads43, Germanus of Auxerre incited the Britons to fight the invaders, St. Patrick, without the slightest reluctance consecrated bishop in Rome by Pope Celestine, displayed military virtues.44 The strategy of Severinus was different. It consisted of prayer, fast and almsgiving. His humility was so great that he even declined the episcopate, thereby setting an example for other clerics. Yet, reality seems to have been much more competitive.

43

44

Synes. Catastasis (PG 66,1572); j . H . W . G . Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, Oxford 1990, 231f; R. Haensch, Bischofe (see note 24), 173. E.A. Thompson, Romans & Barbarians (see note 41), 133.

Bishops and Clerics during the Fourth Century: Numbers and Their Implications Raymond Van D a m Demographic studies are a booming field in the interpretation of the early Roman empire. For studying ancient populations the three most important variables are fertility, mortality, and migration. By considering these variables, demographic studies have highlighted various aspects of the population of the early empire, including its contours by age and sex, its total size, its distribution in specific regions, and the possibility of growth or decline.1 Because adequate data and detailed local records about fertility, mortality, and migration are not available from the ancient world, such studies typically extrapolate from the model life tables developed by modern demographers. These model life tables are based on modern historical data, but then deploy different assumptions about fertility and mortality levels to generate sample profiles of overall populations and patterns of age structure. In the Roman world life expectancy at birth is assumed to have been very low. As a result, the scholars of demography in the early Roman empire recommend the use of the so-called Model West Life Tables, in particular Level 3 in which life expectancy at birth is 22.9 years for men and 25 years for women.2 For the later Roman empire there are regrettably few similar studies about demographic contours. We can probably assume that birthrates and mortality rates were similar to those of the early empire. The rate of immigration may have changed with the "invasions" of barbarian groups. But 1

2

For excellent introductions to the demography of the early empire, see T. G. Parkin, Demography and Roman Society, Baltimore 1992, and B. W. Frier, Demography, in: The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XI. The High Empire, A.D. 70-192, ed. by A. K. Bowman/P. Garnsey/D. Rathbone, Cambridge 2 2000, 787-816. Parkin, Demography (see note 1), Frier, Demography (see note 1), and R. P. Sailer, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, Cambridge 1994, 23, recommend the use of Model West Life Tables, Level 3, available in A. j . Coale/P. Demeny with B. Vaughan, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, New York 2 1983,43.

218

Raymond Van Dam

in contrast to studies of the early empire, it is rare to find estimates of the total population during Late Antiquity at particular moments, such as for the empire in the later fourth century before its partition between East and West. It is also rare to find estimates of the total number of bishops and clerics in the later Roman empire. Yet without such estimates of the total population and the number of bishops and clerics, evaluating the impact of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the later Roman empire is incomplete. The following discussion of the number of bishops and clerics is a modest attempt at locating the ecclesiastical hierarchy in late Roman imperial society. This discussion proposes some estimates about various aspects of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and evaluates the implications of those estimates. Some of the estimation involves the use of the model life tables typically applied to the early Roman empire. The archetype (and inspiration) is Keith Hopkins' article on "Christian Number and Its Implications." In his discussion of the size of early Christian communities, their composition by sex and age, and their levels of literary, Hopkins repeatedly stressed that he was working with "crude probabilities," not "truth statements." His estimates "are numerical metaphors, good for thinking about Christians with." My discussion likewise involves a lot of conjecture.3

The Number of Bishops in the Early Fourth Century How many bishops were there in the Roman empire? At the beginning of the fourth century there were most likely not many. Several vectors seem to point toward the need for a low estimate. One is that there were still not many Christians in the empire. Adolf Harnack guessed that the number of Christians had reached 7 to 10 percent of the total population by 312. Subsequent scholars have followed his lead, usually with the assumption that the number was increasing rapidly, in particular after Constantine began to patronize Christianity. On the basis of the growing use of distinctively Christian names, Roger Bagnall suggests that just under 20 percent of the population in Egypt was Christian in the early fourth century, and about 80 percent in the early fifth century. In contrast, other scholars have suggested lower estimates and slower rates of increase even after Constantine. Ramsay MacMullen estimates that at the end of the fourth century Christians were still less than 7 percent of the population of Rome: "the evidence from Rome is not at 3

K. Hopkins, Christian Number and Its Implications, JECS 6, 1998, 195.

Bishops and Clerics during the Fourth Century

219

odds with the evidence from cities anywhere else in the empire." He also suggests that the percentage of Christians in the rural population was even lower.4 A second factor to evaluate is the reliability of historical records for early periods. In his Ecclesiastical History Eusebius was able to provide a continuous list of bishops only for a few important cities: for Rome, starting with Linus as "the first chosen to hold the episcopacy" (but subsequently considered the successor to Peter); for Alexandria, starting with Annianus in the mid-first century; for Antioch, starting with Evodius in the mid-first century (but subsequently considered the successor to Peter); for Jerusalem starting with Jacobus (James), a brother of Jesus. Most of the other early bishops Eusebius mentioned were stray, isolated references.5 The mid-third century marked, or was thought to mark, a transition. Eusebius mentioned more bishops in the East only from about the midthird century, including Theoctistus, the first bishop he noted for his home see of Caesarea in Palestine. In the West, a legend recorded by Gregory of Tours attributed the foundation of the episcopal sees at Tours and six other cities to "seven men ordained as bishops to preach in Gaul" during the reign of the emperor Decius in the mid-third century. This tradition, however, was problematic and did not synchronize well with Gregory's list of all the bishops for Tours. According to this list, Martin became only the third bishop of Tours in 371, but 120 years after the first bishop.6 A third factor is the attendance of bishops at councils. Sixty bishops attended the "huge council" at Rome in 251. These bishops presumably represented sees throughout the West, not in Italy alone. The council at Rome in 313 was attended by three bishops from Gaul and sixteen from Italy, including the bishop of Rome. The council at Aries in 314 was attended by thirty-three bishops from Gaul, Italy, and Africa, as well as Spain, Sicily, and Dalmatia. These totals suggest that there were still few 4

5 6

A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, tr. j . Moffatt, Vol. 2, London, 1908, 248 n . l ; R. S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton 1993, 280-281; R. MacMullen, The Second Church. Popular Christianity A.D. 200-400, Atlanta 2009, 113. Eus. h.e. II 1,2, Jacobus (SC 31, 49 Bardy); II 24, Annianus (SC 31, 91 Bardy); III 2, Linus (SC 31, 98 Bardy); III 22, Evodius (SC 31, 125 Bardy). Eus. h.e. VI 19,17, Theoctistus (SC 41, 118 Bardy); VII 14 (SC 41, 188 Bardy), bishops of mid-third century. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. I, 30 (Gregorii episcopii Turonensis libri historiarum X, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,1, Hannover 2 1951, 22-23, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison), seven missionaries; X, 31(532 Krusch/Levison), list of bishops of Tours, with the discussion of these traditions in E. Griffe, La Gaule chretienne a l'epoque romaine, Vol. 1, Paris 1964, 83-115.

220

Raymond Van Dam

bishops in the West. The council of Nicaea in 325 was attended by hundreds of bishops, 318 according to later accounts influenced by the Old Testament, but more likely fewer, perhaps about 220. Almost all of these bishops were from eastern cities. Since Constantine had tried to ease the burden of traveling by allowing these churchmen to use public transportation, these bishops at the council of Nicaea may well have been almost all of the bishops in the East at the time.7 In the early fourth century there were most likely more Christian communities in the East than in the West, and hence more bishops. The total number of bishops in the empire was probably in the low hundreds. With the publication of Constantine's support for Christianity, the number of bishops began to increase in both East and West.

The Number of Bishops in 400 The evidence for an increasing number of bishops becomes more reliable during the fourth century. By the end of the fourth century typically each city had its own bishop. According to Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the past bishops known as "apostles" had administered entire provinces, but now they each governed only "the city or the region to which they had been appointed." If the relationship between a bishop and his see was considered the spiritual equivalent of a "marriage," then each city was supposed to have only one bishop, and each bishop was supposed to remain wedded to his original see for life.8 Calculating the number of cities in the empire might hence provide a way of determining the number of bishops. In fact, various factors upset this nominal correspondence between cities and sees. Some cities did not have their own bishops; some communities that were technically not cities did have their own bishops; and some cities had, for various reasons, more than one bishop. For eastern provinces formal records are available, including the lists of signatories at ecumenical and regional councils, the lists of episcopal sees in the Notitiaegraecae, and the official registers of Hierocles and Georgius. By conflating these records, Arnold Hugh Martin Jones, in The Cities of 7

8

Council at Rome in 251: Eus. h.e. VI 43,2 (SC 4 1 , 153 Bardy). For the different lists of the bishops at the council of Nicaea, see S. Destephen, Prosopographie chretienne du Bas-Empire, 3. Prosopographie du diocese d'Asie (325-641), Paris 2008, 18-20. Theod. Mop. comm. in ep. Pauli ad Tim. I (ed. by H. B. Swete, Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli commentarii. The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, Vol. 2, Cambridge 1882, 122-23).


221

the Eastern Roman Provinces, listed all the cities in many of the eastern civil dioceses during "the Byzantine period." Despite occasional uncertainty about renamed cities and about the dates when some communities became cities, here are his totals for the dioceses: Southern part of Thracia, 42 cities plus Constantinople Asiana (i.e. western and southern Asia Minor), 362 cities Pontus (i.e. northern and eastern Asia Minor), 98 cities Oriens (i.e. Cilicia, Syria, Palestine and regions farther east, Egypt Libya, Cyprus), 369 cities The total of these diocesan lists is 872 cities for the eastern empire, excluding the northern part of Thracia as well as the dioceses of Dacia (i.e. along the eastern middle Danube) and Macedonia (i.e. the southern Greek peninsula and Crete).9 These lists of cities do not correspond exactly to lists of attested sees. Sylvain Destephen's magnificent new Prosopographie du Diocese d'Asie, covering the period from 325 to 641, offers an opportunity to make comparisons with Jones' collated lists of provinces. For the provinces in the diocese of Asiana (sometimes known as Asia), here is the comparison between the number of sees (i.e. cities for which bishops are attested over the entire period), as listed in Destephen's "Repertoire des eveches," and the number of cities, as listed in Jones' tables: Asia (the province, not the diocese): 43 sees, but 45 cities Caria: 30 sees, but 34 (or 32) cities Hellespont: 17 sees, but 34 cities (Islands: excluded because Jones' table is incomplete) Lycaonia: 21 sees, but 19 cities Lycia: 40 sees and 40 cities, but several that do not match on each list Lydia: 28 sees and 28 cities, but one that does not match on each list Pamphylia: 43 sees, but 48 cities PhrygiaPacatiana: 37 sees, but 41 cities PhrygiaSalutaris: 29 sees, but 31 cities Pisidia: 24 sees, but 29 cities In these ten provinces in Asiana there were 349 cities but only 312 sees (including some that did not match). Until more volumes of Prosopographie chretienne are published for the other eastern regions, it remains unclear whether this discrepancy of about 10 percent between cities and sees 9

A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford 2 1971, xiv, classifying the period from Diocletian to Justinian as "Byzantine."

222

Raymond Van Dam

was common throughout the East. It also remains uncertain when bishops were first consecrated at some cities, and whether some cities remained as bishoprics. In Italy, Gaul, and Spain the correlation between sees and cities is even more problematic. In their Prosopographie de I'ltalie chretienne Charles Pietri and Luce Pietri listed 242 sees in Italy for the period between 313 and 604. Many of the bishops at these sees, however, are attested only during the second half of this period in 451 or afterward, in particular in the letters of pope Gregory the Great. For the period before the council of Chalcedon, bishops are attested at only about sixty-eight sees (the approximation is due to the uncertain dating of some bishops). Some of the other sees were no doubt in existence before any bishops are attested in the surviving sources; we might estimate that there were about eighty bishoprics in 400. These crude numbers suggest that the total of episcopal sees in Italy exploded, perhaps even tripled, after the mid-fifth century. This increase in the number of bishops was presumably somehow correlated with the end of imperial rule and the establishment of an Ostrogothic kingdom and then a Lombard kingdom in Italy.10 For Gaul lists of signatories at regional councils are available, as well as the civil register of cities in the Notitia Galliarum. This Notitia mentioned 113 cities in Gaul in the late fourth century. The difficulty is determining how quickly each city (and sometimes a community that was not a city) acquired its bishop. Elie Griffe estimated that in the mid-fourth century there were about seventy bishops in Gaul, and up to 117 in the mid-fifth century. We might estimate that in 400 there were about ninety bishops in Gaul.11 In Spain it is first of all difficult to define cities. In the later first century under the Flavian emperors the peninsula was divided among about thirty colonies and between 300 and 400 municipia. But clearly there were never hundreds of bishops in Spain. Nineteen bishops attended the council of Elvira at the beginning of the fourth century, and nineteen bishops

10

11

C. Pictri/L. Pietri, Prosopographie chretienne du Bas-Empire, 2. Prosopographie de I'ltalie chretienne (313-604), Vol. 2, Rome 2000, 2404-2427, "Fastes episcopaux de I'ltalie, par cites episcopates." For the Notitia Galliarum as a secular administrative list compiled under the usurper Magnus Maximus and subsequently turned into an ecclesiastical list, see J. Harries, Church and State in the Notitia Galliarum, JRS 68, 1978, 26-43. Number of bishops: Griffe, La Gaul chretienne (see note 6), Vol. 1, 185, mid-fourth century, Vol. 2, 125, mid-fifth century.


223

attended the council of Toledo in 400. In the early fifth century thirty episcopal sees are attested in Spain.12 Cities without bishops is one complication for determining the number of bishops in the empire. Another is villages with bishops. The promotion of villages as episcopal sees was most apparent in North Africa as a consequence of the controversy between catholic and Donatist Christians. At the Conference of Carthage in 411 each side accused the other of trying to inflate its total number by consecrating "imaginary" bishops. The Donatist bishop Petilianus of Constantina complained that "although there is one bishop of Milevis from our side, three seem to have been established by them." The catholic bishop Alypius of Thagaste complained that "all of them have been consecrated as bishops in villages or estates, not in cities." Petilianus had a quick reply: "You likewise have many [bishops] scattered among all the fields. In fact, wherever you have many [bishops], you also certainly have [bishops] without congregations." Almost 300 bishops from each church, catholic and Donatist, attended or were attested at the Conference of Carthage. These were not all the bishops in each church, however. In his great edition of the proceedings of the Conference, Serge Lancel concluded that each church in fact had over 400 bishops in the early fifth century.13 Elsewhere in the empire there were other villages or districts that had their own bishops. As a metropolitan bishop Basil of Caesarea appointed no fewer than fifty "rural bishops" to serve at villages in the Cappadocian countryside and on the vast imperial estates. These rural bishops in turn were involved in the recruitment of new clerics and may have supervised their own lesser clerics. Basil also noted that near Isaura in Lycaonia there were several "small communities and small villages that have possessed episcopal thrones since ancient times." Basil now hoped to replace those village bishops with "overseers" in order to improve the standing of the bishop of Isaura. Even though the ecclesiastical hierarchy more or less

12

13

M. Kulikowski, Late Roman Spain and Its Cities, Baltimore 2004, 1-16, colonies and mumcipia, 39-43, council of Elvira. For the total of thirty bishoprics, see K. Bowes, "Une coterie espagnole pieuse." Christian Archaeology and Christian Communities in Fourth- and Fifth-Century Hispania, in: Hispania in Late Antiquity. Current Perspectives, ed. by K. Bowes/M. Kulikowski, Leiden 2005, 235-237. Conference of Carthage, Gesta 1,65, "duos in unius plebe fuisse imaginarie constitutes," one bishop, 181, villages, 182, fields. For the total number of bishops, see S. Lancel, Actes de la Conference de Carthage in 411, SC 194, 195, 224, 373, Paris 1972-1991, V o l l ^ S C 194, 119.

224

Raymond Van Dam

replicated the civil hierarchy of cities and provinces, there were still many anomalies left over from earlier times.14 A final complicating factor is that some sees had more than one bishop. The financial support of Constantine and subsequent Christian emperors, either as gifts or as exemptions, had made service as a bishop very attractive. At the giant cities such as Rome and Constantinople various Christian factions consecrated their own bishops. At Rome during the fourth and early fifth centuries, in addition to the official bishops, there were occasional bishops representing the Luciferians, the Novatianists, and even the Donatists. At Antioch in the later fourth century two, three, even four rival bishops claimed the see concurrently. In Asia Minor the supporters of the heresiarchs Aetius and Eunomius appointed their own bishops for Constantinople and Antioch as well as regional bishops throughout Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt. Sometimes men simply promoted themselves. In Cappadocia a deacon assumed the title and robes of a patriarch and gathered a congregation of young men and women. The spread of Christianity seemingly generated its own counter-culture of alternative sects that both mocked and mimicked the trappings and offices of the dominant version.15 The most obvious example of this doubling of bishops was, again, in North Africa, where many cities had both a catholic and a Donatist bishop. During the roll-call of the first session of the Conference in 411 these rival bishops acknowledged each other. "I am present." "I recognize him." Some added a few angry comments about their rivals. "I recently learned about him through the malice he did to me." As a result, although there were more than 800 catholic and Donatist bishops in North Africa in the early fifth century, during the entire period covered by Andre Mandouze's Prosopographie de I'Afrique chretienne, from 303 to 533, only about 734 sees are attested. Many sees had had two rival bishops. In addition, some percentage of these sees were technically not cities. In North Africa there were obviously more sees than cities already during the fourth century.16

14

Villages in Lycaonia: Bas. Caes. en. 190,1 (ed. and tr. by Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Lettres, vol. 2, Paris 1961, 141-142). 15 Appointment of bishops: Philost. h.e. 8,2-4.6-7 (GCS Philostorgius, 105-106 and 107 Bidez/Winkelmann). Deacon Glycerius: Greg. Nazianz. ep. 246-248 (ed. and tr. by P. Gallay, Saint Gregoire de Nazianze. Lettres, vol. 2, Paris 1967, 135-138) = Bas. Caes., ep. 169-171 (104-106 Courtonne). 16 Conference of Carthage, Gesta 1,126 (CChr.SL 149A, 11 Lancel). The number of sees is based on a count of the sites for which at least one bishop is attested in the "Fastes de l'eglise d'Afrique (303-533)" compiled by S.-M. Pellistrandi in A. Man-


225

So how many bishops were there in ca. 400? For the eastern empire Jones lists about 872 cities for the dioceses he surveyed; including additional cities from the Balkan regions and the Greek peninsula would bring the total up to perhaps 1,000 cities. Destephen's tables suggest a 10 percent discount from cities to sees, which was perhaps mitigated in part by bishops representing villages and the extra bishops consecrated by factional groups. For the eastern empire we can assume a maximum of between 900 and 1,000 bishops in 400. Most likely the actual number was lower.17 For the western empire there were perhaps about eighty bishops in Italy, perhaps about ninety bishops in Gaul, and thirty bishops in Spain. Britain was already on its way to disengaging from the empire and can be ignored. But in North Africa the existence of two rival churches meant that there were over 800 bishops. For the western empire we might assume about 1000 bishops in 400, with 80 percent of them in North Africa.

The Number of Lesser Clerics The number of lesser clerics, including priests and deacons, is even more difficult to estimate, since there was no rule similar to the (nominal) oneto-one match between cities and bishops. The evidence for the number of clerics consists largely of stray examples and anecdotes about particular cities. In large cities there were hundreds of lesser clerics. In the mid-third century, when Rome still had a population of one million residents, there were 154 clerics, consisting of forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, and fifty-two exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers. In 535, when Constantinople had a population of up to 600,000 residents, the emperor Justinian ordered the number of clerics associated with the "great church" to be frozen at 425, including sixty priests, 100 deacons, forty deaconesses, ninety sub-deacons, 110 readers, and twenty-five choristers, as well as 100 doorkeepers. In the fourth century Carthage had a population of over 100,000 residents. In the later fifth century, even

17

douze, Prosopographie chretienne du Bas-Empire, 1. Prosopographie de l'Afrique chretienne (303-533), Paris 1982, 1246-1300. R. MacMullen, Voting about God in Early Church Councils, New Haven 2006, 120 n.4, suggests 150 or more bishops for the Aegean and Greece. For Egypt, Libya, and Cyrenaica, Bagnall, Egypt (see note 4), 285, suggests "90 to 100 bishoprics by 320, a structure that remained stable for a long time thereafter," including about 75 bishops in Egypt.

226

Raymond Van Dam

though now under Vandal rule, there were supposedly still over 500 clerics at Carthage, including young boys serving as readers.18 Most cities in the Roman empire were much smaller, with urban populations of perhaps 10,000-20,000 residents, but sometimes only a few thousand. Among these smaller cities the number of clerics fluctuated greatly. Even bishops might be unsure about the number of their clerics. When bishop Ibas of Edessa was defending himself in the mid-fifth century, he thought that his clergy included "just over two hundred or even more; I don't remember the number." 19 These numbers are obviously disparate, from different cities at different times and conjured up for various reasons. But once Constantine and subsequent Christian emperors extended privileges and immunities to clerics, the total was bound to grow. Already in 326 Constantine noted that men were applying for exemption from municipal burdens "under the pretext of being clerics." He instead insisted that the number of clerics was not to be enlarged "rashly and beyond measure."20 By 400, after almost a century of Christian emperors, the number of clerics had no doubt expanded. As a total number we might estimate about 100,000 clerics, including both major and minor clerics. This would average out to about fifty clerics for each of a maximum of 2,000 bishops, certainly fewer in smaller cities and villages, but many more in larger cities. In terms of size the only comparable institution in the Roman empire was the army. As a result, modern scholars sometimes follow the lead of ancient authors by referring to the ecclesiastical establishment as a "huge army of clerics and monks." 21

18

Clergy at Rome: Eus. h.e. VI 43,11 (SC 41, 156 Bardy); Constantinople: Justinian, Novellae 3,1 (CIC(B).N, 20-21 Schoell/Kroll); Carthage: Victor of Vita, Hist, persecutions 3,34 (ed. by S. Lancel, Victor de Vita. Histoire de la persecution vandale en Afrique, Paris 2002, 192-194). 19 For the size of cities in Italy and North Africa, see R. Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies, Cambridge 2 1982, 259-277. Clergy at Edessa: Council of Chalcedon, Session 10 (trans, by R. Price and M. Caddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians 45, Vol. 2, Liverpool 2005, 288). 20 Pretext: CTh XVI 2,6 (ed. by Th. Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, vol. 1/2, Dublin/Zurich 1971,836-837). 21 Huge army: A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, Oxford 1964, 933.


227

Bishops, Clerics, and the Total Population Bruce Frier has suggested that in AD 14 the total population of the empire was 45.5 million people. On the assumptions that the population grew at a constant annual rate of 0.15 percent and that 20,000 slaves entered the empire each year, he concludes that in 164 the population had risen to 61.4 million people. Then the Antonine plague reduced the total population by perhaps 10 per cent. During the third century political instability in frontier regions, frequent military campaigns, and the outbreak of another plague (described by bishop Cyprian of Carthage) may have led to an additional slow decline in population. During the fourth century the total population of the empire was perhaps still around 50 million people, but then began to decline, earlier in the West than in the East. This number for the total population during the fourth century is simply a guess and may be too high.22 In absolute terms a maximum of about 2,000 bishops supported by about 100,000 clerics seems to comprise an insufficient total for effective ministry. If the total population of the empire is estimated to be still 50 million people in 400, and if both the total population and the clergy were evenly distributed, there would be one bishop for 25,000 people, and one cleric for 500 people. Since such large ratios would have made effective pastoral care difficult, we might hence assume that a substantial percentage of the total population was not Christian. If Christians represented only 50 percent of the total population, there would be one bishop for 12,500 Christians, and one cleric for 250 Christians. If Christians represented only 10 percent of the total population, there would be one bishop for 2,500 Christians, and one cleric for 50 Christians. The pastoral ministry of bishops and clerics becomes more plausible as our assumptions about the percentage of Christians decrease. In fact, neither the total population nor the clergy was distributed evenly over the empire. In his discussion of the population of the early empire Frier also estimated the populations of regions within the empire

22

Frier, Demography (see note 1), 811-816. M. Corbier, Coinage, Society and Economy, in: The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XII. The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337, ed. by A. K. Bowman/P. Garnsey/A. Cameron, Cambridge 2 2005, 397-400 discusses the total population during the third century but does not offer even an estimated number. B. Ward-Perkins, Land, Labour and Settlement, in: The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XIV. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425-600, ed. by A. Cameron/B. Ward-Perkins/M. Whitby, Cambridge 2 2000, 327, suggests "a substantial fall in population" between 400 and 800: "the population did drop, perhaps even dramatically (i.e. to h a l f - o r even l e s s - o f its previous, Roman levels)."

228

Raymond Van Dam

before the impact of the Antonine plague. He suggested that the population of the Latin West had reached 38.2 million, and of the Greek East 23.1 million. If we assume that the total population of 61.4 million people in 164 had declined to a population of 50 million in 400, then simply as a heuristic exercise we might also assume that Frier's estimated regional populations had likewise declined evenly by the same amount of 18.6 percent. In that case, the population for the entire Latin West in 400 would be about 31.1 million, including about 6.2 million in Italy, about 7.3 million in Gaul, about 6.1 million in Spain, and about 5.3 million in North Africa. The population for the entire Greek East would be about 18.8 million, including about 4.6 million in Egypt and Libya, about 3.9 million in Greater Syria, about 7.5 million in Asia Minor, and about 2.4 million in the Greek peninsula.23 These regional populations can then be matched, more or less, to the estimated total number of bishops in the regions in 400. According to these rudimentary estimates: Italy: ca. 80 bishops, hence about 77,500 people per bishop Gaul: ca. 90 bishops, hence about 81,100 people per bishop Spain: ca. 30 bishops, hence about 203,300 people per bishop North Africa: ca. 800 catholic and Donatist bishops, hence about 6,625 people per bishop; alternatively, ca. 400 catholic or ca. 400 Donatist bishops, hence about 13,250 people per catholic or Donatist bishop The eastern regions match up even less closely with the civil dioceses of the later Roman empire, and the estimates are for cities rather than for bishoprics. Diocese of Oriens, with 369 cities and perhaps about 332 bishops, matched with the population of about 8.5 million in Egypt, Libya, and Greater Syria: hence, about 25,600 people per bishop Dioceses of Asiana and Pontus, with 460 cities and perhaps about 414 bishops, matched with the population of about 7.5 million in Asia Minor: hence, about 18,100 people per bishop The presence of giant cities such as Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, and Antioch would certainly distort these averages. In addition, these averages obviously need to be scaled down to represent the smaller percentage of Christians in the total population. But even in this crude format they make clear the extraordinary regional variation in the size and responsibili-

23

Regional estimates in 164: Frier, Demography (see note 1), 814, Table 6. C. McEvedy/R. Jones, Atlas of World Population History, Harmondsworth 1978, estimate slightly lower regional totals for the Roman empire in 200. Bagnall, Egypt (see note 17), 177 n.151, suggests a population of 4.2 million in late antique Egypt.


229

ties of bishoprics during the fourth century. The contrast between regions in western Europe, with comparatively few bishoprics, and regions in the Greek East, with comparatively many bishoprics, is very striking, and North Africa represented a quite unique situation. To cite dueling neologisms, according to Kim Bowes, Spain was "a starkly under-bishoped province," while according to Ramsay MacMullen, "Africa was overepiscopalized."24

Bishops, Clerics, and the Allocation of Manpower Another important way of thinking about bishops and clerics is to evaluate their total number against the available resources of the empire. One scarce resource was mature men. In the demographic regime characteristic of the Roman empire "high mortality rates produced a youngish population." According to the model life table typically applied to Roman imperial society, in a stationary population with no population growth or decline the average age for males was 26.2 years. Just over one-third (34.2 percent) of males would have been younger than age 15. About 9.8 percent were teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19, about 17.6 percent were in their twenties, about 14.5 percent in their thirties, and about 11 percent in their forties. Only about 12.9 percent of men were age 50 or older.2' In aggregate, about 52.9 percent of men were between the ages of 15 and 49. If we assume that the estimated total population of 50 million was evenly divided between men and women, then there were about 13.2 million men between the ages of 15 and 49. Most of them were working in agriculture as farmers and pastoralists. In this sort of agrarian society working the land required at least 75 percent, and perhaps closer to 90 percent, of the labour force. That left comparatively few men to do something other than work the land.26

24

25

26

Bowes, Une coterie (see note 12), 237; MacMullen, Voting (see note 17), 5. Note that the average for Oriens is also skewed. Egypt had about one-half of the population of Oriens, but only about one-quarter or one-fifth of the bishops. Quotation about mortality rates from Frier, Demography (see note 1), 794. Percentages of men in age groups from Model West Life Tables, Males Mortality Level 3. In fact, there were probably slightly more men than women in Roman society: see Parkin, Demography (see note 1), 98-102. For estimates of the agrarian labour force, see N. Morley, The Early Roman Empire: Distribution, in: The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. by W. Scheidel/I. Morris/R. Sailer, Cambridge 2007, 578, "approximately 10 percent

230

Raymond Van Dam

Other institutions were competing with episcopal and clerical service for the available manpower. One rival was big cities. In the early Roman empire Rome is estimated to have had a population of one million residents. At the beginning of the fourth century its population was perhaps still about one million, but by the beginning of the fifth century it had declined to perhaps 500,000 residents. In contrast, at its foundation in 330 Constantinople had perhaps 30,000 residents, but at the beginning of the fifth century its population had increased tenfold to perhaps 300,000 residents. The combined populations of Carthage, Alexandria, and Antioch would have totaled perhaps between 400,000 and 500,000 residents. Because of endemic diseases and the lack of effective sanitation, mortality rates were higher in very large cities than in the countryside. To sustain these very large urban populations residents had to be "imported," perhaps 1 percent of the total population each year. Even though its population was declining during the fourth century, people still migrated to Rome. In contrast, the growth of Constantinople would have had a volatile impact on the eastern provinces. In order to provide for its rapid increase in population and for the replacements needed to sustain its large population, hundreds of thousands of people must have moved to the new capital during the fourth century.27 A second rival was the army. In the early Roman empire the emperors maintained a standing army of about 350,000 soldiers. Although this army discharged between 6,000 and 7,000 veterans each year, it also required 15,000 new recruits. The army was constantly exchanging older men for more than twice as many younger men. Then the emperor Diocletian in the later third century and subsequent emperors enlarged the size of the army, perhaps by almost one-quarter to 435,000 soldiers. The number of new recruits presumably would have increased by a similar percentage, to almost 19,000 young men each year. Some, perhaps many, of these new soldiers were conscripted from Roman citizens or barbarian groups already living inside the empire. But since the emperors gradually relaxed the requirements about age and height, the recruitment of citizens

27

of Roman subjects were dependent for their food and other resources on the agricultural labor of others," and F. L. Cheyette, The Disappearance of the Ancient Landscape and the Climatic Anomaly of the Early Middle Ages: A Question To Be Pursued, EME 16, 2008, 128, "an estimate of eight or nine agricultural workers for every individual not working in the fields would be a reasonable guess." R. Van Dam, Rome and Constantinople. Rewriting Roman History during Late Antiquity, Waco 2010.


231

was presumably becoming more difficult. As a result, many soldiers were recruited from barbarians outside the frontiers.28 A third rival was the imperial administration. The reforms associated with Diocletian and the other Tetrarchic emperors had led to a considerable increase in the size of the imperial administration. The co-rulership of multiple emperors had necessitated the establishment of multiple courts and an expansion of their accompanying palatine ministries. An increase in the number of provinces, dioceses, and prefectures required more highlevel magistrates and their accompanying departments of secretaries and other bureaucrats. Peter Heather estimates that in 400 approximately 2,700 positions with at least equestrian rank were available in palatine ministries in each half of the empire. These ministries also employed many lesser secretaries and functionaries. The departments that supported the three or four prefects, twelve diocesan vicars, and about one hundred provincial governors would have required another 17,600 bureaucrats. The administration of the empire hence offered thousands of jobs at various levels, from secretaries to prefects and powerful court magistrates. Magistrates and ministries also hired thousands of legal advisors. While the top magistrates typically served for comparatively short tenures, the civil servants had effectively lifetime tenure. Christopher Kelly suggests that there were about 35,000 salaried imperial officials serving in the administration of the later Roman empire.29 For his new capital at Constantinople, Constantine founded a new senate. Initially many of its members were current senators who were resident in the East. The emperor Constantius initiated a campaign to recruit more senators, in particular from municipal decurions. The emperors Valentinian and Valens extended senatorial rank to high-level magistrates, high-level court officials, and even top military officers. In an oration deli-

28

29

R. MacMullen, How Big Was the Roman Imperial Army?, Klio 62, 1980, 451-460, suggests 350,000 soldiers in the Severan army; W. Scheidel, Marriage, Families, and Survival. Demographic Aspects, in: A Companion to the Roman Army, ed. by P. Erdkamp, Oxford 2007, 432, calculates the number of discharged veterans and new recruits for the early imperial army; M. Whitby, The Army, in: The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XIV. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425-600, ed. by A. Cameron/B. Ward-Perkins/M. Whitby, Cambridge 2 2000, 292, suggests 435,000 soldiers under Diocletian. For the difficulties of recruitment, see Jones, Later Roman Empire (see note 21), 614-23. P. Heather, Senators and Senates, in: The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XIII. The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425, ed. by A. Cameron/P. Garnsey, Cambridge 2 1998, 184-210, and C. Kelly, Emperors, Government and Bureaucracy, in: The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XIII. The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425, ed. by A. Cameron/P. Garnsey, Cambridge 2 1998, 163 n.132.

232

Raymond Van Dam

vered during the 380s Themistius claimed that the senate at Constantinople had increased from 300 members to 2000 members.30 Yet another rival was the growing interest in monasticism and asceticism. Many men now choose to leave their families and communities to live in monasteries or in ascetic solitude. The number of monks and ascetics in 400 is difficult to quantify. In the eastern regions, in particular Egypt, there were perhaps already tens of thousands of monks; in the western regions where monasticism became a force only later, there were perhaps still only thousands of monks. The reaction of the emperor Valens nevertheless provides an indirect indication of the increasing number of monks, because during the 370s he ordered monks to be drafted into the army. The desertion of young men to monasticism was hindering military recruitment.31 The increase in the number of bishops and clerics during the fourth century cannot be isolated from consideration of the other demands for the available manpower. The most important requirement was working the land. Given the absence of technological innovation and the difficulty in increasing the productivity of both labour and land, this was not a negotiable requirement. In the later Roman empire a very high percentage of the labour force worked in agriculture. The institutions competing for the remaining manpower included very large cities, the army, the imperial administration, monastic communities, and, not least, the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In some cases there was overlap among these rival demands. Monks and sometimes soldiers also worked the land; monks, former soldiers, and former bureaucrats might become clerics and bishops; former soldiers might migrate to big cities. The rapid increase in the number of bishops and lesser clerics hence needs to be interpreted as an "ecological" problem involving the allocation of a limited commodity. The significant issue was not a shortage of manpower, but rather the distribution of available manpower. In this political and ecclesiastical "ecosystem," because so many men were working in agriculture, mature men were a scarce resource. If the population of Constantinople, the size of the army, and the size of the

30

31

Them. or. 34,13 (ed. by H. Schenkl/G. Downey/F. Norman, Themistii orationes quae supersunt, vol. 2, BSGRT, Leipzig 1971, 221,15-222,7), with Jones, Later Roman Empire (see note 21), 527, suggesting that the senates at Rome and Constantinople were of equal size. See Jones, Later Roman Empire (see note 21), 930-931, citing some numbers of monks from various texts, and N. Lenski, Valens and the Monks. Cudgeling and Conscription as a Means of Social Control, D O P 58, 2004, 95-103, for Valens' attacks on monks.


233

imperial administration were going to increase considerably during the fourth century, then something else, such as the population of Rome, had to decrease. An increase in the size of the ecclesiastical hierarchy added another burden. Most likely bishops were fulltime churchmen, consumers and not producers. But it is unlikely that all of the other clerics were also fulltime churchmen, supported entirely by ecclesiastical revenues. We should probably assume that many clerics, in particular minor clerics, were part-time churchmen. Their primary jobs were still in agriculture.

Clerical Careers In the later fourth and early fifth century bishops of Rome proposed regulations about the length of clerical service required before promotion to an episcopacy. Bishop Siricius declared that deacons should be at least thirty years old and should serve for at least five years. Priests should serve for another ten years before they could receive an episcopal chair. Bishop Zosimus subsequently asserted that men should serve as lectors until they were twenty years old, then as lectors or exorcists for five years, as acolytes or subdeacons for four years, as deacons for five years, and finally as priests. Then, if their lives were exemplary, they might hold the "highest priesthood," an episcopacy. These recommendations implied that the youngest appropriate age for holding an episcopacy was about 45, 32 The model these bishops had in mind was the Roman army. Siricius compared the ecclesiastical administration to a "holy army," while Zosimus claimed that clerics were serving "in the camps of the Lord." In its overall contours the ecclesiastical establishment did indeed resemble the army, which included many ordinary soldiers and a hierarchy of highranking officers.33 But there were two important differences. One was length of service. Soldiers served for fixed tenures of at least twenty years and were then discharged to become peasant farmers, labourers, small merchants, or, sometimes, monks, clerics, or bishops (such as Martin of Tours). In contrast, clerics served for life and were never discharged. The army exchanged older soldiers for younger soldiers; the clergy recruited more young clerics to replace deceased clerics or to join the older clerics.

32 33

Siricius ep. 1,13 (PL 13, 1142a-1143a). Zos. ep. 9,5 (PL 20, 672b-673a). Siricius ep. 1,14 (PL 13, 1143a). Zos. ep. 9,2 (PL 20, 671a-b).

234

Raymond Van Dam

The second difference was the possibility of upward social mobility. Service in the army had always offered the most promising opportunity for ordinary Roman men to improve their rank and status. In the early empire soldiers could work their way up through the ranks to become centurions with higher salaries, and non-citizens could acquire Roman citizenship. In the later empire veterans typically received allotments of land as well as immunity from various taxes and from service as municipal decurions,34 Clerical service offered some of the same rewards, but not to the same sort of men. Its hierarchy instead tended to replicate and reinforce the ranks and statuses of civil society. During the fourth century most of the bishops were recruited from decurions, who were already well-to-do local notables. The top clerics, such as priests and deacons, were often also from curial families. Ordination as a cleric or a bishop was more commonly an indication of lateral mobility rather than of strict upward mobility. These men were transferring from one respectable situation that was losing its advantages, such as service as a decurion, to another respectable situation that was gaining in prestige and influence. These men hence maintained or enhanced their prestige not so much by moving up within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but rather as the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy increased its authority and influence.35 In addition, there were anyway fewer opportunities for upward promotion within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. As we academics know firsthand, lifetime (or just very long) tenures can create obstructions for advancement. Unless the number of clerics was constantly increasing in communities, ambitious clerics had to wait for the deaths of higherranking clerics, including bishops. And if the number of clerics exceeded the number of bishops by at least fifty-fold, then clearly most clerics never became bishops, and never had even a chance at becoming a bishop. They had to make a virtue out of the necessity of stagnation. As Gregory of Tours said of one longtime cleric, "God allowed him to remain in the

34 35

For the length of service and the privileges of veterans, see Jones, Later Roman Empire (see note 21), 635-636. For the backgrounds of clerics, see Jones, Later Roman Empire (see note 21), 920929: "The great majority of the higher clergy, the urban deacons and priests and the bishops, were drawn from the middle classes, professional men, officials, and above all curiales' (923-924). For additional discussion of lifetime tenure for clerics, see R. Van Dam, Becoming Christian. The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia, Philadelphia 2003, 53-63, and R. Van Dam, Bishops and Society, in: The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 2. Constantine to c. 600, ed. by A. Casiday/F. W. Norris, Cambridge 2007, 350-357.


235

service of the cathedral for many years." It is no wonder that this cleric had enough time to memorize all of the Psalms.36 Several factors conspired against the likelihood of consistent upward promotion in the clerical hierarchy, in particular toward becoming a bishop. One was lifetime tenure, which slowed turnover at the top and clogged advancement. Another was the irregular promotion of men from outside the clergy as top clerics or even as instant bishops. Bishop Zosimus had insisted that in this "celestial army" a man could not become a "general" without having first served as a tiro, a fresh recruit. In fact, some, perhaps many, men became bishops with limited or even no prior service as a cleric. Every consecration of a bishop from outside the clerical establishment was another obstacle to the advancement of long-serving clerics.37 A final impediment to promotion was low average life expectancies. According to the model life table, the average life expectancy was 29.4 years for men at age 20, and 23.9 years at age 30. Even men who started their clerical careers while comparatively young might well not live long enough to complete the full sequence of offices before being considered eligible for an episcopacy. In his study of late antique Egypt, Bagnall suggested that "the average age of death for those who survived early childhood" was "the early to middle forties." This was about the age typically recommended for promotion to an episcopacy,38 The recommendations of the bishops of Rome seemed to define an actual career path as a cleric, which would lead to promotion as a bishop. These recommendations implied that experience and long service would be rewarded eventually. In reality, however, the lengthy clerical careers typically exceeded average life expectancies. These recommendations were a quiet reminder to clerics, including priests and deacons, that almost all of them were never going to become bishops.

Episcopal Careers: Expectations and Life Expectancy By the end of the fourth century there were perhaps 4,000 senators in the empire, evenly divided between West and East. In each half of the empire there were hence about twice as many senators as the maximum number of bishops. Like many of the new senators, especially the new senators at

36 37 38

Greg. Tur. virt. Martin. I, 7 (Gregorii episcopii Turonensis miracula et opera minora, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,2, Hannover 1885, 143, ed. B. Krusch). Zos.ep.9,2(PL20,671a-b). Bagnall, Egypt (see note 17), 184.

236

Raymond Van Dam

Constantinople, bishops were typically recruited from municipal curial families. Increasingly bishops engaged with senators as equals. They also interacted as equals with the top imperial magistrates, whose offices required or conferred senatorial rank. In fact, some bishops interacted with emperors as p e e r s - o r occasionally even behaved like superiors. Of all the top imperial magistrates, only emperors shared a distinctive characteristic with bishops: both bishops and emperors had lifetime tenure. Senators kept their senatorial rank for life, but the offices they might hold typically had short tenures of only a year or two. Senators hence privileged the life of otium, leisured retirement. This was another classic example of making a virtue out of necessity. Senators favoured, or pretended to favour, what they had to do, live in retirement, more highly that what they wanted to do, hold offices. In contrast to senators, however, emperors and bishops could not slip back into retirement. In some exceptional instances an emperor like Diocletian might abdicate or a usurper like Vetranio might be allowed to "retire." But the dominant conviction was that only death could end the tenures of emperors and bishops.39 Lifetime tenures offer the possibility of imagining a context of expectations about the possibility of becoming a bishop. For emperors lifetime tenures were disconnected from their ages, because many were promoted very young simply through their dynastic relations. When the emperor Constantius died in 361, he had served as Caesar for thirteen years and then Augustus for twenty-four years. Thirty-seven total years as emperor exceeded even the tenure of his father, Constantine. But Constantius had been proclaimed a Caesar when he was seven. In the fifth century Theodosius II was emperor for forty-eight years, and would have served longer if he had not fallen off his horse. But he had been proclaimed Augustus already before his first birthday. In contrast, the men who became bishops had usually earned their promotions through service as clerics, monks, or imperial magistrates. Even the men who became bishops primarily as "legacy" appointments, as sons or nephews of bishops, were typically older. Since bishops died in office, the average length of their tenures might provide a general sense of the expectations about the speed of turnover. For Late Antiquity reliable lists of bishops at particular sees are rare. The most reliable is, of course, for Rome. After Constantine martyrdom or exile no longer ended episcopacies prematurely, and we can probably assume that the subsequent bishops of Rome died of natural causes

39

For the comparatively short tenures of top imperial magistrates, see Jones, Later Roman Empire (see note 21), 377-383.


237

(although sometimes aggravated by imprisonment). Bishop Vigilius, for instance, died suffering from kidney stones. Between 311, when Miltiades became bishop, and 604, when Gregory the Great died, the Liber Pontificalis listed thirty-four bishops of Rome. Two bishops can be excluded, Felix, who served during the tenure of Liberius, and Silverius, who was deposed after serving less than a year in 536. Of the remaining thirty-two bishops, the average tenure was almost 9.2 years. The longest tenures were Silvester, almost 22 years, Damasus, just over 18 years, Leo, just over 21 years, and Vigilius, just over 18 years.40 Another list of continuous episcopacies is available for Tours. For the period between 337 and 594, the end of his own episcopacy, Gregory of Tours listed eighteen episcopacies. One episcopacy, which lasted for two (or three) years, should be excluded, since it was held jointly by two bishops who had been reassigned from Burgundy: "they were both very old men." Two bishops died after being sent into exile by the Visigoths. Another, after serving for three years, was supposedly poisoned (although in the context of Merovingian Gaul poisoning might be classified among natural causes). Of these seventeen bishops, the average tenure was 15 years. Some of these bishops served very long tenures, including Litorius, about 33 years, Martin, 28 years, and Brictius, 45 years. These were the second, third, and fourth bishops, and their exceptionally long tenures might suggest a problem in the list. Gregory (or his source) was perhaps struggling to fill in this century with too few names. If we exclude these three bishops, then the average tenure of the remaining fourteen bishops was 10.9 years.41

40

Vigilius: lib. pont. 61,9 (ed. by L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis, Paris 1886, 299). According to Bus. vita Const. 3,7,2 (FC 83, 318 Bleckmann), the bishop of the "imperial city" did not attend the council because of his "old age." Silvester had become bishop of Rome in 314, and whatever his age was in 325, after the council he still served for another decade. According to Phot. Bibl. 88, apparently citing Gelasius of Caesarea, bishop Metrophanes of Byzantium/Constantinople did not attend the council because he was over 100 years old. G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 451, Bibliotheque byzantine, Etudes 7, Paris 1974, 387, argues that Metrophanes was bishop in fact from 306 to 314. Alexander, the next bishop of Constantinople, served until 337; Soz. h.e. Ill 3,2 (FC 73, vol. 2, 338 Hansen), noted that Alexander died at the age of 98.

41

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 31(352 Krusch/Levison), list of bishops, with the dates in L. Pietri, La ville de Tours du IVe au Vie siecle. Naissance d'une cite chretienne, Collection de l'Ecole francaise de Rome 69, Rome 1983, 4. Note Gregory's confusion about the length and the dating of the joint episcopacy of Theodorus and Proculus in Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. Ill, 17 (117 Krusch/Levison); X, 31,10 (531-2 Krusch/Levison).

238

Raymond Van Dam

From the length of bishops' tenures there is, of course, no way to retrovert to their ages at promotion. According to the model life table typically applied to Roman imperial society, the average life expectancy for a man at age 35 was 23.6 years, at age 40, 21.1 years, at age 45, 18.4 years, at age 50, 15.6 years, at age 55, 12.9 years, and at age 60, 10.4 years. But within those expectations the variation was quite unpredictable. For some famous, but random, examples from the fourth and early fifth centuries of bishops for whom we know both their ages (or approximate ages) and the length of their tenures, Ambrose became bishop of Milan in 374 when he was about 35 years old and served for 23 years (which closely corresponded to the life expectancy of the model life table), while Augustine became bishop of Hippo in 395 when he was about 41 years old and served for 35 years (which exceeded his life expectancy at the time of his consecration by over 50 percent).42 Sometimes older men enjoyed exceptionally long tenures. Gregory the Elder, the father of Gregory of Nazianzus, became bishop of Nazianzus in 329, having previously held municipal offices. He was then about 50 years old and might have expected to serve as bishop for another decade or so. But he died in 374, after serving as bishop for forty-five years. Although great age was certainly possible in Roman society, the probability was very low. From an original cohort of 100,000 male and female babies, "only a handful would have reached the age of 95 years." The probability of a male baby surviving to age 50 was already only 21.1 percent; the probability of surviving to age 95 was .001 percent (i.e. one out of 100,000). Gregory the Elder had had the exceptionally good fortune to have had two full careers, each of which had lasted a full normal lifetime.43 In contrast, sometimes comparatively younger men had only short tenures. Basil almost became bishop of Caesarea in 362, when he was in his early thirties. When he did become bishop of Caesarea in 370, he was about 40 years old and might have expected to serve for another two decades or more. Instead, his episcopacy lasted only seven or eight years. 42 43

For the birth of Ambrose in 339, see N . B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan. Church and Court in a Christian Capital, Berkeley 1994, 32. For the career of Gregory the Elder, see R. Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, Philadelphia 2003, 40-52. Quotation about handful from Parkin, Demography (see note 1), 110. Because of the low probability of great age, the purported ages of Roman centenarians or near-centenarians should always be treated with suspicion. One famous example is the monk Anthony, who, according to Ath. vita Ant. 89,3 (SC 400, 362,8-11 Bartelink), claimed to be almost 105 years old at his death in 356. The details of Antonys life make better sense if he is assumed to have been decades younger, perhaps up to forty years younger: see R. Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constantine, Cambridge 2007, 319-329.


239

Throughout his letters Basil constantly complained about his many physical infirmities, and already in his mid-forties he referred to himself as an "old man." He died only a few years after Gregory the Elder, who had been a contemporary of his grandparents.44 Clearly there were no firm restrictions on the age of the men selected as bishops. Athanasius was one of the youngest men to become a bishop during the fourth century. He became bishop of Alexandria in 328 when he was about 29 years old or in his early thirties and served for almost forty-five years. One of the oldest to become a bishop was Damasus, who was consecrated in his early sixties, served for eighteen years, and died just before turning 80. The tenures of both Athanasius and Damasus approximately doubled their respective life expectancies at the time of their consecrations.45 If it is impossible to deduce bishops' ages at consecration from the lengths of their tenures, we can perhaps still assume that contemporaries had a general sense of life expectancies. Even without access to our modern life tables, contemporaries could nevertheless plan ahead and anticipate a timeframe for future episcopal vacancies. Episcopacies, especially the episcopacies at large cities like Rome and Alexandria, were highly desirable, and replacements would have been waiting, and perhaps scheming. Athanasius endured a few exiles because of opposition from emperors and rival churchmen. Some of Damasus' own deacons accused him of adultery. Perhaps they had assumed that the elderly Damasus would be only a temporary placeholder, and they now hoped that his expulsion would finally make way for one of them.46 Contemporaries were most likely quite aware that both Athanasius and Damasus, in their different age brackets, were serving much longer than expected. In addition to personal animosities or doctrinal feuds, implicit anticipations about mortality provide a context for interpreting this sort of hostility. A very young bishop and a very old bishop could both clog the expectation of promotion by serving longer than anticipated. According to a later story, Athanasius himself had pretended to be a bishop already when he was playing as a young boy. But because of his own

44 45

46

For Basil's career, including his complaints about poor health, see Van Dam, Families (see note 42), 15-39. Old man: Bas. Caes. ep. 176 (112 Courtonne). Age of Athanasius: T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge, Mass. 1993, 10. Damasus: Hier. vir. ill. 103(PL23,742),"propeoctogenarius." For Athanasius' exiles, see P. Van Nuffelen, Un heritage de paix et de piete. Etude sur les Histoires ecclesiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomene, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 142, Leuven 2004, 347-363. Deacons: lib. pom. 39 (212-213 Duchesne).

240

Raymond Van Dam

long tenure, two, perhaps three generations of young boys never had the opportunity to fulfill their own childhood fantasies of growing up to become bishop of Alexandria.47

Conclusion In this discussion many of the numbers are guesses and estimates. The percentages and probabilities about the age structure of the overall population have been imported from the model life tables generated by modern demographers; the estimates about the sizes of cities, army, imperial administration, and ecclesiastical hierarchy are based on modern scholars' impressions developed from inductive readings of late Roman texts. These are numbers to think about and to think with, not to repeat as accurate. As Hopkins noted, "Initial acceptance implies no final commitment to the estimates' truth." Like the conjectures in his discussion of early Christianity, my estimates here are meant to encourage other scholars to play with the numbers and think about the implications for bishops and clerics in late Roman society. This approach obviously needs more elaboration, in several ways. First, we need to develop a better sociology of bishops and clerics in Late Antiquity. Many modern studies highlight individual, well-documented bishops. When modern studies discuss bishops collectively, they often emphasize their roles as pastors and theologians or their interactions with emperors and imperial magistrates. Studying individual bishops or discussing bishops only as ecclesiastical figures and as political figures is inherently constricting, however. Instead, because bishops and clerics were so ubiquitous, they should become the focus of a larger, holistic account of late Roman society. The size of congregations and the percentage of Christians will affect our interpretations of the pastoral effectiveness of bishops and clerics. Conversely, if the recruitment of bishops and major clerics from local provincial notables competed with the recruitment of imperial administrators and senators, and if the recruitment of lesser clerics competed with the recruitment of imperial secretaries, soldiers, and new residents for large cities, then we will need to adjust our interpretations of the army, the maintenance of big cities, and the overall economy of the later empire. We need to embed bishops and clerics more firmly in society and culture.

47

Athanasius as a young boy: Ruf. h.c. X 15 (GCS Eusebius 11.2, 980-982 Mommsen), Socr. h.c. I 15,2 (GCS NF 1, 53 Hansen), Soz. h.c. II 17,8 (FC 73, vol. 1, 260 Hansen).


241

Second, the estimates offered here should be refined. The accuracy and sufficiency of the data will always be problematic and open to challenges. But the underlying approach retains its value. The volumes of Prosopographie chretienne du Bas-Empire make it easier to aggregate the limited data about ages, tenures, and recruitment patterns of bishops and clerics. It is then possible to quantify the variables by proposing estimates, simulate how the variables might intersect, and evaluate the outcomes. The estimates are simply "numerical metaphors"; but numbers, even estimated numbers, make it easier to calculate intersections. These thought experiments can then help us create profiles (i.e. contexts) for interpreting specific texts or specific episodes. Finally, these sorts of estimates about bishops and clerics can be expanded into later periods. Two brief examples can illustrate the potential. One is Gaul. In the Touraine of Gregory of Tours in the later sixth century, Luce Pietri estimates that there were "several hundreds" of clerics. That estimate might be quantified as about 500 clerics. In Merovingian Gaul there were over 100 sees. If the number of clerics in each of those sees was similar to the size of the clerical establishment in the Touraine, then there were over 50,000 bishops and clerics in Merovingian Gaul.48 From one perspective such a large clerical establishment might have strained local resources. This ecclesiastical hierarchy in Gaul would be about one-half the number of clerics estimated for the entire empire at the end of the fourth century, but in a region with a population that was only approximately 14 percent or less of the population of the old empire. But from another perspective this large number might be reasonable. During the fourth century Gaul and neighboring regions had supported up to perhaps 100,000 soldiers in frontier garrisons and field armies. By the early fifth century perhaps three-quarters of those Roman soldiers had disappeared. Now, in post-Roman Gaul an army of ecclesiastics had effectively replaced the Roman army as a claimant on local resources. The ecclesiastical hierarchy was a burden, but perhaps a manageable burden.49 Quantifying the number of clerics also allows comparisons with other groups in post-Roman Gaul. Scholars of the barbarian invasions are typically reluctant to estimate the number of Franks, Burgundians, and other peoples who moved into Gaul. But by the later sixth century the ecclesiastics may have become one of the largest "tribes" in Merovingian Gaul. Each bishop presided over his own clerical establishment that perhaps exceeded the number of functionaries at a royal court. It is not surprising

48 49

Clergy at Tours: Pietri, La ville (see note 40), 652, "plusiers centaines." For soldiers on the Rhine frontier, see Jones, Later Roman Empire (see note 21), 683.

242

Raymond Van Dam

that Frankish kings might feel threatened by the wealth of particular grand bishops.50 The second example is Italy. By the sixth century there were apparently over 200 sees in Italy. That high number would imply the presence of over, perhaps well over, 10,000 clerics. Even though the size of Rome had diminished considerably, the bishops of Rome were still funding lavish gifts and construction projects. In addition, after the reconquest of Justinian the eastern empire maintained garrisons in various cities such as Ravenna and Rome, up to perhaps 10,000 soldiers. In the early empire there had been few soldiers and few clerics in Italy, and much of the supply of Rome had come from overseas as tribute. In the later empire the overseas tribute had vanished, but there was a large superstructure of ecclesiastics and soldiers. How did the people of post-Roman Italy support bishops, clerics, and soldiers from their own resources?51 One possible outcome is that sometimes ecclesiastics and soldiers ended up as rivals. In the mid-seventh century soldiers even plundered the episcopal residence at Rome, because they thought a previous bishop of Rome had withheld their stipends. They may well have been right. From the fourth century the clergy and the army had consistently been competing for the same limited resources, including supplies, stipends, and manpower.52

50

51 52

For Frankish kings and bishops, see R. Van Dam, Merovingian Gaul and the Frankish Conquests, in: The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume I, c. 500-c. 700, ed. by P. Fouracre, Cambridge 2005, 215-216. Soldiers in Italy: T. S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers. Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy A.D. 554-800, Rome 1984, 84. Plundering of Lateran residence: lib. pom. 73,1 (328 Duchesne).

The Rhetoric of Rules and the Rule of Consensus Peter Van Nuffelen Scholarship on episcopal elections usually sees canon law as laying down the procedure that had to be followed during the election of a new bishop. At least from the fourth century onwards, canon law is supposed to have defined the framework within which actual elections were conducted. This perspective is reflected in the scholarly habit of first setting out the rules before studying historical examples. The first chapter of Peter Norton's recent monograph is dedicated to canon law,1 as is the case in Jean Gaudemet's Les elections dans leglise ancienne (1979). In his foundational 1979 article on elections in the fourth century, Roger Gryson stated that the "fourth century is that of the rise of written church law".2 He added immediately that rules were not always followed. Gryson probably understated the case. Many of the holy and saintly church fathers had obtained their see in what, from a legal point of view, were dubious circumstances. Basil the Great was elected against the will of the majority of the province and through some artful intriguing.3 Martin of Tours was chosen by the people, his hagiographer says, but clearly against the will of the episcopacy.4 Augustine felt bad about his own uncanonical election as a sort of adiutor to Valerius, while the latter was still alive.5 Athanasius of Alexandria, whose own election was disputed, conse-

1

2

3 4 5

P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007. I was unable to consult D.M. Galliker, Canonical Elections, Washington 1917 and A J . Parsons, Canonical Elections, Washington 1939. R. Gryson, Les elections episcopates en Orient au IVieme siecle, RHE 74, 1979, 30144, here 301: 'Le IVe siecle est celui de l'avenement du droit ecrit dans l'eglise'. The paper is reprinted in R. Gryson, Scientiam Salutis. Quarante annees de recherches sur l'antiquite chretienne, Leuven 2008, 263-335. See also F. Letter, Designation und angebliches Kooptationsrecht bei Bischofserhebungen. Zu Ausbildung und Anwendung des Prinzips der kanonischen Wahl bis zu den Anfangen der frankischen Zeit, ZSRG.K59, 1973, 112-150. P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (note 1), 216-223 sets out the evidence. Sulp. Sev. vit. Martin. 9 (SC 133, 271-275). Aug. ep. 213 (CSEL 57, 372-379).

244

Peter Van Nuffelen

crated his own successor Peter. Proclus of Constatinople, who finally got elected after three attempts, translated (at least nominally) from Cyzicus to Constantinople. 6 In a rather quixotic and late report, Theodorus of Mopsuestia is said to have been ordained bishop because the Macedonians only wanted someone with the rank of bishop to argue with them. Theodorus was only later assigned a see (392)7 This list could be extended almost at will: Gregory of Nyssa was briefly bishop of Sebaste by popular demand (380), but rapidly abandoned that see;8 Calandion of Antioch was chosen by Acacius of Constantinople and removed John Codonatus who just before had been chosen by the people of Antioch to Tyre.9 Most of the material this volume contains probably are strictly speaking "uncanonical" elections. There thus exists a wide gap between the modern emphasis on rules as laying down the procedure in the same way as our procedural laws do, and actual historical practice: many elections seem to have been conducted in defiance or ignorance of canon law. This gap may have important consequences for our understanding of episcopal elections in Late Antiquity, and by extension, of the late antique church. If compliance with rules is the hallmark of a stable institution, the manifest disobedience of canon rules would mean that the early church was in a constant state of "anomie" - a term defined by the sociologist P. Merton as the open conflict between publicly professed values and the real social processes, in this case between the creation of rules that are supposed to govern elections, and the actual electoral processes and the social and political play at work in them.10 Although there may have been cases of "anomie" (and late antique bishops liked to accuse their enemies of this11), this seems unlikely in the face of the manifest stability of the church: institutions in a state of anomie are unlikely to prosper for a long time. A possible solution, in line with dominant Anglo-Saxon scholarship, would be to see the divide between rules and reality as an instantiation of the tension between institutional and

6 7 8 9 10 11

Socr. h.c. VII 36-37 (GCS, 384-387). See Rist in this volume. Barhadbessadba, h.e. (PO 9, 506-507). Greg. Nys. en. 19 (GNO 8,2, 62-68) with F. Diekamp, Die Wahl Gregors von Nyssa zum Metropoliten von Sebaste, Theologische Quartalschrift 90, 1908, 384-401. Theod. lect. h.e. E 421 (GCS N.F. Ill 116 Hansen). R.K. Merton, Anomie and Social Structure, American Sociological Review 3, 1938, 672-682. See Ps.-Mart. V. Joh. Chrys. 507a, 521a, 531ab (M. Wallraff, C. Ricci, Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi. Epitaffio attribuito a Martirio di Antiochia, Spoleto 2007, 142, 170, 190); Pall. vit. Chrys. 11.31-52 (SC 341, 271-218) on the enemies of John Chrysostom.

The Rhetoric of Rules and the Rule of Consensus

245

spiritual authority, between church and holy man.12 Such an approach may explain cases when canon law was trumped by charisma, but fails to deal with instances when an election put one ordinary candidate against another. Notwithstanding the proliferation of hagiographical holy men, they must have been rather rare in reality. In my view, the gap between rules and reality invites us to reconsider our conceptual framework that sees canon law as laying down the procedure of an election. This chapter argues that canon law did not lay down the rules of the game, but was itself part of the game. My argument has three steps. First, rather than presupposing that law implicitly ruled the conduct of an election, the act of finding the law has to be emphasized: canon law was not readily available or even known, would normally only be drawn on in disputed cases, and then needed to be interpreted. Many of the cases listed above only appear to contravene the rules, because we project a later, systematic view of canon law on them.13 Second, this entails a different understanding of what episcopal elections actually were. In contrast to modern elections, which are procedures trying to adjudicate existing disagreement of opinion, the election of a bishop was about finding a consensus in the community. Late antique elections start out from the presupposition that agreement is the normal situation. The higher demand of consensus obviously created much more room for tension and dispute: those who refused to yield to the consensus could upset an election, even when there was a clear majority for one individual. The role of canon law was to safeguard the creation of a consensus, not to create it. Third, the frequent use of canons in rhetorical arguments about elections implies that law did have an important authority. Progressively, a set of basic rules became accepted through the frequent reference to them in disputes. This chapter wishes to throw a stone in the pond and question some of the widely-held but rarely articulated assumptions about the role of canon law in episcopal elections. It hopes to point the way to a more nuanced and realistic understanding of how elections took place and the role played by canon law in them.

12

C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley 2005. 13 See the contribution by A. Thier in this volume on the different strands within canon law.

246

Peter Van Nuffelen

Finding the Law The formation of systematic collections of church canons lags behind the rise of church councils (regional or "ecumenical") as the bodies that can "legislate" for the church. The earliest collection is the one E. Schwartz hypothetical^ ascribed to Euzoius of Antioch (361-378): this supposedly "homoean" collection was later sanitized by adding the canons of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451).14 It formed the basis of later Eastern collections, of which the first fully preserved collection is that of John Scholasticus (ca. 565-577). In the West early collections seem to start with the so-called vetus romana, dated to the second half of the fourth century. The earliest collection in Africa is the so-called breviarium hipponense of 397, which proposes an authoritative selection of earlier church rulings.15 The creation of these early collections was probably spurred by disputes over which canons were authoritative and where one could find the right ruling. The so-called Apiarius-affair (419), when the church of Africa asked its sister churches in the East to provide it with the canons of Nicaea, is probably the best-known of such instances. In this respect, they can be compared to the earliest private collections of imperial laws at the end of the third century; as has been observed, we do not know who copied and circulated the various canonical collections.16 The emanation of "canon law" as an authorized, supposedly systematic and complete, and universally shared body of rulings is thus a slow process, which culminated in the sixth century with Justinian's request that future clergy read the canons before their ordination (535) and his decision to give force of law to the canons of the four ecumenical councils (543).17 It is thus only towards the end of Late Antiquity that the idea of a (at least theoretically) universally accessible body of church law is a workable concept. Before that (and even then), finding the law was the key issue - as it was in Ro-

14

E. Schwartz, Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichskirche, ZSSKA 25, 1930, 1114. 15 See the overview by J. Gaudemet, Les sources du droit de l'eglise en Occident du II au VII siecle, Paris 1985; H. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, Oxford 2002 (2nd ed.). 16 F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire, Berkeley 2006, 237; C. Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts, Oxford 2007, 206. 17 Just. Nov. 131(CIC(B).N 654-664 Schoell/Kroll) and 6.1 (36-40 Schoell/Kroll).


247

man law.18 This has important consequences for our understanding of the role played by church canons in episcopal elections.19 There is, first, the simple issue of transmission. In absence of an authoritative collection, which superseded all other existing rules and collections, one could never be sure that one possessed all rules in their correct form. During the public appointment of his successor Heraclius (429), Augustine famously regretted that his own election was not in accordance with the canons: he had been elected while his predecessor Valerius was still alive - something the council of Nicaea forbade, so he says.20 As has been pointed out by Roland Kany,21 no such thing was forbidden by Nicaea, but Augustine probably relied on Rufinus' Church History, which lists the canons of Nicaea, and has as number 10: et ne in una civitate duo sint episcopi. It is unclear how Rufinus came to include this ruling and why Augustine does not refer to the correct version of the canons of Nicaea which since 419 were in the possession of the church of Africa. At any rate, to avoid that his successor was uncanonically elected, Augustine insisted to the people of Hippo that Heraclius would immediately be designated as his successor, but only ordained after his own death. The story illustrates three points. 1) One could never be sure that one knew all the rules, nor that the collection one possessed, was correct. Elections clearly proceeded on the basis of what was supposed to be established and accepted practice. 2) There was a limited flow of information between the different parts of the empire. Not only did Augustine ignore what the rules of Nicaea exactly were, he also ignored that his own election and the designation of Heraclius were uncanonical in the light of canon 23 of the council of Antioch, which forbade the election of a successor by the present incumbent. This practice had often been condemned in the East,22 and it is difficult to imagine that nobody in Hippo would known about it. 18 J. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, 1999, 81: "(...) a Roman citizen did not choose to obey or disobey the relevant law, but whether or not to invoke them in his or her own self-interest". 19 The development of canon law in relation to elections is set out in the Habilitationsschrift of A. Thier, Hierarchie und Autonomic Regelungstraditionen der Bischofsbestellung in der Geschichte des kirchlichen Wahlrechts bis 1140, Frankfurt am Main 2011. See also A. Thier, Dynamische Schriftlichkeit: Zur Normbildung in den vorgratianischen Kanonessammlungen, ZSSKA 124, 2007, 1-33 and his contribution in this volume. 20 Aug. ep. 213 (CSEL 57, 372-379). 21 R. Kany, Der vermeintliche Makel von Augustins Bischofsweihe. Zur Rezeption griechischer Konzilskanones in Rom und Nordafrika, ZAC 1, 1997, 116-123. 22 S.L. Greenslade, Sede Vacante Procedure in the Early Church, JThS 62, 1961, 210226,220.

248

Peter Van Nuffelen

Unless one questions Augustine's good faith, however, that seems to have been the case. 3) Canon rules do have authority, especially when they derive from a council of the status of Nicaea. But they must be found.23 Second, having to find the law entails the possibility of picking one that suits one's case. The second and final exile of John Chrysostom (404) was based on the consideration that his return from his first exile (403) had not been annulled by a council. His enemies produced a canon to support their argument: canon 18 of the council of Antioch (341). John's followers were quick to point out that this was a canon emanating from an Arian council directed against the saintly Athanasius. In Palladius, the poor emperor Arcadius is unsure whom to believe until one of John's followers challenges their enemies to say that they subscribe to the faith of the council that had decreed this canon.24 The aim of the story in Palladius may be to safeguard the emperor from the accusation of heresy, as the church historian Socrates explicitly states that the canon was the basis on which John was condemned and subsequently exiled.25 Later Innocent of Rome would also accuse Theophilus of relying on heretic canons.26 This episode shows that there did not exist a generally accepted set of rules that governed procedure in cases like that of John. Rules had to be found, and once they were found, their authority and applicability could be challenged.27 This is the reason why the church of Africa in 419 sought the confirmation from the churches in the East that the canons alleged to be from Nicaea truly were so. Third, even when found, rules had to be interpreted.28 The debate surrounding the translation of Proclus from the see of Cyzicus to that of Constantinople (434) well illustrates that interpretation is always bound up with authority and power. Since the exile of John Chrysostom (404), the church of Constantinople had been divided between johannites and anti-johannites. The former constituted a formidable opposition: they fielded their own candidate, Philip of Side, who never got elected but had 23

24 25 26 27

28

One striking conclusion that has to be drawn from Kanys paper is that scholars do not know the church canons as well as one would expect, because they have always accepted Augustine's account at face value. Can we expect late ancient bishops to know their canons better than modern scholars do? Pall. vit. Joh. Chrys. 1X20, IX 60 (SC 341, 183-184). Socr.h.e. VI 18 (GCS, 341-343). Soz.h.e. VIII 23 (GCS, 379-381). Both John and Theophilus appeal, for example, to canon 5 of Nicaea that bishops should not overstep the boundaries of their provinces: see Pall. vit. Joh. Chrys. VII 132, VIII 170 (SC 341, 154, 172). The role of interpretation and argument in late ancient law has been emphasized by Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts (note 15).


249

sufficient support to block three times the election of the johannite candidate Proclus (425, 427, and 431). Compromise candidates were chosen at each turn: Sisinnius, Nestorius and Maximian.29 Sisinnius tried to reduce the tensions by getting rid of Proclus and ordained him bishop of Cyzicus - a well-known trick to dispose of an unwanted candidate. The people of Cyzicus rejected Proclus, and he stayed in Constantinople as a bishop without a see. In 434 he was quickly chosen as successor of Maximian. The johannites raised protest, claiming that translations were forbidden by the council of Nicaea (canon 15). The church historian Socrates, a partisan of Proclus, spends quite some time countering the argument: he points out, among other things, that translations were common. His suggestion is therefore that the ruling of Nicaea was practically invalid. Moreover, Proclus had the support from all the major sees, including Rome, who confirmed that the translation was no problem. Proclus duly became bishop. Proclus, belonging to the ecclesiastical establishment of the capital, was able to control and to direct the interpretation of the rules. It has been argued with reference to the case of Proclus that we should make a distinction between "translation" and "transmigration", the former designating an authorized move, the latter an unauthorized one.30 This distinction has the aim of legally explaining what seems an illegal series of translations throughout Late Antiquity, but it actually confirms my emphasis on the power of interpretation: the absolute rule of Nicaea was not absolute for those who had the clout of obtaining an authorization and turning a transmigration into a translation. The suggestion that canon law sets out the legal framework and procedure for episcopal elections, much as electoral law does for modern elections, is thus misleading. Not only is there the historical record that many elections were conducted in apparent violation of what canon law prescribes, but the above considerations on the difficulty in finding the rules, the selectivity in using them, and the necessity of interpretation suggest that we may be approaching late antique canon law and episcopal election with a misleading and modern conceptual framework.

29 30

See P. Van Nuffelen, Un heritage de paix et de piete. Etude sur les Histoires ecclesiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomene, Leuven 2004, 30-37. S. Scholz, Transmigration und Translation. Studien zum Bistumswechsel der Bischofe von der Spatantike bis zum Hohen Mittelalter, Cologne 1992; j . Rist, Ut episcopus non transeat: Die Problematik der Translation von Bischofen in der Spatantike dargestellt am Beispiel des Proklos von Konstantinopel, SP 29, 1997, 119-126 and his contribution to this volume.

250

Peter Van Nuffelen

Finding Consensus Simplifying grossly, modern political thought can be said to see society as composed of atoms, i.e. of individuals who pursue their own interests, or, if one has more communitarian inclinations, of distinct groups with their own identity and needs. The political process has the aim of finding, quite literally, a modus vivendh the expression of individual antagonism has to be limited by or channeled through institutions, so as to prevent us from being wolves to one another. Compliance with procedure is thus the bedrock of a modern democratic society: one has to accept the rules of the game and to submit to the outcome of the procedure. Hence some of the peculiarities of modern democracies: a US president who is elected with barely 52 percent of the votes is hailed as having received a powerful mandate from the population, and he is allowed to rule against the will of the other 48 percent. A president elected with less votes in absolute numbers than his opponent is still legally elected because the procedure prescribes the existence of an electoral college. Even more puzzling, from a pre-modern perspective, is that in the UK, between 2005 and 2010, a party with just 35 % of the vote was able to govern the country. Elections in modern democracies are thus not tools to generate consensus but to adjudicate profound disagreement. Episcopal elections in Late Antiquity were fundamentally different. The election of a bishop was not seen as the result of a procedure to which one had to adhere strictly; rather, the chosen candidate was supposed to represent the consensus of the entire community. Appeals to consensus are common in late antique elections: various papal letters, for example, emphasize consensus and the importance of not imposing a candidate against the will of the community or that of the wider church.' 1 The earliest church canons about episcopal elections have precisely the aim of removing obstacles to the emanation of a consensus: Canon 4 of Nicaea, which is later, as we shall see, often reductively interpreted as requesting three ordaining bishops, actually wishes to ensure that all bishops of the province agree and that no one gets elected without the agreement of all: three bishops must be present at the ordination, but all must at least give their consent through a letter. Canon 6 of the same council affirms that one needs the agreement of the metropolitan, but also that the wish of a clear

31

Leo cp. 14 (PL 54, 673): cum ergo de summi sacerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus praeponatur quern cleri plebisque consensus concorditer postularit; Caelest. ep. 4.5 (PL 50, 451), ep. 23 (PL 50, 543): consensu sanctae congregationis. See also Aug. ep. 209.1 (CSEL 57, 347-353).


251

majority can be imposed on a minority of two or three: an emerging consensus cannot be blocked by the stubbornness of a few. Canon 13 of Laodicea, to give a last example, emphasizes that the people do not have the right to impose their candidate unilaterally. These and other canons32 should be seen as attempting to safeguard the formation of a consensus whilst dealing with the new elements generated by the Constantinian age: the monarchic and hierarchical episcopacy; the creation of church provinces on the model of state provinces; the increasing role of elite laity; the ambition and other unholy motives generated by the power, wealth, and prestige of the bishop. What they do not do, however, is setting out a comprehensive procedure that generates a universally accepted candidate. Seeing episcopal elections as consensus-seeking events, in contrast with modern elections in which procedure adjudicates disagreement, has four important consequences. First, the need to reach a consensus raises the bar significantly. Indeed, a significant minority could block the election of the majority candidate: simple majority voting was not accepted. A good illustration of this is the fact that the johannites, a minority in the church of Constantinople in the first half of the fifth century could block the election of the candidate of the establishment on three occasions (425, 428, and 431). 33 They never succeeded in having their own candidate elected, but on each occasion a compromise candidate was chosen in stead of the establishment candidate,34 Second, there was no procedure to deal with dissent. We actually do not know how consensus was reached during elections. Were there successive ballots? Was there a gathering during which the candidates were acclaimed? We simply do not know, and it is likely that the actual course of an election differed from place to place and occasion to occasion,35 Even when the idea of a shortlist of three candidates develops from which the other bishops or the metropolitan can choose, we do not know how that 32 33

34

35

See e.g. Council of Carthage 390 canon 12 (CChr.SL 149, 18 Munier); breviarium hipponse 38 (CChr.SL 149, 45 Munier). See Van Nuffelen, Un heritage (note 28), 30-37 and P. Van Nuffelen, Episcopal Succession in Constantinople (381-450 C.E.): The Dynamics of Power, JECS 18, 2010,425-451. For a list of western examples of disagreement between people, clergy, and the metropolitan bishop that lead to disputed elections, see L. Pietri, Y. Duval, C. Pietri, Peuple Chretien ou plebs: le role des laics dans les elections ecclesiastiques en Occident, in M. Christol (ed.), Institutions, societe, et vie politique dans l'cmpirc romain du quatrieme siecle, Rome 1992, 373-395, 380-386. The informality of the procedure in the High Middle Ages is noted by J. Peltzer, Canon Law, Career and Conquest. Episcopal Elections in Normandy and Greater Anjouc. 1140-1230, Cambridge 2008, 15.

252

Peter Van Nuffelen

list was drawn up. There does not seem to have been anything like a set "procedure". As a consequence, dissent and disagreement were a recurring and difficult problem during the election of a bishop.36 Procedure was usually improvised on such occasions: often the parties appealed to a higher authority or an outsider.37 It was often attempted to forestall future disagreement and sideline potential but unwanted candidates, who were too controversial and whose election might disrupt the community. One favoured trick was ordaining such figures to a different see: as we have seen, Proclus was ordained as bishop of Cyzicus by Sisinnius after he had unsuccessfully tried to become bishop of the capital. Another possibility was to have the unwanted candidate swear an oath never to compete for the top post. According to Sozomen, it was one of the stipulations of the comprise that aimed at ending the schism in Antioch,38 It was alleged by his johannite enemies that Arsacius, the brother of Nectarius of Constantinople, refused the offer of a different see and swore an oath that he would never become bishop of the capital. But in 404 he became the successor of John, 39 According to Zacharias Scholasticus and Evagrius, John Talaia swore an oath that he would never become bishop of Alexandria, when the emperor suspected him of that ambition.40 In other circumstances, a contested bishop could abdicate to restore peace.41 Third, the absence of precise rules for who could vote made it very difficult to identify the actors in the process. In particular, without a procedure that establishes how the will of the people could be securely established, anybody commanding a vociferous part of the people could argue to represent the people. For example, when reading the dossier on Bonifatius of Rome's disputed election (418-419), it is impossible to determine who truly represented the majority of the people, let alone the consensus: 36 37

38

39 40 41

See, eg., Ambr. ep. extra coll. 14 (CSEL 82, 235) (to community of Vercelli). See also Joh. Chrys. de sac. 3.11 (SC 272, 188-200). See Sidonius Apollinaris and Bourges (Sid. ep. 7.5 LCL, vol. 2, 308-312, with the paper by J. van Waarden in this volume) and Ambrose and Vercelli, with references in the previous note. Soz. h.e. VII 3 (GCS, 304): 'For it seemed best, to take oaths from those who were considered eligible, or who were expected to occupy the episcopal see of that place. Of these there were five besides Flavian. These promised that they would neither strive for, nor accept the episcopate should an ordination take place among them during the life of Paulinus and Meletius, and that in the event of the decease of either of these great men, the other alone should succeed to the bishopric.' Pall. vit. Chrys. XI 31-52 (SC 341, 217-218). Ps-Zach. rh. ( = Ps.-Zach. schol.) h.e. V 6 (CSCO 88, 153 Brooks); Evagr. h.e. Ill 12 (Parmentier/Bidez,109,27-110,26). Aug. ep. 69 (CSEL 34, 249-50).


253

Colkctio Avelkna Ep. 14 suggests that Eulalius had the most support, but Ep. 17 accuses him of usurping the election with the support of a limited group of the plebs and the clergy. In his letter, the emperor Honorius emphasizes the unanimous choice for Bonifatius (Collectio Avelkna Ep. 37.3). Although P. Norton is right in emphasizing that the people remained an important voice,42 this voice had to be interpreted - allowing for the possibility that it was not heard. A fourth consequence of seeing episcopal elections as consensusseeking phenomena is that an emerging consensus permitted to overstep the rules that existed. This ties in with a tendency among men of the church to stress the importance of virtue over that of procedure, or, phrased differently, of true piety over earthly status: there was a distinct awareness that bishops elected according to the rules did not always make good bishops.43 Hagiography is particularly rich in examples of virtue overcoming rules.44 Often divine will was adduced as the reason for choosing a particular individual. Augustine's appointment of Heraclius as his successor in 429, for example, strongly banked on consensus: Augustine chose him, but had the choice publicly approved by the people. The long account found among Augustine's letters (Ep. 213) of this public meeting conveys the impression that Augustine knew he was on shaky ground: his choice of Heraclius could be seen as forestalling the future consensus. Augustine therefore deployed two arguments: first, the absence of an appointed successor might cause strife among the congregation at his death; second, it was God's will that Heraclius was chosen. The people dutifully acclaimed Augustine's chosen one, public acclamation being the most obvious sign of a consensus. Because they were supposed to be the result of a consensus, episcopal elections tended to be deregulated: there are certain things one is not allowed to do, but very few things one has to do. Canons rules did not prescribe a procedure that established the consensus; at best, they set minimum requirements for how it could be guaranteed that all parties could be duly involved in process and that a true consensus could be found in the community. If one wishes to use the term "procedure", one must be aware that it was a very weak procedure, which was often sacrificed to consensus. To put it differently: a bishop was not the person who got "elected", but 42 43 44

P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (note 1), 240-241. See also the nuances by A. Thier in this volume. Greg. Naz. Or. 26.15 (SC 284, 262-264). See also Origen. Comm. Matth. 16.19 (PG 13, 1438). Soz. h.e. VIII 26.13 (GCS, 386); Sulp. Sev. vit. Martin. 9 (SC 133, 271-275); Paul. Nol.vit.Ambr. 5.2-6.2 (PL 14,27-46).

254

Peter Van Nuffelen

the individual who could be seen as embodying the consensus of the community. If he failed to do so, even when having the support of the majority of the community, he risked being seen as lacking legitimacy. One could argue that the nature of episcopal elections, as consensusseeking phenomena, reflects their origin in the pre-Constantinian local, closely-knit communities where consensus and internal coherence were of high importance. Another factor was the implicit assumption that the bishop was chosen by God and that the consensus omnium expressed divine volition. But we may not have to look for specifically Christian explanations: it has been argued by E. Flaig that elections in the Republican comitia functioned as expressions or forgers of consensus rather than adjudications of dissent.45 This parallel suggests that the concept of elections as procedures to deal with disagreement is a profoundly modern one, which cannot be transposed onto Antiquity without due caution.

The Rhetoric of Law The centrality of consensus in episcopal elections, for which the preceding section has argued, explains two characteristics of canon rules. One has already been stated: they do not set out a procedure, but try to safeguard the emanation of a consensus. Another is that many canon rules seem entirely ad hoc: a canon like number 5 of the council of Riez (439), stating that a bishop who conducts the funeral of bishop should not stay longer than seven days, was probably aimed at an individual case.46 In response to a specific case, when things were perceived to have gone wrong, such canons tried to make sure that next time a true consensus could be found. Yet this might result in too reductive a view of the role played by canon law: my argument so far could be taken to imply that canons did not play a role at all or were just a legal veneer on power politics. Yet it is obvious that law did have an important authority and that appeal to it might make a difference. Moreover, there does seem to develop a sense of an authoritative body of church law. Sources, especially of the fifth and sixth century, show a clear awareness of certain minimal formal requirements for episcopal elections and they can note that someone was appointed

45 46

E. Fkig, Ritualisierte Politik: Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom, Gottingen2003. Second Council of Aries Canon 54 (CChr.SL 148, 125).


255

"canonically."47 In the sixth century, episcopal elections was one of the areas that Justinian legislated on: he set the rule that a shortlist of three candidates should be drawn up by the local people, from which the bishop was to be selected. This rule had been stated before.48 This suggests that slowly a body of legislation developed. This is a complex process which I cannot attempt to sketch here. I wish to emphasize a single factor here, namely the role of rhetoric and dispute in this process. Canon 4 of Nicaea, according to which at least three bishops had to ordain a new bishop, stood at the centre of many a controversy about an election.49 The election of Timothy Aelurus in Alexandria (454) is a case in point: Ps.-Zacharias points out that there were two Egyptian bishops present and that the people seized upon Peter the Iberian, bishop of Maiouma, to make up the total of three (4.1). Evagrius, the Chalcedonian historian, only mentions Eusebius of Pelusium and Peter (2.8). Evagrius is obviously suggesting that Timothy was illegally ordained. Importantly, this episode reveals the distance between the precise content of the rule and its rhetorical use: the Nicaean canon demanded three bishops of the same province, not any three - Peter the Iberian did not qualify. Evagrius is obviously ignorant of this fact: by his time, the idea seems to have been that Nicaea only requested three ordaining bishops and nothing more.50 This suggests that it is not a better knowledge of the canons of Nicaea that explains the reference to canons, but rather the need to have arguments in disputed cases. The example of Timothy shows that such arguments did not necessarily imply a direct recourse to the canons, but rather depended on what people thought was the law. This conclusion has several consequences: first, it creates a distance between the body of law as we find it in the collections of canon rules and law "in reality". It is habitual to suggest that laws set out the theory, which then has to be applied in practice: law as found in the law codes is the 47

48

49

50

Gesta 43 (ACO 1.1.2, 12,23); Jo. Mai. chron. XVII 22 and XVIII 98 (CFHB Berlin 35: 352,69 and 409,36); Theod. lect. h.e. E 444 (124 Hansen); Leo en. ad Gennadium, Collectio Avellana 52 (CSEL 35, 119-120). Cod. Just. 1.3.41 (528); Just. Nov. 123 (546) and 137 (565), discussed by Norton, Episcopal Elections (note 1), 34-37. See Second council of Aries, canon 54 (CChr.SL 148, 125,207); Boniface, in Collectio Avellana 17.2 (CSEL 34, 36). Without having perused all sources systematically, it seems that two other principles seem to occur with relative frequency: the prohibition having two bishops in a city, implying the prohibition of ordaining your own successor; and the prohibition of translations, which we have already discussed above. See Damasus, ep. ad Gallos epics. 18; Synodicon orientale, Synod of Mar Isaac (410), canon 1 (J.B. Chabot, Synodicon orientale ou recueil de synodes nestoriens, Paris 1902).

256

Peter Van Nuffelen

ideal, and historical sources give us the practice. This is too easy an opposition. On the one hand, as suggested above, collections of canon laws are later systematizations, which attribute a universal authority to what were by and large ad hoc regulations. The "theory" of canon law may be a later construct by legal scholars and collectors.51 On the other hand, these rules were not simply applied: indeed, the episode in Evagrius shows that there could be a gap between what the rule precisely said and what people thought it said, precisely because they often lacked precise knowledge of the rule. Similar situations could occur with secular law, and officials often had to seek legal advice and clarification: the application and interpretation of law could be difficult and open to challenge; finding the law and interpreting it in the right sense (i.e., from a litigant's case, the sense that suited one's own case) was part of the legal struggle.52 Second, canon law was part of a rhetoric of justification and accusation. As we have seen above, the demand of consensus made it easy for dissent to be voiced: certainly from the fifth century onwards, we encounter conflicting accounts of elections with each side arguing that the other side was elected against the rules and, moreover, did not possess the necessary virtue. Canon law is thus part of the game: it is an argument among others. The comparison between the chalcedonian Evagrius and the antichalcedonian Zacharias is rich in examples. Apart from the account of Timothy Aelurus's election, we possess, for example, widely diverging versions of the election of Theodosius of Jerusalem (452). In Evagrius, Theodosius is nothing short of a criminal and is elected illegally (2.5), whereas in Zachariah he is a paragon of virtue (3.3).53 It is hard to see where the truth lies in such cases. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the reference to canon law in these disputes raised the awareness of its role. But the "misinterpretation" of the canon of Nicaea shows that a greater awareness does not necessarily mean an exact knowledge. The rhetoric of law does not mean that law was only seen as rhetoric. On the contrary, it implies a recognition of its possible power. A good example comes from the letters of Gregory the Great. In 603 pope Gregory sent a defensor, John, to Spain to judge the conflict between Januarius of Malaga and other bishops who had him violently removed from his see 51

A. Thier, Dynamische Schriftlichkeit (note 18) proposed the term 'dynamische Schriftlichkeit' to describe how rules could be re-interpreted in the process of codification. 52 See, e.g., Aug. ep. 113-114 (CSEL 34, 659-661). These letters refer to the case of someone who appealed to Augustine because the governor Florentius did not respect the law. Augustine appends the law text in his response. 53 See also Ambr. ep. 9 extra coll. (CSEL 82, 201-204), arguing on the relative merits of Maximus 'the Cynic' and Nectarius (381).


257

(August 603). Several letters instruct John: Ep. 13.49 is a long cento of extracts from Justinian's Digest, the Codex Justinianus, and the Novellae. Such precise legal instructions are rare in the letter corpus, whereas interventions such as that by John are very common. 54 It is striking that in no other letter relating to episcopal elections or trials of bishops Gregory mentions laws. The reason seems to be that papal authority in Spain was weak - most of it fell under control of the Visigothic "arian" church and Gregory was banking on the rhetoric of law. Lacking the authority that allowed him to go his way elsewhere, Gregory now had to rely exclusively on law. The rhetoric of law thus presupposes its authority, but does not always respect the strict letter of the law. Especially in disputes one might be more inclined to refer to what was generally thought to be the law, without being too precise. My suggestion here is that the rhetorical use of canon law in disputes was an important factor in increasing the sensitivity for the power of canon law, whilst at the same time also impacting on how the existing body of law was interpreted.

Conclusions This chapter has pursued a negative and a positive aim. It has argued against the assumption that canon law set out the authoritative procedure to follow in episcopal elections in Late Antiquity. I have suggested a) that such a view projects the later systematization of canon law back onto the fourth and fifth century, when canon law was often simply ignored, and b) that it approaches ancient election with a conceptual framework suited for modern electoral procedure. On the positive side, I have argued that we should fully appreciate the implications of the fact that episcopal elections were meant to be consensual. This implies that an emerging consensus would always trump strict adherence to canon law. Moreover, the primary purpose of canon law was to remove obstacles to the emergence of a true consensus, and not the creation of a fully-fledged procedure. This does not, however, imply that canon law played no role at all. On the contrary, it was often referred to during disputes. In line with recent work on imperial law, I have empha-

54

For a case-study of Gregorys dealings with elections in Sicily, see P. Van Nuffelen, Episcopal Succession in sixth century Sicily, in D. Engels et al. (ed.), Zwischen Ideal und Wirklichkeit - Herrschaft auf Sizilien von der Antike bis zur Friihen Neuzeit, Stuttgart 2010, 175-190.

258

Peter Van Nuffelen

sized the role played by rhetoric and argument in finding the law that suited one's case and in then interpreting it. This does not, I would suggest, diminish the status of law: it was recognized to be a powerful argument: law surely had authority in Late Antiquity. Indeed, the rhetorical reference to certain canons during disputes (such as canon 4 of Nicaea) may have led to these becoming seen as the corner stone of a properly conducted election. Finally, this chapter leaves open certain important questions. First, I have suggested that there is a stronger tendency to refer to canon law with the progress of time, a process which runs parallel with an increasing proliferation of collections of canons. It is likely that this was a two-way process: greater demand and greater availability are not just functions of one another. This process still needs to be better understood. Second, I have largely left out imperial interference in episcopal elections, either in individual cases or through legislation. This raises the complicated issue of the precise legal relationship between church and state, an area where I do not wish to venture here. Notwithstanding these limitations, I hope to have shown that canon law was part of the game that was an episcopal election. It was not the objective rule book that formed the basis of the actual elections; rather, canon law was one element in the dynamic and often difficult process of identifying the person who could represent the consensus of the community. Depending on the occasion, it could be ignored or appealed to. It is this dynamic that the study of episcopal elections in Late Antiquity should try to grasp.

Les elections episcopates en Egypte aux VleVllesiecles EwaWipszycka Dans la vie des villes du monde chretien, l'election de l'eveque etait toujours un moment de grande importance, suscitant de vives emotions dans tous les milieux. Etant donnees les taches qui attendaient le detenteur de la dignite episcopale et l'ampleur de ses prerogatives, qui resultaient de la tradition et de la legislation imperiale, beaucoup dependait des qualites humaines du candidat, car la remise d'aussi vastes pouvoirs entre les mains dune personne incompetente risquait d'etre lourde en consequences pour la communaute. II arrivait (sans doute assez souvent) que la decision commune du clerge et des laiques confiait quasi unanimement le trone episcopal au candidat propose, sans soulever de controverses ni entrainer d'ennuis. Mais il arrivait aussi que les membres de la communaute chretienne etaient divises, formant des groupes qui soutenaient chacun un autre candidat. Ne connaissant que des cas precis, nous sommes dans l'impossiblite de repondre a la question de savoir laquelle des deux situations etait la plus frequente. En regie generale, les parties rivales tentaient de negocier un compromis ou de reduire au silence les groupes les plus faibles, dans l'espoir qu'au bout d u n temps ceux-ci oublieraient tant les circonstances dans lesquelles l'eveque avait pris ses fonctions que les critiques formulees a son encontre. Cependant, parfois des conflits violents eclataient, suivis de tueries et de ravages; les manifestations religieuses tournaient en emeutes et pillages. A la lecture des sources relatives a de tels faits, il apparait nettement que, dans leur mentalite, les populations des villes chretiennes ne s'etaient pas encore defaites des vieilles habitudes qui remontaient jusqu'a l'epoque des cites archaiques et des violents conflits politiques appeles staseis. A l'occasion des elections, des luttes internes avaient souvent lieu et ceci aussi bien dans les petites et moyennes villes que dans les grandes villes comme Rome, Alexandrie ou Constantinople. La presence dans ces villes de hauts fonctionnaires envoyes par le pouvoir central et disposant d'une force armee stationnee a proximite ne faisait qu'empirer la situation, car

260

EwaWipszycka

d'ordinaire ceux-ci prenaient position pour une des factions et n'hesitaient pas a la soutenir manu militari. D'habitude, ces luttes faisaient reagir l'empereur qui intervenait avec des consequences tantot bonnes, tantot mauvaises. C'est de la premiere moitie du IVe s. que datent certaines regies censees regir toute la procedure d'investiture de Feveche et donner satisfaction a differents groupes participants a l'election, dont le clerge de la ville, surtout les plus importants presbytres et diacres, des notables locaux et des fonctionnaires imperiaux (residant en ville), des commandants de troupes (dans des villes de garnison) et de simples laiques qui avaient garde une partie de leurs anciens droits. Le choix du candidat etait generalement approuve par acclamation: "il en est digne, il en est digne!" Ainsi, surtout lorsqu'ils etaient organises, voire manipules, les electeurs disposaient dune arme dangereuse (en effet, il aurait ete impossible de faire quoi que ce soit, s'ils refusaient obstinement d'assister a la messe). Dans toute cette procedure, un role important (et, avec le temps, de plus en plus important) revenait aux eveques des autres villes de la province concernee. Certains d'entre eux se rendaient a l'election, d'autres faisaient parvenir leur consentement par ecrit, le dernier mot appartenant toujours a Feveque metropolitan. Ce qui fut institue par le Concile de Nicee et exprime dans un de ses canons. Canon 4: "Le plus convenable est qu'un eveque soit etabli par tous les eveques de l'eparchie; si la chose s'averait difficile, soit en raison dune necessite urgente, soit a cause de la longueur de la route, il faut de toute facon que trois eveques se reunissent au meme endroit - les absents aussi donnant leur suffrage et exprimant leur consentement par ecrit - et fassent alors l'ordination. Que l'autorite sur ce qui se fait revienne dans chaque eparchie a Teveque metropolitan." La procedure durait parfois longtemps, meme si la candidature du futur pasteur ne pretait pas a controverse. Des lettres et des delegations circulaient. Toutes ces demarches etaient supposees empecher des prises de decision trop hatives, pouvant elever a la dignite episcopale des personnes compromises, surtout celles qui etaient suspectees de corruption dans leur course au pouvoir. La consecration solennelle avait habituellement lieu dans la plus important eglise de la ville. Afin que Facte lui-meme puisse etre reconnu comme legitime, il etait necessaire que trois eveques assistent a la ceremonie (des cas d'ordination celebree par deux eveques sont egalement attestes,

Les elections episcopales en Egypte aux VIe-VIIe siecles

261

mais de telles situations n'etaient pas appreciees).1 II n'y avait aucune raison de nature doctrinale (d'ailleurs aucune ne fut jamais evoquee), il s'agissait tout simplement dune conviction basee sur le pragmatisme et le bonsens. Ces regies etaient en vigueur dans routes les regions du monde chretien, sauf l'Egypte. Ici, les institutions ecclesiastiques suivaient d'autres principes et respectaient d'autres usages. Les eveches metropolitans n'existaient pas, les eveques dependant directement de l'eveque d'Alexandrie. En effet, c'est deja au IIP siecle que fut institute la regie selon laquelle tous les eveques d'Egypte devaient etre consacres par le patriarche en personnel et l'ordination se faisait toujours en son siege. Il n'existe pas de temoignages sur des ordinations qui auraient pu avoir lieu lors de ses visites pastorales dans d'autres villes. Les candidats se rendaient a Alexandria accompagnes d'une delegation d'ecclesiastiques et de notables locaux, qui apportait le psephisma, le document relatif a la designation d'un candidat (ou de plus d'un candidat). Il nous est impossible de situer avec exactitude dans le temps le moment ou il fut admis que, dans son choix, le patriarche n'etait pas tenu de respecter les preferences des fideles.3 II choisissait les candidats selon son gre, il pouvait (cela ne veut pas dire qu'il le faisait systematiquement) installer sur le trone episcopal une personne ne jouissant d'aucun appui, voire c o m p l e m e n t inconnue des fideles. Cela modifiait profondement les regies du jeu. En effet, ces pratiques limitaient considerablemement les droits des groupes qui, en

1

2

3

Dans les Canons Apostoliques faisant partie des Constitutions Apostoliques (VIII, 47), le canon 1 stipule: "Que l'eveque soit ordonne par deux ou trois eveques"(SC 336, 274). Pour des raisons pratiques, dans cet article, je vais designer l'eveque d'Alexandrie du terme de patriarche, bien que ce mot ne soit entre dans l'usage courant qu'au VP siecle. La premiere attestation de l'emploi de ce terme pour designer le chef de l'Eglise d'Egypte apparait dans un diptyque ecclesiastique a usage liturgique de la fin du VIP siecle (done posterieur a la conquete arabe): "notre bienheureux patriarche" (il s'agit d'Agathon, qui exerca sa fonction de 662 a 680). L'inscription du diptyque est publiee dans le Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten, n° 6087 [SB III BerlinLeipzig 1926]. C'est egalement pour des raisons pratiques que je vais employer le terme "diocese" dans le sens qu'il a aujourd'hui. A la fin de l'Antiquite, ce terme designait une unite administrative de l'Empire. Je vais neanmoins l'employer dans son sens ecclesiastique moderne, pour ne pas compliquer mes propos. Voir aussi E. Wipszycka, Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche in Egitto dalla fine del III al inizio dell'VIII secolo, in: L'Egitto cristiano: aspetti e problemi in eta tardo-antica, ed. A. Camplani, SEA 56, Rome 1997, 219-271. Der Papyruscodex saec. VI-VII der Phillippsbibliothek in Cheltenham. Koptische theologische Schriften ed. W.E. Crum, commentaire W.E. Crum, avec une contribution de A. Ehrhard, Strassburg 1915, p. 60-61.

262

EwaWipszycka

dehors de l'Egypte, decidaient traditionnellement de l'investiture de l'eveche: du clerge local, des notables et du peuple de Dieu, autrement dit du commun des laiques. De meme, le role des eveques des eglises de la meme province etait different; certes, une partie d'entre eux particip a n t au debat sur les candidatures proposees, mais leur role se limitait a cela. Les regies qui etaient en vigueur dans la pratique ecclesiastique furent exprimees sous forme de questions-reponses dans un petit texte redige en dialecte copte sahidique. Le manuscrit date du VT ou du VIP siecle, mais l'ouvrage est un peu plus ancien, il peut etre attribue au Ve ou au VF siecle. II est probable que l'original etait en grec. Deux diacres, dont nous ignorons tout, excepte les noms qui sont grecs, interrogent le patriarche Cyrille sur differents sujets, entre autres sur les principes qui le guident dans les ordinations episcopales. Dans ses reponses, Cyrille affirme qu'il accepte le candidat qui lui a ete presente unanimement par les habitants de la ville, les fonctionnaires et les petites gens (leptodemos), mais que, lorsqu'il connait lui-meme un bon candidat qui aime les pauvres, n'est pas tout a fait etranger au diocese et a atteint un certain age, il le consacre; et que, s'il le faut, il est pret a accepter un candidat imparfait, en lui recommandant tout de meme de ne pas s'enorgueillir. Si, lors de la designation des candidats, l'opinion de la majorite des habitants diverge de celle des notables de la ville, en regie generale il se range du cote de ces derniers. Il envisage neanmoins la possibilite du tirage au sort. Le texte ne fait pas mention de l'attitude du clerge, comme s'il etait evident que celui-ci approuvera sans conteste la decision du patriarche. L'editeur de cet opuscule, W.E. Crum, et son commentateur, A. Erhard etaient d'avis qu'il s'agissait de propos authentiques de Cyrille, mais il est difficile de savoir si leur hypothese etait juste. Les patrologues ne se sont pas trop interesses a ce texte, personne n'a entrepris d'etudes sur la pensee theologique qui - ne fut-ce que sous une forme simplifiee - s'y exprime. Meme si Cyrille n'y a pas prete la main, en raison du contenu de l'ouvrage, nous devons le considerer comme l'expression de l'opinion du clerge de la curie. Tous les candidats a l'ordination designes par les suffrages locaux etaient envoyes a Alexandria Cette procedure etait censee eliminer d'eventuelles tensions et reduire le risque de conflits (a ma connaissance, en Egypte, en dehors d'Alexandrie, des cas d'emeutes causees par la designation des candidats n'ont pas ete notes, mais il s'agit la d'un argumentum exsilentio, il vaut mieux ne pas y recourir). Le retour de l'eveque nouvellement elu pouvait en revanche creer des problemes, lorsque les divisions au sein de la communaute chretienne etaient tellement profondes qu'elles rendaient impossible toute activite pastorale. Le malheureux elu


263

n'avait alors q u a se retirer, prenant souvent la direction d u n autre diocese ou il exercait sa fonction sans trop de mal. Nos textes en fournissent de nombreux temoignages; de telles situations y sont signalees ouvertement et sans home, car l'echec de la mission pastorale en un lieu ne signifiait nullement que la personne etait malhonnete. Le patriarche avait-il l'habitude de s'adresser a la communaute de la ville pour connaitre son avis, s'il n'avait accepte aucune des candidatures proposees? Un seul texte semble en temoigner, a savoir la Vie de Pisenthios, du moine qui devint eveque d'Hermonthis, une petite ville sur la rive occidentale du Nil, face a Thebes.4 Le patriarche aurait rejete par deux fois la candidature presentee, car - comme cela est propre a la realite hagiographique - par inspiration divine il savait tres bien que dans les environs d'Hermonthis vivait quelqu'un de tres pieux, du nom de Pisenthios, et c'est sur lui que porta son choix. Il est impossible de savoir si des cas analogues avaient lieu pour des candidats ordinaires. Mais, compte tenu de la nature autoritaire du pouvoir du patriarche en Egypte, je doute que de tels cas aientpuetre frequents. Comme il a ete deja dit, la ceremonie d'ordination episcopale avait habituellement lieu a Alexandrie, toujours un dimanche. Elk etait preced e d'une veillee nocturne organisee dans l'eglise ou allait se derouler l'office.5 La ceremonie elle-meme reunissait le patriarche, qui arrivait en compagnie de son clerge, et les eveques d'Egypte presents dans la capitale. Elle se deroulait selon un rituel bien etabli: l'archidiacre jouant le role de

4

5

II apparait dans le synaxaire sous la date du 20 Kihak: R. Basset, Le synaxaire arabe Jacobite, PO 3, 1904, 490-491; voir aussi W.E. Crum dans: H.E. Winlock, W.E. Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes, New York 1926, t. I, 136; W. Gabra, Pesyntheus, Bischof von Hermonthis, MDAIK Abteilung Kairo 40, 1984, 27-29; J. Van den Vliet, Pisenthios de Coptos (569-632), moine, eveque, saint, Topoi (Supplement 3), 2000, 61-70. Mes connaissances relatives a la liturgie de consecration des eveques et des patriarches viennent entre autres du texte copte du manuscrit 253 conserve au Musee Copte. Le texte date de 1364. II fut publie en deux parties: The Rites of Consecration of the Patriarch of Alexandria, ed. tr. O.H.E. Burmester, Le Caire 1960 et Ordination Rites of the Coptic Church, ed. tr. O.H.E. Burmester, Le Caire 1985. II ne fait pas de doute q u a lorigine se trouvait un texte grec d'avant la conquete arabe. Bien que remanie et complete, il a garde, pour l'essentiel, son caractere initial. Sur ce texte: H. Brakmann, Pseudo-Clemens Romanus, homilia 3,72 als Petrinisches Konsekrationsgebet der Kopten und der agyptischen Melchiten, Zeitschrift fur Antikes Christentum 10, 2007, 233-251. Sur l'importance de ce genre de textes liturgiques dans les etudes sur l'ideologie du patriarcat alexandrin voir A. Camplani, La funzione religiosa del vescovo di Alessandria: a proposito di alcune recenti prospettive di ricerca, dans: Sacerdozio e societa nell'Egitto antico, ed. S. Pernigotti, M. Zecchi, Bologna 2008,153-165.

264

Ewa Wipszycka

maitre de ceremonie remet entre les mains du partiarche le psephisma qui est ensuite lu par un diacre designe par le patriarche parmi son clerge. Redige selon une formule consacree, le document presente la forme d u n e supplication adressee au patriarche qui etait la seule personne susceptible de donner une valeur religieuse au choix fait par la plebe et le clerge. II y est nomme "Illuminateur orthodoxe", "Pere de tous les peuples", "Homme du veritable savoir", "Celui que le Christ a choisi pour l'elever au trone orthodoxe", "Digne du trone de Marc l'Evangeliste" et "Homme du veritable savoir que notre saint Pere, Marc l'Evangeliste, enseigna le premier lorsqu'il fonda et consolida l'Eglise catholique et apostolique". Le psephisma finit par une priere adressee au patriarche dans laquelle celui-ci est sollicite de bien vouloir ordonner le candidat qui est indique par son nom. Puis, l'archidiacre lit la declaration du patriarche communiquant l'exaucement du voeu. Le patriarche quitte son siege, les eveques se reunissent devant l'autel, tandis que l'ordinand se met a genoux au pied de l'autel. Apres la recitation d u n e litanie a laquelle participent l'archidiacre et les fideles, l'archidiacre ordonne: "Levez les bras, eveques"; a ces mots, ceux-ci se placent de part et d'autre de l'elu et posent les mains sur ses epaules. Le patriarche est alors prie d'imposer la main sur la tete de l'ordonne. L'Eglise egyptienne ne pratiquait pas le rituel d'onction au moment de la consecration episcopale, mais le patriarche tracait a trois reprises le signe de croix sur la tete de l'elu, avant de le revetir des ornements episcopaux. Chacun de ces gestes etait accompagne d'une priere recitee par l'archidiacre et le patriarche. La ceremonie finissait par une messe celebree par le patriarche, au cours delaquelle l'ordonne recevait la communion des mains de ce dernier. II est important de noter que les eveques presents a la consecration posaient leurs mains uniquement sur les epaules de l'elu, l'imposition des mains sur la tete etant reservee au patriarche. L'eveque recevait a cette occasion le document de consecration qui, a son retour dans la capitale du diocese, etait lu pendant une ceremonie celebree avec plus ou moins de faste, en fonction des possibility financiers de l'eglise episcopale.6 Le cout de l'operation etait augmente par des cadeaux offerts a ceux qui avaient participe a la ceremonie. Les eveques des eglises voisines, qui n'etaient pas a Alexandrie au moment du sacre, recevaient, eux aussi, des cadeaux d'usage. De meme, les representants du clerge local, ainsi que le personnel laique: secretaires, notaires, etc. En temoigne le texte d'une Novelle de Justinien (123,3) de 546. Les cadeaux _ _ _ 6

E. Wipszycka, Le fonctionnement de l'Eglise egyptienne aux IVe-VIIIe siecles (sur quelques aspects), dans: E. Wipszycka, Etudes sur le christianisme dans l'Egypte de l'antiquite tardive, Roma 1996, 202-203.


265

y portent le nom de enthronistika ("a l'occasion de la montee sur le trine"). L'empereur, sachant que ces cadeaux representaient un fardeau considerable pour les eglises qui depensaient au-dela de leurs moyens, etablit des tarifs a respecter. Ainsi, les eglises patriarcales (Rome, Constantinople, Antioche, Jerusalem et Alexandrie) pouvaient engager des sommes allant jusqu'a 20 livres d'or; les eglises metropolitans, celles dont le revenu annuel depassait 30 livres d'or, pouvaient donner 100 solidi aux membres du clerge et 300 solidi aux fonctionnaires laiques; les eveques des dioceses beneficiant d u n revenu annuel entre 10 et 30 livres d'or - 100 solidi au clerge et 200 aux fonctionnaires laiques; les eveques des dioceses jouissant d'un revenu annuel entre 2 et 10 livres d'or - respectivement 50 solidi et 200 solidi, et enfin les eveques des dioceses avec un revenu annuel entre 3 et 5 livres d'or - 10 solidi et 24 solidi.7 Les eveques moins nantis ne payaient rien. Leur dignite et le sentiment patriotique de l'opinion publique locale en souffraient: c'est cette derniere, en effet, qui poussait les hierarques aux exces financiers. II ne semble pas que le systeme conferant au patriarche le droit de decider de routes les nominations ait rencontre quelque resistance en Egypte, en tout cas, nous n'en avons aucune connaissance. Les chretiens d'Egypte, et non seulement le clerge egyptien, ont assimile la doctrine de la primaute d'Alexandrie, que Ton justifiait par le martyre de deux de ses eveques: Marc l'Evangeliste et Pierre F (311). Cette doctrine se basait sur l'idee d'une protection speciale dont Pierre l'Apotre etait cense entourer la ville (par l'entremise de son disciple Marc). Une tres forte dependance de l'ensemble du clerge a l'egard des dignitaires alexandrins etait done une chose allant de soi. Y contribuait encore un autre facteur: les villes egyptiennes n'etaient devenues des poleis qu'au debut du IIP siecle, aussi les elites n'avaient-elles pas suffisamment d'experience dans l'autogestion de la ville, n'avaient pas assimile l'heritage de la polis, avec routes ses consequences, y compris l'aptitude a la contestation. Bien que l'autorite patriarcale dominat sur le deroulement de la succession episcopale, en pratique, dans la plupart des cas ou le patriarche refusait les candidatures proposees par les autorites locales, ce n'etait pas lui qui choisissait: le choix se faisait a un niveau inferieur, dans la curie. Le patriarche ne pouvait pas connaitre tout le clerge egyptien, les dioceses etant tout simplement trop nombreux. II n'avait pas non plus l'habitude de visiter les dioceses pour faire connaissance des candidats aux charges 7

II est frappant de constater que les sommes destinees aux laiques sont plus importantes (et de loin) que celles destinees aux membres du clerge. Ce qui semble signifier que les premiers etaient beaucoup plus nombreux et que le cercle des beneficiaires etait large, mais il nous est malheureusement impossible d'en dire plus.

266

EwaWipszycka

vacantes. En revanche, les membres de la curie, qui circulaient dans le pays et entretenaient une vaste correspondance epistolaire, etaient en contact avec un grand nombre de gens. Isidore de Peluse, ascete et epistolographe connu du debut du Ve siecle, raconte un scandale provoque par l'econome de l'Eglise de Peluse, Martinianos, qui, pour s'assurer l'obtention de la charge episcopale, fit envoyer de Tor a Alexandrie. La nouvelle de son mefait parvint a Cyrille qui lui fit grace de Inclusion de l'Eglise, mais le menaca de punition severe, si jamais il recommencait. Quelque temps apres (nous ne savons pas exactement a quel moment), Martinianos decida de recommencer la demarche, mais cette fois-ci il se rendit personnellement a Alexandrie, en secret.8 Il importe peu de savoir si la denonciation adressee directement a Cyrille correspondait a la verite ou non; pour nous, l'essentiel est qu'Isidore a retenu cette information comme credible. Le patriarche devait, certes, recevoir de nombreuses lettres de delation: les accusations de simonie constituaient sans doute un motif frequent dans les rivalites locales. II ne fait pas de doute que les procedures regissant les elections episcopales en Egypte favorisaient la simonie, le choix des candidats n'etant aucunementsoumisaucontrole public. Ce qui fut a l'origine des plus grandes perturbations dans les elections episcopales ce sont les controverses christologiques qui, depuis le milieu du Ve siecle, sevirent a Alexandrie et conduisirent a la constitution de deux patriarcats. Les delegations munies de documents attestant les resultats des elections locales s'adressaient sans doute a celui des deux patriarches dont les opinions concordaient avec leurs sympathies. Je suppose que, lorsqu'un seul patriarche exercait son pouvoir a Alexandrie et que celui-ci appartenait au camp doctrinal auquel la delegation etait hostile, celle-ci essayait de faire durer les procedures, en attendant que la situation change. Comment les representants du pouvoir imperial reagissaient-ils alors? Realisaient-ils avec perseverance la politique constantinopolitaine? Il nous est malheureusement impossible de repondre a ces questions. La fin du VF siecle voit se former dans les villes egyptiennes une hierarchie monophysite complete, parallele a la hierarchie prochalcedonienne, comprenant non seulement des eveques, mais aussi des presbytres et des diacres. Le processus fut tres rapide, ce dont temoigne une information donnee par Jean, eveque monophysite d'Ephese et historien de l'Eglise, engage dans les evenements de son epoque, qui fournit 8

Isid. Pel. ep. 2 627 (PG 78, 205). Cette lettre ne figure pas encore dans la nouvelle edition de P. Evieux dans les Sources Chretiennes. Sur la simonie en Egypte, voir E. Wipszycka, Le fonctionnement (cit. note 6), 195-212.


267

generalement des renseignements fiables.9 Jean rapporte en effet que Pierre IV (576-578), premier patriarche monophysite apres l'intervalle qui suivit la mort de Theodose (voir ci-apres), consacra, pendant les deux annees de son patriarcat, soixante-dix eveques.10 Certes, le chiffre est volontairement exagere. Cet auteur detestait Pierre (il etait partisan de Theodore, qui avait ete consacre avant Pierre), et il voulait montrer que la consecration d u n e foule de hierarques etait une absurdite. Mais, meme si nous tenons compte de cela, il reste que le chiffre a du etre impressionnant. Tout porte a croire que Pierre a ordonne les pasteurs de la quasi totalite des dioceses (ceux-ci correspondaient dans la plupart des cas aux nomes, dont le nombre oscillait autour de 40; il y avait cependant plus d'eveches que de nomes, car ils etaient parfois institues dans des localites qui ne possedaient pas le statut de ville). Les eveques ordonnes par Pierre devaient ainsi prendre leur place a cote des eveques chalcedoniens qui avaient ete consacres par les patriarches successifs de ce camp et qui continuaient d'exercer leurs fonctions. L'existence de ces derniers ne fait pas de doute: en effet, il est impossible d'imaginer que les chretiens d'Egypte aient pu se passer d'eveques pendant un bon demi-siecle. Nous ne savons pas si tous les eveques ordonnes par Pierre eurent la possibilite d'entrer en fonctions. Il est probable que les representants de l'administration imperiale essayerent de les en empecher, mais il n'est pas tout aussi probable que leurs interventions aient ete efficaces. Des preuves de l'existence de dioceses diriges par deux eveques a la fois sont fournies surtout par les documents relatifs a Pisenthios, eveque de Koptos, et a Abraham, eveque d'Hermonthis, tous deux monophysites. Nous possedons de nombreux documents, rediges en copte et provenant de leurs archives, en outre la Vie copte de Pisenthios. Selon ces temoignages, les deux eveques etaient etablis dans des monasteres situes a une dizaine ou quelques dizaines de kilometres du siege de leur diocese. Pendant longtemps les specialistes d'histoire de l'Eglise ne se sont pas preoccupes de cette circonstance, car on savait que les eveques restaient parfois dans leur monasters de tels faits sont attestes dans differentes regions du monde chretien; en Egypte ce fut le cas de Feveque d'Oxyrhynchos Apphou (sous le patriarcat de Theophile).11 Cependant, a la lecture de l'ensemble des textes concernant Pisenthios et Abraham il apparait nettement que nous avons a faire avec une situation tout a fait particuliere, et 9

Sur les sources historiographiques utilisees dans la presente etude et les dates des editions respectives, voir Appendice I a la fin de l'article. 10 Jean d'Ephese h.e. 4,12 (CSCO 105, 196 Brooks). 11 Cette information est fournie par sa Vie publiee par F. Rossi, I papiri copti del Museo Egizio di Torino, t. I, fasc. 3, Torino 1887, 5-22.

268

EwaWipszycka

non pas simplement a la volonte de vivre a l'ecart du "monde". Toutes les affaires dans lesquelles etaient engages les deux hierarques concernaient des villages et des monasters, tandis que les deux villes, Koptos et Hermonthis, restaient en dehors de leurs preoccupations. II est significatif, en outre, qu'il n'y ait aucune mention de l'econome, de l'administrateur des biens episcopaux, tres proche collaborates de l'eveque. Tous les membres du clerge qui sont mentionnes dans ces archives exercent leurs activites dans de tres petites localites. Les donnees fournies par les travaux archeologiques viennent corroborer ces constatations, du moins en ce qui concerne Abraham. Tout semble en effet indiquer que, dans son cas, la direction du diocese n'avait pas le poids d u n e charge episcopale "normale". Le monastere ou il residait n'etait pas grand et les locaux abritant les archives, la suite episcopale, le secretariat et les magasins ou Ton stockait des dons en nature etaient plus qu'exigus.12 J'ai des raisons de croire que, dans ces deux villes, un compromis tres particulier avait ete conclu, aboutissant au partage du diocese: la ville (avec sans doute une partie du diocese) etait passee entre les mains des chalcedoniens, soutenus par les autorites laiques, le reste du territoire avait ete place sous le controle du clerge monophysite. Les fonctionnaires locaux avaient sans doute participe a cet accord, car ils ne pouvaient pas faire semblant de ne pas remarquer le changement; ils avaient surement decide de ne pas destabilise la situation par des reactions trop violentes a l'egard desmonophysites. Bien evidemment, ce n'est pas dans tous les dioceses qu'apparait la coexistence de deux eveques. Tout dependait de la puissance de chacun des groupes dogmatiques, de la determination du fonctionnaire imperial residant sur place (il pouvait y consentir ou non) et de beaucoup d'autres facteurs. Ainsi, de 525 (env.) jusqu'a 577 (au moins) le trone episcopal de Philae - diocese situe aux confins sud de l'Egypte, aux environs de la premiere cataracte - a appartenu a Theodore (et exclusivement a Theodore), monophysite declare et bien connu, ordonne encore par Timothee III. Theodore a du collaborer etroitement avec le due de Thebaide, les chefs de la garnison locale et les fonctionnaires imperiaux. Il a certainement agi au grand jour, sinon il n'aurait pu transformer le temple d'Isis en eglise. C'est tout aussi ouvertement qu'il a du participer aux preparatifs pour la mission deNubieetensuite a cette mission.13 12

Pour la description du monastere, voir W. Godlewski, Le monastere de St. Phoibammon, Varsovie 1986, et E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautes monastiques en Egypte (IV°-VIir siecles), JJP Suppl. 11, Warszawa 2009, 178-182. 13 Sur Theodore, voir J.H.F. Dijkstra, Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion. A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298-642 CE), Leuven 2008, 305-338.


269

Parmi les eveques monophysites etablis dans des monasters il faut mentionner Senouthes, eveque d'Antinoe, Constantin, eveque de Pykopolis (au temps du patriarche Damien), et peut-etre aussi Nikolaos, eveque d'Arsinoe dans le Fayoum (VP siecle), residant au monastere de Naqlun. Pes patriarches monophysites du dernier quart du VP et de la premiere moitie du VIP siecle avaient des difficultes a controler les dioceses eloigner Pes problemes touchaient entre autres (peut-etre avant tout) le choix des candidats a la dignite episcopale. Ce sont ces difficultes qui ont fait naitre l'idee de creer la fonction de vicaire du patriarche. Nous savons que, dans les premieres annees de son patriarcat, Theodose nomma Phoibammon, eveque de Panopolis, son diadochos pour la chora egyptienne (mais qu'etait-ce que cela? l'Egypte tout entiere ou la vallee du Nil, excepte le Delta?).14 Nous connaissons les noms de deux vicaires de Damien: Senouthes d'Antinoe et Constantin de Pykopolis, dont le synaxaire Jacobite (Kihak 20) dit qu'il leur incombait de confirmer les candidatures, sans quoi le patriarche refusait l'ordination.15 Au VIP siecle il est question de deux vicaires: l'un pour la Haute Egypte, l'autre pour la Basse Egypte.16 P'institution du vicaire s'avera tres utile plus tard, apres la conquete arabe, lorsque les monophysites dominaient sur l'Eglise egyptienne. Nous sommes malheureusement dans l'impossibilite de dire si les vicaires avaient garde leur pouvoir de valider les candidatures a l'ordination episcopale. Pes plus grandes difficultes dans le maintien regulier des effectifs du corps episcopal monophysite furent celles que causa l'absence prolongee du patriarche Theodose.17 Quelques annees apres son ordination, celui-ci fut oblige par Justinien a partir pour Constantinople. Il s'y rendit accompagne d'une enorme suite (trois cents hommes seraient partis avec lui, dont plusieurs eveques et beaucoup de membres du clerge alexandrin) et emporta une somme importante d'argent.18 Ce faste etait necessaire pour 14

15 16 17

18

Ce fait est mentionne dans 1'introduction a l'eloge en l'honneur de Kollouthos, le martyr. Phoibammon aurait ete son auteur. Le texte est redige en copte. Edition W. Till, Koptische Heiligen- und Martyrlegenden , t. I, Roma 1935, 174-176. R.-G. Coquin, Saint Constantin, eveque d'Asyut, SOC Collectanea 16, Cairo 1981, 162. Voir Vie d'Isaac, patriarche d'Alexandrie de 686 a 689, PO 11, 354 Porcher. Bien qu'il soit mentionne par plusieurs sources, Theodose n'a pas encore fait l'objet d'une monographic Le lecteur trouvera des informations a son sujet chez J. Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d'Alexandrie, Paris 1923 et W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge 1972; d'autres auteurs ne font que signaler son existence. Cette information est donnee par Jean d'Ephese dans: Lifes of Eastern Saints, PO 18, 528 Brooks.

270

EwaWipszycka

faire preuve de la magnificence du trone d'Alexandrie. Accueilli avec tous les egards a Constantinople, Theodose refusa cependant de se plier a l'exigence de l'empereur qui attendait de lui une declaration prochalcedonienne. II fut done exile a Derkos (Thrace), puis install* au palais d'Hormisdas, a Constantinople, ou il vecut enferme, sous la protection et le controle de l'epouse de Justinien, Theodora. Cette detention n'a jamais signifie l'isolement complet du monde exterieur; Theodose y recevait de nombreux hierarques et echangeait une intense correspondance avec des pretres et des moines d'Alexandrie et d'Egypte. Il participait egalement aux decisions des hauts dignitaires monophysites. Toutefois, depuis le debut, il refusait systematiquement de consacrer des eveques, il n'accepta meme pas d'ordonner presbytre le petit-fils de Theodora, Athanase, affirmant qu'il n'avait pas l'intention d'ordonner qui que ce soit, tant qu'il residait en dehors d'Alexandrie.19 Michel le Syrien, qui donne cette information, est un auteur digne de foi qui disposait de sources fiables, nous n'avons done aucune raison de douter de la veracite de ce temoignage, si important pour la bonne comprehension des procedures d'ordination. Tout porte a croire que Theodose s'abstenait d'ordonner des eveques non pas par peur de se voir exiler dans un endroit pire que Constantinople, mais parce qu'il etait convaincu que faire cela en dehors de son eveche, sans la presence de son clerge, serait contraire aux regies canoniques. Certes, a un moment il etait pret a ordonner Longinos eveque des Nobades (= Nubiens) et, comme il ne le fit pas a cause d'une maladie (e'etait du moins ce qu'il pretendait), il envoya en revanche une procuration speciale {entolikon) a Paul, patriarche d'Antioche.20 Il est probable qu'aux yeux de Theodose cet eveche de mission, qui devait etre cree en dehors de l'Egypte, n'etait pas soumis aux regies canoniques regissant les elections episcopales en Egypte. A la fin de sa vie, voyant que la hierarchie monophysite en Egypte allait s'eteindre, Theodose accepta que des eveques soient ordonnes a Constantinople pour douze dioceses egyptiens. Pourtant, ce ne fut pas lui qui effectua la consecration, mais Jacques Baradaios avec deux eveques qui l'accompagnaient dans ses voyages de mission. La ceremonie eut lieu a Constantinople en 558. L'evenement est mentionne par Jean d'Ephese dans la Vie de Jacques Baradaios.21 Il n'y a aucune raison de mettre en doute l'exactitude de ce temoignage, car l'historien connaissait bien Theodose. Pourtant, rien ne prouve que les eveques ordonnes par Baradaios

19 20 21

Michel le Syrien, Chron, t. II, 285 Chabot. Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas, ed. trad. J.B. Chabot, Louvain 1908, 1933, 92-93. Jean d'Ephese, Lives of the Eastern Saints, PO 18, 1924, 339.


271

aient bien rejoint leur diocese. En tout cas, ils ne figurent pas dans le cercle restreint des eveques monophysites d'Egypte qui nous est bien connu. En 565, un an avant sa mort, Theodose autorisa Paul, le patriarche monophysite d'Antioche et son ancien secretaire, a consacrer des eveques pour des villes egyptiennes, mais selon une procedure differente.22 Paul devait emmener a Alexandrie quelques eveques de la prefecture d'Orient. Cette condition avait sans doute ete suggeree a Theodose par Paul: elle lui permettait de choisir des collaborateurs prets a lui obeir; il est vraisemblable qu'il n'avait pas confiance dans les eveques monophysites d'Egypte. Vers 565, ils etaient quatre: Jean des Kellia (eveque du centre monastique des Kellia, et non pas d u n e ville: situation qui merite d'etre notee, car elle n'a pas d'analogue en Egypte), Joseph de Metelis, Leonidas (?) et Theodore de Philae (qui, en raison de son age et de sa maladie, refusa de se deplacer). Le projet de Theodose ne put neanmoins etre mene a bien. La personnalite conflictuelle de Paul le rendit inapte a realiser une si delicate mission: les Alexandrins ne voulurent pas avoir affaire avec lui. Des efforts visant a trouver un successeur de Theodore ne furent entrepris que dix ans apres sa mort. Fut alors elu Theodore, un moine de Scete, a qui succeda Pierre IV, deja mentionne ci-dessus.23 II y a lieu de se poser la question de savoir combien de membres comptait le clerge alexandrin a la fin de la crise, au moment de l'avenement de Pierre (576). Il avait certainement diminue en nombre; le patriarche etait en effet indispensable non seulement pour l'ordination des eveques, mais aussi pour celle des pretres de son diocese. En quarante ans, depuis le debut de l'exil de Theodose (535), la majorite des presbytres et diacres monophysites etaient sans doute decedes. Le clerge alexandrin accueillait vraisemblablement des pretres ordonnes dans d'autres villes par des eveques monophysites, mais ces transferts ne pouvaient certainement pas combler le deficit des effectifs. Sans doute y avait-il des pretres qui passaient de l'Eglise chalcedonienne a l'Eglise monophysite, mais ils n'ont pu etre tres nombreux, car dans la seconde moitie du VP siecle, la situation en Egypte encourageait les gens a se declarer plutot du cote des chalcedoniens. La faiblesse du clerge alexandrin explique son attitude passive

22

23

Le texte de Yentolikon de Theodose est publie dans les Documenta (edition citee cidessus, note 20), p. 93-94. Sur la situation en Egypte, voir E. Honigmann, Eveques et eveches monophysites d'Asie Anterieure au Vie siecle, Louvain 1951, 225-226, 233235. Nos connaissances en cette matiere viennent principalement des ecrits de Jean d'Ephese h.e. IV 10-13 (189-198 Brooks) et de Michel le Syrien, Chron. t. II, 319325 Chabot.

272

EwaWipszycka

apres la mort de Theodose, l'absence de sa part d u n e reaction immediate qui aurait permis d'elire un nouveau patriarche d'Alexandrie. Les procedures du choix des patriarches d'Alexandrie, telles qu'elles etaient appliquees jusqu'au milieu du Ve siecle, etaient proches de celles qui constituaient la norme dans le reste du monde chretien. Le choix du futur pasteur dependait avant tout de l'attitude du clerge alexandrin et de l'importante et omnipotente curie d'Alexandrie, mais aussi, dans une moindre mesure, des eveques (je vais y revenir dans la suite de mes propos), de l'aristocratie alexandrine et des hauts fonctionnaires imperiaux qui consultaient l'empereur si seulement ils en avaient le temps.24 Selon la coutume, il fallait proceder a l'election du nouveau patriarche dans le plus bref delai. On craignait surtout la possibilite de conflits qui risquaient d'engager un grand nombre de laiques et de moines des environs d'Alexandrie. Pour se rendre compte du danger qu'une telle situation pouvait representee il suffit de prendre en consideration les facheux evenements qui eurent lieu apres la mort du monophysite Timothee IV en 535, lorsque la foule, dans laquelle se trouvaient de nombreux moines, fit irruption dans l'eglise pendant la ceremonie d'ordination de Theodose et l'interrompit, en ouvrant la voie au siege patriarcal a Gaianos, representant d'une autre option dogmatique, celle des aphthartodocetes (c'est-a-dire de ceux qui soutenaient la doctrine de l'incorruptibilite du corps du Christ).25 Ni le soutien de l'imperatrice Theodora, ni la presence de son cubicularius charge de veiller a la bonne marche de l'ordination episcopale, ni meme la presence de forces armees a proximite de la ville ne purent assurer la victoire de Theodose. D'ailleurs personne n'osa faire appel aux soldats sans ordre explicite de l'empereur; ni le dux, ni le praefectus augustalis ne pouvait prendre cette decision, car, en regie generale, le recours a la force entrainait des victimes et ne faisait qu'envenimer la situation. L'election de Theodose rendit finalement inevitable une intervention armee, mais les troupes vinrent de Constantinople. 26 Pourquoi ne fit-on pas fait appel aux 24

25

26

Dans cette partie de mon etude, ('utilise trois ouvrages de base qui presentent dans les details l'histoire evenementielle de l'Eglise alexandrine: J. Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d'Alexandrie (518-616), Paris 1923; W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge 1972; Ph. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451-491). De l'histoire a la geo-ecclesiologie, Rome 2006. L'ouvrage de Maspero, bien qu'ancien et inacheve, est toujours utile, meme s'il exige une lecture critique. Sur Gai'anos, voir A. Lajtar, E. Wipszycka, L'epitaphe de Duhela (SB III 6249) et les moines gai'anites dans des monasteres alexandrins, JJP 28, 1998, 55-69. Je signale a l'occasion une erreur deplorable que nous avons commise dans cet article: nous avons ecrit plus d'une fois "Timothee Ailouros" au lieu de "Timothee III". Liberatus brev. 20 (ACO II.5, 135 Schwartz), Michel le Syrien, Chron. t. II, 194 Chabot.


273

unites stationnees dans les alentours de la ville? Nous ne le savons pas. Peut-etre ces unites n'inspiraient-elles pas confiance. II y avait encore une autre raison pour agir vite. C'est justement a propos de l'election de Theodose qu'un de nos meilleurs informateurs sur les evenements du VP siecle a Alexandrie, un diacre de Carthage, Liberatus, decrit le rituel propre a l'Eglise de cette ville. "Apres la mort de Timotkee, eveque d'Alexandrie, fut consacre Theodose par les soins et avec l'autorisation {studio et permission) de Kalotyckios, cubicukrius faisant partie de hpars de l'Augusta Theodora. Bien qu'il [Theodose] cut pour lui la decision (decretum) du clerge ... [a cet endroit le texte est endommage] car on empecka ceux qui voulaient s'y opposer ... revoke de la plebe... des moines qui ne le [Theodose] soutenaient pas... les moines se rangerent du cote de Gai'anos. II existe a Alexandrie une coutume selon laquelle celui qui succede au defunt veille toute la nuit sur sa depouille, en imposant la main droite du mort sur sa tete. Puis, apres qu'il l'a enseveli de ses propres mains, on lui met autour du cou le pallium du bienheureux Marc, apres quoi, en toute legitimite, il peut prendre place [sur le trone episcopal]. La nuit, quand Theodose celebrait ce rituel, la plebe et les moines apprirent ce qui s'etait passe ce soir-la dans Yepiskopeion par les soins de Kalotychios et des juges {indices), c'est-a-dire du dux Aristomachos et de Yaugustalis Dioskoros, [la plebe et les moines] se saisirent de Theodose et le jeterent dehors, aim qu'il ne puisse pas ensevelir Timothee. lis etablirent sur le trone episcopal Gai'anos qui devint arckeveque dela^desapktkartodocetes."27

Ainsi, la scene se deroule dans Yepiskopeion, le siege de Feveque, et non pas dans une des eglises d'Alexandrie. Il ne semble pas quelle ait reuni de nombreux spectateurs. L'intervention de la foule a lieu pendant la ceremonie funeraire du patriarche defunt. L'obligation d'ensevelir personnellenient le predecesseur, comme condition de la reconnaissance canonique de la consecration du nouveau patriarche, n'avait aucun fondement theologique ni normatif (aucun concile n'a etabli une telle regie), il s'agit d u n usage local. Le recit de la ceremonie de consecration du nouveau patriarche par la main du defunt, qui peut aujourd'hui choquer plus d u n historien, est confirme par deux autres textes, apparentes entre eux. Il s'agit de deux versions de la Vie de Pierre F , martyr du temps des persecutions de l'an 311. Toutes deux derivent d'un ouvrage aujourd'hui disparu, une histoire du patriarcat d'Alexandrie, ecrite a la fin du IVe ou au debut du Ve siecle et

27

Liberatus brev. 20 (ACO II.5, 135 Sckwartz). j'ai propose une interpretation de ce passage dans mon article „Tke Origins of tke Monarckic Episcopate in Egypt", Adamantius 12, 2006, 77-78.

274

EwaWipszycka

que A. Camplani a essaye de reconstituer.28 Les deux versions ont trait a la consecration d'Achillas, le successeur de Pierre. La premiere d'entre dies, redigee en grec et publiee par P. Devos, raconte comment, apres le martyre de Pierre, sa depouille fut placee sur le trone episcopal.29 Le pallium du defunt fut alors enleve de son cou et pose sur les epaules d'Achillas. La seconde version, qui nous est parvenue en ethiopien, contient une information d'ou il ressort que la tradition alexandrine considerait la presence du patriarche defunt a la ceremonie de l'ordination de son successeur comme une regie.30 Ce rituel n'etait cependant pas un element ordinaire de la ceremonie d'ordination; nous savons que, malgre le souci de rapidite, certains patriarches alexandrins furent elus quelque temps apres le deces du predecesseur, au moment ou il n'etait bien evidemment plus possible d'installer la depouille sur le trone. Peut-etre les hierarques n'avaient-ils recours a cet usage que dans des situations particulierement tendues, lorsqu'ils s'attendaient a des reactions violentes de la part des opposants et cherchaient un argument majeur en faveur du candidat qu'ils proposaient. Peut-etre imposaient-ils la main du defunt sur la tete du futur eveque seulement lorsque le patriarche n'avait pas reussi a faire ce geste de son vivant et que la ceremonie de consecration avait lieu suffisamment tot pour que le processus de la decomposition du corps ne soit pas encore intervene La necessite d'agir vite determinait la composition du cercle des eveques qui participaient a l'election. De tous les eveches situes aux environs d'Alexandrie, seul l'eveque de Schediai, localite qui se trouvait a env. 25 km, pouvait arriver a temps. Les autres eveches, Metelis et Hermoupolis Parva, tous deux situes a 50 km, se trouvaient deja trop loin. Certes, il y avait toujours a Alexandrie des eveques convoques par l'administration de la curie ou venus pour regler des affaires. Alexandrie avait sans doute sa synodos endemousa (synode des eveques presents dans la ville au moment donne), d'apres le modele constantinopolitain. Les sources ne la mention28

29 30

A. Camplani, "L'autorappresentazione dell'episcopato di Alessandria tra I V e Vsecolo: questioni di metodo", Annali di storia dell'esegesi 21, 2004, 147-183. Camplani donne a cet ouvrage le titre "Storia dell'episcopato alessandrino" (en abrege SEpA). P. Devos, Une Passion grecque inedite de S. Pierre d'Alexandrie et sa traduction par Anastase le Bibliothecaire AB 83, 1965, 157-187 (paragraphs 18). Martyrdom of St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria, ed. Getachew Haile, AB 98, 1980, 85-92. "...Mark the Evangelist came to Alexandria on the seventh year of the reign of Nero and appointed Anianus bishop, twelve priests and seven deacons, and gave them this order: 'When the bishop of Alexandria dies, the priests shall come together, and, in the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ, lay their hands on one they have unanimously elected from among themselves. They shall appoint a bishop like this while the corpse of the deceased bishop is still here.'"


275

nent pas, mais son existence est tres vraisemblable. Pour certaines affaires, le patriarche devait avoir interet a de connaitre l'opinion de quelques-uns de ses eveques. Dans des cas ou le deces du patriarche de l'Eglise d'Egypte survenait apres une longue et grave maladie, les hierarques capables physiquement et financierement d'entreprendre suffisamment tot le voyage parvenaient a temps a Alexandrie. Les autres venaient s'incliner devant le nouveau pasteur a un autre moment, au cours dune grande ceremonie organiseebeaucoupplustard. Outre les laiques et les moines venus des monasteres periurbains, dans la foule presente a l'election du patriarche d'Alexandrie il y avait probablement aussi les confreries, nombreuses dans la ville, et les groupes d'infirmiers a p p e l e s ^ n z ^ W 1 . Ceux-ci formaient un corps de 500 a 600 hommes au service du patriarche. Utilises dans differentes situations, en pratique ils jouaient le role dune milice soumise aux ordres du patriarche. La lecture des biographies contenues dans YHistoire des patriarches coptes d'Alexandrie permet de conclure que le resultat de l'election depend s en grande partie du patriarche defunt qui, avant de s'eteindre, indiquait la personne qui devait etre investie de la dignite patriarcale (ce qui ne veut pas dire que la volonte du defunt etait toujours respectee). Il est frappant de constater que tres souvent le choix portait sur l'ancien secretaire personnel du predecesseur, plus rarement sur un haut dignitaire de la curie. Nous ne savons rien des preparatifs des elections. On peut imaginer qu'une sorte de campagne electorale commencait avant meme la mort du patriarche. Les personnes suffisamment influentes pour participer au jeu politique s'y engagement a l'avance, essayant de forcer la candidature d u n des leurs. Il s'agissait souvent d u n moine d u n des grands monasteres, soutenu par un puissant archimandrite. Le candidat pouvait ne pas etre connu de la majorite des electeurs. La question de savoir qui serait le futur patriarche etait tres certainement a l'ordre du jours dans routes les eglises et tous les monasteres aux quatre coins de l'Egypte. Lorsque, par la decision du concile de Chalcedoine, le patriarche d'Alexandrie Dioscore fut destitue de sa charge et exile a Gangra, des representants de l'empereur et un groupe d'eveques qui comptaient parmi ses adversaires, entreprirent des demarches visant l'investiture du trone vacant.32 Dans leur initiative, ils se heurterent a toutes sortes de difficult, a commencer par l'attitude du clerge alexandrin qui, a cette epoque, etait 31 32

E. Wipszycka, Les gens du patriarche alexandrin, Alexandrie medievale 3, ed. J.-Y. Empereur, Ch. Decobert, Le Caire 2008, 107-112. Le lecteur trouvera un expose competent des evenements de la seconde moitie du Ve s. dans louvrage de Blaudeau cite dans la note 24. LWvrage contient une bibliographic exhaustive de la question.

276

EwaWipszycka

loin d'etre unanime. Le nouveau pasteur se vit aussitot reprocher d'avoir recu le sacre du vivant de son predecesseur, ce qui etait une grave enfreinte aux regies canoniques. Certains parlaient meme de parricide. Pourtant, de telles accusations manquaient de fondement; en effet, l'histoire de l'Eglise a connu plusieurs cas de destitution d'eveques, ce qui n'a jamais empeche d'en ordonner d'autres, et, bien que cela entrainat parfois de vives protestations, de telles situations n'ont pas toujours ete suivies de troubles. Depuis longtemps, l'Eglise disposait de procedures permettant d'ecarter les hierarques considers comme indignes du poste ou particulierement embarrassants. Les partisans du concile de Chalcedoine elirent Proterios, un archipresbytre ordonne par Dioscore et a qui celui-ci avait confie la direction des affaires ecclesiastiques au moment de son depart pour Chalcedoine. Proterios n'etait done pas hostile a Dioscore, e'est le sacre qui le placa dans une telle position. D'ailleurs, ce n'est qu'apres un certain delai qu'il signa l'un des documents les plus importants du concile, a savoir le Tome a Flavien, ouvrage dogmatique du pape Leon I". Dioscore deceda le 4 septembre 454, ce qui, dans l'opinion des monophysites, autorisait a proceder a l'election d'un nouveau patriarche. Pourtant, il n'en fut rien, et il fallut attendre la mort de l'empereur Marcien, qui eut lieu le 27 Janvier 457. En effet, e'etait ce souverain qui avait convoque le concile et legitime ses decisions par sa constitution, e'etait lui qui menacait les rebelles de peines graves, et e'etait sa reaction que Ton craignait le plus. Profitant de l'absence du dux Dionysios dans la ville, le 16 mars 457, les monophysites firent consacrer Timothee Ailouros ("Belette"), un moine celebre pour son ascese et son grand savoir, et, comme cela s'avera plus tard, un pasteur tres efficace,33 Deux eveques p a r t i c i p a n t a la ceremonie d'ordination: Eusebe de Peluse et Pierre l'lberien, eveque de Gaza. Du point de vue de l'usage, cela n'etait pas tout a fait normal. D'abord, Pierre l'lberien vivait, certes, en Egypte, mais il ne faisait pas partie du clerge egyptien; ensuite, la presence de deux eveques au lieu de trois, tout en etant admissible, n'etait pas bien vue. Tout porte a croire que les monophysites etaient presses d'organiser la ceremonie. Je suppose qu'ils voulaient le faire avant le retour du dux. L'irregularite la plus grave, celle qui allait causer de veritables problemes aux monophysites hors de l'Egypte, consistait en ce qu'ils avaient procede a cette ordination du vivant du patriarche Proterios. La situation de Timothee Ailouros s'aggrava 33

Pour les informations de base sur l'activite et l'ceuvre dogmatique de Timothee Ailouros, voir l'article encyclopedique de M. Simonetti dans: Nuovo Dizionario Patristico e di Antichita Cristiane, diretto da A. di Berardino, vol. Ill, Roma 2008, s.v. Timoteo II di Alexandria. Plus largement dans louvrage de Blaudeau cite ci-dessus, n. 24.


277

encore plus lorsque, le 28 mars 457, un Jeudi Saint, pendant la ceremonie traditionnelle du bapteme au baptistere, Proterios fut assassine, et que Ton ne put jamais etablir le veritable instigateur de ce crime. II ne fait pas de doute que Timothee n'y etait pour rien (bien qu'il en fut violemment accuse), mais il est tout aussi certain que son sacre avait ete a l'origine des tensions qui provoquerent la catastrophe. Timothee Ailouros prit d'emblee ses fonctions et commenca a baptiser et a ordonner des eveques. Et c'est seulement en mars 460 que le dux en poste, Stilas, sur l'ordre explicite de l'empereur, le chassa de la ville et le condamna a l'exil a Gangra d'abord, puis a Chersonesos (d'ou il retournera a Alexandrie en 476, pour y mourir en 477). Le meme Stilas, muni d u n e procuration ecrite de l'empereur, supervisa l'election du nouveau patriarche. C'est Timothee Salophakiolos qui, vers le milieu de 460, fut elu. Il avait ete lie a Proterios et avait exerce la fonction d'econome de l'eglise alexandrine. Timothee Salophakiolos, homme pondere, oppose au fanatisme et a la violence, mena une intense activite philanthropique qui lui valut la faveur du peuple, mais ne lui suffit pas pour maintenir le trone. Liberatus affirmait que "les Alexandrins etaient bien disposes a son egard et clamaient leurs opinions sur les places publiques: 'Bien que nous ne soyons pas en communion avec toi, nous t'aimons.'" Confronte au succes de Timothee Ailouros en 476, il se retira dans le monastere pro-chalcedonien de Kanopos; en 477, on l'obligea encore une fois d'en sortir, sur l'ordre de l'empereur. Timothee Ailouros mourut le 31 juillet 477. Les monophysites elurent immediatement a sa place un homme qui lui avait ete tres proche, Pierre Mongos, dont l'activite se deroulera en partie dans la clandestine, mais aussi au grand jour, jusqu'a sa mort survenue le 29 octobre 490. Il fut consacre par deux eveques,34 Du cote catholique, a Timothee Salophakiolos succeda, entre fevrier et avril 382, Jean Talaia, moine du monastere pachomien de Kanopos.35 L'ordination eut lieu tres rapidement. Son sacre avait ete precede de toute une serie de demarches entreprises a Constantinople a initiative de Timothee Salophakiolos qui, en 481, y avait envoye Jean Talaia en personne avec un message adresse a l'empereur Zenon: Timothee souhaitait qu'apres sa mort, le patriarcat d'Alexandrie se trouve entre les mains d'un catholique. La reponse de l'empereur fut positive; Jean Talaia retourna avec le 34

35

Ph. Blaudeau (louvrage cite ci-dessus n. 24), 192, note 511. Blaudeau mentionne aussi les accusations formulees (a tort) a son encontre, selon lesquelles n'aurait participe a la ceremonie q u u n seul eveque. Ch. Pietri a consacre a cet episode une etude approfondie: D'Alexandrie a Rome: Jean Talai'a, emule d'Athanase au Ve siecle, dans: Alexandria. Melanges ofFerts a Claude Mondesert, Paris 1987, 285-295.

278

EwaWipszycka

rescrit imperial garantissant qu'au moment opportun le trone d'Alexandrie passerait a un catholique,36 Pierre Mongos representait toujours un grand danger; il etait impossible (peut-etre ne faisait-on pas suffisamment d'efforts) de l'arreter et de le deporter. Dans les lettres echangees entre l'empereur et le pape Felix, le souverain louait Jean Talaia, affirmant qu'il etait digne des plus hautes dignites de l'Eglise. Il pouvait le faire, car Jean Talaia lui avait jure, en presence du senat et du patriarche, qu'il n'aspirerait pas a la dignite patriarcale. Zacharie de Mytilene et Evagre le Scholastique ecrivent que l'empereur, qui s'etait apercu des ambitions, pas assez bien cachees, de Jean Talaia et qui ne voulait pas de lui sur le trone d'Alexandrie (peut-etre pensait-il que Pierre Mongos serait un collaborat e s plus souple), lui avait tendu un piege. Aux propos de l'empereur assurant Jean Talaia qu'il serait bon qu'il devint patriarche, celui-ci avait reagi c o n f o r m a n t a la convention obligatoire, en disant: "je n'en suis pas digne", mais il avait eu l'imprudence d'ajouter a cela un serment. Ce serment devait lui couter cher par la suite. Ce qui est pire, a Constantinople, le comportement de Jean commenca a soulever des suspicions. Pour son malheur, il s'etait lie d'amitie avec Illos, le plus haut fonctionnaire de la cour imperiale (magister officiorum), qui participa plus tard a la revoke contre l'empereur Zenon; il le comblait de precieux cadeaux et promettait encore plus dans ses lettres. L'affaire vit le jour tout a fait par hasard et fit scandale, ce qui enrageait l'empereur. Celui-ci se prononca ouvertement pour Pierre Mongos (sous certaines conditions indiquees dans le document appele Henotikon) et donna l'ordre a son representant a Alexandrie de chasser Jean Talaia.37 Celui-ci n'attendit pas l'execution de l'ordre et quitta la ville de son propre gre. Il n'y retourna plus jamais. Il se rendit a Rome (483) ou il lutta pour sa cause ; le pape lui confia l'eveche de Nola. Un simple coup d'oeil sur la liste des patriarches nous permet de const a t s que, pendant longtemps, de 482 jusqu'a 538 (date de l'ordination de Paul le Tabennesiote), l'Eglise d'Alexandrie fut entre les mains d'elus monophysites. Cette situation resultait sans doute d'une configuration particuliere des forces a l'interieur de l'Empire: dans la capitale, le trone imperial appartenait a Zenon et a Anastase, qui etaient prets a collaborer avec lesmonophysites. Divers textes, surtout des textes liturgiques, font ressortir le caractere public et hautement ceremonial de la consecration patriarcale.38 A ce grand 36

37 38

Zach. Rh. h.c. V 5 et 7 (CSCO 87, 153-157 Brooks); Evagr. h. e. Ill 12 (ed. J. Bidez/L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, London 1898, 109-110); Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO II.5, 126-132 Schwartz). Le meilleur recit de ces evenements se trouve dans: Zach. rh. h.e. V 6 (154 Brooks). Voir The Rites of Consecration of the Patriarch of Alexandria (cit. note 5).


279

et long spectacle participaient les representants de tous les milieux: eveques, clerge d'Alexandrie, notables et dignitaires, groupes organises de fideles et une foule de petites gens qui restaient a l'arriere-plan d'ou, a des moments opportuns, se faisaient entendre des acclamations. Apres la ceremonie a l'eglise,39 le patriarche se rendait dans son siege a la tete d u n e procession, accompagne de nombreux dignitaires; on portait des croix, l'icone de saint Marc et une banniere (?). Arrive devant le tetrapyle au centre de la ville, le cortege s'arretait et Farchidiacre recitait des prieres prevues a cette occasion. Dans les trois jours qui suivaient le sacre, le nouveau patriarche celebrait trois messes dans les trois eglises principals d'Alexandrie: l'eglise dite Angellion, celle de Saint-Michel et celle de SaintMarc. Pendant le dernier office, il tenait sur ses genoux le crane de saint Marc, devenant ainsi "son successeur pret a suivre ses pas."40 Il est interessant de noter que, dans le recit de la ceremonie, on insiste sur le role de l'eveque celebrant principal, la presence du "second" eveque n'est signalee qu'une fois, a d'autres endroits, il est question des eveques, au pluriel. Le troisieme hierarque (des trois qui participent a l'ordination, selon les regies canoniques) n'est point mentionne. Quel tour prenait la ceremonie de consecration lorsqu'elle n'avait pas l'approbation de l'empereur ou avait ete formellement interdite? Dans le cas de Timothee Ailouros et dans celui de Pierre Mongos - deux personnages qui etaient populaires, a une epoque ou la position des monophysites etait forte aussi bien dans la ville que dans les monasteres voisins - , on ne se soucia pas de l'opposition des autorites laiques: les deux patriarches furent consacres dans une des eglises alexandrines qui etaient entre les mains des monophysites. Il en etait autrement a l'epoque des querelles internes au sein de l'Eglise monophysite et des persecutions ouvertes de la part de l'empereur: les hierarques renoncaient a l'ostentation, en choisissant des monasteres monophysites comme lieu de l'ordination patriarcale. (Cependant, meme dans cette periode-la, un candidat issu d'une famille influente, comme Andronikos, non seulement fut consacre dans l'eglise monophysite dite Angellion, mais y exerca ses fonctions pendant toute la duree de sa charge).41 Les autorites n'intervenaient pas, sans doutedepeurdesouleverdesemeutes.

39

40 41

II est impossible de savoir de quel edifice il s'agit. Dans le texte, cette eglise est nommee katholike, terme qui designe generalement l'eglise cathedrale, lieu ou le patriarche celebre loffice. Nous ne savons pas laquelle des eglises d'Alexandrie tenait lieu de katholike a u V I P s. Voir The Rites of Consecration of the Patriarch of Alexandria (cit. note 5), 83. History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, PO 1-4, 484.

280

EwaWipszycka

Les chalcedoniens, eux, avaient d'autres raisons d'avoir peur. A Alexandrie, aux VP et VIP siecles, l'organisation d u n e ceremonie pour le sacre d u n patriarche chalcedonien, avec la participation de milliers de personnes, risquait de provoquer une emeute, et le candidat designe par l'empereur se trouvait personnellement en danger. II fut done necessaire de renoncer a ces fastueux spectacles a Alexandrie. Le premier patriarche ordonne a Constantinople, sur le conseil de Pelagios, apocrisiaire du pape, fut Paul le Tabennesiote (538), le superieur du monastere de Kanopos. Lorsqu'il fallut le destituer - pour violences et peut-etre pour meurtre e'est le synode des eveques palestiniens reunis a Gaza qui le fit. Ce meme synode ordonna son successeur Zoilos (540-551). A partir de ce momentla, les candidats chalcedoniens recevaient la charge episcopale d'Alexandrie a Constantinople: l'empereur designait le candidat, tandis que Fordination relevait de la competence du patriarche de Constantinople, accompagne de deux eveques qui se trouvaient a ce moment-la a sa disposition. Ainsi, manquant a toutes les regies et traditions, les chalcedoniens ont reussi a assurer la continuite du patriarcat d'Alexandrie jusqu'a Cyrus (630-643). Du cote des monophysites, Fordination de Timothee III fut la derniere qui se fit selon l'ancien usage. Apres cette date, les difficult liees au choix des patriarches etaient en partie occasionnees par les persecutions systematiques de la part de ceux parmi les empereurs qui s'etaient prononces decidement pour le concile de Chalcedoine. Mais la part decisive de la responsabilite revenait aux luttes internes entre differents groupes de monophysites qui rivalisaient entre eux. A l'origine de ces rivalites se trouvaient rarement des questions theologiques, dans la plupart des cas il s'agissait d'animosites personnels, les tensions se faisant le plus sentir au moment des elections. Les perdants avaient du mal a admettre leur echec et tentaient d'eliminer le concurrent plus chanceux. Un cas classique, ce sont les affrontements autour de l'investiture du trone patriarcal apres la mort de Theodose. La premiere tentative fut entreprise par un groupe domine par l'eveque Longinos, rappele a cet effet de Nubie. II apporta une lettre de Theodore, monophysite, eveque de Philae, laquelle l'autorisait a agir en son nom, car lui-meme etait trop age pour pouvoir entreprendre un si long voyage. Outre Longinos, dans le groupe des hierarques qui debattaient alors en cachette aMareotis se trouvaient deux eveques monophysites syriens et le patriarche d'Antioche Paul (celui dont les Alexandras ne voulaient pas). L'assemblee clandestine elut Theodore. C'etait un Syrien, certes, mais archimandrite d'un des monasteres de Scete; il accepta la fonction a contrecoeur. La consecration de Theodore eut lieu a Abu Mena, un sanctuaire de pelerinage celebre situe dans le desert, a env. 46 km a l'ouest d'Alexandrie. Tout se deroula dans le secret


281

le plus total. Lorsque le clerge monophysite alexandrin eut appris la nouvelle, il reagit energiquement, en procedant a une rapide ordination de Pierre IV, diacre, homme age, ancien compagnon d'exil de Theodose. Les membres de la curie patriarcale, qui avaient soutenu sa candidature, pensaient tres vraisemblablement qu'il se laisserait manipuler assez facilement. Compte tenu de la presence du clerge alexandrin a la ceremonie de consecration, c'est Pierre qui avait droit au trone, mais, par malheur, l'entourage de Theodore poussa celui-ci a poursuivre la lutte, c o m p l e m e n t insensee dans ces conditions. En definitive, Pierre remporta une victoire posthume: lorsque, au bout de trois ans, un nouveau patriarche devait etre choisi, c'est Damien, le secretaire de Pierre, qui futelu. Apres cette periode mouvementee, pendant longtemps, les elections des patriarches des deux options dogmatiques se sont deroulees sans complications. A une exception pres, a savoir: l'election de Dioscore II, qui etait, parait-il, un parent de Timothee Ailouros. Il convient de lui consacrer un peu d'attention. Les temoignages qui le concernent sont confus et different entreeux. Liberatus brev. 18 (ACO 2.5, 132-133 Schwartz): Apres la mort de Jean, fut ordonne a Alexandrie Dioscore le Jeune, pendant l'episcopat duquel fut tue par le peuple Theodose, augustalis, fils de Kalliopios. Ce Dioscore en effet - sur Initiative de Socrate, scholastic*, qui avait propose qu'il fasse, en presence du defensor civitatis, une declaration, comme quoi il acceptait Yhenotikon en rejetant le concile [de Chalcedoine] - accepta l'edit de reunification en rejetant le concile, comme le prouve le document qui fut redige chez le defensor civitatis, en presence de celui-ci, et dans lequel il declara qu'il acceptait l'edit en rejetant le concile .

Jean Malalas chron. 16,15 (CSHB Berlin 35, 328-329 Thurn): En cette annee de son regne [du regne d'Anastase], le peuple d'Alexandrie se revolta, pour manque d'huile, et tua Yaugustalis du nom de Theodose, originaire d'Antioche, fils du patricien Kalliopios. Ce fut l'annee 564 de l'ere d'Antioche, indiction 9 [AD 515/516]. L'empereur fut pris de colere et punit de nombreux Alexandrins pour la revolte contre k praefectus augustalis.

Theodore Lecteur,42 Excerpt. 522, note seulement que Dioscore, neveu de Timothee Ailouros, essaya de defendre les Alexandrins a Constantinople, mais qu'il se heurta a l'hostilite des Constantinopolitains. Theophane, sous la date Anno mundi 6009 - Anno Domini 516/517: Dans cette annee, apres la mort de Jean Nikaiotes, l'eveque heretique d'Alexandrie, fut elu eveque Dioscore le Jeune, un neveu de Timothee Ailouros. Etant alle a Byzance pour plaider devant l'empereur en faveur des Alexandrins a cause du meurtre du fils de

42

Theod. lect. h.e. E 522 (GCS N.F. Ill 151 Hansen).

282

EwaWipszycka Yaugustalis Kalliopios, il etait injurie publiquemem dans la rue par les orthodoxes qui croyaient qu'il etait venu pour combattre les dogmes orthodoxes. Aussi, des qu'il eut accompli sa mission concernant le meurtre, se hita-t-il de retourner chez lui. Et void la raison du meurtre. Lorsque Dioscore fut ordonne, la multitude des gens du lieu (taplethe ton chorikon) se separa (anechoresan) en disant: Teveque ne peut pas etre install* autrement que selon les regies canoniques etablies par les saints apotres'; en effet, c'etait par les fonctionnaires (archontes) qu'il [Dioscore] avait ete intronise. Dioscore se rendit alors a Saint Marc et les membres du clerge arriverent, le revetirent a nouveau [des habitspontificaux] et l'ordonnerent une deuxieme fois. Apres quoi il alia a Saint Jean [Baptist*] et y celebra la messe. Comme il y avait la Theodose, fils de Kalliopios, augustalis, et Akakios, magister militum, la foule se souleva et commenca a injurier Yaugustalis parce qu'il avait loue l'empereur Anastase. S'etant debarasses de toute crainte, quelques-uns sauterent dessus, arracherent le fils de Yaugustalis de son siege et le tuerent. Le magister militum Akakios donna la mort a autant d'individus qu'il put attraper. Quand l'empereur apprit la nouvelle, il fut pris de colere contre eux, mais Dioscore alia chez lui en amba'ade et reussit a l'adoucir." 43

Tout porte a croire que la foule venue assister a la ceremonie, incitee par les monophysites fanatiques presents parmi le clerge et les moines, n'a pas ete satisfaite par les declarations de Dioscore qui avait accepte Yhenotikon comme credo orthodoxe, car ce texte ne condamnait pas ouvertement les decisions du concile de Chalcedoine. Les protestations de la foule forcerent Dioscore a renouveler Facte d'acceptation de Vhenotikon, en ajoutant au texte une formule de condamnation du concile. La fureur de la foule eclata apres le rituel, quand le patriarche n'etait pas encore vetu de ses habits ceremoniaux (les pretres de sa suite etaient en train de l'habiller). II est interessant de noter que la nouvelle declaration fut prononcee devant un haut fonctionnaire laique, le defensor civitatis, qui paraissait plus fiable aux contestataires que les dignitaires de la curie patriarcale. Une information analogue est contenue dans la biographie de Mongos que les fideles soupconnaient (a raison) de tricherie:44 lui aussi fut oblige de faire

43

44

Je traduis le texte de l'edition de J. Classen, Theophanis Chronographia, t. I, Bonn 1839, 250-252, et non pas celui de l'edition de C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, t. 1, Leipzig 1883. A un endroit important, la tradition manuscrite presente deux lecons divergentes: taplethe ton chorikon et taplethe ton klerikon. J. Classen a choisi la premiere variante, C. de Boor la seconde. C. Mango et R. Hall, qui ont traduit et commente le texte en 1997, ont adopte le choix fait par C. de Boor, a tort, selon moi. L'emploi du mot: ta plethe, "les multitudes", "la foule", serait innaturel, s'il s'agissaitde la majorite du clerge. Ch. Haas, Patriarch and People: Peter Mongus of Alexandria and Episcopal Leadership in Late Fifth Century, JECS 1, 1993, 297-316.


283

une declaration supplemental condamnant ouvertement l'oeuvre du conciledeChalcedoine. Le passage de Theophane parlant d u n e nouvelle ordination de Dioscore est plus qu'etonnant. Dans l'Antiquite tardive, un tel acte etait absolument inacceptable du point de vue liturgique. De tels cas sont en revanche attestes a l'epoque medievale. Pourquoi la foule, au lieu de s'apaiser (sa demande ayant ete satisfaite), s'infuria-t-elle a tel point que quelques individus tuerent le prefer de la ville? Est-ce que, comme le dit Theophane, le dignitaire avait provoque la foule, en louant l'empereur? Ceci parait peu probable. En effet, Anastase etait bien dispose a l'egard des monophysites, et tout le monde a Alexandrie le savait. Prononcer un discours panegyrique en l'honneur de l'empereur faisait partie des devoirs ordinaires des fonctionnaires de ce rang. Theodose aurait-il formule une remarque desobligeante a l'egard de la foule? II est vraiment difficile de l'admettre: en regie generale, les representants de l'empereur savaient tres bien a quel point les Alexandras etaientdangereux. Le temoignage de Jean Malalas peut nous aider a comprendre la situation.45 La penurie d'huile dans la ville a sans doute ete une raison suffisamment importante pour susciter la colere des citoyens. Dans son commentaire de ces textes, Ernst Stein,46 eminent historien du milieu du XX' siecle, inegale dans ses recherches sur l'histoire politique, se dit convaincu que les monophysites etaient indignes par un soutien trop evident des autorites laiques pour le candidat et qu'ils souhaitaient que le rituel soit repete (sans la presence des dignitaires civils? Ceci aurait ete une offense pour l'Eglise alexandrine). Selon l'avis de Stein, l'incident se serait produit pendant la premiere messe pontificale a laquelle participaient le praefectus augustalis et le chef des troupes. C'est alors que la foule se jeta sur le prefer et l'assomma, et que le magister militum donna l'ordre de tuer les attaquants. II me semble que la presence des autorites civiles a l'office n'aurait pas en elle-meme suffi pour susciter une telle colere, car en regie generale, les dignitaires laiques participaient a toutes les ceremonies ecclesias-

45

46

Sur le temoignage de Malalas, voir Ph. Blaudeau, Ordre religieux et ordre public: observations sur l'histoire de l'Eglise post-chalcedonienne d'apres le temoignage de Jean Malalas, dans: Recherches sur la Chronique de Jean Malalas, t. II, ed. S. AugustaBoularot, J. Beaucamp, A.-M. Bernardie, E. Caire, Paris 2006, 243-256. L'auteur se demande pourquoi Malalas, qui connait bien les evenements, ne mentionne pas dans son recit la situation religieuse existant a Alexandrie a cette epoque et dans laquelle il faut aussi chercher les causes de l'emeute. Histoire du Bas Empire de la disparition de l'Empire d'Occident a la mort de Justinien.t. 2, Paris 1949, 164.

284

EwaWipszycka

tiques. Les historiens d'aujourd'hui, qui ont tendance a surestimer l'intensite de la haine des Egyptiens a l'egard de l'empereur et de ses representants, sont enclins a exagerer le role du facteur politique dans toute cette affaire.47 La conquete de l'Egypte par les Perses (juin 619) eut pour consequence la fuite du chalcedonien Jean l'Aumonier a Chypre dont il etait originaire et ou il mourut en novembre 619. La hierarchie chalcedonienne ne sera retablie qu'au debut des annees 30, apres le depart des Perses. Le monophysite Andronikos, elu en 616, resta, quant a lui, a Alexandrie, mais nous n'avons aucun temoignage concernant son activite sous la domination perse. Il en est de meme pour son successeur, Benjamin, ordonne en 622, dont l'activite sera visible apres la conquete arabe. Il est probable que les deux ont vecu dans la clandestine, ou peut-etre sans aller jusque la sont-ils restes inactifs pendant toutes ces annees, les Perses manifestant une attitude peu favorable a l'egard des monophysites. Les occupants interdisaient l'ordination de nouveaux eveques en Egypte (alors que les anciens restaient en poste sans problemes), sans que Ton puisse expliquer pourquoi. 48 Il existe trop peu de sources relatives a cette periode pour qu'on puisse comprendre les motifs de la politique perse. Deux ans apres le depart des Perses (631-632), Cyrus, homme de l'empereur Heraclius et eveque de Phasis dans le Caucase, arriva a Alexandrie avec la mission de mettre fin aux querelles entre monophysites et chalcedoniens.49 Le concile d'unification eut lieu en juin 633. Les actes de ce synode ne nous sont pas connus; l'unique document parvenu jusqu'a nos jours est une lettre adressee au patriarche de Constantinople, Serge, dans laquelle Cyrus fait part de son succes. A la fin du document se trouve la titulature de Cyrus: "eveque par la grace de Dieu, topoterete {topoteretes) du trone apostolique de cette ville tant aimee du Christ, Alexandrie, sur ordre de nos bons et victorieux Seigneurs."50 Marek Jankowiak, dans son excellente these de doctorat51 consacree aux evenements du VIP siecle,

47 48 49

50 51

Je pense surtout a l'attitude de Blaudeau dans son livre cite dans la note 24. Synaxaire arabe Jacobite (redaction copte), PO 3, 491. Les plus importants travaux sur l'activite de Cyrus en Egypte: F. Winkelmann, Agypten und Byzanz vor der arabischen Eroberung, Byzantinoslavica 40, 1979, 161-182 ; idem, Die Stellung Agyptens im ostromisch-byzantinischen Reich dans: GraecoCoptica. Griechen und Kopten im byzantinischen Agypten, Halle 1984, 11-35; idem, Der monoenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, Frankfurt a.M. 2001. G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol.11, Florentiae 1765, 559-668. Essai d'histoire politique du monothelisme a partir de la correspondance entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome, Paris,


285

propose une interpretation de ce passage differente de celles qui sont commandment admises. Selon lui - et je me range a son avis - l'eveche dont il est question est celui de Phasis; en 633, a Alexandria Cyrus ne fut que topoteretes (litteralement "lieutenant"), done envoye de l'empereur, charge de mission et muni de procurations speckles. Dans ses pourparlers avec les eveques des deux camps, Cyrus representait l'empereur et non pas l'Eglise. Le titre que lui avait donne Heraclius refletait bien la tactique adoptee par l'empereur, en fait, son principal objectif etait d'eliminer les divisions au sein de la chretiente d'Orient et, pour realiser ce but, tout moyen etait bon. Quand les trones patriarcaux (Alexandrie, Antioche, Jerusalem) restaient vacants, l'empereur n'etait point presse de mettre fin a cette situation inhabituelle. Afin d'assurer le fonctionnement normal du patriarcat, il preferait nommer des topoteretes qui n'allaient pas rester sur place apres avoir accompli leur mission. C'est a peu pres a l'epoque ou Cyrus fut envoye a Alexandrie que, sur l'ordre de l'empereur, Stephanos de Joppe fut nomme topoterete a Jerusalem. Heraclius voulait garder en main une carte forte, esperant pouvoir la jouer et gagner quelques figures ecclesiastiques importantes du camp oppose au sien. Heraclius dota le topoterete d'Alexandrie de tres vastes competences extra-ecclesiastiques. D'apres YHistoire des Patriarches, qui est, pour cette epoque, une source d'informations assez bonne, Cyrus devint le plus haut fonctionnaire d'Egypte: dux etpraefectus augustalis* Je doute que Cyrus ait recu formellement ce titre et qu'il ait effectivement exerce les fonctions liees a celui-ci. Certes, il devait disposer de vastes pouvoirs, mais ceux-ci n'etaient probablement pas definis selon la nomenclature administrative en vigueur. Les responsabilites du prefer et du dux etaient tellement nombreuses, qu'elles ne lui auraient cree que des ennuis, en l'empechant de se concentrer sur des affaires de l'Eglise. La question est sans aucun doute interessante, die pourrait bien faire l'objet d'un autre debat. Nous ignorons quand exactement Cyrus a obtenu la dignite de patriarche. C'est probablement le succes du concile d'unification qui poussa Heraclius a le recompenser de cette facon. Je n'ai point souleve jusque la le probleme des interventions de l'empereur dans les elections patriarcales. Il est temps a present de nous pencher sur notre dossier pour y puiser quelques informations a ce sujet.

52

Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes - Universite de Varsovie, these soutenue le 30 juin2009. History of the Patriarchs, PO 1-4, 489. Deja auparavant Justinien avait dote Paul le Tabenn&iote de certains pouvoirs civils, mais il est difficile de dire comment ils etaient definis dans Facte de nomination.

286

EwaWipszycka

Aux VP et VIP siecles, le souverain decidait des nominations des patriarches pro-chalcedoniens, tandis que sous le regne de Zenon et d'Anastase, cette pratique concernait le patriarcat monophysite. Les jeux politiques tres complexes des Ve-VP siecles ont souvent conduit a des situations dans lesquelles l'attitude de l'empereur ne pouvait pas etre definie d u n e maniere aussi simple (ainsi, Zenon soutint Pierre Mongos, tandis que Justinien accepta l'election de Theodose). Heraclius, apres sa victoire sur les Perses et la reprise des reliques de la Sainte Croix, se sentit en droit (et dans l'obligation) d'intervenir ouvertement dans les elections et ceci pour nommer non seulement les patriarches, mais aussi les archeveques et meme les eveques. Dans ce contexte, il vaut la peine d'examiner la procedure qui fut adoptee pour transmettre le pouvoir patriarcal a Theodose. Pa revoke des partisans des aphthartodocetes contre le candidat elu et la consecration de Gaianos obligea Justinien a intervenir directement dans les affaires de l'Eglise alexandrine. Son representant, Narses, reunit les cent vingt personnes qui avaient participe a la ceremonie de l'ordination de Theodose (les eveques y etaient en minorite) afin d'obtenir des depositions sur le deroulement des evenements. Sa mission consistait principalement a etablir lequel des patriarches, Theodose ou Gaianos, avait ete consacre le premier. C'est du moins ce qui ressort du recit de cet evenement contenu dans YHistoire des Patriarches* Furent alors apportes a l'eglise ou devait se tenir l'interrogatoire l'evangile et le decret de l'empereur muni de son sceau et de son effigie, puis on interrogea Theodose, ensuite tous les eveques presents a la consecration, l'un apres l'autre, et ces temoignages furent mis par ecrit (peut-etre se trouvaient-ils dans les archives du patriarcat au moment de la redaction du texte utilise dans YHistoire des patriarches). Pa description de la maniere - extremement solennelle - dont le decret imperial fut presente, est, que je sache, absolument unique. Pes nombreuses lettres adressees par l'empereur au prefer d'Alexandrie au sujet des elections se presentment probablement sous la forme de la correspondance imperiale ordinaire, assez solennelle bien evidemment, comme tout ce qui etait signee par l'empereur, mais n'etaient pas destinees a etre exposees d'une facon ceremoniale a la vue du public, comme ce document qui devait symboliser la presence du souverain. Que contenait la lettre imperiale? P'ordre de proceder a une investigation? Une autorisation speciale permettant de reconnaitre la legalite canonique de l'election de Theodose, au cas ou sa priorite aurait ete prouvee? Nous sommes dans l'impossibilite de repondre a ces questions.

53

History of the Patriarchs, PO 1-4, 460-461.


287

II est a noter que la priorite revenait de droit a Gaianos, car c'est lui qui avait passe par routes les etapes de la procedure rituelle, alors que 1'ordination de Theodose avait ete interrompue et que done, du point de vue canonique, elle etait nulle et non advenue. Toutefois l'empereur ne voulait pas voir l'Eglise alexandrine dirigee par Gaianos, qui d'ailleurs etait alors en exil, en Sardaigne, d'ou il ne revint jamais. Les autorites arabes reprirent tous les pouvoirs de l'empereur envers l'Eglise, dans les limites defmies par Heraclius. Apres le choix du patriarchy le gouverneur validait par ecrit le resultat de l'election (ou il tranchait, s'il y avait plus d'un candidat). Le sacre avait traditionnellement lieu apres.54 Les sources ne fournissent aucun temoignage d'eventuelles controverses resultant de telle procedure.

Appendicel: Les plus importantes sources historiographiques utilisees dans la presente etude Zacharie de Mytilene Vs.- Zachariah of Mitylene, Historia Ecclesiastics ed. tr. E.W. Brooks, CSCO 87, 1924.

Ne vers 465 aux environs de Gaza, Zacharie de Mytilene compte parmi les hommes les plus instruits de son epoque. Tres proche des dirigeants de l'Eglise monophysite, il passa quelque temps en Egypte. Au debut du regne d'Anastase, il s'installa a Constantinople ou il pratiqua comme juriste. Vers 492-495 il redigea une Histoire ecclesiastique, puis, vers 515, la Vie de Severe, patriarche monophysite d'Antioche - une source precieuse egalement pour l'etude de l'histoire de l'Eglise egyptienne. Zacharie de Mytilene est considere comme un auteur bien informe. Sa partialite se traduit surtout par l'omission de certaines questions delicates pour les monophysites. Sous Justin, il se convertit a la doctrine chalcedonienne; il participa au concile de Constantinople comme eveque chalcedonien de Mytilene. Son Histoire ecclesiastique, qui concerne la periode 450-491, etait basee sur son experience. Le texte original ayant disparu, nous ne disposons que d'un resume en syriaque redige par un moine d'Amida. La version syriaque est citee d'habitude par les savants comme: PseudoZachane, Historia ecclesiastica. 54

Cette information est fournie par la Vie d'Isaac, patriarche d'Alexandrie (689-692), de la plume de Menas, eveque de Nikiou, qui la redigea une dizaine d'annees plus tard. Texte publie par E. Porcher, PO 9, 1915, 350-354.

288

EwaWipszycka

Liberatus Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, ed. E. Schwartz [dans:] Acta Conc i l i u m Oecumenicorum, t. 2 (Concilium Chalcedonense), vol. 5, p. 98-141.

Archidiacre de Carthage, Liberatus prit une part active dans la bataille occidentale pour la defense des Trois Chapitres centre l'empereur Justinien. Dans les annees 560-565, il redigea une histoire des controverses christologiques de Nestorius a Justinien. Il se basa sur de nombreux documents (qu'il cite heureusement dans son texte) ainsi que sur des informations recueillies pendant ses voyages. Liberatus fournit des informations fiables sur les evenements qui eurent lieu a Alexandrie. Nous savons qu'il y sejourna, mais nous ignorons a quelle date exactement. Jean d'Ephese Iohannis Ephesini Historiae ecclesiasticae pars III, tr. E.W.Brooks, CSCO 106, 1936.

Originaire de Mesopotamia Jean naquit vers 507 aux environs d'Amida. Moine monophysite, il faisait partie du milieu des dirigeants monophysites. II voyagea beaucoup, entre autres en Palestine, Syrie et Egypte. Des 534 il vecut a Constantinople, protege par Theodora. En 558 il fut ordonne eveque monophysite d'Ephese. Persecute en tant que dirigeant monophysite, il subit plusieurs emprisonnements. Il mourut apres 588. De son Histoire ecclesiastique il ne subsiste que la troisieme partie portant sur les annees 571-588. Pour beaucoup de faits, Jean a pu se fonder sur son experience personnel, et il savait beaucoup, ayant participe aux evenements au niveau le plus haut. Il ecrit d u n e facon competente, mais non impartiale. Il combat avec passion les chalcedoniens ainsi que ceux parmi les representants du camp monophysite qui etaient ses adversaires. Le defaut principal de son recit consiste en ce qu'il passe sous silence les episodes qui pourraient profiter aux chalcedoniens. Un autre ouvrage important de Jean d'Ephese, e'est une Vie des saints de l'Orient (e'est-a-dire de la prefecture d'Orient), surtout de ceux qui ont vecu a son epoque. Ces Vies ont un but apologetique: Jean y decrit en detail les persecutions subies par les monophysites sous Justinien. JeanMalalas Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. J. Thurn, Berlin 2000 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae).

Ne vers 491, Jean quitta a un certain moment Antioche (535? 540?) pour s'installer a Constantinople, ou il travailla dans l'administration imperiale. II est l'auteur d'une immense chronique relatant les evenements de la creation du monde jusqu'a 526 (?) (et peut-etre meme jusqu'a 565, soit jus-


289

q u a la mort de Justinien). La derniere partie du livre XVIII a sans doute ete redigee par quelqu'un d'autre. Cet ouvrage ne s'est pas conserve en entier; il n'en subsiste qu'un abrege (nous ignorons qui l'a fait: peut-etre Jean lui-meme?) et des fragments. Jean Malalas s'interessait principalement aux evenements qui avaient eu lieu a Antioche. Sa culture etait fort limine, sa chronique n'est pas exempte d'erreurs grossieres, ce qui ne l'a pas empechee d'etre populaire. Evagre leScolastique Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J.Bidez, L. Parmentier, London 1898.

Ne vers 536 a Epiphaneia en Syrie, Evagre avait une bonne formation juridique (d'ou le surnom de scholastics). Install* a Antioche, il devint conseiller juridique du patriarche chalcedonien de cette ville. Il ecrivit une Histoire ecclesiastique qui couvre la periode de 431 a 594. Dans les passages concernant les annees qui nous interessent dans cette etude, Evagre utilisa largement l'ouvrage de Zacharie de Mytilene (bien que celui-ci fut monophysite), en pratiquant des coupures et adaptant le texte a ses besoins. Il profita egalement des ouvrages de bons historiens: Eustathios d'Epiphaneia, Procope de Cesaree, Jean d'Epiphaneia. Malheureusement, Evagre n'etait pas assez intelligent pour maitriser toute cette masse d'informations qui etaient a sa disposition. Tout comme ses collegues monophysites, il donnait rarement des informations fausses, il lui arrivait plutot d'omettre celles qui lui paraissaient malcommodes. Il s'interessait principalement a Antioche, l'Egypte restait en dehors de ses preoccupations. Theophane Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig 1883. Traduction accompagnee d'un vaste commentaire et d'une introduction C. Mango, R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, Oxford 1997.

Theophane est l'auteur d'une Chronique - continuation de l'ouvrage de Georges le Syncelle, qui allait de la creation du monde jusqu'a Diocletien. Nous savons qu'il fut moine en Palestine et synkellos du patriarche de Constantinople, Tarasios (784-806). Il mourut en 818. Le titre de confessor ("confesseur") se rapporte aux persecutions qu'il subit aux temps de l'iconoclasme. La Chronique est un ouvrage ambitieux, rapportant non seulement les evenements du monde chretien, mais aussi ceux du Proche Orient. Elk est nettement influence par la chronographie syriaque. L'auteur inscrit toutes

290

EwaWipszycka

les informations dans une grille chronologique, en tenant compte des reperes suivants: Annus Mundi (annee de la creation du monde), annee de l'lncarnation, nom et annee de regne de l'empereur, nom et annee de regne du souverain perse ainsi que ceux des califes arabes, noms des patriarches et annees d'exercice de leurs fonctions. Malheureusement, l'ouvrage n'est pas exempt de repetitions et d'erreurs; certains groupes d'informations sont deplaces sur l'axe du temps (comme il arrive souvent dans les chroniques). Theopahne a puise dans plusieurs auteurs. Pour les annees AM 5786-6009, il a utilise une chronique alexandrine, ce qui represente pour ma recherche un fait de grande importance. Michel leSyrien Chronique, ed. tr. j.B.Chabot, Paris 1899-1910.

Ne a Melitene en 1126, Michel le Syrien devint moine. Elu patriarche Jacobite d'Antioche en 1157, il mourut en 1195. Outre le syriaque, il connaissait le grec et l'armenien. Il ecrivit en syriaque une vaste Chronique, allant de la creation du monde jusqu'a 1195. Il utilisa un grand nombre de documents et les ouvrages de plusieurs historiens, dont certains etaient des auteurs bien informes (Jean d'Ephese et, ce qui est important, Theophile d'Edesse dont l'ouvrage, qui a du etre fort interessant, ne nous est pas parvenu). Pour les questions faisant l'objet de la presente etude, la Chronique de Michel le Syrien est une bonne source. L'Histoire des Patriarches de l'Eglise Copte d'Alexandrie History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, ed. tr. B. Evens, PO 14, 1904-1910.

Redige en plusieurs etapes, l'ouvrage est complexe. Le titre fut donne par le premier editeur B. Evetts. La partie concernant la periode 477-700 fut redigee au XT siecle par Mawhub ibn Mansur sur la base d'une histoire copte du patriarcat d'Alexandrie, ecrite par l'archidiacre Gregoire, secretaire du patriarche Simon I" (692-700). Les passages concernant la periode qui fait l'objet de mon etude sont de qualite inegale; lorsqu'il ne trouvait pas d'informations sur certains patriarches, le redacteur inventait tout simplement leur biographie. Des lacunes dans le texte, l'absence d'esprit critique, la partialite philo-jacobite nuisent a la valeur de l'ouvrage. Celuici necessite une approche tres prudente.


291

Appendicell. Listedespatriarchesd'Alexandrie Patriarcheschalcedoniens depuisle milieu du V= siecle

Patriarchesmonophysites

Proterios 451-457 Timothee II Ailouros 457-477" Sdophakiolos 460-482 Pierre III Mangos 477-490 Jean II Talaia 482 Atanase II 490-496 Jean V Htmula 496-505 Jean II Nikaiotes 505-516 Dioscore II 516-517 Timothee III 517-535 T h e o d o s e F 535-566 Gaianos 535 (partisan de Julien) exile d'Egypte apres 103 jours Paul 538-542 Zoilos 542-551 Apollinaire 551-570 Jean II 570-580 Theodore 575-577 [pratiquement non accepte parlesmonophysites] Pierre IV 576-577 Euloge 580-607 Damien 578-607 Theodore Skribon 607-609 Anastase 607-619 Jean III l'Aumonier 609-619 Georges 620-630 Andronikos 619-626 Cyrus ?-643 Benjamin 626-665 Agathon 662-680 Jean III 680-689 Isaac 690-693

55

A partir de Timothee II Ailouros, la n u m e r a t i o n des patriarches portant le meme nom suit deux lignes separees: chalcedonienne et monophysite. Dans les etudes concernant l'Eglise egyptienne, apparaissent parfois des divergences dans la datation du debut et de la fin des patriarcats successifs, mais cela n'a guere d'importance pour mes considerations sur les elections episcopales.

BischofswahleninRom(3.-6.Jh.): Bedingungen - Akteure - Verfahren EckhardWirbelauer Wenn bei einem Kolloquium zu Bischofswahlen in der Spatantike gleich in mehreren Beitragen die Stadt Rom in den Blick genommen wird, dann rechtfertigt sich dies schon durch deren herausragende Bedeutung. Damit ist aber erst in zweiter Linie die Bedeutung Roms und seines Bischofs fur die Gesamtkirche gemeint, denn das ,Papsttum< ist in der Spatantike erst in der Entstehung begriffen und in wesentlichen Teilen noch nicht unbestrittene Realitat. Ohne hier naher auf diese gewiE zentrale Frage der kirchlichen Organisation eingehen zu wollen, so sei doch in Erinnerung gerufen, da£ vor dem hohen Mittelalter in Rom nie ein Papst, sondern stets ein Bischof gewahlt wurde, dem es dann nach seiner Erhebung oblag, seine fuhrende Position in der Gesamtkirche durchzusetzen. Der Begriff ,Papstwahl< macht jedoch erst Sinn, wenn diese Nachfolgerfindung unter EinschluE nicht-romischer Beteiligter erfolgt, ganz gleich ob man hier an weldiche oder geisdiche Vertreter der Christenheit denken mag. Und doch spielt auch in unserem Fall das ,Papsttum< eine Rolle, wenngleich eine mittelbare, denn die uberregionale Bedeutung des romischen Bischofsstuhls in der Spatantike und dariiber hinaus im Mittelalter haben dafiir gesorgt, da£ wir liber keine andere Gemeinde so gut unterricht sind wie liber die romische. Schon wegen der Vielschichtigkeit unserer Uberlieferung erscheint es also angemessen, dem romischen .Fall' besondere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Im folgenden mochte ich zunachst von den Bedingungen fur die Nachfolgerfindung auf dem romischen Bischofsstuhl sprechen, anschlieEend auf die Akteure eingehen und schliefflich fragen, welche Verfahren oder Verfahrenselemente gefunden wurden, urn diese fur die romische Gemeinde kritische Situation zu meistern. Dabei gehe ich davon aus, da£ es sich trotz aller Erwartbarkeit stets urn eine kritische Situation handelte, bei der nicht von vornherein klar war, daE sie ohne Komplikationen, ja ohne physische Gewaltanwendung ablaufen wurde.1 _ _ _ _ _ 1

Fur anregende Diskussionen sei Philippe Blaudeau, Peter van Nuffelen und den iibrigen Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmern des Kolloquiums in Leuven sowie den

294

EckhardWirbelauer

l.Bedingungen Wer sich fur die Frage interessiert, wie Nachfolger fur ein bestimmtes Arm gefunden werden, wird zunachst das betreffende Amt in den Blick nehmen. In unserem Fall ist also zu fragen, wie ein Bischof gefunden werden kann, dem die geistliche und (zunehmend auch:) weldiche Leitung der Gemeinde obliegt. Diese Bedingung sei ,institutionelle Bedingung' genannt. Um die institutionelle Bedingung naher zu fassen, seien zunachst drei zentrale Texte ganz unterschiedlicher Natur kurz betrachtet. Der erste ist normativen Charakters {Traditio apostolica, c. 1 nach Version L):2 Episcopus ordinetur electus ab omni populo, quique cum nominatus fuerit etplacuerit omnibus, conuenietpopulum (sc. Norn. Sing.) una cum praesbyterio et his qui praesentes fuerint episcopi, die dominica. Consentientibus omnibus, inponant super eum manus, et

2

Kolleginnen und Kollegen der University Basel herzlich gedankt. Die hier vorgestellten Uberlegungen verstehen sich als Fortsetzung eigener Forschungen, vgl. E. Wirbelauer, Zwei Papste in Rom. Der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498514). Studien und Texte, Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 16, Miinchen 1993; Die Nachfolgerbestimmung im romischen Bistum (3.-6. Jh.). Doppelwahlen und Absetzungen in ihrer herrschaftssoziologischen Bedeutung, Klio 76, 1994, 388437 und Klio 77, 1995, 555£; Laurenzo e Simmaco. Ragioni del conflitto negli anni 498-506, in: II Papato di San Simmaco (498-514). Atti di Convegno Internazionale di studi. Oristano 19-21 novembre 1998, hrsg. v. G. Mele/N. Spaccapelo, Studi e Richerche di Cultura Religiosa, N. S. 2, Cagliari 2000, 39-51; Leo der Grofc und die Entstehung des Papsttums. Der Stellvertreter Petri in Rom, in: M. Meier (Hrsg.), Sie schufen Europa. Historische Portraits von Konstantin bis Karl dem Grofcn, Miinchen 2007, 78-92 und 344f, Comment exiler un pape ?, in: Exil et relegation. Les tribulations du sage et du saint dans l'Antiquite romaine et chretienne (Ier-VIe s. ap. J.-C). Actes du colloque organise par le Centre Jean-Charles Picard, Universite de Paris XII Val de Marne (17.-18. juin 2005), hrsg. v. Philippe Blaudeau, Paris 2008, 255-272 (dt. iiberarbeitete Fassung: Exil fur den romischen Bischof?, Saeculum 59, 2008, 29-46). Auf umfangreiche Literaturangaben kann hier daher verzichtet werden. Unter den jiingsten Arbeiten sei die Synthese von Peter Norton genannt, die freilich doch sehr oberflachlich bleibt: P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007. Stadtromische Falle behandelt Norton eher kursorisch und unter weitgehender Ausblendung der bisherigen Forschung, vgl. seinen Umgang mit den drei Doppelwahlen Damasus/Ursinus, Bonifatius/Eulalius und Symmachus/Laurentius (ebd. 63-67). Im offenkundigen Bestreben, Rom nicht allzu sehr in den Vordergrund treten zu lassen, hat Norton in seinem Kapitel zu den ..Disputed Elections" (215-238) auf die Erwahnung stadtromischer Konflikte vollig verzichtet. Zur romischen Entwicklung generell s. jetzt: J. Martin, Der Weg zur Ewigkeit fiihrt fiber Rom. Die Friihgeschichte des Papsttums und die Darstellung der neutestamentlichen Heilsgeschichte im Triumphbogenmosaik von Santa Maria Maggiore in Rom, Stuttgart 2010. Text nach B. Botte, wie er von W. Geerlings in seiner Ausgabe Fontes Christiani 1, Freiburg u.a. 1991, 146f, iibernommen wurde, vgl. Wirbelauer, Nachfolgerbestimmung (s. Anm. 1), 398-402 mit naheren Hinweisen.

Bischofswahlen in Rom (3.-6. Jh.)

295

praesbyterium adstet quiescens. Omnes autem sikntium habeant, orantes in corde propter discensionem spiritus. Ex quibus unus depraesentibus episcopis, ab omnibus rogatus, inponens manum ei qui ordiatur episcopus, oret ita dicens.

Die Urheberschaft des stadtromischen Theologen Hippolyt ist zwar inzwischen durch die Untersuchungen von Christoph Markschies3 kaum noch anzunehmen, aber auch Markschies halt daran fest, daE es sich bei diesem Text, der uns in einer ausgesprochen heterogenen Uberlieferungssituation erhalten ist, um eine Produktion des 3. Jahrhunderts handelt. Und unbestreitbar bleibt auch, da£ der Text in Reaktion auf eine Konfliktsituation entstanden ist,4 wenngleich die Konfliktsituation zwischen Kallist und Hippolyt als direkter Bezug nunmehr weniger plausibel erscheint. Die Regelung, die die Traditio apostolica in Erinnerung rufen will und die also schon zuvor gait! - , betrifft in erster Linie die Weihe des Bischofs: Der zukunftige Bischof wird vom ganzen Volk ausgewahlt; ist er benannt, versammeln sich an einem Sonntag Gemeinde, Presbyterium und die anwesenden Bischofe der Nachbargemeinden, um ihn zu weihen. Bei dieser Zeremonie haben die anwesenden Bischofe eine aktive, das Presbyterium eine testierende Funktion. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags ist noch ein weiterer Punkt hervorzuheben: In der Traditio Apostolica liegt ein charismatisches Amtsverstandnis der Bischofswurde vor, denn im Mittelpunkt steht die besondere Qualitat der Person, ihre besondere Befahigung zur Ausubung dieses Amtes. DaE eine solche Sicht aber schon im fruhen 3. Jahrhundert nicht die einzig mogliche war, zeigt die Erhebung des Kallist (217), den Hippolyt dem Vorwurf der ambitio aussetzt, weil sich Kallist unter den Vorgangern Viktor und Zephyrinus in unangemessener Weise exponiert habe. 5 Ganz gleich, ob man die Wertungen Hippolyts akzeptiert oder nicht: Bei dem Bewahrungsaufstieg des Kallist handelt es sich um die alteste hinreichend sicher belegte Karriere eines romischen Klerikers bis zum Bischofsstuhl. Wie die charismatische Legitimation des romischen Bischofsamtes alle Ublichen Regeln auEer Kraft setzen konnte, macht die gelungene Bischofsfindung im Jahr 236 deutlich, die uns Eusebius in seiner Kirchengeschichte(VI29,l-4)eindrucklichschildert. Gordianou de meta Maximinon t h n kata

A n t e r w j , kai t o u t o n Fabiano/j, 3

4 5

Rwmai/wn hgemonian diadecame/nou, t h j

Rw/mhn e k k l h s i a j Pontianon etesin ec episkopeu/santa epi mhna t h l e i t o u r g i a

diade/xetai

diakonhsa/me-

Chr. Markschies, Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen. Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie, Tubingen 2007, 150f. mit Hinweisen auf die friihere Literatur. Trad, apost. Prolog: propter eum qui nuper inuentus est per ignorantiam lapsus uel error. Refutatio omnium heresium IX, 12, 14 (GCS [26], 248, 11-13 Wendland).

296

EckhardWirbelauer non. (2.) ec a g r o u f a s i n t o n Fabianon

meta t h n A n t e / r w t o j t e l e u t h n am

ete/roij sunelqo/nta epixwria/zein t h Rw/mh, enqa p a r a d o c o / t a t a p r o j t h j qei/aj kai ouranion x a / r i t o j epi t o n k l h r o n parelhluqe/nai. (3.) t w n g a r a d e l f w n apa/twn x e i r o t o n i a j eneken t h j t o u me/llontoj diade/casqai t h n episkophn sugkekrothme/nwn p l e i / s t w n t e e p i f a n w n kai endo/cwn andrwn toij

polloij

en uponoi/a uparxo/ntwn, o F a b i a n o j p a r w n oudenoj men

anqrw/pwn e i j dia/noian hei, omwj d ou]n a q r o w j ek metew/rou p e r s i t e r a n kataptasan

epikaqesqhnai

th

autou

kefalh

mnhmoneu/ousin, mi/mhma

endeiknume/nhn t h j e p i t o n s w t h r a t o u a g i / o u m n e u / m a t o j en e i d e i

kaqo/dou: (4.) e f

w t o n pa/nta lao/n, w s p e r u f

peristeraj

enoj pn eu/matoj qe i/ou

kinhqe/nta, proqumia,pa/sh kai ma yuxh acion epibohsai kai a m e l l h / t w j epi t o n qro/n on t h j e p i s k o p h j l a b o / n t a j auton epiqeinai. Dieser soil nach dem Tode des Anteros mit noch anderen Mdnnern vom Lande her nach Rom gekommen sein und hier aufganz wunderbare Weise durch die gottliche und himmlische Gnade die Wiirde erlangt haben. Ms sdmtliche Briider zusammengekommen

waren,

um den zukunfiigen Bischofzu wdhlen, waren von den meisten schon sehr viele angesehene und beruhmte Manner in Aussicht genommen; an Fabianus aber, der ebenfalls anwesend war, dachte niemand. Plotzlich soil da vom Himmel eine Taube herabgeflogen sein und sich aufdas Haupt des Fabianus niedergelassen haben, gemahnend an den Heiligen Geist, der in Gestalt einer Taube auf den Erloser herabgestiegen war. Daraujhin habe das ganze Volk wie von dem einen gottlichen Geiste getrieben in aller Begeisterung und einstimmig „Wiirdig" gerufen und ihn ohne Zbgern ergriffen und auf den bischoflichen Thron erhoben*

Der Bericht des Euseb Uber die Erhebung des Fabian ist so anschaulich, dafi er nach meinem Eindruck auf einen Augenzeugenbericht zuriickzufiihren sein diirfte. Selbst wenn er auch durch nostalgische Ruckerinnerung idealisiert sein mag, so zeigt er doch dadurch um so deutlicher, was sich Gemeindemitglieder in Rom (und wohl auch andernorts) erhofften: Start muhsamer menschlicher Diskussionen einfaches gottliches Eingreifen, statt menschlicher Zwietracht gottlicher Wille. Einen Versuch, diese divergierenden Prinzipien miteinander zu versohnen, finden wir im dritten hier einzufuhrenden Text, einem Brief, der die Erhebung des Cornelius (251-253) betrifft. Darin versucht der karthagische Bischof Cyprian seinen neu erhobenen Amtsbruder in Rom mit verschiedenen Argumenten gegenuber Vorwurfen in Schutz zu nehmen (Brief55,8,l-5). Venio iam nunc, frater carissime, et ad personam Corneli colkgae nostri, ut Cornelium nobis cum uerius noueris, non de malignorum et detrahentium mendacio, sed de del

6

Eus. h. e. VI 29 (GCS Eusebius II/2, 582, 14-584,6 Schwartz); Ub. H. Kraft, vgl. Wirbelauer, Nachfolgerbestimmung (s. Anm. 1), 402f.


297

rudicio qui episcopum fecit et coepiscoporum testimonio quorum numerus uniuersus per mum mundum concordi unanimitate consensu. 2 Nam quod Cornelium carissimum nostrum deo et Christo et ecclesiae eius, item consacerdotibus cunctis kudabilipraedicatione commendat, non iste ad episcopatum subito peruenit, sed per omnia eccksiastica officia promotus et in diuinis administrationibus dominum saepe promeritus ad sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit. 3 Tunc deinde episcopatum ipsum neepostulauit nee uoluit, nee ut ceteri quos adrogantiae et superbiae suae tumor inflat inuasit, sed quietus alias et modestus et quales esse consuerunt qui ad hunc locum diuinhus eliguntur, pro pudore uirginalis continentiae suae etpro humilitate ingenitae sibi et custoditae uerecundiae non ut quidam uim fecit ut episcopusfieret, sed ipse uimpassus est ut episcopatum coactus exciperet. 4Etfactus est episcopus a plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Roma aderant, qui ad nos litteras honorificas et laudabiles et testimonio suaepraedicationis inlustres de eius ordinatione miserunt. Factus est autem Cornelius episcopus de del et Christi eius iudicio, de clericorum paene omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tunc adfuit suffragio, de sacerdotum antiquorum et bonorum uirorum collegio, cum nemo ante se factus esset, cum Fabiani locus, id est cum locus Petri et gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis uacaret. 5 Quo occupato et de del uoluntate atque omnium nostrum consensione firmato quisque iam episcopus fieri uoluerit foris fiat necesse est nee habeat ecclesiusticam ordmationem qui ecclesiae non tenet unitatem?

Eine genauere Analyse dieses nach aller Kunst der antiken Rhetorik durchkomponierten Textes kann hier n i c k geboten werden, doch ein paar Elemente seien kurz hervorgehoben, da wir sie sparer noch brauchen werden: Der Aufsrieg erfolgre nicht plotzlich, sondern allmahlich durch alle Grade hindurch. Cornelius strebte nicht nach dem Amt, sondern ubernahm es gezwungenermaEen. Cornelius wurde durch eine groEe Zahl anwesender Amtsbruder geweiht, die zudem die ubrigen durch Briefe hiervon in Kenntnis setzten. Die Erhebung geschah durch Gottes und Christi Entscheidung, durch Zeugnis fast aller Kleriker, nach dem suffiagium der anwesenden Gemeindemitglieder, in Anwesenheit alter Priester (also von Bischofen) und rechtschaffener Manner und ist r e c h t m a % weil niemand vor Cornelius auf den Thron des Fabian erhoben worden sei, als dieser nach dessen Tod frei war. Nach dieser knappen Behandlung dreier zentraler Passagen fur Bischofserhebungen in Rom in vorkonstantinischer Zeit konnen wir nun versuchen, 7

Cypr. cp. 55.8 (CSEL 11112, 629, 1-630, 4 Hartel), vgl. Wirbelauer, Nachfolgerbes t i m m u n g ( s . A n m . l ) , 403-407.

298

EckhardWirbelauer

uns alle Bedingungen fur die Nachfolgerfindung im romischen Bischofsamt zu vergegenwartigen: In der wissenschaftlichen Debatte spielt die institutionelle Bedingung, die auf das Verstandnis des Amtes zielt, die weitaus grofoe Rolle. Doch wir verlieren dadurch aus dem Blick, daE die Erhebung eines neuen Bischofs fur die meisten Christen der Stadt Rom von ganz anderen Dingen abhing. Ich mochte also im folgenden versuchen, eine Art „Blickvon unten" einzunehmen und die Aufmerksamkeit auf drei weitere Bedingungen lenken, die die ,demographische Bedingung', die ,topographische Bedingung' und die ,Bedingung der kurzen Frist' genannt seien. Die demographische Bedingung ist schnell beschrieben: Die angesprochenen Texte stimmen darin uberein, daE sie von einer Versammlung der Gemeinde ausgehen. Der eusebianische Bericht zur Erhebung des Fabian lafit an eine groEe Menge von Glaubigen denken, an der sogar Menschen des stadtromischen Umlandes {suburbium) teilnahmen. Halten wir also fest: Verschiedene voneinander ganz unabhangige Quellen bezeugen uns, daE im 3. Jahrhundert nach dem Tod des romischen Bischofs eine GroEversammlung8 abgehalten wurde, urn in Gegenwart von Gemeinde und Klerus liber den Nachfolger zu befmden und am folgenden Sonntag das neue Oberhaupt zu weihen. Nur gestreift sei hier die Frage, was dies fur die vermeintliche Bedrohung der Christen in Rom im 3. Jahrhundert bedeutet: Aber man sollte sich schon bewuEt machen, da£ die Erhebung des Cornelius nur wenige Monate nach der Verkundigung der kaiserlichen Anordnungen uber die Opferbescheinigungen erfolgte. Wie soil man sich nun eigentlich diese Versammlung der stadtromischen Christen vorstellen? Die Traditio apostolica weist einfach nur auf die Beteiligung der Menge hin; im Cyprian-Brief wird von einem suffiagium der anwesenden plebs gesprochen, wobei die kirchengeschichtliche Forschung suffiagium meist nicht als ,Abstimmung', sondern als ,Zustimmung' (wohl im Sinne einer Akklamation) versteht.9 Doch einmal abgesehen von der Form der Partizipation sollten wir uns fragen, an welchem Ort sich die romischen Christen im 3. Jahrhundert zu einer solchen Willensbekunding versammeln konnten. Alle drei Berichte geben uns leider keine naheren Hinweise, wo in Rom eine solche Massenversammlung moglich gewesen sein sollte, und ich bin nicht einmal sicher, ob sich 8 9

Vgl. Norton, Episcopal Elections (s. Anm. 1), 54£, der mit Blick auf die Erhebung des Fabian diesen Aspekt ebenfalls herausstreicht. T. Osawa, Das Bischofseinsetzungsverfahren bei Cyprian. Historische Untersuchungen zu den Begriffen iudicium, suffragium, testimonium, consensus, Europaische Hochschulschriften R. 23, 178, Frankfurt a. M./Bern 1983, passim, Norton, Episcopal Elections (s. Anm. 1), 12-14 mit recht breiter Diskussion, freilich ohne Bezug auf die deutschsprachige Forschung.


299

die kirchengeschichtliche Forschung Uberhaupt jemals die Frage gestell that, welche Konsequenzen sich aus dem Cyprianbrief ergeben: Selbst wenn wir annehmen, daE nur 10% der stadtromischen Bevolkerung (Frauen und Sklaven inbegriffen!) sich zum Christentum bekannt hatten, dann ergabe sich daraus doch eine Zahl von 100.000 Personen (wenn wir gelaufige Annahme, Rom sei eine Millionenstadt gewesen, akzeptieren). Und selbst wenn wir annehmen, daE sich nur 10% dieser Christen versammelt hatten, urn ihren neuen Bischof zu wahlen, dann wurde es sich immer noch urn eine Menge von 10000 Personen handeln, und darunter doch wohl viele, die in der Gemeinde eine Bedeutung besaEen. Nehmen wir den Bericht des Euseb zu Fabians Erhebung ernst, dann seien sogar Leute aus dem Umland hinzugekommen. Kurzum, es muE einen riesigen Auflauf gegeben haben, und dies im Falle der Corneliuserhebung unmittelbar nach dem Edikt des Decius in bezug auf die Opferbescheinigungen. Am ehesten wird man wohl an einen Ort im suburbium denken, geeignet ware etwa der circus am Vatikan, wo sich bekanntlich auch spatestens seit dem ausgehenden 2. Jahrhundert das Erinnerungsmal an Petrus befand.10 Doch wir sollten uns davor huten, feste Regelungen zu erwarten. Aus der Ruckschau mag man denken, da£ sich hierfur Gewohnheiten entwickelt hatten, doch die beiden Bischofserhebungen, bei denen wir den Versammlungsort kennen, legen die Vermutung nahe, daE es eben keine solchen Gewohnheiten gab. Denn im Jahr 366, nach dem Tod des Liberius, wurde Ursinus in der Basilica Iuli11 zum Bischof erhoben, sein Kontrahent Damasus in Lucinis. Selbst beim Ort der Weihe des Bischofs sollten wir nicht zu formalistisch-juristisch denken: Naturlich war die Basilica Constantiniana, also die Bischofskirche auf dem Lateran, erste Wahl seit ihrer Errichtung; doch wo die Bischofe bis einschliefflich Silvester geweiht wurden, wissen wir nicht. Da£ der Lateransbasilika als Weiheort Bedeutung zuerkannt wurde, erschliefo sich durch die beiden Doppelerhebungen von 366 und 418/19: 366 wollte Damasus nach seiner Wahl die Weihe in der Basilica Constantiniana abwarten, doch nutzte sein Konkurrent Ursinus dieses Zogern und liefi sich als erster weihen. 419 schien dies zusammenzupassen: Der gewahlte Eulalius wurde in der Basilica Constantiniana geweiht, wahrend sein Konkurrent Bonifatius mit der Basilica Iuli vorlieb nehmen muEte. Und doch behielt abschliefend Bonifatius die Oberhand. Der

10 11

Eus. h . c . II 25, 5-7 (176, 19-178, 5 Schwartz), vgl. jetzt O. Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom. Die literarischen Zeugnisse, Berlin/New York 2. Aufl. 2010, 4-6. Zur Lage der beiden Kirchen, die Basilica Iuli in Trastevere und die Titelkirche in Lucinis auf dem nordlichen Marsfeld (heute: S. Lorenzo in Lucina), vgl. J. Curran, Pagan city and Christian capital. Rome in the fourth century, Oxford 2000, 138f.

300

EckhardWirbelauer

Weiheort war also keineswegs beliebig, bot aber eben audi n i c k das alles entscheidendeKriterium. Nach der topographischen Bedingung bleibt noch die Bedingung der kurzen Frist. Naturlich ist der Tod eines Menschen erwartbar, und dies gilt auch fur den Bischof von Rom. Aber nicht immer ist man auf den Tod eines Menschen vorbereitet. Im Falle des Ablebens des romischen Bischofs muEte jedenfalls umgehend gehandelt werden: Es gait die Gemeinde hiervon in Kenntnis zu setzen und einen Versammlungstermin sowie einen Versammlungsort mitzuteilen. Es gait zudem, die Bischofe der umliegenden Bistumer zu benachrichtigen, urn ihre Anwesenheit in Rom spatestens fur den Moment der Weihe zu erreichen. Und all dies geschah in Rom stets binnen weniger Tage, wie wir aus den Angaben zu den Sedisvakanzen erfahren, die uns der Liber pontificalis uberliefert:12 Silvester: 15 Tage

AnastasiusII,4Tage

Marcus: 20 Tage

Svmmachus:7Tage

Iulius: 25 Tage

Hormisdas:6Tage

Liberius:6Tage

Iohannes:58Tage

Damasus: 31 Tage

Felix I V , 3 Tage

Siricius:20Tage

BonifatiusII,2Monatel5Tage

Anastasius:21Tage

IohannesII,6Tage

Innocenz:22Tage

Agapitus:28Tage

Zosimus:llTage

Silverius:keineTagesangabe

Bonifatius:9Tage

Vigilius:3Monate5Tage

Caelestinus: 21 Tage

Pelagius:2Monate25Tage

XvstusIII,22Tage

Iohannes I I I , 10 Monate 3 Tage

Leo: 7 Tage

Benedictus:3MonatelOTage

Hilarus:10Tage

PelagiusII,3Monate25Tage

Simplicius:6Tage

Gregorius: 5 Monate 18 Tage

Felix I I I , 5 Tage Gelasius:7Tage

Zwischen 335 und 526, als Theoderich den romischen Bischof Johannes in Ravenna in den Kerker werfen lief?, wo dieser starb, war die Nachfolge fast immer innerhalb von drei Wochen geregelt; nicht selten wurde sogar

12

Liber Pontificalis, ed. Th. Mommsen, M G H Gesta Pontificum Romanorum 1, Berlin 1898, ad locum. Die jeweiligen Angaben beziehen auf die Sedisvakanz nach dem Tod des genannten Bischofs.

BischofswahleninRom(3.-6.Jh.)

301

nur eine Woche benotigt. Dies lafit darauf schlieEen, daE das Verfahren hinreichend einfach und gleichzeitig hinreichend effizient war - wir werden noch darauf zuriickkommen. Freilich sei in Erinnerung gerufen, da£ einige Nachfolgerfindungen schwieriger waren, als es die Sedisvakanzen erkennen lassen: Damasus' umstrittene Erhebung im Jahr 366, bei der er die Weihe in der Basilica Constantiniana abwarten wollte, haben wir schon erwahnt, diejenige des Bonifatius 419 ebenfalls; gleichfalls umstritten war die Erhebung des Symmachus, gegen den Laurentius antrat, sowie diejenige des Bonifatius II., der sich mit dem alexandrinischen Kleriker Dioskur konfrontiert sah, bevor dieser uberraschend starb.13

2. Akteure Da bereits einiges angesprochen wurde, kann dieser Teil der Untersuchung knapp gehaken werden. Beteiligt an der Nachfolgerfindung sind: -

derKandidat derstadtromischeKlerus diestadtromischeGemeinde die Bischofe der umliegenden Gemeinden und (in einer noch zu prazisierenden Form) die weltliche Obrigkeit.

Gehen wir die einzelnen Personen bzw. Personengruppen kurz durch: Uber die personlichen Motive des Kandidaten wissen wir nichts, denn wir sind stets nur in der AuEenperspektive informiert; ich lasse daher auch die Frage dogmatischer Uberzeugungen beiseite, obgleich gerade diesem Aspekt gewiE hohe Bedeutung zukommt. Theologische Konflikte scheint es in Rom zumindest im 3. Jh. mit den Novatianern gegeben zu haben, aber wir sollten durchaus davon ausgehen, daE es auch noch weitere, von der Amtskirche als Abweichler qualifizierte Gemeinden gegeben hat. Nur scheint die Erinnerung an diese anderen Kirchen in Rom nahezu vollstandig ausgeloscht worden zu sein, anders als etwa in Mailand oder in Ravenna. Was die weiteren Akteure betrifft, so will ich auf die Teilnahme der stadtromischen Gemeinde und der Bischofe der umliegenden Gemeinden hier nicht mehr weiter eingehen; es sei nur in Erinnerung gerufen, da£ der Bischof von Ostia gewohnlich der Konsekrator ist; aber auch hier sind Ausnahmen von der Regel bekannt. Die weltliche Obrigkeit war in das 13

Zur alteren Forschung zu den genannten Fallen s. die in Anm. 1 genannte Literatur.

302

EckhardWirbelauer

Verfahren n i c k eingebunden, kam aber ins Spiel, sofern die Gemeinde sich nicht gewaltfrei einigen konnte, da es dann um die Aufrechterhaltung von Ruhe und Ordnung ging. Seit dem 4. Jahrhundert wurde es ublich, dafi der neue Bischof seine Erhebung der weltlichen Obrigkeit anzeigte, also zunachst und vor allem: dem Stadtprafekten. Der Kaiser (und sparer der ostgotische Konig in Ravenna) wurden freilich im Konfliktfall liber den Stadtprafekten kontaktiert und bemuhten sich dann um eine Losung. Ein paar Worte seien aber noch uber den Klerus verloren. Bekanntlich besafl die romische Gemeinde eine eigentumliche Struktur: Es bestanden im Stadtgebiet nicht wenige Titelkirchen, an denen ein Klerus mit einem Oder mehreren Presbytern an der Spitze wirkten.14 Am ehesten wird man sich diese ahnlich den heutigen Pfarrgemeinden vorstellen; ab einer bestimmten Grofle ist es eben nicht mehr moglich, die gesamte Gemeinde an einem Ort zusammenzurufen und mit ihr die groflen Feste zu begehen. Wir kennen zwei Listen solcher Titelkirchen, die uns zugleich die Entwicklung in der Benennung vor Augen fiihren. Denn die altere von beiden von 499 fuhrt noch die alten Namen der tituli auf, wahrend die jungere, von 595, Kirchen mit Patrozinien nennt. 15 Neben dieser dezentralen Struktur gab es selbstverstandlich auch einen Klerus an der Bischofskirche. An dessen Spitze standen in Rom 7 Diakone, deren Siebenzahl gewifi auf das Vorbild der Apostelgeschichte (6, 3. 5) zuruckgeh, jedoch zugleich in gliicklicher Weise zur stadtischen Organisation der 14 augusteischen Regionen pa£te. Seit dem 6. Jahrhundert werden diese 7 Diakone als diaconi cardinariilcardinal bezeichnet. Bei den Adjektiven cardinarius/cardinales handelt es sich um Neuschopfungen, die auf das Substantiv cardo zuruckgehen, wohl weil man die Bischofskirche bildlich als Angelpunkt der romischen Gemeinde betrachtete, so jedenfalls die plausible Vermutung von Carl Ceroid Furst.16 Unter diesen Kardinaldiakonen fmdet sich nun nicht selten einer, der als archidiaconus hervorgehoben wird. Das Kriterium seines Vorrangs wird nirgends explizit erwahnt, soweit ich sehe, aber man

14

15

16

Vgl. J. P. Kirsch, Die romischen Titelkirchen im Altertum, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 9, Paderborn 1918; Ch. Pietri, Roma christians Recherches sur l'eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son ideologic de Miltiade a Sixte III (311-440) Band I, BEFAR 224, Rom 1976, 624f£, bes. 649-659. Romische Synode von 499: M G H Auctores Antiquissimi 12, ed. Th. Mommsen, Berlin 1894, 410-415, zur Uberlieferungssituation vgl. Wirbelauer, Zwei Papste in Rom (s. Anm. 1), 22 und 114; romische Synode von 595: Gregorii papae I epistolarum registrum 1, ed. P. Ewald/L.M. Hartmann, M G H Epistolae 1/1, Berlin 1887, 366f. Vgl. C. G. Fiirst, Prolegomena zu einer Rechtsgeschichte des romischen Kardinalskollegiums, Miinchen 1967, 16-21, 38-41.


303

wird zunachst einmal an die Anciennitat denken, entsprechend romischen Gepflogenheiten.

3. Verfahren Wie schon bei den Akteuren kann ich mich auch beim dritten Punkt, den erkennbaren Verfahren, kurz fassen, denn auch hier haben wir schon einiges kennengelernt: So darf der Bewahrungsaufstieg durch die Grade als ein Verfahrenselement betrachtet werden, mit dem im Zweifel der traditionalen Legitimierung der Vorzug gegeben wurde gegenuber der charismatischen Legitimierung.^ Fast mochte man den bekannten Adenauer-Wahlslogan „Keine Experimente bitte!" in Erinnerung rufen! In dieselbe Richtung weisen die Verfahrenselemente der „Ruhe" bei der Kur (oft in der Formel: „nicht plotzlich") sowie der Druck auf den Kandidaten, mit dem dieser zur Ubernahme des Amtes „gezwungen" werden muE, urn so indirekt zu belegen, da£ ihm ambitioses Verhalten fremd ist. Weitere Elemente, an die man durchaus denken kann, etwa die Bestimmung eines einzigen legitimen Ortes fur die Wahl durch Volk und Klerus, haben sich nicht durchgesetzt, wenn sie je uberhaupt angedacht worden sind. Beim Weiheort kam der Lateransbasilika eine herausragende Bedeutung zu, doch war naturlich auch eine nicht dort erfolgte Bischofsweihe gultig. Angesichts dieser doch sehr weichen Verfahrenselemente ist es wenig verwunderlich, daE es seit dem 3. Jahrhundert immer wieder zu Problemen bei der Nachfolgerfindung kam, also konkret: daE zwei Kandidaten erhoben wurden. Urn dieser Situation zu entgehen, aber nicht nur deswegen, denn es ging allgemeiner urn die Sicherung der Fortfuhrung der eigenen Politik durch den Nachfolger, griffen nicht wenige Bischofe zum Mittel der Designation.18 Hierfur scheinen die romischen Bischofe des 4. bis 6. Jahrhunderts die Funktion des Archidiakonats benutzt zu haben. Die folgende Zusammenstellung fuhrt unser Wissen uber die Karrieren der romischen Bischofe vorAugen: 17 18

Eleutheros: Diakon seines Vorvorgangers Aniketos Kallist (?): je nach Verstandnis von Hippol. Ref. IX, 12 Cornelius: Diakon It. Cypr. ep. 55, 8

Vgl. Wirbekuer, Nachfolgerbestimmung (s. Anm. 1), 388-397. Vgl. Wirbekuer, Nachfolgerbestimmung (s. Anm. 1), 417, vgl. zur Normalitat ebd. 416; B. Domagalski, Der Diakonat als Vorstufe zum Episkopat, Studia Patristica 29, 1997, 17-24; Norton, Episcopal Elections (s. Anm. 1), 212-214 ist die Bedeutung des Archidiakonats vollig entgangen.

304

EckhardWirbekuer

-

Felix I I , ArchidiakondesLiberius Damasus:DiakondesLiberius Ursinus:DiakondesLiberius Siricius: Diakon (Ep. Ps.Dam. 93: levita) Innocentius: Diakon des Siricius (nach G. Dunn, vgl. seine BeitragindiesemBandS.122mitAnm.4) Eulalius:ArchidiakondesZosimus Bonifatius:Archipresbyter Leo:ArchidiakondesXystusIII. Hilarus:ArchidiakondesLeo Gelasius: vielleicht Archidiakon seines Vorgangers Simplicius Laurentius: Presbyter Symmachus: Diakon Hormisdas: Archidiakon des Symmachus Bonifatius I I , Archidiakon des Felix IV.

Bereits im 3. Jahrhundert finden wir also Hinweise auf die Bekleidung des Diakonats vor der Bischofswurde; ab dem 4. Jahrhundert verdichten sich diese Hinweise. Und die Falle zeigen zudem: Jeder Archidiakon, der seinen Bischof uberlebte, wurde sein Nachfolger, oder bemuhte sich zumindest darum. Damit hatte die romische Kirche in der Praxis ein effizientes Verfahren gefunden. Ich ubergehe hier nun die Dokumente der romischen Kirche des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts, die uns genau dieses Verfahren in seiner Anwendung zeigen, bis hin zum Brief von Felix IV., worin er seiner Gemeinde den Archidiakon Bonifatius als seinen Nachfolger empfiehlt.19 Lassen Sie mich enden mit zwei Bemerkungen zu Verfahren, die nicht realisiert wurden: Wir kennen - abgesehen von den strittigen Erhebungen von Eulalius/Bonifatius und Symmachus/Laurentius - keine Beispiele dafur, da£ sich die Presbyter der Titelkirchen so organisiert hatten, da£ sie eigenen Kandidaten gegen die Diakone durchsetzen konnten. Es fehlte offenbar in der Spatantike eine Art romischer ,Stadtsynode', die es den Presbytern erlaubt hatte, ihre zahlenmaEige Uberlegenheit in kirchenpolitische Realitaten zu uberfuhren. Und noch uberraschender mag vielleicht sein, daE in Rom der EinfluE der weltlichen Obrigkeit auf die Bischofserhebung noch zu Zeiten der Ostgotenherrschaft kaum erkennbar war. Erst in den Jahren der byzantinischen Herrschaft ubte die weltliche Macht einen groEeren, direkteren EinfluE aus, wenngleich diese Einflussnahme formal nie uber die Entgegennahme der Anzeige der Weihe des neuen Bischofshinausging.

19

Vgl. Wirbekuer, Nachfolgerbestimmung (s. Anm. 1), 417-420.

Short Papers

Les elections episcopales en Orient sous Severe d'Antioche (512-518) Frederic Alpi Theologien cyrillien de stricte observance et chef de file, au debut du VPsiecle, des adversaires des definitions christologiques du concile de Chalcedoine (451), Severe parvint au siege patriarcal d'Antioche le 16 novembre 512, fort de la confiance du vieil empereur Anastase (491518), et reunit bientot dans sa communion antichalcedonienne l'ensemble des eveques de son ressort, soit sur une douzaine de provinces {eparchiai) relevant du diocese civil d'Orient. 1 Son pontificat effectif s'acheva en 518, puisqu'il dut s'enfuir en Egypte le 29 septembre, peu apres l'avenement de Justin I" (9 juillet). Les circonstances politiques et les enjeux doctrinaux de son action nous importent moins ici que l'exercice, au cours de quelque six annees, de ses prerogatives juridictionnelles et disciplinaires, ainsi que les procedures qu'il mit en oeuvre a cet effet, tant comme eveque metropolit a n de Syrie F que comme patriarche d'Orient. Partiellement conservee en syriaque, son abondante correspondance,2 generalement bien datee et 1

Les travaux pionniers de J. Lebon, Le monophysisme severien, Louvain 1909, et La christologie du monophysisme syrien, in: Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. par A. Grillmeier/H. Back, Vol.2, Wiirzburg 1951, 425-580, demeurent la reference principale sur la christologie de Severe. Pour un etat plus recent de la question, avec indications bibliographiques, on peut se reporter a A. Grillmeier, Le Christ dans la tradition chretienne, Vol. 2/1, Le concile de Chalcedoine (451). Reception et opposition, CFi 154, Paris 1990, 394-403; Vol. 2/2, L'Eglise de Constantinople au VL siecle, CFi 172, Paris 1993, 37-244 [trad, de: Jesus der Chrisms im Glauben der Kirche, Vol. 2/1-2, Fribourg-en-Breisgau 1979-1989]; Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Vol. 2/3, Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600, Fribourg-en-Breisgau 2002, 193-197. Presentation generale de la vie et la pensee de Severe par P. Allen/C. T. R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch, The Early Church Fathers, London/New York 2004, 3-55. Sur le patriarcat severien, F. Alpi, La route royale. Severe d'Antioche et les Eglises d'Orient (512-518), BAH 188, Beyrouth 2009.

2

Severus, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis (Brooks) [CPG 7070 (1)]. Cette collection comporte 123 lettres, dont 74 datent de 512-518. A completer par une autre serie de

308

Frederic Alpi

circonstanciee, nous apporte en effet un temoignage precieux sur des nominations episcopates auxquelles il dut proceder en Syrie F ou qu'il put determiner dans d'autres provinces (Phenicie F , Cilicie IF, Isaurie), ainsi que sur la succession archiepiscopale d'Apamee, metropole de Syrie IP. Consignes ensuite par la tradition syriaque orthodoxe a titre normatif? ces cas nous renseignent sur les institutions ecclesiastiques orientales, telles qu'elles fonctionnaient a l'epoque de Severe, notamment sur le role des notables laics ou des fonctionnaires imperiaux. Dans une lettre adressee a la communaute monastique de Mar Ishaq,4 pres de Gabboula, en Syrie I", Severe exprime sa volonte de voir le frere Etienne acceder a la charge episcopale d'Anasartha, localite voisine qui n'a pas encore recu le statut civique5 et qu'il qualifie de kastra.6 Pe titulaire

118 lettres, 53 datant du patriarcat, rassemblees cette fois par l'editeur moderne: Severus, A Collection of Letters of Severus of Amioch (PO 12/2, 163-342 Brooks; PO 14/1, 1-310 Brooks) [CPG 7070 (2)]. De nombreux extraits et fragments ont ete reconnus ailleurs [CPG 7070 (3-16), 7071, 7080, 7081]. Par extrapolation, E. W. Brooks, in: Severus, Select Letters, Vol. 2/1, IX, evaluait au chiffre minimum de 3759 le nombre total des lettres severiennes. Pour sa part, A. Voobus, Decouverte d'une lettre de Severe dAntioche, REByz 33, 1975, 295 [CPG 7070 (11)], avance l'estimation"d'aumoins3805". 3

Les lettres choisies traduites par Athanase de Nisibe en 669 (Severus, select letters) traitent en effet de la discipline des clercs, reparties thematiquement en 11 sections, dont les deux premieres concernent les eveques. II s'agissait, pour les chretiens antichalcedoniens de langue syriaque, les Syriaques orthodoxes (ou Jacobites), constitues en Eglise separee de la chretiente imperiale dans la seconde moitie du VL siecle, de pouvoir disposer de textes faisant autorite reglementaire. Notons toutefois que ces epitres ne sont presque jamais consignees dans leur integralite et que tel cas de droit considere par Severe a seul importe au traducteur et a ses commanditaires, les eveques Jacobites Mathieu de Beree et Daniel d'Edesse.

4 5

Severus, select letters, 1, 29 (Vol. 1/1, 101-104 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 90-92 Brooks). Le site est cependant bien atteste alors comme le siege d'un eveche. M. Devreesse, Le patriarcat dAntioche depuis la Paix de l'Eglise jusqu'a la conquete arabe, Paris 1945, 162-163; E. Honigmann, Eveques et eveches monophysites d'Asie anterieure au VI= siecle, CSCO 127, CSCO.Sub 2, Louvain 1951, 30; P.-L. Gatier, "Grande" ou "petite" Syrie IL? Pour une geographie historique de la Syrie interieure protobyzantine, in: Conquete de la steppe et appropriation des terres sur les marges arides du Croissant fertile, ed. B. Geyer, Lyon 2001, 97; D. Feissel, Les martyria d'Anasartha, T&MByz 14, 2005, 201. Justinien conferera en 529 le statut de cite a cette localite qui recut alors le nom de Theodosias ou Theodoropolis.

6

II sagit d'une bourgade fortifiee ou les colons de la steppe pouvaient venir se refugier, en cas de menace de la part des nomades saracenes, voire cultiver des parcelles en securite. La documentation epigraphique et archeologique recueillie sur place s'accorde avec cette definition, j . H. G. W. Liebeschuetz, The Defences of Syria in the Sixth Century, in: Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, Vol. 2, Vortrage des 10. Internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior, ed. D. Haupt/H. G. Horn, Co-

Les elections episcopales en Orient sous Severe d'Antioche

309

Thomas, connu dans les rangs antichalcedoniens au synode de Sidon (511), n'a pas figure parmi ses consecrateurs, le 12 novembre de l'annee suivante, sans doute parce qu'il etait deja mort a cette date/ C'est done une fois install*, assez vraisemblablement en 513, que l'eveque d'Antioche, metropolitan! de Syrie F , put songer a son remplacement. II expose aux moines destinataires que les habitants d'Anasartha lui ont propose trois noms, dans un psephisma reglementaire, et qu'il ne peut lui-meme arreter de choix en dehors de ceux-ci. Pour des raisons d'ordre doctrinal, Severe ecarte les deux autres candidats: seul le moine Etienne lui parait orthodoxe et susceptible de resister a l'epreuve de possibles persecutions chalcedoniennes. Nous sommes au moment ou le patriarche construit piece a piece la communion de son ressort oriental, ralliant un a un tous les eveques, a partir du petit noyau des partisans qui viennent de le consacrer.8 II a done imperieux besoin de s'appuyer, dans sa propre province, sur de fermes soutiens et la communaute de Mar Ishaq, aussi bien qu'Etienne lui-meme, presentent a ses yeux routes garanties.9 II reste que celui-ci ne saurait etre institue contre son gre et Severe presse les moines, sous peine d'excommunication, de decider leur frere a accepter la charge. II en va en effet de la defense de la foi orthodoxe. Les motivations du nouveau titulaire d'Antioche paraissent ainsi tres claires, de meme que la procedure suivie: l'initiative appartient aux instances locales (les habitants), qui adressent un placet regulier {psephisma) a leur metropolite; celui-ci doit choisir parmi les trois propositions qui lui sont faites et lui revient, bien sur, l'investiture canonique de l'impetrant; le consentement de ce dernier est enfin necessaire: l'episcopat, qui unit a jamais un eveque a son peuple, doit etre toujours volontairement assume. Dans ce cas exemplaire - et qui aura retenu pour cette raison l'attention de l'excerpteur syriaque orthodoxe - , seule la qualite des instances locales (les habitants) reste a preciser. Anasartha n'est pas encore une cite dotee d'institutions regulieres, mais on peut supposer que les grands proprieties terriens qui

7 8 9

logne 1977, 491-492; H. Kennedy, The Last Century of Byzantine Syria. A Reinterpretation, ByF 10, 1985, 164-165; G. Tate, Le probleme de la defense et du peuplement de la steppe et du desert, dans le nord de la Syrie, entre la chute de Palmyre et le regne de Justinien, AarchSyr 42, 1996, 344. A Rasm al-Bouz, une inscription voisine indique aussi qu'un eveque Etienne [de Gabboula] a fait edifier un refuge a caractere defensif(IGLS2,270). E. Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (voir note 5), 30; discussion par A. de Halleux, Philoxene de Mabbog, sa vie, ses ecrits, sa theologie, Louvain 1963, 7 1 , n. 52. F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 1, 219-220; Vol. 2, 75-76 (nr. 19). Sous l'autorite de son archimandrite Simeon, ce monastere demeure un foyer antichalcedonien meme apres 518. E. Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (voir note 5), 31; F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 2, 76.

310

Frederic Alpi

lotissaient alors la steppe,10 y installant des colons, ont du contribuer, avec les clercs locaux, a rediger ce psephisma, apparemment sans exclusive doctrinale. Plusieurs autres lettres severiennes confirment et precisent cette procedure de designation. Le patriarche repond ainsi au clerge d'Antarados (Phenicie F ) qui lui demande un eveque, sans doute a la disparition du chalcedonien Theodore, 11 qu'il faut regulierement lui proposer par psephisma les noms de trois candidats possibles.12 C'est ce meme type de document que lui adressent precisement les clercs et les habitants de Rhosos (Cilicie I"), mais ne portant qu'un seul nom. Severe ecrit done au metropolite competent, Entrechios d'Anazarbe, qu'il lui revient de droit de reclamer un psephisma conforme a la legislation en vigueur.13 Dans une autre lettre qui expose au metropolite d'Isaurie, Solon de Seleucie, tous les devoirs de sa charge, le patriarche rappelle notamment qu'il doit ordonner les eveques de sa province, etant pour cela "mandate par l'Esprit-Saint et saisi par les motions regulieres des citoyemV* Comme patriarche d'Orient, Severe connait encore directement de la designation des metropolites de Syrie IP, Isaac et Etienne, qui se succedent en quelques mois sur le trone archiepiscopal d'Apamee. Par lettre du printemps 513, a la mort d'Isaac, il demande done au clerge de cette metropole de lui adresser promptement

10 11

Voir note 5-6. Ce Theodore semble etre demeure en 512 dans la communion de son metropolite Epiphane de Tyr, adversaire decide du nouveau patriarche et bientot frappe d'interdit par celui-ci (513), puis condamne (515) et exile (fin 515), sans que Severe ne paraisse l'avoir jamais remplace. F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 1, 234-237. A la mort de Theodore, son clerge se tourne done vers le patriarche d'Antioche, soit qu'Epiphane fut deja exile et done indisponible, soit que les clercs antaradiens se fussent retires de sa communion, comme l'expliquerait d'ailleurs assez bien la situation geographique de leur cite, en Phenicie I'= septentrionale, plus proche d'Antioche que deTyr.

12

Sev. select letters, 1, 46 (Vol. 1/1, 141 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 126-127 Brooks). Faute de connaitre alors l'instance eccl&iastique qui pourra recevoir ce placet, Severe se propose d'en refeer a l'empereur. F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 2, 93-94 (nr. 49). Severus, select letters, 1, 18 (Vol. 1/1, 73-74 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 66-67 Brooks). La encore, la proximite geographique d'Antioche a pu conduire les habitants de Rhosos (aujourd'hui Arzus) a s'adresser directement au patriarche, d'autant que leur metropolite Entrechios d'Anazarbe lui etait etroitement fidele et qu'ils avaient eux-memes a s'exonerer du souvenir d'un precedent eveque heretique, condamne par Severe pour eutychianisme, Romain de Rhosos. F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 2, 9697 (nr. 55), 159. Sev. select letters, 1, 4 (Vol. 1/1, 36 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 33 Brooks).

13

14


311

nnpsephisma^ demande deux fois reiteree peu apres, quand disparait a son tour son successeur Etienne. 16 Le lemme de la derniere missive designe clairement les destinataires comme etant le clerge et les notables et le patriarche prie explicitement dans sa lettre "les pieux clercs, les eloquents et m a g n i f i e s ktetores et les hommes de bon renom" d'obtemperer sans retard.17 Dans les cites constitutes - comme d'ailleurs sans doute aussi a Anasartha - existe ainsi un college mixte de clercs et de notables proprieties terriens {ktetores), ou doit se degager un consensus sur les trois noms du psephisma a soumettre a l'autorite ecclesiastique superieure, metropolitan (dans le cas de simples eveques) ou patriarcale (quand il s'agit de pourvoir a la succession d u n metropolite provincial ou autocephale).18 Severe insiste chaque fois sur la legalite et la regularite de cette procedure, qu'il donne explicitement pour une sanction d'Anastase: "notre pieux empereur, ami du Christ, en a ratine le principe", ecrit-il ainsi aux Apameens.19 On connait pourtant l'existence d u n tel conseil mixte de clercs et de notables des 449, a Edesse (Osrohene), mais il ne s'agit pas exactement d u n cas Selection episcopale.20 En revanche, les dispositions invoquees par le patriarche, des 513, recoupent tres exactement la legislation justinienne ulterieure: un edit de 528 consigne au Codex iuris ciuilis? les Novella 12322 et 137,23 publiees respectivement en 546 et 565. Si toute 15 16 17 18

19 20

21 22 23

Sev. select letters, 1, 30 (Vol. 1/1, 105-106 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 94-95 Brooks); F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 2, 68 (nr. 9). Sev. select letters, 1,39 (Vol. 1/1, 123-126 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 110-112 Brooks); F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 2, 76-77 (nr. 20, 22). A. Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans l'cmpirc protobyzantin, T&MByz. tonographies 13, Paris 2002, 195 (nr. 21). Hors procedure E l e c t i o n episcopale apparemment, ce conseil ou commission mixte se trouve aussi attest* a Emese, metropole autocephale de Phenicie IP, dans deux lettres au moins de la correspondance severienne: Sev. select letters, 2, 3 (Vol. 1/2, 255 Brooks; Vol. 2/2, 227 Brooks); Sev. collection of letters, 25 (222 Brooks). A. Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municipaux (voir note 17), 184, 196 (nr. 27). Sev. select letters, 1, 39 (Vol. 1/1, 124 Brooks; Vol. 2/1,111 Brooks). A. Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municipaux (voir note 17), 182, 196 (nr. 23). Un notable de la cite depose alors contre l'eveque Ibas au nom des "clercs, archimandrites, curiales et proprieties". Son temoignage sera repris a charge contre Ibas au concile d'Ephesell, dont les Actes nous ont conserve cette accusation. Akten der Ephesinischen Synode vom Jahre 449, 35 (AGG, NF 15/1, Flemming) [CPG 8938 (1-g)]. C.-Iust.I3,41(CIC(B).C,26Kruger). lust, novell. 123, 1 (CIC(B).N 594-595 Scholl/Kroll). Le college est autorise, faute de trouver trois candidats convenables, d'en proposer deux ou meme un seul. lust, novell. 137, 2 (696-697 Scholl/Kroll).

312

Frederic Alpi

reference a l'empereur Anastase a disparu de cette reglementation, notamment dans l'edit de 528, il faut sans doute l'attribuer a une volonte deliberee d'effacer alors le souvenir d u n prince heterodoxe, surtout en mature ecclesiastique. Le temoignage de Severe vient ici reparer en quelque sorte une damnatio memoriae. Dans la legislation de Justinien, les notables laics se trouvent designes indifferemment comme premiers [citoyens] {protoi tes poleosl proteuontes) ou comme proprietaires (ktetores). C'est ce dernier terme qui apparait surtout dans la documentation severienne et il correspond bien a la realite fonciere de la Syrie interieure, comme on le comprend ainsi a Anasartha. Inequivalence juridique entre protoi tes poleosl proteuontes et ktetores semble d'ailleurs etablie en l'espece, de meme qu'avec le vocable plus general & habitants (oiketores) * Frequent aussi sous la plume de Severe, celui-ci inclut peut-etre les clercs euxmemes, finissant par devenir pratiquement un equivalent semantique pour designer ce college ou commission mixte, competent pour proposer les candidats a une succession episcopale. Notons toutefois qu'il ne s'agit pas, en son sein, d u n e election au sens moderne du terme, mais bien d u n consensus qui doit se faire sur les trois noms a consigner dans lepsephisma. C'est ici que la procedure parait rencontrer ses limites institutionnelles. Les cas de la correspondance severienne nous sont precisement connus parce qu'ils ont represent pour le patriarche une difficult* a resoudre. A Anasartha ou a Rhosos, on comprend que dominent des enjeux doctrinaux, d'ailleurs assez distincts de l'actualite locale. Severe l'avoue sans ambages dans le premier cas: il lui faut ecarter deux candidats suspects, au plan theologique, mais la presence meme de leurs noms sur le psephisma, conjointement avec celui de Yorthodoxe Etienne, montre bien que le college anasarthien n'etait pas domine par des preoccupations dogmatiques. A Rhosos, la demarche insolite des habitants, qui outrepassent la competence du metropolite de Cilicie IP en s'adressant directement au patriarche, s'expliquerait par leur souci retrospectif de purger la cite du souvenir d'un eveque heretique. Une fois Entrechios d'Anazarbe regulierement saisi, tout porte a croire que la succession episcopale suivra son cours normal. Il en va differemment, semble-t-il, a Antarados, ou nous sommes bien au coeur de la lutte entre le patriarche d'Antioche et le metropolite chalcedonien Epiphane de Tyr.25 On sait, par ailleurs, que Severe se defiait localement d'un diacre Leonce d'Antarados et qu'il s'appuyait,

24

25

A.Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municipaux (voir note 17), 184-185; 189191. Uequivalence peut s'etendre jusqu'au terme generique de citoyens {politai); voir supra et note 14. F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 1, 234-238; Vol. 2, 127-128.


313

inversement, sur son confrere Etienne, 26 comptant aussi sur l'influence positive d u n notable laic, le comte Jean.27 C'est ainsi le diacre Etienne qui porte au patriarche ce psephisma doublement irregulier (adresse a Severe, non au metropolite de Phenicie F , et ne comportant le nom d'aucun candidal, 2 8 tandis que Jean participait necessairement au college des clercs et ktetores qui l'avait redige. II y a done ici contexte conflictuel qui parait gripper le mecanisme de designation episcopale. De meme, la difficile succession d'Apamee, en Syrie IP, traduit des dissensions internes au college qui devait enclencher la nomination du successeur du metropolite Isaac, puis de celui d'Etienne. On pense bien sur a des tensions doctrinales egalement, puisque la Syrie IP va entrer en dissidence, a partir de 515, contre l'autorite de Severe et celle de son satellite Pierre d'Apamee,29 et que les clercs chalcedoniens qui deposeront contre ceux-ci en 51930 devaient deja appartenir, pour partie tout au moins, au college competent, en 513514, pour rediger \cs psephismata reclames par Severe. Mais il ne faut pas exclure non plus l'influence des notables locaux ni celle des fonctionnaires imperiaux, necessairement impliques dans la designation du titulaire d'un siege aussi important. Or le Praefectus Paetorio Orientis d'Anastase, Marinos d'Apamee,31 etait precisement originaire de la cite syrienne et Ton peut supposer, au double titre de ministre et de notable local, une intervention de sa part.32 Ces facteurs conjugues compliquent assurement Emergence d'un consensus sur les trois noms de successeurs possibles. De fait, on verra en 546 la reglementation s'assouplir et n'exiger plus que deux, puis un seul candidat aux sieges episcopaux a pourvoir,33 Entre 512 et 518, les elections episcopales suivent done dans l'espace syrien une procedure tres precise ou l'autorite patriarcale d'Antioche, in26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 2, 93-94 (nr. 49), 128, 146. E. Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (voir note 5), 44; PLRE 2 (1980) 607; F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 1, 124, 212-213, 146; Vol. 2, 93-94 (nr. 49), 138. Sev. select letters, 1, 46 (Vol. 1/1, 141 Brooks; Vol. 2/1, 126-127 Brooks). F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 1, 228-234. Collectio Sabbaitica contra Acephalos et Origenistas destinata (ACO III, 90-110, Schwartz = C P G 9329 (9)). PLRE 2 (voir note 27), 726-728. On sait par une lettre de Severe au metropolite Etienne qu'il cherchera a obtenir ainsi l'ordination diaconale d'un parent. Sev. select letters, 7, 6 (Vol. 1/2, 428-429 Brooks; Vol. 2/2, 381 Brooks); E. Honigmann, Eveques et eveches (voir note 5), 56; F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 1, 121; Vol. 2, 140. Deux gouverneurs de Syrie IL sont par ailleurs connus sur la periode du patriarcat severien: Serge et Eutychianos. PLRE 2 (voir note 27), 446, 994; F. Alpi, La route royale (voir note 1), Vol. 2, 123, 161. Voir supra et note 22.

314

Frederic Alpi

carnee par Severe, doit composer avec les instances locales, clericales et laiques. Donnee pour une nouveaute d'Anastase, la competence reconnue, dans chaque cite ou siege episcopal, a un college mixte de clercs et de notables pour proposer a l'autorite ecclesiastique superieure, metropolite ou patriarche, trois noms de candidats va reveler en fait des tensions ou des oppositions sous-jacentes. En Syrie F , Severe peut preparer de haute main la succession d'Anasartha, en sa qualite d'eveque d'Antioche, et il enjoint a Solon de Seleucie d'en user de meme en Isaurie. Quand sa juridiction ne s'exerce pas directement, ainsi a Antarados (Phenicie F ) ou a Rhosos (CilicielP), c'est avec l'accord de l'empereur que Severe va tenter de faire prevaloir ses vues, fut-ce au detriment de l'autorite metropolitan de Tyr ou d'Anazarbe, mais toujours avec le souci de respecter les formes reglementaires. La difficile succession d'Apamee, metropole de Syrie IP, montre cependant les limites de cette procedure collegiale et consensuelle, ainsi que les grippages quelle pouvait rencontrer. Reprise integralement dans la legislation justinienne en 528, celle-ci connaitra done bientot une evolution significative, etendue par Justinien a tout l'Empire.

...ut sancto sanctus succederet... oder: Haben Heilige eine Wahl? Ein Ausblick auf die fmhmittelalterliche Bischofserhebung in den Viten heiliger Bischofe Daniel Alt „Bekanntlich gehoren Bischofe zu den bestdokumentierten Personlichkeiten des Mittelalters, mogen auch Quantitat und Qualitat der Uberlieferung von Fall zu Fall recht unterschiedlich sein."1 Qualitativ betrachtet genieEen Lebensbeschreibungen von Heiligen als eine Form der Uberlieferung keinen guten Ruf, ganz im Gegenteil: die Grenzen zwischen (historisch-kritischer) Authentizitat einerseits, und stiimperhaftem Dilettantismus oder Obskurantismus andererseits gehen scheinbar flieEend ineinander uber.2 Es lasst sich oft gar n i c k feststellen, wie genau es ein Viten-Autor mit der Wahrheit halt und ob es den ein oder anderen Heiligen uberhaupt gegeben hat.3 Erschwert wird die Suche besonders durch die Topos-Problematik,4 auf die man im Notfall immer noch zuruckgreifen kann, urn einer kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit hagiographischen 1 2

St. Haarlander, Vitae episcoporum, MGMA 47, Stuttgart 2000, 1. Einfiihrend D. von der Nahmer, Die lateinische Heiligenvita, Darmstadt 1994; W. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter V, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 15, Stuttgart 2004; zur karolingischen Herrscherbiographie L. Hageneier, Jenseits der Topik, Historische Studien 483, Husum 2004; zu griechischen Heiligenviten T. Pratsch, Der hagiographische Topos. Griechische Heiligenviten in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit, Millennium-Studien 6, Berlin/New York 2005; M. Vielberg, Der Monchsbischof von Tours im .MartinelW, UALG 79, Berlin/New York 2006, 1-15; einen detaillierten und prazisen Uberblick fiber den Forschungsstand zu ottonisch-salischen Bischofsviten bieten St. Haarlander (s. Anm. 1) und S. Coue, Hagiographie im Kontext. Schreibanlass und Funktion von Bischofsviten aus dem 11. und vom Anfang des 12. jahrhunderts, AFMF 24, Berlin 1996.

3 4

Vgl. von der Nahmer, Die lateinische Heiligenvita (s. Anm. 2), 146-152. Vgl. G. Scheibelreiter, Der Tod Landberts von Maastricht, in: Bischofsmord im Mittelalter, hrsg. von N . Fryde/D. Reitz, Veroffentlichungen des Max-PlanckInstituts fur Geschichte 191, Gottingen 2003, 51ff; F. Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger im Reich der Merowinger, Prag 1965, 74-78, mit Anm. 83; L. von Padberg, Heilige und Familie, QMRKG 83, Mainz 2 1997, 12f, mit Anm.7.

316

Daniel Alt

Werken von vornherein aus dem Weg zu gehen.5 Schon beim Anblick einer Heiligenvita warden vide Forscher offenbar lieber dem Beispiel des heiligen Benedikt folgen, der sich bekanntermaEen nackt in ein Dornengestrupp stiirzte, um nicht der teuflischen Versuchung zu erliegen und damit die Ideale seines Standes zu verraten.6 Quantitativ betrachtet kommt man in Anbetracht eben jener allzu durftigen Quellenlage zum Friihmittelalter nicht umhin, Bischofsviten in den Blick historischer Forschung zu rucken, ganz unabhangig davon, welches Ergebnis man sich letztlichdavonerwartenkonne. Der groEe Vorteil von Heiligenviten besteht zweifellos in der kategorischen Exemplaritat des Geschilderten, wobei die Autoren fur gewohnlich das ganze Leben eines Heiligen in den Blick nehmen/ Grob betrachtet unterliegen Bischofsviten fur gewohnlich einer Zweiteilung: „Geschieden wird zwischen dem Leben vor dem Amt und dem Leben im Amt, wobei der Bericht liber die Erhebung zum Bischof die Trennlinie markiert."8 So soil im Folgenden zunachst einmal geklart werden, wie die Autoren uber Herkunft, Werdegang und schliefflich die Bischofserhebung eines Heiligen berichten. Haben Heilige eigentlich eine Wahl? Oder unterliegt das Leben eines heiligmaEigen Menschen vielmehr Rationalismen und Handlungsmustern, die ihm letztlich gar keine (andere) Wahl lassen, zumal "wahlen" im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes immer auch eine Alternative voraussetzt? Interessant durfte neben der eigentlichen Bischofserhebung die Frage nach der Nachfolge sein: Welchen Platz raumen die Autoren einer Bischofsvita dem Nachfolger eines Heiligen ein, und lassen sich hier gegebenenfalls markante Unterschiede feststellen, die den gewohnlichen Kandidaten vom heiligen grundlegend unterscheiden? Von dieser Fragestellung ausgehend widmet sich der folgende Ausblick auf die fruhmittelalterliche Bischofserhebung gerade solchen Bischofsviten, die moglichst nah an der Lebenszeit des jeweiligen frankischen Bischofs abgefasst worden sind. Der westgotische Konig Sisebut verfasste zwischen den Jahren 610 und 620 eine Vita uber Bischof Desiderius von Vienne.9 „Von ihr hangen 5 6 7

8 9

So etwa bei C. Servatius, Per ordinationem principis ordinetur, ZKG 84, 1973, 19. Vgl. Greg. M. Dial. II, 2 (SC 260, 136 de Vogue). Vgl. B. Schiitte, Bischofserhebungen im Spiegel von Bischofsviten und Bistumsgesten der Ottonen und Salierzeit, in: Die friih- und hochmittelalterliche Bischofserhebung im europaischen Vergleich, hrsg. von F.-R. Erkens, BAKG 48, Koln/Weimar/Wien 1998, 187; A. Angenendt, Der Heilige: auf Erden - im Himmel, in Politik und Hciligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter, hrsg. von j . Petersohn, VKAMAG 42, Sigmaringen 1994,11-52. Schiitte, Bischofserhebungen (s. Anm. 7) 147. Vgl. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil (s. Anm. 2), 66; J.-C. Poulin, Art. Desiderius, LexMA 3, Stuttgart 2000, 727.

...utsanctosanctussuccederet...

317

mehrere Uberarbeitungen ab, weniger mit historischen Details zu Desiderius, dagegen mit ausfiihrlichem Eingehen auf die unheilvolle Rolle der Brunichild,"10 die bereits in der "Ursprungsvita" eine zentrale Figur ist.11 Uber die genaue Amtszeit Desiderius' ist nur wenig bekannt: Er wurde wohl um 602/603 auf Betreiben der Frankenkonigin Brunichild aufgrund seiner BuEpredigten und seiner Kritik am bisweilen inzestuosen Lebenswandel des frankischen Hofes auf dem Konzil von Chalon-surSaone fur vier Jahre vom Amt abgesetzt; kurz nach seiner Wiedereinsetzung um 611 wurde er von der aufgewiegelten Volksmasse gesteinigt. Laut Vita stammt Desiderius aus dem romischen Adel;12 die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen der Familie kennzeichnet der Viten-Autor schlichtweg mit nobilissimum." Literarische und grammatische Bildung zeichnen ihn besonders aus:14 Fuit enim capacitate strenuus, recordatione memoriosus, ingenio animi acerrimus, loquacitate clarissimusP Pro beneficiis capiendo forderten ihn die Volker vieler Stadte schlieElich fur sich zum Bischof,16 obgleich Desiderius eine solche Aufgabe zutiefst ablehnte, als Ausdruck seiner Demut und personlichen Ungeeignetheit.17 Letztlich verdiente er sich das Bischofsamt nicht willentlich, sondern wurde durch die zahlreichen Bitten dazu gezwungen - Tandem non voluntarium, quam impulsum, multis precibus exoptatum pontificem ecclesia Vienensispromeruit}*

10 11

Poulin, Art. Desiderius, (s. Anm. 9), 727. Vgl. Vita Desiderii Viennensis 4 (ed. J. C. Martin Iglesias, Une nouvelle edition critique de la Vita Desiderii de Sisebut, accompagnee de quelques reflexions concernant la date des Sententiae et du De uiris illustribus d'Isidore de Seville, Hagiographica 7, 2000, 149 £); ebd., 9-10, 153f.; ebd., 15-16, 156f£; ebd., 21, 161f. 12 Vgl. Vita Desiderii Viennensis 2 (Hagiograhica 7, 147): Hie vir de stimate ekro Romanis a parentibus onus, R. Schieffer, Der Bischof zwischen civitas und Konigshof, in: Der Bischof in seiner Zeit, hrsg. von P. Berglar/O. Engels (FS J. Kardinal Hoffner), K6lnl986,21f. 13 Vita Desiderii Viennensis 2 (Hagiograhica 7, 130). 14 Vgl. Vita Desiderii Viennensis 2 (Hagiograhica 7, 147f.): Qui eum annos quos fas est doeeri eontigisset legitimes, tradkur ad studiu literamm, nee multa morula eonereeente, sensus sui vigore iam doetos transeendens, plenissime grammatiea edoeatus, divinas attentates mira eekritate retinendo explieuh; K. Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel im spatantiken Gallien, Darmstadt 1970 [Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1948], 134. 15 Vgl. Vita Desiderii Viennensis 2 (Hagiograhica 7, 148). 16 Vita Desiderii Viennensis 3 (Hagiograhica 7, 148): Multarum denique urbium pro benefieiispopuli eapiendis eum sibimet episeopumpoposeerunt. 17 Vgl. Vita Desiderii Viennensis 3 (Hagiograhica 7, 148): Qui reluetans tanti ministerii, utse habet humilitas, imparemfore indignum sefatebatur. 18 Vita Desiderii Viennensis 3 (Hagiograhica 7, 148).

318

Daniel Alt

Nach Walter Berschin ist „eine fur dzsfriihe VII. Jahrhundert charakteristische Bischofsvita [...] die des Gaugerich von Cambrai."19 Sie wurde vermutlich um 625 von einem unbekannten Kleriker aus Cambrai verfasst.20 AuEer der Vita berichten keine weiteren Quellen von der Bischofserhebung Gaugerichs, die in den Jahren 584/590 stattgefunden haben diirfte.21 Laut Vita war Gaugerich romischer Herkunft. Zu dessen Eltern Gaudentius und Austadiola bemerkt der Viten-Autor, dass sie nicht zu den ersten der Wurde dieser Welt, und nicht zu den letzten gehorten.22 Schon in jungen Jahren wird der ortliche Priester auf ihn aufmerksam, weil er trotz habitu saecukre durch Lerneifer, Enthaltsamkeit und freigiebiges Almosenspenden herausragt: in ipso vultu hikri, facie formosa, decora aspectu, inspirante Domino, so der Viten-Autor.23 Wahrend einer Visitationsreise des Trierer Bischofs Magnericus - iuxta canonum statuta - wird Gaugerich schlieElich fur die klerikale Laufbahn gewonnen. Er empfangt spater aufgrund seiner Lebensfuhrung, und weil er den gesamten Psalter auswendig kann, erst die Weihe zum Diakon, dann zum Priester.24 Einen Leprakranken heilt er durch die Taufe; nachher weiht er ihn selbst als Bischof zum Diakon, daraufhin zum Presbyter.25

19 20

21 22 23 24

25

Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil (s. Anm. 2), 53. Vgl. C. A. Bernoulli, Die Heiligen der Merowinger, Hildesheim/New York 1981 (Nachdruck der Ausgabe Tubingen 1900), 123ff, M. Rouche, Vie de saint Gay, ecrite par un clerc de la basilique de Cambrai entre 650-700, Revue du Nord 69 1986, 281-288; Vita II Gaugerici, AASS Aug.II, 672-675; Vita III Gaugerici, AASS Aug.II, 675-690; M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters II, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 9, Miinchen 1923, 344-347; zur Rezeptionsgeschichte B. Judic, La diffusion de la Regula pastoralis, in: Revue de Nord 76, 1994, 207-226. Vgl. G. Scheibelreiter, Der Bischof in merowingischer Zeit, VIOG 27, Wien/Koln/Graz 1983, 155, Anm.104. Vita Gaugerici 1(MGH SS rer. Merov. 3, 652 Krusch): ...parentibus secundum saeculi dignitatem non primis, non ultimis. Vita Gaugerici 3 (653 Krusch). Vgl. Vita Gaugerici 4 (653 Krusch): Et cum haec ipse pontifex cognovisset, quod cum Integra devotione clerkati officium suscepisset, et in ipsum divinam vidisset conlunctionis pietate retenire, ei praecepit, ut, cum alia vice ad ipsum castro ipse pontifex adveniret, totumpsalterium ei memoriter recitaret, modis omnibus studiret; ei officium diaconati, actori Domino, continuo tradere destinaret. Cumque ordinatione pontificis cum multo gaudio suscepisset, iugiter die noctuque vigiliis, ieiuniis, elimosinis usitans, memoriter totum psalterium pontifice recitavk. Cumque ipsum divinis eruditionibus vidisset instructum, eum diaconati honore continuo benedixk. Vgl. Vita Gaugerici 5 (653 Krusch): Et dum ministerium suum adsidue, ut decet dignum levitae Christi, fideliter adimpleret, quoddam vero die, dum orationibus circuiret, obviam abuit in castrum Ebosium quendam leprosum, quae adhuc gentilitatis errori tenebatur. Et cum divina inspiration commotus, continuo ad sacerdotem perduxit et baptismi gratia condonavit, quern manibus suis de lavacro fontis except et clerkati officium corona-


319

Nach dem Tod des damaligen Bischofs von Cambrai - der Name wird in der Vita n i c k erwahnt - wird Uberraschenderweise Gaugerich von den Klerikern und dem gesamten Volk fur das Bischofsamt ,erbeten. Konig Childebert, divinia inspiration permotus, beauftragt durch einen Brief den Bischof von Reims mit der Ordination. AnschlieEend rief das gesamte Volk, vel clerici et universa plebs una voce, „dass Gaugerich der wurdigste fur das Bischofsamt sei:" felicem ecclesiae, qui talent meruit recipere sacerdotem, konstatiert der Viten-Autor.26 Georg Scheibelreiter bemerkt dazu in einer Studie zum merowingischen Bischof: „Hier ist die Topik der Schilderung so dominierend, da£ man von einer Muster-Bischofserhebung sprechen konnte." 27 Darauf wird sparer noch einzugehen sein. Bei der Vita fur Sulpicius II. von Bourges (624-647) handelt es sich wohl urn das Werk eines Zeitgenossen, der bald nach dem Tod des Bischofs fur ein monastisches Publikum mit der Abfassung begonnen hatte.28 Sulpicius war in der Zeit von 615-647 Bischof von Bourges; er nahm 626-627 an der Synode von Clichy teil und weihte 630 auf koniglichen Befehl den heiligen Desiderius von Cahors zum Bischof. Recht kurz fallen die Informationen zum Werdegang des Sulpicius aus: „Der selige Bischof Sulpicius gab sich, als er noch im weltlichen Gewand im Haus der Eltern lebte, den guten Werken so hin, dafi er nichts anderes mehr tat, als Kirchen bauen, Kloster errichten und sich in den Werken der Barmherzigkeit an Armen unermudlich zu uben; aus Liebe zur Keuschheit verschmahte er das Band der Ehe."29 vit, quempostea in suum episcopatum diaconum et presbiterum benedicens, quasi numquamfuisset a lepra infestatione nulktenus occupatus. 26 Vita Gaugerici 6 (653f. Krusch): Cum adsidue beatissime Gaugerici fama, inspirante Dominum, in bonis operibus provocaret, contigit, Camaracinse civitate episcopum fuisse defunctu operibus provocaret, contigit, Camaracinse civitate episcopum fuisse defunctum. Cumque a clericis vel cuncto populo ad ipsum episcopatum Camaracinse civitatepeteretur, et Hildeberto praecelso rege Austrasiorum, ut ipsum in praedicta civitate ordinaret episcopum, fuisse suggestum, divina inspirationepermotus, continuo apontifice beato Egegio episcopo Remensium civitatis dedit epistoks, ut eum cum dignis honoribus in praedicta civitate Camaraco deberet episcopum ordinari. Accepta principali praeceptione, ut decuit Dei servum, taliter ipsum ordinavit episcopum, ita ut omnispopulus vel clerici et universa pleps una voce clamarent, Gaugericum episcopatu esse dignissimum; felicem eclesiae, qui talem meruit recipere sacerdotem. 27 28

29

Vgl. Scheibelreiter, Der Bischof (s. Anm. 21) 155, Anm.104. Vgl. Vita Sulpicii Bituricensis 1 (AASS Ian.II, 174 = M G H SS rer. Merov. 4, 372j; ...sed tamen, vt nee contumaciter abnuere iniunctioni eorum; velpauca quae ipse vidi, vel eorum relatione qui ei ab adolescentia vsque ad decrepitam senectutem ministrauerunt; Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil (s. Anm. 2), 55. Vita Sulpicii Bituricensis 2 (AASS Ian.II, 175: Igitur B. Sulpitius Episcopus dum adhuc in secukri habitu in domo parentum consistere videretur, ita bonis operibus deditus fuit,

320

Daniel Alt

Seine Wahl zum Bischof erfolgt durch Klerus und Volk von Bourges, allerdings in zwei Schritten: Zuerst berichtet der Autor von der electio populi, der eine conventio clericorum folgt,30 Als Bischof selbst wiederum kummert sich Sulpicius - iuxta Ecclesiae regimen - um nichts anderes als die Armenfursorge,31 Kuchcnregiment und Armenfursorge sind es schlieElich auch, warum sich Sulpicius vom Konig einen socium huius oneris supportandi erbittet. Diesem gewahrte der Konig seine Zustimmung und gab ihm, wie gewunscht, einen sehr klugen Mann, der den Namen Wulfolendus tragt,32 Man konnte fast von einer Blitzkarriere sprechen, denn schon im folgenden Satz beschreibt der Viten-Autor die Bischofserhebung Wulfolendus' - qui suscepto Episcopatu huius vrbis adhuc hodie in Dei nomine regit EcclesiamP Einige aber nahmen es Sulpicius krumm, dass er das Bischofsamt einem anderen ubertragen hatte und sich an der Vervielfachung irgendwelcher Seelen erfreute. Aber jener verharrte in der begonnen Aufgabe; und er entzog sich menschlichem Lob, und mied den Prunk nichtigen Treibens; immer war er darauf bedacht, den Armen vom Mangel an Nahrung und Kleidung Erleichterung zu verschaffen,34 Aus derselben Zeit um die Mitte des 7. Jahrhunderts stammt die Vita ArnulfiP die den Bischof von Metz und Stammvater der Karolinger

30

31

32

33 34

35

vt nihil aliud magis videretur agere, quam aut eccksias aedificare, aut monasteria construere, aut in operibus misericordiae circa pauperes se infatigabiliter exercere, et amore casthatis copulam matrimonii spreuisse visus est, Ubers. nach Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil(s.Anm.2),56. Vita Sulpicii Bituricensis 2 (AASS Ian.II, 175): ... suscepit clericatus coronam; et succedentes gradus ecclesiastic* dignitatis, vsque ad eum locum, vt electione populi, et Clericorum conuentione Episcopatus dignitatem ascenderet. Vita Sulpicii Bituricensis 2 (AASS Ian.II, 175): In quo officio nihil aliud magis insistebat iuxta Ecclesm regimen, quam curam gereret pauperum, et summo nisu elaboraret illis semper alimenta, et quibus tegerentur. Vir quoque communis huius vita necessaria. Vita Sulpicii Bituricensis 8 (AASS Ian.II, 175): Cut Rex pmbuit assensum, et dedit, quern petierat, virum prudentissimum, cui vocabulum est Vulfolendo: qui suscepto Episcopatu huius vrbis adhuc hodie in Dei nomine regit Ecclesiam. Vita Sulpicii Bituricensis 8 (AASS Ian.II, 175). Vita Sulpicii Bituricensis 8 (AASS Ian.II, 175): Nonnulli vero ei detrahebant, cur Episcopatu relicto alteri tradidisset, et in quarumdam animarum multiplicatione delectaretur. Sedille in incepto opere persistebat; et laudem humanam fugiens, et iactantiam vanitatis deuitans, semper persistebat, vt pauperes ab indigentia victus ac vestitus releuaret. Ed. von B. Krusch, M G H SS rer. Merov. 2, 432-446; zur Datierung Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil (s. Anm. 2), 88; und S. Patzold, Episcopus, MittelalterForschungen 25, Ostfddern 2008, 477. Fur weitere hagiographische Werke zu Arnulf G. Philippart/A. Wagner, Hagiographie lorraine (950-1130), Hagiographies IV, Turnhout2006,620ff.


321

ehrt,36 Arnulf wurde um 614 zum Bischof von Metz erhoben, und war um 622/23 zusammen mit dem Hausmeier Pippin Vormund des spateren Konigs Dagobert,37 Um 629 gab er das Bischofsamt auf, um sich als Einsiedler in die Vogesen zuriickzuziehen. Arnulf stammt aus frankischem Adel und wird zunachst in litterarum studiis unterrichtet. Ihn adelt nicht nur das Vermogen seiner Eltern, sondern vielmehr noch sein christlicher Glaube,38 der ihn neben seiner Getechtmskapazitdt - sagax ingenii et memoriae capax - offenbar besonders fur den Dienst am Konigshof qualifiziert,39 Es verwundert daher wenig, dass ihm ein gewisser Stephanus, ein aus Italien stammender Wanderprediger, eine glorreiche Zukunft voraussagt.40 Der Autor der Vita Arnulfi verschweigt hierbei keineswegs Attribute Arnulfs, wie Tapferkeit im Kriegsfall, den gekonnten Umgang mit Waffen,41 oder die Heirat mit einer Adeligen,42 was man vordergrundig als letztes in einer Bischofsvita suchen wurde. Etwas apologetisch wirkt da schon der Zusatz, Arnulf gebe durch seinen Lebenslauf dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist, und durch seine Lebensweise Gott, was Gottes ist.43 Sein inniger Wunsch zum Klosterein36

37 38

39

40 41

42

43

Vgl. E. Hlawitschka, Die Vorfahren Karls des Grofien, in: Personlichkeit und Geschichte, hrsg. von H. Beumann (=Karl der Grofie. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, Bd.l) Diisseldorf 3 1967, 51-82; R. McKitterick, Karl der Grofie, Darmstadt 2008, 65; M. Werner, Art. Arnulfinger, in: LThK 1, Freiburg i. Br. 2006, 103l£; W. Stormer, Art. Arnulfinger, in LexMA 1, Stuttgart 2000, 1021f. Vgl. L. Hageneier, I , Der politische Rahmen, in: Die Zeit der Karolinger, hrsg. von J. Laudage/L. Hageneier/Y. Leiverkus, Darmstadt 2006, 10. Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 1 (432 Krusch): Beams igitur Arnulfus episcopus prosapie genitus Francorum, altus satis et nobilis parentibus atque oppulentissimus in rebus saeculifiuit; sed nobilior deinceps et sublimior in fide Christi permansit. Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 3 (433 Krusch): Post haec autem laudabilis indolisplenuspalatii vel consiliario regis exercitandus in bonis actibus traditur. Hunc Me cum accepisset, per multa deinceps experimentaprobatum iamque Teutberti regis ministerio dignum aptavit. Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 2 (432 Krusch). Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 4 (432 Krusch): Nam virtutem belligerandi seu potentiam illius deinceps in armis quis enarrare queat, praesertim cum saepe phalangas adversarum gencium suo abigisset mucrone? Quapropter effectus est Christo presolem omnium primus, qui dudumpene cunctorum ultimus videbatur, ita ut sex provincial quas ex tunc et nunc totidem agunt domestici, sub illius ministratione solius regerentur arbitrio. Nam sedolus in oracione, in iemniis, in misericordiapauperum incumbebat et, sicut scriptum est, reddebat quae Dei sunt Deo et quae caesaris caesari restituebat. Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 5 (432 Krusch): Intern igitur, vix cogentibus amicis atque parentibus, inclitam et nobilissimam a gente puellam, quia Deus sic voluit, praeclaris moribus duxit uxorem. Nam illud eidem Dominus Ipeciak munus veluti duarum gemmarum splendidum decus in mundo indulsit, ut ex eadem egregia femina duorum filiorum gaudia suscepisset. Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 4 (432 Krusch).

322

Daniel Alt

tritt in Lerins bleibt leider unerfiillt,44 well Gott, so die Vita, GroEeres mit Arnulf vorhatte. Einstimmig sei die Akklamation Arnulfs zum Bischof verlaufen: Tunc una vox populorum Arnulfum domesticum adque consiliarium regis dignum esse episcopum adclamavit* Weinend und gezwungen, quia Deo ita pkcitum fuit, erhalt Arnulf das Bischofsamt und Ubernimmt zusatzlich zum Amt des Hausmeiers und Vorstehers der K6nigspfalz also auch das Bischofsamt und die dazugehorigen episcopates [...] infidas.46 Trotz des Widerstandes aus dem Konigshaus kann Arnulf allerdings nach einigen Jahren das Bischofsamt ablegen, urn ein Leben als Einsiedler zu fuhren.47 Dabit enim vobis Deuspastorem - der liebe Gotte wird euch schon einen Hirten geben,48 sollen die trostenden Abschiedsworte Arnulfs gewesen sein. In der Tat folgt dem Heiligen ein Heiliger nach: ... sanctus Goericus cognomento Abbo huius successor eligitur. Digne quippe a Domino hactum est, ut sancto sanctus succulent* Den Umstand der Verwandtschaft verschweigt die Vita Arnulfi, doch konnte der Eindruck einer Erbfolge in Sachen Heiligkeit zu Missverstandnissen mit dem Ideal der Enthaltsamkeitfuhren. Zunachst wurde also eines deutlich: Die Autoren widmen dem Werdegang der Heiligen bis zum Bischofsamt weitaus mehr Aufmerksamkeit als dem eigentlichen Amtsantritt selbst. Nun konnte man einerseits davon ausgehen, die Bischofswahl habe genau nach dem Schema stattgefunden, wie sie der Autor geschildert hat. Man wird kaum in einem Heiligenleben davon ausgehen konnen, dass ein Viten-Autor keine vollstandige und zugleich rechtmaEige Wahl schildern wollte. Dann musste man naturlich auch die jeweiligen Unterschiede im Wahlverfahren erklaren konnen. Andererseits konnten bestimmte Elemente einer Bischofswahl den Adressaten einer Vita derart vertraut sein, dass der Autor getrost auf ihre Schilderung verzichten kann, was sich in Anbetracht der lapidaren Kurze mancher Viten durchaus begrunden liefie. „Wenn, wie es scheint, die Wahl nach kanonischem Recht als selbstverstandliche Voraussetzung fur die Ordination aufgefaEt wurde, bedurfte sie grundsatzlich keiner besonderen

44 45 46

Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 6 (433f. Krusch). Vita Arnulfi 7 (434 Krusch). Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 7 (434f. Krusch): Ilk autem lacrimans et conpulsus, quia Deo ita placitumfuit, urbem at gubernandum suscepit, sicque deinceps episcopates gestans infulas, ut eciam domestical sollicitudine adqueprimatum palacii hacsi nollens teneret. 47 Vgl. Vita Arnulfi 17-18 (439f. Krusch). 48 Vita Arnulfi 18 (440 Krusch). 49 Vita Arnulfi 19 (440 Krusch); auch zu Goericus existieren drei Lebensbeschreibungen; G. Philippart/A. Wagner, Hagiographie lorraine (950-1130), Hagiographies IV, Turnhout2006,624ff.


323

Erwahnung", 50 so Friedrich Letter. Das bis auf die apostolische Zeit zuriickreichende Prinzip einer kanonischen Wahl geriet bekanntlich nie ganz in Vergessenheit, „sondern blieb, wenn auch stark strapaziert, liber die frankische Zeit hinweg als Vermachtnis der alten Kirche, als Grundprinzip kirchlicher Autonomie und theoretisch nie aufgegebene Forderung im BewuEtsein der Geistlichkeit stets lebendig."51 Odilo Engels bemerkt hierzu, dass „von der Fruhzeit an [...] die Wahl des Bischofs durch Klerus und Volk der vakanten Kirche die Norm [war], wodurch sich der Wille Gottes kundtue." 52 Ein Blick in die normativen Quellen des 6. und angehenden 7. Jahrhunderts zeigt deutlich das Bestreben nach kanonischer Wahl durch Klerus und Volk bei gleichzeitiger Zuruckdrangung des koniglichen Einflusses.53 Allein die immer wiederkehrende Forderung lasst erahnen, wie die Bischofswahl in Wirklichkeit abgelaufen ist. „Obwohl nur in wenigen Quellen alle Stationen der Erhebung geschildert werden, lafit sich fur das 6. und 7. Jahrhundert der Gesamtvorgang einigermaEen rekonstruieren:"Nach dem Tod eines Bischofs wird der Konig von den Burgern der betreffenden Stadt um die Erlaubnis zur Neuwahl gebeten; es erfolgt eine Wahlversammlung von (im Idealfall) Klerus und Adel, stadtischer und landlicher "plebs", die dem Gewahlten einen "consensus" ausstellt, uber den dem Konig Mitteilung gemacht werden muE; nach einer Prufung des Kandidaten erfolgt im positiven Fall die Einsetzung durch den Konig und die Ausstellung des Konsekrationsdekretes; die Weihe des neuen Bischofs unter nochmaliger "acclamatio" des Volkes schliefo den Vorgang ab; aus dem "episcopus electus" ist ein Ordinarius geworden."54 50

F. Letter, Designation und angebliches Kooptationsrecht bei Bischofserhebungen, ZRG 90, Kan. Abt. 56, Weimar 1973, 138. 51 Letter, Designation (s. Anm. 50), 149f.; H. Miiller, Der Anted der Laien an der Bischofswahl, KStT 29, Amsterdam 1977, 10. 52 O. Engels, Der Pontifikatsantritt und seine Zeichen, in: Segni e riti nella chiesa altomedievale occidentale, SSAM 33, Spoleto 1987, 707. Nach Scheibelreiter, Der Bischof (s. Anm. 21), 165, sink der Einfluss der „plebs" im 7. Jahrhundert weitgehend ab; H.-J. Brandt, Zwischen Wahl und Ernennung, in: Papsttum und Kirchenreform. Historische Beitrage, hrsg. von M. Weitlauff/K. Hausberger, (FS fur G. Schwaiger zum 65. Geburtstag), St. Ottilien 1990, 223ff 53 Vgl. Scheibelreiter, Der Bischof (s. Anm. 21), 150: „Alle gallischen Synoden des sechsten und siebenten Jahrhunderts durchzog deshalb eine einzige Konstante: die Sicherung der freien Wahl durch Klerus und Volk gegeniiber dem Einflufi der „potentes" und schliefilich vor allem des Konigs." Vgl. H. Miiller, Der Anteil der Laien (s. Anm. 51), 18ff. 54 U. Nonn, Zwischen Konig, Hausmeier und Aristokratie, in: Die friih- und hochmittelalterliche Bischofserhebung im europaischen Vergleich, hrsg. von F.-R. Erkens, BAKG 48, Koln/Weimar/Wien 1998, 41; zitiert ist C. Servatius, „Per ordinationem principis ordinetur", in: ZKG 84, Stuttgart/Berlin/Koln 1973, 24.

324

Daniel Alt

WUrde man als Quellen nur Bischofsviten kennen, muteten die Ergebnisse von Ulrich Nonn bzw. Carlo Servatius geradezu grotesk an. Auffallig ist zunachst, dass nicht alle Viten von einer Wahl durch Klerus und Volk berichten: Bei Desiderius von Vienne und Arnulf von Metz ist expressis verbis ausschliefflich das Volk das bestimmende Wahlergremium; die Vita Sulpicii berichtet zunachst auch nur von einer electio populi. Die Desiderius-Vita ist immerhin von einem (spateren) Konig verfasst worden, doch konnen die Grunde fur das Weglassen des Konigshauses aus der Sicht Sisebuts auch auf die Herrscherfamilie selbst zuruckgefuhrt werden, gerade da die Verantwortliche fur Desiderius' Martyrium ja letztlich Brunichild ist. Abgesehen davon lieEe sich aber in keiner dieser Viten eine anti-konigliche Grundhaltung des Autoren feststellen, darauf hat bereits Frantisek Graus hingewiesen.55 Und doch wird an der Vita Sulpicii nicht nur das Grundproblem der Heiligenvita als historische Quelle sichtbar: Wahrend der Autor den Konig bei der Bischofswahl von Sulpicius nicht erwahnt, so bittet der Bischof ausgerechnet den weltlichen Herrscher um einen geeigneten socius als Amtshilfe. Der Bischof kiimmert sich also nicht einmal selbst um den entsprechenden Nachwuchs? Wie glaubwurdig wirkt da die Vita, wenn der Konig an der Bischofswahl nicht beteiligt gewesen sein soil, aber fur einen im Vergleich zum Heiligen zweitklassigen Beistand eigens um Erlaubnis gebeten wird? Da der Nachfolger von Sulpicius wahrend der Abfassungszeit noch gelebt haben durfte, ware die literarische Demutigung sicher auEerst mutig gewesen. Ein ahnliches Phanomen schildert die Vita Arnulfi: Auch Arnulf wird, wie oben erwahnt, vom Volk zum Bischof bestimmt - ohne Erwahnung des Konigs. Als er vom Amt zurucktreten mochte, entsteht eine heftige Auseinandersetzung mit dem Konigshaus, das stark an einer Fortsetzung seines Episkopates interessiert ist. Warum muss aber Arnulf sein Rucktrittsgesuch beim Konig einreichen, der augenscheinlich mit der Amtseinsetzung nichts zu tun hatte? Dabei zeigt sich ein weiteres Phanomen: Man kann sich wohl nur schwer des Eindruckes einer Designation des Nachfolgers erwehren, wenn der socius hujus oneris supportandi, ein gewisser Wulfolendus, schon im folgenden Satz der Vita die Bischofsnachfolge antritt. Die Vorwurfe gegen Sulpicius richten sich allerdings weniger gegen das Designationsverfahren, als vielmehr dagegen, dass der Heilige seine Herde einfach zuruck lasst, um sich, so der Viten-Autor, an der "Vervielfachung irgendwelcher Seelen" zu erfreuen. Man wird kaum annehmen konnen, dem Kirchenvolk von Bourges sei der Einsatz eines Heiligen fur das Seelenheil der Diozese

55

Vgl. Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger (s. Anm. 4), 375-381.


325

prinzipiell zuwider gewesen.56 Ebenso wenig Wahrscheinlichkeit besitzt die Vermutung, den Autoren seien die kanonischen Bestimmungen Uber Designation n i c k bekannt gewesen. „In der Tat stellten die immer erneut zutage tretenden Versuche einzelner Bischofe, ihre Nachfolger noch zu Lebzeiten zu nominieren und womoglich auch schon zu ordinieren, spatestens seit Beginn des 4. jahrhunderts fiir die Kirche ein schwerwiegendes Problem dar.""

Die verbindliche Designation gait nach Lotter seit je her als rechtswidrig. „Andererseits wurde die Nachfolgernominierung mitunter unwidersprochen praktiziert, sofern sie als de iure unverbindliche Empfehlung anzusehen war und die erst nach eingetretener Sedi[s]vakanz vorzunehmende eigentliche Bischofserhebung rechtlichnichtprajudizierte." 58

Erst wenn dem vermeintlichen Nachfolger noch zu Lebzeiten des Vorgangers die Ordination erteilt wurde, empfand man die Nachfolgeregelung als VerstoE gegen die Bestimmungen des Nicaenums, wonach in einer Diozese nicht zwei Bischofe zugleich amtieren durften.59 Nach Lotter war die juristisch unverbindliche Nachfolgernominierung im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert in weiten Teilen der Kirche eine durchaus ubliche Praxis, wenngleich sich in Rom allmahlich die Rechtswidrigkeit auch dieser Form durchsetzte. „Stattdessen gewann jedoch das frankische Konigtum wachsenden EinfluE auf die Bischofserhebungen, ohne da£ das Prinzip der kanonischen Wahl prinzipiell aufgegeben wurde."60 Die Autoren von Heiligenviten scheinen von dieser Entwicklung weitgehend unbeeindruckt. Man umgeht das Problem schlichtweg mit den Anforderungen einer durch das Heiligenideal legitimierten Praxis. Die Lange der Darstellung lasst den Vorgang als kurze Randnotiz erscheinen; die Tatsache der Erwahnung lasst zumindest auf das Bedurfnis einer Erklarung schlieEen. Fraglich bleibt vor allem, wie weit Bischofsviten als „wichtigste Quellengruppe fur die Frage nach den tatsachlichen Umstanden von Bischofserhebungen"61 angesehen werden konnen. Daneben lieEe sich formulieren, dass trotz aller Differenzen innerhalb der einzelnen Darstellungen immer das Volk an der Bischofswahl eines 56

57 58 59 60 61

Das zeigen schon die zahlreichen Kirchen- und Klostergriindungen jener Zcit; dazu D. Claude, Topographie und Verfassung der Stadte Bourges und Poitiers bis in das 11. Jahrhundert, HS 380, Liibeck/Hamburg 1960, 67-71. Lotter, Designation (s. Anm. 50), 128. Lotter, Designation (s.Anm. 50), 131. Vgl. Lotter, Designation (s. Anm. 50), 131f. Lotter, Designation (s. Anm. 50), 139; G. Hartmann, Der Bischof, GBTG 5, Graz/Wien/Koln 1990, 18ff. Schiitte, Bischofserhebungen (s. Anm. 7), 142.

326

Daniel Alt

Heiligen beteiligt ist, wahrend dies fur andere Wahlergruppen nicht nachgewiesen werden kann. Fraglich bleibt freilich, ob die jeweiligen Autoren umer populus jeweils dasselbe Wahlergremium subsumieren.62 Unterscheiden die Autoren etwa zwischen der Wahl eines Heiligen und der Wahl eines "normalen" Menschen'? Leider, so konnte man aus Sick des Forschenden formulieren, sind die Berichte uber den Werdegang der Kandidaten dazu wenig aufschlussreich. Noch nicht einmal alle Bischofe waren gema£ ihrer Vita adeliger Abstammung. Gaugerich von Cambrai hat dabei als einziger eine klerikale Laufbahn durchschritten; Arnulf von Metz bildet hier den Gegenpol. Gemeinsam ist alien Kandidaten die hervorragende Bildung und G e i s t e s ^ ^ . 6 3 Von einem Umbruch oder gar Paradigmenwechsel zu sprechen, dazu animiert allenthalben die Schilderung der Herkunft der einzelnen Wurdentrager M Die Bischofe der Merowinger entstammen allmahlich nicht mehr der romischen Aristokratie, sondern dem frankischen Adel.65 Gaugerich von Cambrai etwa war romischer Herkunft, sein Nachfolger Bertoald, ein vir apostolus, stammte aus einem frankischen Geschlecht.66 Zumindest scheint den Autoren die Erwahnung der Herkunft in Anbetracht der Kurze dieser Lebensbeschreibungen so wichtig, dass sie nicht weggelassen wird.67 AuEerdem zeigt der Werdegang bei Sulpicius und Arnulf, dass weltliche Betatigung grundsatzlich kein Ausschluss-Kriterium fur das Bischofsamt darstellt.68

62 63 64

65

66

67 68

Vgl. A. Kosuch, A deo electus? in: Das friihmittelalterliche Konigtum, hrsg. von F.-R. Erkens, RGA.E 49, Berlin/New York 2005, 408. Zum Motiv der Weisheit vgl. E. Elm, Die Macht der Weisheit, SHCT 109, Leiden/Boston 2003. Grundlegend K. Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel im spatantiken Gallien, Darmstadt 1970 [Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1948]; St. Patzold, Die Bischofe im karolingischen Staat, in: Staat im friihen Mittelalter, hrsg. von S. Airlie/W. Pohl/H. Reimitz, FGMA 1 l . W i e n 2006, 160, m i t A n m . l 9 5 f Grundlegend Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien, Francia 5, Zurich/Miinchen 1976; M. Becher, Merowinger und Karolinger, Darmstadt 2009, 31; Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel (s. Anm. 64), 11 Off. Vgl. Vita Gaugerici 14 (657 Krusch): Post eius quoque glorioso discessu vir apostolus Bertoaldus ex Francorum natione successit episcopls; E. Ewig, Volkstum und Volksbewusstsein im Frankenreich des 7. Jahrhunderts, in: Caratteri del secolo VII in occidente 2., SSAM 5, Spoleto 1958, 618f£; F. Prinz, Der frankische Episkopat zwischen Merowinger- und Karolingerzeit, in: Nascita dell'Europa ed Europa Carolingia: Una equazione da verificare 1, SSAM 27, Spoleto 1981, 104f. Entgegen Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel (s. Anm. 64), 140. Vgl. R. Schieffer, Der Bischof zwischen civitas und Konigshof, in: Der Bischof in seiner Zeit, hrsg. von P. Berglar/O. Engels (FS fur j . Kardinal Hoffner), Koln 1986, 20f; C. Servatius, „Per ordinationem principis ordinaretur", in: ZKG 84, Stuttgart/Berlin/K6lnl973,29.


327

Vielleicht kann man sich der Problematik eher nahern, wenn man das Thema ,Bischofswahl in Heiligenviten nicht wie Dietrich Claude verfassungsrechtlich, sondern von seiner inneren, seiner theologischen Seite her betrachtet, schliefflich geht es den Autoren zuerst urn die Darstellung eines Heiligen, und vermutlich weniger urn genuin staatsrechdiche Fragestellungen. Warum, so konnte man ruckblickend formulieren, berichtet dann eigendich nur eine Vita derart detailliert uber die einzelnen Wahlelemente, wahrend man sich ansonsten mit einem kurzen Hinweis auf eine ,Volkswahl< begnugt - von der Weihe einmal ganz zu schweigen? Weil, so lieEe sich nach den erwahnten Beispielen uberspitzt formulieren, der Lebensweg eines Heiligen grundsatzlich der gottlichen Vorhersehung und Einflussnahme unterliegt.69 Daher scheint es vollig zweitrangig, wie die Bischofswahl, nach unserem Verstandnis "historisch" abgelaufen ist, denn das Heilige an sich stellt fur den Hagiographen die Form seiner historischen Wirklichkeit dar/° Dies zeigt einmal mehr, „dafi der abendlandischneuzeitliche Rationalismus nicht zur Erklarung und sinngemaEen Entschlusselung vergangener Phanomene ausreicht."71 So besehen ist die Wahl des Bischofs in den Viten heiliger Bischofe des Fruhmittelalters eine historische Handlung mit theologischem Hintergrund/ 2 Wenn wir daher den soeben geschilderten Ausfuhrungen Friedrich Lotters recht geben wollen, ist von den hier untersuchten Heiligen nur einer "wirklich" zum Bischof erhoben worden: Gaugerich von Cambrai. Es erscheint von daher auEerst fraglich, genau bei dieser Vita von einer topos-durchsetzten Musterwahl zu sprechen, lassen doch die ubrigen Bischofsviten auf das genaue Gegenteil schlieEen. Ebenso wenig lassen sich merowingische Bischofsviten als stereotype Quellengattung charakterisieren, deren ottonisch-salisches Pendant sich durch die Betonung der adeligen Herkunft, der Bildung und der korperlichen Unversehrtheit unterscheidet/ 3 Urn den Befund abschlieEend zu bewerten, mussten sicherlich noch eine ganze Reihe weiterer Quellen befragt und weitere Fragen geklart werden. Im Sinne von Lars Hageneier bedeutet das: 69 70

71 72

73

Vgl. Haarlander, Vitae episcoporum (s. Anm. 1), 232. Vgl. G. Althoff, Das argumentative Gedachtnis, in: Pragmatische Dimensionen mittelalterlicher Schriftkultur, hrsg. von C. Meier/V. Honemann/H. Keller/R. Suntrup, MMAS 79, Miinchen 2002, 76. Scheibelreiter, Der Bischof (s. Anm. 21), 267. Vgl. H. Keller, Der Konig bat und befahl, in: Fur Konigtum und Himmelreich. 1000 Jahre Bischof Meinwerk von Paderborn, hrsg. von C. Stiegemann und M. Kroker. Regensburg2009,40f. Entgegen S. Jaeger, The Courtier Bishop in Vitae from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, in: Speculum 58/2, Cambridge 1983, 295-300; vgl. E. Elm, Die Macht der Weisheit(s.Anm.63),234.

328

Daniel Alt „Geschaute oder imaginierte Bilder sind etwas anderes als die Wirklichkeit selbst, und erst diese Ebene der Wahrnehmung und Deutung bildet den nachvollziehbaren Ausgangspunkt eines literarischen Konstrukts, dessen Entstehen letztlich ak schopferischer Formalisierungsprozefi eben dieser Wahrnehmungen und Deutungen aufgefafit werden mufi."«

Besonders interessant diirfte die Frage nach dem Konigsverstandnis sein: Bis auf den Autoren der Vita Gaugerici berichtet kein Autor von koniglicher Einflussnahme bei der Bischofserhebung eines Heiligen. Der „konigliche EinfluE auf die Bischofswahlen" lasst sich also gerade nicht „durch die Idee der Inspiration klaren."^ Offenbar gesteht man selbst dem Konig zum damaligen Zeitpunkt nicht den entsprechenden Stellenwert zu, bei der Wahl eines Heiligen zum Bischof beteiligt gewesen zu sein. Die Grunde dafur konnen freilich in einer prinzipiellen Antipathie gegen das K6nigshaus zu suchen sein, allerdings musste man in den jeweiligen Viten deutlichere Aussagen auf das Verhaltnis Heiliger - Konigshaus finden konnen. Handelt es sich bei etwaigen Missstimmungen zwischen dem Heiligen und dem Herrscher urn ein grundlegendes Phanomen, oder urn einen speziellen Einzelfall, der erst durch das Abweichen von der Norm als solcher wahrgenommen wird und letztlich - ob mit oder ohne Erfolg auf einen normativen Harmoniezustand zwischen Heiligem und Herrscher verweist und eben erst dadurch als a-normativ verstanden werden kann/ 6 Die Problemlage verweist dabei auf zwei weitere Aspekte: Zum einen geht es urn die Frage, ab wann die Autoren von Heiligenviten uber konigliche Einflussnahme auf die Bischofswahl berichten. Zum anderen ware der Zeitraum zu klaren, in dem schliefflich auch der weltliche Herrscher in den Kreis der Heiligen aufgenommen werden konnte/ 7 Ein Blick in weitere Bischofsviten des ausgehenden 7. und beginnenden 8. Jahrhun-

74

75 76 77

L. Hageneier, jenseits der Topik (s. Anm. 2), 41; H.-W. Goetz, Die Wahrnehmung von „Staat" und „Herrschaft" im friihen Mittelalter, in: Staat im friihen Mittelalter, hrsg. von S. Airlie/W. Pohl/H. Reimitz, FGMA 11, Wien 2006, 42ff, K. Schreiner, Litterae mysticae, in: Pragmatische Dimensionen mittelalterlicher Schriftkultur, hrsg. von Ch. Meier/V. Honemann/H. Keller/R. Suntrup, MMAS 79, Miinchen 2002, 336£; von Padberg, Heilige und Familie (s. Anm. 4), 13. D. Claude, Die Bestellung der Bischofe, ZRG 80, Kan. Abt.49, Weimar 1963, 68. Vgl. M. Becher, Merowinger und Karolinger, Darmstadt 2009, 22. Vgl. R. Kaiser, Der Burgunderkonig Sigismund, in: Papste, Pilger, Ponitentiarie, hrsg. von A. Meyer/C. Rendtel/M. Wittmer-Busch (=FS fur L. Schmugge) Tubingen 2004, 199-210; R. Folz, Zur Frage der heiligen Konige, in: DA 14, Koln/Weimar/Wien 1958, 317-344; F.-R. Erkens, Sakral legitimierte Herrschaft im Wechsel der Zeiten und Raume, in: Die Sakralitat von Herrschaft, hrsg. von F.-R. Erkens, Berlin 2002, 12ff, E. Ewig, Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich, Stuttgart/Berlin/Koln *2001, 138-142; A. Vauchez, Art. Heiligkeit, in: LexMA 4, Stuttgart 2000, 201f; weiterfiihrend Graus, Volk, Herrscher und Heiliger (s. Anm. 4), Kap. V. Die Stellung zum K6nigundzur„weltlkhenGewalt".


329

derts zeigt, dass die Vorbehalte der Autoren gegenuber der weltlichen Macht - soweit Uberhaupt als solche zu bezeichnen - allmahlich verschwinden und letztlich sogar soweit fiihren, dass ein Heiliger allein durch konigliche Initiative zum Bischof ,gewahlt' werden konnte/ 8 Die Zweitfassung der Vita Arnulfi aus dem ausgehenden 9. bzw. beginnenden 10. Jahrhundert berichtet jedenfalls vorbehaltlos vom consensus Konig Chlothars zur Wahl der fiihrenden Manner aus Klerus und Volk/ 9 Die Vita II Leudegarii, die wohl spatestens bis 696 von Ursinus von Liguge abgefasst worden war,80 berichtet von der Bischofserhebung des heiligen Leodegar von Autun, die ausschliefflich durch proclamatio des Herrscherpaares und unter Zustimmung der frankischen GroEen erfolgt war. Gleichwohl folgt auf die Proklamation die entsprechende Wahl "aller".81 Bei Bonitus von Avernum, dem kurz nach 711 eine Lebensbeschreibung gewidmet worden war,82 erfahrt man gar nichts uber eine Beteiligung von Klerus und Volk. Da das Herz des Konigs in der Hand Gottes war, konnte seine Bischofserhebung auf Initiative seines Bruders und Vorgangers Avitus, sowie auf koniglichen Befehl erfolgen.83 Dies durfte deutlich machen, in welchem Zeitraum sich ein Gesinnungswandel ansetzen lieEe.84 Das Phanomen der koniglichen Einfluss78

Vgl. R. Schieffer, Bischofserhebungen im westfrankisch-franzosischen Bereich im spaten 9. und im 10. Jahrhundert, in: Die friih- und hochmittelalterliche Bischofserhebung im europaischen Vergleich, hrsg. von F.-R. Erkens, BAKG 48, Koln/Weimar/Wien 1998. 79 Vgl. Vita II Arnulfi 11 (AASS Iul.IV, 443): Pofoh episcopo Metensi vicesimo octavo, a primo Clementebeatopontifice, viu subtracto, eadem plebs Mediomatrica pastore viduata, utsibipontifex dignus a Deo daretur, prece continua precabatur. Divinitus itaque primoribus den acpopuli aspiratur, ut pmdictus venerandus vir eligeretur Arnulphus; qui tandem renitens, consentiente rege Cbthario, in episcopum Metensem assumptus est. Zur Datierung Patzold, Episcopus, Mittelalter-Forschungen 25, Ostfildern 2008, 473, Anm. 35. 80 Vgl. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil (s. Anm. 2), 67 und 69. 81 Vgl. Vita II Leudegarii 3 (MGH SS rer. Merov. 5, 326 Krusch): Qui statim iussa conplens, magnis rebus ditatum et sapientiae floribus adornatum, obtemperans eorum voluntati, nisus est destinare virum. Quern rex adque regina videntes honorifice susciperunt, et infra paucis diebus dulcia sua verba et bonitatem ostendit in tantum, ut rex simulque et regina, pleriquepontificis acproceris supra omnes in amore susceperunt. Et quia eumvidebant dignum suscipiendum honorem, cunctorum consensum praecipes Francorum ad honorem pontificalem eum esse idoneum prockmaverunt. Quem ad hoc omnes electum Agustiduno, que estAeduorum civitas decreveruntpontificem. 82 83 84

Vgl. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil (s. Anm. 2), 64. Vgl. Vita Boniti 4-5 (MGH SS rer. Merov. 6, 121f. Krusch). Entgegen S. Jaeger, The Courtier Bishop in Vitae from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, in: Spec. 58/2, Cambridge 1983, 306£; entgegen G. Kretschmar, Die Theologie des Heiligen in der friihen Kirche, in: Aspekte friihchristlicher Heiligenverehrung, hrsg. von F. von Lilienfeld u.a., OIKONOMIA 6, Erlangen 1977, 85, liegt im friihen Mittelalter keine feste Vorstellung von der Welt des Heiligen vor; vgl.

330

Daniel Alt

nahme auf die Bischofswahl des Heiligen vordergriindig auf die Normativ e des Faktischen zu schieben,85 greift aus Sicht der Heiligenvita zu kurz.86 Bei welcher Literaturform sonst diirfte man angesichts immenser topischer Abhangigkeiten eher auf das bewusste Verschweigen bzw. Vertuschen des koniglichen Einflusses hoffen, wenn die Autoren letzdich ein fundamentales Problem damit gehabt bitten, bzw. wenn der Konig nicks im Weltbild des Heiligen zu suchen gehabt hatte? Es bleibt damit zweifelhaft, ob „die Frage nach dem mittelalterlichen Konigsheil und erst recht das Problem des Adelsheils nick etwa nur und vielleick sogar nicht einmal in erster Linie durch eine sorgfaltige Quellenanalyse geklart"87 werden kann. Deutlich werden die Autoren jedenfalls bei der Frage, welchen Einfluss der Wille Gottes auf das Wahlverfaken genommen hat: Bei Gaugerich inspiriert er den Konig, bei Arnulf bestimmt Gott letzdich WahlundNachfolgeregelung. „Ganz unabhangig von dem Vorgang der Bischofserhebung bestimmte nach Meinung der Kirche, wie bereits erwahnt, grundsatzlich Gott selbst den Bischof als Nachfolger eines Apostels, indem er die Wahler, wer auch immer diese waren, inspirierte."88

Die Nachfolgeregelung der Vita Arnulfi belegt dies einmal mehr: Dabit enim vobis Deus pastorem, qui vos pascat in miseracione et misericordia." Und was passiert einem, wenn Gott sich urn die Nachfolge kummert? Es folgtaufden Heiligen ein Heiliger.

85 86 87

88 89

Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil (s. Anm. 2), 110; R. Le Jan, Die Sakralitat der Merowinger, in: Staat im friihen Mittelalter, hrsg. von S. Airlie/W. Pohl/H. Reimitz, FGMA 11, Wien 2006, 9 l £ ; R. McKitterick, Karl der Grofie, Darmstadt 2008, 75f£; M. de Jong, Ecclesia and the Early Medieval Polity, in: Staat im friihen Mittelalter, hrsg. von S. Airlie/W. Pohl/H. Reimitz, FGMA 11, Wien 2006, 13l£; K. Ganzer, Art. Bischofswahl, in: LThK 2, Freiburg i. Br. 2006, 504; weiterfuhrend L. Korntgen, Konigsherrschaft und Gottesgnadentum, Orbis medievalis 2, Berlin 2001. So etwa bei D. Claude, Die Bestellung der Bischofe (s. Anm. 75), 67. Vgl. F.-R. Erkens, Herrschersakralitat im Mittelalter, Stuttgart 2006, 108. W. Hechberger, Die Theorie vom Adelsheil im friiheren Mittelalter, 439f. Augenscheinlich folgt hier ein weiterer Forscher beziiglich der Wertschatzung von Heiligenviten der "benediktinischen" Linie. Lotter, Designation (s. Anm. 50), 121. VitaArnulfil8(440Krusch).

Bishop Pesynthios of Koptos (Egypt): "He did not pursue the honourf but it was the honour that pursued him" Renate Dekker Introduction The Egyptian bishop Pesynthios of Koptos (569-632) is one of the very few late antique saints known from hagiography as well as from documentary texts, including letters from his episcopal correspondence.1 Moreover, because of his reputation as a holy man and ideal bishop, his cult, originally centred in the Theban area (northwest of Luxor), spread to major monasteries throughout Egypt, as the distribution of literary texts2 and representations in monastic churches would suggest.3 It even reached abroad, into the Christian Nubian kingdom of Nobadia (directly south of Aswan, existing as an independent state from the fifth to the eighth centuries),4 _ _ _ _ 1

H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes 1, New York 1926, 221-231; G. Gabra, Untersuchungen zu den Texten fiber Pesyntheus, Bischof von Koptos (569-632), dissertation, Bonn 1984, 5-10; C.D.G. Miiller/G. Gabra, Art. Pisentius, Saint, CE 6, New York 1991, 1978-1980; J.-L. Fournet, Coptos dans lAntiquite tardive (fin Ile-VIIe apr. J.-C.), in: Coptos. L'Egypte antique aux portes du desert, exposition catalogue, Lyon 2000, 210-215; J. van der Vliet, Pisenthios de Coptos (569-632), moine, eveque et saint. Autour d'une nouvelle edition de ses archives, in: Topoi, ed. by M.-F. Boussac, Suppl. 3, Lyon 2002, 61-72.

2

On the provenance of the manuscripts containing his "Encomium" or "Life" (Cairo, Wadi al-Natrun, Edfu), cf. G. Gabra, Texten fiber Pesyntheus (see note 1), 5-9. For the encaustic painting in the Church of the Virgin at Dayr al-Surian, Wadi alNatrun (ca. 800 AD), see K.C. Innemee/L. van Rompay, Deir al-Surian (Egypt): New Discoveries of 2001-2002, Hugoye 5/2, 2002, [ 3-4]. Pesynthios is also depicted in the Church of Saint Antony in the Monastery of Saint Antony; cf. P. van Moorsel, Les peintures du Monastere de Saint-Antoine pres de la Mer Rouge, Cairo 19951997, Vol. 1,150-151, Vol. 2, pi. 87-88. On two pottery lamps with an invocation of Pesynthios from Faras, the capital of Nobadia, see G. Gabra, Zu den Pesyntheus-Lampen aus Faras, JbAC 32, 1989, 178180. Drs. J.L. Hagen of Leiden University, who is writing his dissertation on the Cop-

3

4

332

Renate Dekker

and Ethiopia.5 Up to the present day Bishop Pesynthios is commemorated as a saint by the Coptic Orthodox, or anti-Chalcedonian, Church in Egypt on 13 Abib, which corresponds to 7 July.6 The life of Bishop Pesynthios is described in a text that was originally composed in Coptic as an "Encomium", or speech of praise, but was eventually renamed a "bios", or "life", and is commonly referred to as such by scholars.7 The text presents Pesynthios as an extremely humble monk, who would never have aspired to any office, but nevertheless became a bishop. The author of the "Encomium" took great efforts to explain this paradox by adopting literary strategies that contributed to the creation of the image of Pesynthios as the ideal bishop.

Who Was Pesynthios of Koptos? According to the "Encomium", Pesynthios was a monk of the monastery of Tsenti, which used to be located in the area of the modern town of Naqqada, on the west bank of the Nile, about 12 kilometres northwest of Luxor. There he is said to have lived alone in a cave.Un 599, 9 he was ordained bishop of the town of Koptos (in Coptic: K.BT, Keft; in Arabic:

tic (and other) texts from Qasr Ibrim, the administrative centre of Nobadia, drew my attention to fragments of a sermon on papyrus that mentions the "Encomium" on Bishop Pesynthios; cf. manuscript T ' in R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios of Coptos. The recently discovered Sahidic version from Sheikh Abd al-Qurna, in: Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt 2: Nag Hammadi - Esna, ed. by G. Gabra/H.N. Takla, Cairo 2010, 22, 29. For an introduction to the Nubian kingdoms, see D.A. Welsby, The Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia. Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile, London 2002. 5

6 7

8

9

The notice on Bishop Pesynthios in the Ethiopic liturgical calendar (Synaxarium) is copied from the Copto-Arabic one; cf. E.A.W. Budge, The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church, Hildesheim/New York 1976, first edition: 1926, Vol. 4, 11111112. For the notice on Bishop Pesynthios in the present liturgical calendar of the Coptic Orthodox Church, see the website: www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/ll_13.html. On the revision of the title, see R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 22, 24; cf. idem, The Sahidic Encomium of Pesunthios, Bishop of Keft: Towards a New Understanding, based on a Recently Discovered Manuscript, MPhil-thesis, Leiden University 2008, 43-50 (unpublished). E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, London 1913, 77, (text), 260 (translation), fols. 22a-b; cf. H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 226. On Naqqada, see S. Timm, Das christlich-koptische Agypten in arabischer Zeit, Vol. 4, Wiesbaden 1988, 1727-1734. G. Gabra, Texten fiber Pesyntheus (see note 1), 306.

Bishop Pesynthios of Koptos (Egypt)

333

Qift), which is located on the east bank of the Nile. Nevertheless, Pesynthios continued to live on the west bank and presumably established his residence at the monastery of Tsenti.10 It has been assumed that he preferred the monastic landscape on the west bank to the town because of his ascetic lifestyle, but recently Ewa Wipszycka suggested that this might be due to the double church hierarchy in Egypt: while an unknown proChalcedonian bishop acted in the town, (some of) the villages and the monasteries may have fallen under the jurisdiction of the antiChalcedonian bishop.11 When the Persians invaded Egypt in 619 and were about to take the town of Koptos, Pesynthios fled to the mountains of Western Thebes in the neighbouring diocese, and dwelled there for ten years together with his assistant and disciple John. 12 His residence in that area is confirmed by the fact that several letters addressed to bishop Pesynthios were found at the Monastery of Epiphanius in Western Thebes, on the eastern slope of the hill called Sheikh Abd al-Qurna. 13 The "Encomium" suggests that the exile had a positive effect on Pesynthios, since it gave him the opportunity to temporarily live as an ascetic again.14 Eventually, the bishop seems to have returned to the monastery of Tsenti and to have died there in 632, on 13 Abib (7 July).15 In many publications the bishop is called Pisentios (var. Pisentius), because of the spelling TTICeNTIOC (var. TTIceNTl) in the Bohairic version of the "Encomium". 16 However, in the older Sahidic version and in the 10

H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 227; G. Gabra, Texten fiber Pesyntheus (see note 1), 317-319; E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautes monastiques en Egypte (IVe-VIIIe siecles), JJP Supplement 11, Warsaw 2009, 31. 11 E. Wipszycka, The Institutional Church, in: Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300-700, ed. by R.S. Bagnall, Cambridge 2007, 344-345. 12 E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 96-97, 288-289, fols. 46a-b (Sahidic version); cf. H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 227, n. 12. 13 H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 223-225, 227, PL 1; E.R. O'Connell, Transforming Monumental Landscapes in Late Antique Egypt. Monastic Dwellings in Legal Documents from Western Thebes, JCES 15, 2007: 250-254. 14 In the Sahidic version, John declares that, when Pesynthios had prayed in the desert for a while, "he returned to me, his eyes being full of light like the stars of the sky, and he was completely glad like someone who has returned from a drinking place" (transl. by R. Dekker); see E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 98, 290, fol. 48a. 15 E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 122-126, 317-321, fols. 78a-82a; cf. W.E. Crum, review of E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, Z D M G 68, 1914, 179; H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 227-228. For the notice on Bishop Pesynthios in the Copto-Arabic Synaxarium, see R. Basset, Le synaxaire arabe Jacobite (redaction copte) 2, PO 17/3, No. 84, Brepols 1994, first edition: 1924, 649-651. 16 Cf. E.C. Amelineau, Etude sur le christianisme (see note 17), 73-163, esp. 74, n. 1.

334

Renate Dekker

(Sahidic) documents from the bishop's archive,17 his name is spelled TTeCYNeiOC (var. TTeCYNTe), which I render as "Pesynthios".18

The Encomium on Pesynthios The "Encomium" on Pesynthios has come down to us in Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, and in Arabic.19 Since the "Encomium" was originally written in Sahidic, I will limit myself to the version written in this dialect. The text is preserved in four manuscripts, including a complete but late copy in a paper manuscript dated AD 1005, which was published by E.A.W. Budge in 1913. 20 It was copied in a monastery at Esna and donated to a monastery near Edfu, in the southernmost part of Egypt.21 In order to facilitate reference to this particular manuscript, I will call it "S". In February 2005, a Polish mission directed by Tomasz Gorecki (Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University) found another manuscript containing the "Encomium" in the west part of Sheikh Abd al-Qurna,22 the very area where Bishop Pesynthios used to live 17

For the editio princeps of the documents in the Louvre, see E. Revillout, Textes coptes extraits de la correspondance de St Pesunthius, eveque de Coptos, RE 9, 1900, 133177 and RE 10, 1902, 31-47. A workgroup directed by Jacques van der Vliet (Leiden University) is working on the re-edition of Bishop Pesynthios' archives in collaboration with Florence Calament (Musee du Louvre); cf. J. van der Vliet, Pisenthios de Coptos (see note 1); R. Dekker, Reconstructing and Re-editing the Archive of Bishop Pesynthios of Koptos/Keft (7th century), in: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium, Leiden University 2010, ed. by M. Horn/J. Kramer/D. Soliman/N. Staring/C. van den Hoven/L. Weiss, Oxford 2011, 33-41.

18 19

Cf. H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 225. Sahidic: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 75-127 (text), 258-321 (translation); Bohairic: E.C. Amelineau, Etude sur le christianisme en Egypte au septieme siecle, Paris 1889; Arabic: G. De Lacy O'Leary, The Arabic Life of S. Pisentius, According to the Text of the Two Manuscripts Paris Bib. Nat. Arabe 4785 and Arabe 4795, PO 22/3, No. 109, Paris 1930. On the relations among the Coptic and Arabic versions and their compositional differences, see R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 22, 24-29; idem, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 12-22. E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 75-127, 258-321; cf. R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 21-24 (Q, L, S, W). E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), introduction, 126-127, Pis 54-55; A. van Lantschoot, Recueil des colophons des manuscrits chretiens d'Egypte 1/1, Leuven 1929, no. 120; cf. B. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library acquired since the Year 1906, Londen 1987, no. 160. T. Gorecki, Manuskrypty z Qurna, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Pismo Uczelni, no. 2 (23), 2005, 16-17; idem, Sheikh Abd el-Gurna (Hermitage in Tomb 1152). Preliminary Report, 2005, PAM 17, 2007, 263-272; idem, Sheikh Abd el-Gurna, in: Seventy

20 21

22


335

during the Persian occupation. It was found, together with two other manuscripts, in front of an ancient tomb that had been inhabited by anchorites in Late Antiquity. In 2007, the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology entrusted me with the preparation of the critical edition of this manuscript, to which I have assigned the siglum "Q". 23 I also intend to present a new edition of version "S" alongside "Q", in order to make the differences between them visible in one glance. Because of the archaeological context "Q" has provisionally been dated to the end of the seventh or eighth century,24 but its script is similar to that of manuscripts that date to the sixth or seventh century. Since the "Encomium" commemorates Bishop Pesynthios' death, the original text must have been written after that event (AD 632), while "Q" is slightly more recent, and probably dates to the late seventh century.25 It is a copy, and not the original text, for the copyist accidentally omitted a part that does occur in "S" (see below), and was apparently transmitted in another copy. Nevertheless, "Q" is a very early version of the "Encomium" and must have been close to the original text.26

About the Sahidic Version of the "Encomium" Until recently, the "Encomium" was commonly known as the "Life (bios) of Pesynthios", as it is called in "S". 27 The title of "Q", however, begins with "Some words of an encomium ..." ([ 2 e]NKO Y l NCpê

23

24 25

26 27

Years of Polish Archaeology in Egypt, ed. by T. Gorecki, Warsaw 2007, 183-190, cat. no. 77; cf. E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautes (see note 10), 32, 190-196. For the location, see H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), PI. 1, No. 7. I am much indebted to Prof.dr. Ewa Wipszycka (Warsaw University) and Prof.dr. Jacques van der Vliet for their intercession and trust. Presently, the first half of this manuscript is available for study; cf. R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 23; idem, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7). T. Gorecki, Seventy Years (see note 22), 186, cat. no. 77. R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 23; idem, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 7. My remarks on the script and on the composition date of the "Encomium" have caused confusion; cf. E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautes (see note 10), 32: "... le texte fut redige au tournant du Vie et du Vile siecle". R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 23; idem, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 7. E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 75, fol. 20a.

336

Renate Dekker

_ NerKCD[MION...), and clearly states that it was not intended as a "life".28 Various elements in the main text also confirm that it was composed as an encomium, which implies that the title preserved in "Q" is closest to the original one. The main text of "Q" is almost identical to that of "S". 29 The "Encomium" was composed for the commemoration of Bishop Pesynthios, and was intended to be read aloud on his feast day (13 Abib). Originally this probably took place in a church in Koptos,30 According to the title of "Q", it was based on a speech delivered by Bishop Moses of Koptos, "after his (i.e. Pesynthios') disciple John, who is called Matoi, had come to agree with him about his "Encomium"". 31 Bishop Moses was probably Pesynthios' direct successor and is likely to be the priest Moses who features at the end of the "Encomium" as the one to whom the bishop entrusted his papers at his death bed,32 In the text, however, his role is very limited, and he does not occur as a narrator, while John appears as the main narrator, and is also an actor as well as a witness,33 Because of his prominent role it would be tempting to think that John, instead of Bishop Moses, was responsible for the text of the speech. On the other hand, the text as it has come down to us could have been composed by an anonymous editor, who attributed his work to those who had known Pesynthios in order to authenticate it,34 The aim of the author, if not his identity, was clear: he wished to convince his audience that Bishop Pesynthios was truly a saint and that he deserves to be commemorated. His argument is buttressed, for example, by statements that Pesynthios was clairvoyant and that he had communi-

28

29 30

31 32 33 34

Q, fol. 1. For a provisional transcription, see W. Myszor, Appendix. Enkomion of St. Pisenthios from Sheikh Abd el-Gurna, PAM 17, 2007, 273-274; cf. R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 24; idem, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 43. R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 24; idem, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 24-40, 46-47. The old version (Q, fol. 21) reads: "your Christ-loving town of Keft", which suggests that the "Encomium" was directed to the (anti-Chalcedonian) citizens of Coptos; cf E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 82, fol. 28b. Q, fol. 1; cf. W. Myszor, Appendix (see note 31), 273-274; R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 24; idem, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 43. E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 123, 318, fol. 78b; cf. H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 228-229. G. Gabra, Texten fiber Pesyntheus (see note 1), 267, 341 n. 4; R. Dekker, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 53. R. Dekker, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 51-55.


337

cated with God since his youth. Such statements are illustrated with anecdotes and clarified by means of Biblical references.35 In the "Encomium" Pesynthios is described as a holy man whose prayers were very powerful, and as an extremely shy hermit who anxiously hid his strict way of life in order to avoid the empty praise of men, fearing that their praise would deprive him of God's approval.36 No mention is made of any clerical orders prior to his ordination; one rather gets the impression that he had not even been ordained priest,37 Ironically, Pesynthios was elected as the new bishop of Koptos, a worldly office that would bring him social status and require his active involvement in the community, and, what is more, he accepted it. How is this explained?

Three Accounts of Pesynthios' Ordination The "Encomium" does not inform us how Pesynthios was elected. It simply states that "God had called him to the consecration to the priesthood, of which he was worthy",38 However, three accounts describe how Pesynthios behaved after being elected:

Account by the Author According to the author, Pesynthios fled and hid himself from the clergy of Koptos, because "he loved the stillness" (of the desert),39 In other words, he did not wish to give up his ascetic way of life. The clergymen searched for him and found him hidden in the districts of Jeme, that is, in Western Thebes. Then, "Q" reads: NTepoY6onq A e ^.qcucy C B O A eqT^YO Mncy.a.:xe MTTNO6 e n e g o y o i'a>2-a.NNHC n ^ p x i e n i c i c o n o c N K C U C T ^ N T I N O Y H O A I C :xe cO nec6p.a.2T ux\ e-f-Me MMoq NCCKCD MMO'I' XN NgHTqA o i n o N .a.YeiNe MMoq NToq n n e T o y i i B xux n e c y N e i o c a.Y©Mcoq

35

36 37 38 39

R. Dekker, Encomium on Pesynthios (see note 4), 25. In the Bohairic and Arabic versions the argumentative structure has been omitted or reduced, so that the focus was shifted to the miraculous narratives. On the creation of Bishop Pesynthios' image, cf. R. Dekker, Sahidic Encomium (see note 7), 69-80. H.E. Winlock/W.E. Crum, Epiphanius (see note 1), 226. Q, fol. 52; S: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 91, 280, fols. 39b-40a. Q, fol. 52; S: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 91, 280, fol. 40a.

338

Renate Dekker

_

e:xM n e e p o N o c NTeniciconH eNT^qncuT A e XN Nca. n T ^ e i d n T ^ e i d neNT^qncuT Nccuq •

iXAi

When they had seized him, he cried out uttering the speech of the very great John, the Archbishop of Constantinople: "O stillness that I love and in which they will not leave me! Eventually, they brought him, the holy man Father Pesynthios, and made him sit on the throne of the episcopacy. He did not pursue the honour, but it was the honour that pursued him" .*>

Account by the Clergy of Koptos According to "S", which presents a more complete account than "Q", the clergymen of Koptos declared that, when Pesynthios had been made to sit on the episcopal throne, he said: NC.2I.BHA : x e NNeip ^ T C C U T M Nca. neTTNNOOY MMOI 4 1 e n i i

eTeTNcy^Nqi

N T X a X i e 2 ' 3 0 U " H N T e T N N O : X T ee.a.AA.a.C.21. NTIN^CCUTM XN NC.21.THYTN

N T ^ K C U NCCUI Finec6p.2i.2T r m eTepe nNOYTe Me MMoq fl Pine T C T N C C U T M NTCUTN eneTCHg 2 ^ Ne'l'iA.MOc :xe cpqe NTeTNeiMe :xe ^.NOK. n e nNOYTe

Were it not that I would be disobedient to Him who sends me to this, even if you behead me or throw me into the sea, I would not listen to you and leave behind the stillness, which God loves! Or did you not hear what is written in the Psalms: "Be still and know that I am God"?" (LXX, Psalms 46:10). 42

Judging from this account Pesynthios no longer refused ordination in order to avoid disobeying "Him who sends me to this". Under any other condition he would not accept the episcopal office, since it would hinder him from focussing on God whose presence is best experienced in stillness. By quoting the Psalm, Pesynthios indicated that he actually intended to obey God's command to "be still". Now that he finally accepted the office in obedience to "Him who sends me to this", in spite of the Psalm, the clergymen were puzzled: "Who is it who commands him? Is it not a man?"43 They decided to in40

41 42

43

Q, fol. 52-53; compare S: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 91-92, 280, fols. 39b-40a. John Chrysostom (ca. 347-407) is commemorated by the Copts on 13 November, cf. T. Orlandi, Art. John Chrysostom, CE 5, New York 1991, 13571359. The written source that is cited by Pesynthios is unknown to me. Q, fol. 53: TieTOYe2 c a . 2 N e Nî', "He who commands me (to accept)". S: text and transl. by R. Dekker; cf. E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 92, 280-281, fol. 40b. In Q (fol. 53), the account ends after "I would not listen to you" and continues with "We beseech your holiness ...", which correspond to S: fol. 41a. The copyist of "Q" accidentally omitted the part in between. S: text and transl. by R. Dekker; cf. E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 92, 281, fol. 40b.


339

form Father Kollouthos, a senior holy man at the Monastery of Tsenti, about what Pesynthios had said, and to ask for his intervention, thinking: "He (Pesynthios) will reveal the matter to him (Kollouthos)"44 They said: p e n e i w t @nt er@nJi @mpeneiwt a p a p e s u n q i o s J e @nnaxeirodonei @mmoF @nepiskopos @mpeFouwS e k a t e x e eeire @ntlutourgia @ntautanHout@F e r o s e i s o u m h h S e @nHoou e n T o u o i @nswF Sant@nH e e r o F H@n @mmeros @ntJhme45 @nterouamaHte 46 d e @mmoF a F o u w S e p a r a i t e i · @nteFtacis m@n@nsws p e J a F J e @nsabhl J e @nnei@r atswt@m @nsa pett@nnoou @ m moi e p e i k a n etet@nSanFi @ntaape HiJwi @nTnaswt@m a n @nswt@n P t @ n p a r a k a l e i Ge @nt@km!ntpetouaab s u n t e x e I !nmmaF @nouHoou !ngJnouF o u t w k o u t w F J e nim p e n taFt@nnoouk @mmon o u S p h r e p e p e i H w b Our father, when we had taken our father Apa Pesynthios, in order that we would consecrate him bishop, he did not wish to bind himself (or) to perform the service that he was entrusted with. Behold, for many days we went about seeking him, until we found him in the districts of Jeme. When we had seized him, he wished to refuse his office. Then he said: "Were it not that I would be disobedient to Him who sends me, even if you behead me, I would not listen to you!" Therefore, we beseech your holiness: concern yourself with him one day and ask him between you and him: "Who is it who has sent you? Verily, the matter is a wonder.^

Pesynthios'Account to Kollouthos When Kollouthos asked Pesynthios about the matter, the latter replied: Haqh @mpate n e k l h r i k o s ei eHoun S a t a m ! n t e l a x i s t o s aIHwr@p @nouShm · a u w ausmh S w p e S a r o I S a S o m ! n t @nsop J e p e s u n q i o s p e s u n q i o s p e s u n q i o s e i s t@tacis @ntekklhsia a u ei @nswk @mp@rparaitei @nttacis e@ntautanHout@k e r o s Hit@n p a n J w J n a p o s t o l o s a l l a

t w o u n n@gouaH@k @n s w o u @mp@rka t e k k l h s i a e s o @nxhra

n a I @nterisotmou a n e k l h r i k o s m o u t e eHoun e r o I aIei ebol aIouaH@t @nsw o u a I k w @mpar o o u S th?r@F Hi i ( h s o u ) s e b o l J e m@n l a a u @n?Hwb n a S w p e p a r a p o u e H saHne @mpJoeis Before the clergymen came inside towards my insignificance, I dozed a little, and a voice came to me up to three times: "Pesynthios, Pesynthios, Pesynthios! Behold the office of the church! They will come after you. Do not refuse the office with which you are entrusted by the apostolic head, but rise and follow them. Do not leave the 44 45 46 47

S: text and transl. by R. Dekker; cf. E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 92,281,fol.40b. Ms.Jeme. Ms.@nte!rF-. S: text and transl. by R. Dekker; cf. E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 92-93, 281, fol. 41a.

340

Renate Dekker church a widow". After I had heard these things, the clergymen called me. I went outside and followed them. I set all my care on Jesus, for not a thing should happen against the command of the Lord. 48

To Kollouthos, a venerable senior hermit, Pesynthios declared that a divine voice called him three times when he was in hiding in Western Thebes. From the words he could gather that Christ was speaking to him, announcing the coming of the clergymen of Koptos and summoning him to accept the episcopal office. Not wanting to disobey Jesus, Pesynthios went with the clergymen to Alexandria, where the Archbishop Damian (569-605) ordained him bishop of Koptos.49

The Author's Strategies to Clarify why Pesynthios Became a Bishop All three accounts confirm the idea that Pesynthios did not aspire to become a bishop, but they differ considerably with regard to his attitude at the moment when the clergymen found him. According to the first account Pesynthios was sad to leave the stillness of the desert, while the clergymen declared that he accepted his ordination reluctantly, or even moodily, but Pesynthios' own account suggests that he reacted positively to his vocation, without protest. From a literary point of view, all three reactions, however contradictory they may seem, are present in the text, and together they support the statement that the author wished to demonstrate: Pesynthios only accepted to be ordained bishop because it was Jesus who summoned him to do so. The author adopted three strategies in order to support this argument. Firstly: he placed a great emphasis on Pesynthios' reluctance to give up his way of life. According to the first account, he lamented over leaving behind the stillness of the desert, following the example of the illustrious John Chrysostom. The second account even suggests that Pesynthios would rather suffer martyrdom by beheading or drowning than leave the stillness, if it was at the request of men only.

48 49

Q, fol. 54; compare S: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 93, 281-282, fol. 41b-42a. Q, fols. 22; S: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 82, 268, fol. 28b and 106, 298-299, fol. 57a-b. On the Archbishop Damian, see B. Evens, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria 2, PO 1/4, Paris 1948, 473-478; cf E.R. Hardy, Art., Damian, CE 3, New York 1991, 688-689.


341

Secondly: the author placed an emphasis on God's involvement in the ordination. According to the "Encomium", God had called Pesynthios to become bishop and only He could persuade him to accept the office. When reading between the lines one gets the impression that Jesus also guided the clergymen to Pesynthios' hiding place. The author does not mention the circumstances of the election or other candidates, but takes for granted that there was only one person capable for the job: the ascetic Pesynthios. Thirdly: Pesynthios' vocation is presented as a concrete event, and not just as symbolic imagery: according to the third account, God literally called him and summoned him to accept the episcopal office. Pesynthios had to reveal his vocation in order to clarify why he finally accepted to be ordained, but if he had informed the clergymen about it himself the calling might have been considered as an excuse to hide personal ambition. Therefore, Father Kollouthos, another holy man from the region, was involved as a reliable witness to Pesynthios' declaration.

Pesynthios, the Ideal Bishop To the author of the "Encomium" the circumstances of the election process did not matter, only the outcome: Pesynthios was elected and proved to be an ideal bishop. He is described as a very generous patron, a good shepherd, and an excellent but strict preacher.'0 It is even stated that his appearance changed, so that nobody dared to look into his face.51 However, what made him worthy of being a bishop in the first place is visualized by his flight as well as by the persistence of the clergymen of Koptos to find him and offer him the office: the idea that Pesynthios "did not pursue the honour, but that it was the honour that pursued him".

50

51

Q, fols. 45-50 (eulogy), 55-56 (on Pesynthios as a bishop), 56-66 (on the contents of a pastoral letter); compare S: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 89-91, 276-278, fols. 36b-39a (eulogy), 93-96, 283-287, fols. 42a-45b (the pastoral letter), 99-105, 291-298, 49b-56b (eulogy). Q, fols. 55-56: "... after God had given grace to his face as in the case of Joseph, while no-one would dare to look into his face without fearing, because of the fear of God that was always on his face, as in the case of an angel of God", with a reference to Genesis 45:3. Compare S: E.A.W. Budge, Coptic Apocrypha (see note 8), 93, 283, fols. 42a-b.

An Extraordinary Bishop: Eusebius of Caesarea 7n Cappadocia' Federico Fatti When Constantine converted to Christianity, the history of the new faith changed forever. The Church was officially recognised by the State, and legal, fiscal and juridical privileges increased the influence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in late antique society.1 People who, in the past, had been attracted by other careers, to improve or to buttress their social condition, became more and more interested in this new ruling class, and were ready to resort to all means to scale the ladder of power. Violence was one of these means. Although scholars who deal with Late Antiquity have certainly come across men who did not hesitate to use force to become bishops, no specific, comprehensive study appears to have been conducted, exploring violence as a tool for reaching the episcopal throne. 2 Therefore, analysing *

1

2

I wish to thank the two anonymous referees who read my paper for their valuable comments and their constructive suggestions, which have considerably improved my original text. I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Geraldine Boyd for eliminating most of the conspicuous extravagances of my English. All remaining deficiencies and errors in both style and content are of course of my own. See R. Lizzi Testa, The Bishop Vir Venerabilis: Fiscal Privileges and Status Definition in Late Antiquity, in: Studia Patristica XXXIV. Papers presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1999, ed. by M. Wiles, E. Yarnold, P.M. Parvis, Oxford 2000, 125-144; R. Lizzi Testa, Privilegi economici e definizione di "status": il caso del vescovo tardoantico, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lined, Rendiconti. Classe di Scienze Morali Storiche e Filologiche 11/1, 2000, 55-103. Some examples of the use of force in episcopal elections: R. Gryson, Les elections episcopates en Orient au IV= siecle, RHE 74, 1979, 302-345; T.E. Gregory, Voxpopuli. Violence and Popular Involvement in the Religious Controversies of the Fifth Century A.D., Columbus 1979; C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 37, Berkeley 2005; P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007. Little or nothing is reported in: Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices, ed. by H.A. Drake, Aldershot 2006; Th. Sizgorich, Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity, Philadelphia 2009.

344

Federico Fatti

the individual example remains the best way to determine whether such men were driven only by self-interest and the desire for power, and to investigate the social relations underlying the use of force to achieve an episcopal seat.

A Disputed Election In July 362, the emperor Julian passed through Caesarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia, on his way from Constantinople to Antioch.' The city was in great tumult, due to the struggle for the throne of bishop Dianius, who had died some months previously after governing for more than twenty years.4 Unfortunately, we know much less than we would like to about this struggle. Gregory of Nazianzus, our only source,5 is extremely elusive. He says nothing, for instance, about who the candidates were and how many. 6 Nevertheless, he gives us the name of the winner - a man called Eusebius. He also provides some interesting clues about why Eusebius decided to throw himself into the fray and how he got the episcopal chair. As someone who wanted to become a metropolitan bishop, Eusebius was definitely at a disadvantage. He was not baptised, so he was not a member of Dianius' clergy/ Nor could he count on close friendships with the provincial bishops who were the election movers and shakers. We do not know the number and the identity of these men, but we do know that, after the election, all of them except one declared they had been obliged to vote for him. 8 The bishops were able to raise their voice in protest a few days after Eusebius' consecration, when Julian arrived in the city. In fact, not even the Apostate liked him. As soon as he heard that Eusebius had won the 3 4

5 6

7

See F. Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea. La politica ecclesiastica del principe apostata, Roma 2009, 51 with nn. 7-8; 68 with n. 77. Dianius had been bishop since 339, according to S. Metivier, La Cappadoce (IVe-VIe siecle). Une histoire provinciale de l'Empire romain d'Orient, Byzantina Sorbonensia 22, Paris 2005, 182 with nn. 71.73; 187 with n. 103; 198-199. See Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33-34 (PG 35, 1028, B 1-1032, A 4); and or. 43, 28-29 (SC 384, 188-192 Bernardi). According to Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, B 9-10), there was certainly more than one candidate, because "the people of the city were torn between quite a few (eis pAeious, i.e. candidates)". Cf. Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, B 15-16; C 3-4): oupco de xco" 6eico b a p p i o u a m KaTeopayiouevov ... TeAea8fjvai Te TîouV a i KripuX6Tivai.

8

See note 36 below.

An Extraordinary Bishop: Eusebius of Caesarea in Cappadocia

345

metropolitan throne, he ordered the provincial governor - himself an enemy of the newly appointed bishop9 - to summon a second synod that would replace him with another, more suitable candidate.10 When the Cappadocian bishops received the summons, they were only too happy to comply, and immediately denounced the irregularity of Eusebius' nomination. The people of Caesarea were not on the winner's side either. In 374, in his Or. 18 In praise of his father, Gregory of Nazianzus in fact said that Eusebius had been elected with the consent of "all the demos', who were, in his opinion, the fomentors of the violence he was later blamed for." But this statement had a two-fold aim: to present the election as regular, in so far as that was possible, and to excuse Gregory's father, Gregory the Elder.12 Interestingly, the aged bishop of Nazianzus had been the only elector to fully support Eusebius. He had even gone so far as refusing to attend the new synod, so opposing not only the governor of the province but also the emperor Julian himself.13 Therefore, when he had backed one of the Apostate's victims, Gregory the Elder had done nothing but prove his piety and firm stance against the renegade prince, just as the people of Caesarea had done - the real culprits being the hypocrite bishops who had disowned Eusebius. However, in Or. 43 In praise of Basil the Great, which was delivered eight years later, Gregory Nazianzen appears to have shifted his position. Here Eusebius is still being persecuted by Julian, but the townsfolk of Caesarea now agree with the bishops who had accused him of winning the episcopal seat by illicit means. In fact, "the city was looking upon him 9

"Because the governor was a member of the opposite political party in the city". So Gr.Naz.or.l8,34(PG35,1029,B8-ll). 10 See Gr. Naz. or. 18, 34 (PG 35, 1029, B 1-2.11-14). Hence, we can deduce a definite terminus ante quem for his election, which took place before July 362 - the terminus post quem being Dianius' death in the spring (see notes 3 and 4 above). 11 So Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, B 13-14): ou^povrioas o Sfpos arras. 12 The same aim was achieved by stating that Eusebius had been chosen as an invitus candidate, i.e. he was forced to accept his elevation, which meant that he was suitable for it: see Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, B 16; D 1): TouToV a o r a ouvaprraoavxes ... âoOevx,, with R. Lizzi, II potere episcopale nell'Oriente Romano. Rappresentazione ideologica e realta politica (IV-V sec. d.C.), Roma 1987, 33-55. On the other hand, the consent of all the people was a sign that the candidate was approved by God. In fact, Eusebius, despite his lack of qualifications for an ecclesiastical career (see note 7 above; and note 33 below), had led "a distinguished life", and was "the most noble, religious man of the time" (Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 [PG 35, 1028, B 14-15; C 5-7]). 13

Cf. Gr. Naz. or. 18, 34 (PG 35, 1029, B 13-C 11).

346

Federico Fatti

because of his enthronization, as someone who had gained his throne not much regularly and canonically as tyrannically";14 that is he had not been pressed to accept his appointment, he had extorted his nomination as much from the people as from the bishops. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. As we have seen, on the eve of the election, the citizens of Caesarea were undecided among many candidates.15 Therefore, part of the population probably did support Eusebius. After all, he was a curialis, a member of the Caesarea senate. In fact, he was something more. He was a principalis, a member of the leading group in the senate, since Gregory says he was TO,V ^ T C V par auTo,c eva, "one of their first citizens."16 There is no doubt that such a man certainly patronized clients and could count on their support. Moreover, he could count on the support of at least some of his peers and of their clients, as what happened in town after his consecration shows. Not many days after Eusebius had gained his seat, unknown vandals destroyed the local Tycheion, the temple of goddess Tyche. Of course, the vandalism was directed against the emperor who had abandoned the Christian faith and returned to paganism. But it was also in support of bishop Eusebius, because the Apostate had ordered his deposition. After an inquiry, some people found guilty were sentenced to death, while others were exiled. Among those executed was a certain priest of Eusebius' clergy, named Eupsychius, who was an eupaTr.'Snc a "noble" of Caesarea.17 Consequently, nobles like Eupischius - who was not the only one condemned for conspiring to destroy the Tycheion" - and their clients had probably supported the candidate for bishop at the time of the election.

14 15 16

17

18

Gr. Naz. or. 43, 28, 21-23 (SC 384, 190 Bernardi). See note 6 above. Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, B), with F. Fatti, Nei panni del vescovo. Gregorio, Basilio e il filosofo Eustazio, in: Le trasformazioni delle elites in eta tardoantica, Saggi di Storia Antica 28, a cura di R. Lizzi Testa, Roma 2006, 177-238, 208 with n. 89. The noun p r ^ x o s means principalis for instance in Libanius: see P. Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale a Antioche, Paris 1956, 83-90. On principal*, see recently I. Tantillo, Un principalis alessandrino a Leptis Magna. Aurelius Sempronius Serenus signo Dulcitius, in: Le trasformazioni delle elites (see note 16), 405-436. Priest: Areth. Caes. ep. Bust. Sid. (ed. by L.G. Westerink, Arethae archiepiscopi Caesariensis scripta minora, vol. 1, BSGRT, Leipzig 1968, 300,4): preoBuTeros. Nobleman: Soz. h.e. V 4, 1-5; 11, 7-8 (GCS, 196-197 and 209-210 Bidez/Hansen). A discussion of this and other sources referring to the incident, and its chronology, can be found in Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 100-103; 117-122; 143-144; 180182. Soz. h.e. V 11, 8 (GCS, 210 Bidez/Hansen) refers to "culprits" in the plural. See Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 123-124 with n. 97; 144 with note 178.


347

These, however, were not the majority in the city, as we shall see. Hence, it is worth asking why a man with few credentials, who knew he could easily be overwhelmed by more favourites rivals decided to run for the episcopacy, and why his supporters wanted to back him at all costs. The answer is not to take advantage of the privileges accorded to the Church, for instance to escape the munera curialia - the civic duties that weighed on town senators. In fact, in a law promulgated on March 13, 362 - before Eusebius was elected19 - , Julian had annulled all previous legislation concerning privileges granted to the Christian clergy, and all curiales had to return to their original curiae for tax purposes.20 An ecclesiastical career was suddenly profitless. Yet, as Eusebius wanted that seat at any cost, he must have had some good reason. As I've tried to show elsewhere, that reason seems to have been a desire to bar the way of the well-known Basil of Caesarea, who indeed became Eusebius' successor, and was himself, at that time, a priest of Caesarean clergy.21 Evidence in support of this hypothesis derives from the schism Basil promoted to depose the newly appointed bishop, which occurred at the same time as the synod Julian summoned and had the same aim.22 Basil was remarkably well supported by the townsfolk. Like Eupsychius and (possibly) Eusebius, he was "well-born", with clients, friendships and relationships in town.23 Furthermore, several of the bishops who gathered for the new election (including some from the West)24 were on his side, as was the emperor, who, in my view, wanted Basil on the episcopal chair.25 Basil could also count on another network of extremely influential people, because he was then the leader of the Eustathian monks in the 19 20

21 22 23

24 25

See note 10 above. Cf. CTh XII 1, 50 (ed. by Th. Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, Dublin/Zurich 1971, 675); see also Soz. h.e. V 5, 2 (GCS, 199 Bidez/Hansen), and perhaps Lib. or. 18, 148 (ed. by R. Foerster, Libanii opera, vol. 2, Orationes XII-XXV, Hildesheim 1963, 299,16-300,3), with E. Pack, Stadte und Steuern in der Politik Julians. Untersuchungen zu den Quellen eines Kaiserbildes, Collection Latomus 194, Bruxelles 1986, 348-350. Cf. Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 49-144. For details, Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 83-85. "Well-born": Gr. Naz. or. 43, 63, 31-32 (260 Bern.): o euyevrk xe m i xc3v eu yeyovoxcov. As for his friends and his relatives, it is worth remembering that Basil's mother Emmelia's estates were next to Caesarea (see Gr. Nyss. v. Macr. 5, 38-39 [SC 178, 158-160 Maraval]; Gr. Naz. or. 43, 3, 8-13 (122 Bern.). Accordingly, Basil had "many relatives and friends" in and around the city (Bas. ep. 37, 7-8 [ed. by Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Lettres, vol. 1, CUF, Paris 1957, 80]). See Gr. Naz. or. 43, 28, 23-25 (SC 384; 190 Bernardi), with Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 97, n. 186. See Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 85-98.

348

Federico Fatti

city.26 These monks, some of whom were wealthy noblemen,27 adhered to asceticism which had been brought to Anatolia by Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste in Lesser Armenia. They were not only deeply loyal to their spiritual guides, but, when circumstances required it, were able to attract the support of a "no little part of the people, of low and high social classes", as indeed occurred when the schism arose.28 The Eustathian monks scorned married priests, denying their ministry legal validity.29 They also disapproved of anyone who dared to approach the episcopate without having been baptised, and without knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.30 Many people in Caesarea approved of their stance, but someone did not. Even as late as the 370s, when Basil was bishop, some citizens were criticizing the "pious life" and looking with suspicion upon those who practised "the ascetic lifestyle."31 We can presume that among these, ten years earlier, were Eupsychius and Eusebius. In fact, Eupsychius had not left his wife upon consecration to the priesthood, and therefore probably did not like the monks and was not well-liked by them,32 The unbaptised Eusebius, who knews nothing of the Holy Scriptures, must have been another anathema,33

26

27 28 29

30 31 32

33

Cf. Gr. Naz. or. 43, 28, 8-14 (SC 384, 188-190 Bernardi), where Basil is said to have been "the head of the Nazirites", with Fatti, Nei panni del vescovo (see note 16), 213216 and nn. 102.107.110; F. Fatti, Monachesimo anatolico. Eustazio di Sebastia e Basilio di Cesarea, in: Monachesimo orientale. Unintroduzione, a cura di G. Filoramo, Brescia 2010, 69-70; 80. See Bas. en. 277, 8-10 (ed. by Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Lettres, vol. 3, CUF, Paris 1966, 149). So Gr. Naz. or. 43, 28, 13-17 (SC 384, 190 Bernardi), with Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 140-141; Fatti, Monachesimo anatolico (see note 26), 64-65. Cf. C. Gangr. en. synod. 88, 4-7 (ed by P.-P. Joannou, Discipline generale antique [IV=-IX= s.], vol. 1, Grottaferrata 1962): "They despise married priests and will not attend the liturgies they perform". See also C. Gangr. can. 4 (91, 1-7 Jo.); Socr. h.e. II 43, 5 (GCS. NF 1, 180 Hansen); Soz. h.e. Ill 14, 33 (GCS, 123 Bidez/Hansen). See Fatti, Monachesimo anatolico (see note 26), 60; 68; 70; 80. Bas. ep. 119, 28-35 (ed. by Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Lettres, vol. 2, CUF, Paris 1961,24-25). Cf. Areth. Caes. ep. Bust. Sid. (300,2-5 Westerink): "What should we say about marriage after being consecrated? Eupsychius, the martyr of Christ, was a priest who received the crown of martyrdom when he was a newly-married man". See also Soz. h.e.V 11, 8 (210 Bidez/Hansen). Baptism: see note 7 above. Holy Scriptures: Gr. Naz. or. 43, 31, 14-17; 33, 24-26 (SC 384, 194 and 198 Bernardi), referring to the time of Valens, with Fatti, Monachesimo anatolico (see note 26), 60; 68; 70; 80. Gregory the Elder, a staunch supporter of Eusebius, was not appreciated by the Eustathian monks either, because he was a married man who had been elected without knowing Scripures: see Gr. Naz. or. 18,


349

So, when Eusebius, the principalis, competed for the succession of Dianius, he was probably not driven by personal interest, but by concerns about ecclesiastical politics. He wanted to prevent the episcopal chair from being occupied by a rival who, as a follower of Eustathius, despised his values and who would have caused serious problems to him and to the people who shared his views.

Armed Forces at Caesarea Since Eusebius had to have known that it was not easy to get the better of a man like Basil, he resorted to force. He convinced everybody to vote for him by appealing to a strariorike cheir, which was in the city at that time.34 It is an allusion worth dwelling on. In fact, investigating the nature of this cheir might help us understand the variety offerees who might be brought to bear on an episcopal election, and how resorting to these forces was indicative of the extent and quality of Eusebius' social relations. Some years ago, Raymond Van Dam claimed that the manus militaris mentioned by Gregory of Nazianzus was certainly some kind of militia, and could have been "a mob of bureaucrats", that is the provincial governor's staff, which belonged to the militia inermis?" This hypothesis is tempting. Nevertheless, I find it hard to understand how this staff could have been so persuasive as to have Eusebius elected bishop - even if we accept "the people" (friends and clients of these bureaucrats?) were principally responsible for the violence, as Gregory would have us believe. In fact, if we consider how the manus acted, it seems it was far from being inermis. As we have seen above, the bishops declared they had been compelled to elect Eusebius. Once Julian intervened, they were free to charge Eusebius with having used force against them and behaving as a tyrant. His consecration to the bishopric had not happened because "the

34 35

16 (PG 35, 1004, C 12-13), with Fatti, Nei panni del vescovo (see note 16), 207-208; 217-220. Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, C 1-2): a x p c m c o T ^ s Xe>P°S auAAaêvns. Cf. R. Van Dam, Governors of Cappadocia during the Fourth Century, Medieval Prosopography 17, 1996, 7-93, 32; and R. Van Dam, Kingdom of Snow. Roman Rule and Greek Culture in Cappadocia, Philadelphia 2002, 227 n. 11: "some of imperial bureaucrats". For the meaning of militia inermis, see J.-P. Callu, "Manus inermis": le phenomene burocratique et 1' "Histoire Auguste", Quaderni Ticinesi di numismatica e antichita classiche 13, 1984, 229-248.

350

Federico Fatti

Holy Spirit had so desired", but because the cheir had helped him.36 Sophie Metivier was therefore right when she wrote this cheir appears to have been an armed military body.37 But the question is: what kind of body? It was not the provincial governor's guard corps. Because late antique governors did have a guard at their command, but this guard was very small in numbers,38 Moreover, Gregory says that the governor of Cappadocia at that time, whose name we do not know, was bitterly hostile to Eusebius,39 So, it seems extremely improbable that he would have supported his enemy militarily. Factory workers are a better hypothesis. Gregory of Nazianzus states that in the 370s Caesarea housed arms factories, termed clibanaria, which produced armour for the heavy cavalry. The Notitia Dignitatum Orientis confirmed production continues in the 5th century AD. 40 A fabrica was organised as a military body. Factory workers, the fabricenses, constituted a militia, and were therefore milites"

36

See Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, C 8-10.15): 'EâaOnaan (i.e. oi eriaKorroi), fiynioan, aneKTipuan, erri t o n 8ponon eOeoan, xeipi HaAAon fj yncouri a i dia8eaei TTneuatos; and or. 43, 28, 23 (SC 384, Bernardi): tupanniKco"s tr,n rrpoatacian d e Sauenon (i.e. Euoepion).

37

Cf. S. Metivier, La Cappadoce (see note 4), 116: "une garnison locale"; 412 e n. 155: "une troupe de soldats en garnison a Cesaree". See also P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 2), 68; 222: "some nearby soldiers". Cf. J.-M. Carrie, Le gouverneur romain a l'epoque tardive: orientation de l'enquete, AnTard 6, 1998, 17-30, 20 with n. 14. Lib. or. 19, 35-36 (401,6-402,5 Foerster), referring to Antioch, mentions archers. Chrys. ep. Olymp. 9, 6 (SC 13bis, Malingrey) errapxiKoi, who could be soldiers in the governor's service (errapxos), and who are ostensibly stationed in Caesarea. See furthermore Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 72 with n. 99. See note 9 above. See Gr. Naz. or. 43, 57, 11-12 (SC 384, 246 Bernardi); and NDOr. XI 26 (ed. by C. Neira Faleiro, La Notitia Dignitatum, nuova edition crftica y comentario historico, Nueva Roma 25, Madrid 2005, 195), with S. James, The Fabricae: State Arms Factories of the Later Roman Empire, in: Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers. Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference, BAR International Series 394, ed. by J.C. Coulston, Oxford 1988, 258-259; 261; 265; 269; 324. For the equites catafractarii and clibanarii, see M. Mielczarek, Catafracti and Clibanarii, Lodz 1993; and recently P. Malosse, Les cataphractaires (et comment s'en debarrasser): un topos litteraire du IV= siecle apres J . - C , in: Les armes dans l'Antiquite. De la technique a l'imaginaire. Actes du colloque international du SEMA, Montpellier, 20-22 mars 2003, ed. par P. Sauzeau et Th. Van Compernolle, Montpellier 2007, 249-268.

38

39 40

41

Cf. James, The Fabricae (see note 40) , 273-280; and R. Delmaire, Les institutions du Bas-Empire romain de Constantine a Justinien, I: Les institutions palatines, Paris 1995,86-90.


351

These factories were managed by z propositus fabricae or tribunus? an officer of the imperial service, who commanded soldiers he could rely on in case of danger. This happened in 404, when John Chrysostom passed through the city, and a tribunus with his men preserved the city from sack by the Isaurian tribes.43 Since the fabrkenses were themselves soldiers, and many of them were former veterans, it is not impossible that the stratibtai led by the officer mentioned by Chrysostom were, in fact, his employees. Anyway, there is no doubt that such an officer may resort to his milites for policing. In 354, for instance, Julian's half brother Callus, who had recently acclaimed Caesar, had the quaestor Montius arrested under suspicion of conspiracy, while staying in Antioch on the Orontes. The quaestor underwent hard interrogation, and revealed that two "tribunes of arms factories ... had promised arms should a revolution start."44 The possibility that Eusebius had appealed to the fabricenses - workers who were also soldiers - of Caesarea should be seriously considered. Some years later, his successor, Basil, was able to mobilise the same workers against an assessor of the Pontica Diocese's Vicar who had taken the bishop into custody.45 In so doing, Basil probably called upon an inherited form of patronage which had long been exerted by the Episcopate throughout the Empire.46 Eusebius could well have counted on this alliance before him.

42 43

Cf. James, The Fabricae (see note 40), 277 e n. 234-237; Delmaire, Les institutions (see note 41), 89. Cf. Chrys. ep. Olymp. 9, 5 (SC 13bis, 236-240 Malingrey): o Tp.pouvos, XafScov xous o x p a m c o x a s ous elxev.

44

45

46

Amm. XIV 7, 18 (ed. by E. Galletier/J. Fontaine, Ammien Marcellin. Histoire, vol. I, CUF, Paris 1968, 83-84): cum questor ... tribunes fabricarum insimuksset, promittentes armorum, si novae res agitare coepissent. For the conspiracy against the Caesar, see especially P. Schafer, Der Aufstand gegen Caesar Callus, in: Tradition and ReInterpretation in Jewish and Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Jiirgen C. H. Lebram, ed. by J. W. Van Henten and a l , Studia Post-Biblica 36, Leiden 1986, 184202. See Gr. Naz. or. 43, 55, 10-57, 35 (SC 384, 240-248 Bernardi), with L. Cracco Ruggini, Le associazioni professionali nel mondo romano-bizantino, in: Artigianato e tecnica nella societa dell'Alto Medioevo Occidentals Settimane CISAM 18, in Two Volumes, Vol. 1, Spoleto 1971, 59-227, 164; 166-167; L. Cracco Ruggini, I vescovi e il dinamismo sociale nel mondo cittadino di Basilio di Cesarea, in: Basilio di Cesarea. La sua eta, la sua opera e il basilianesimo in Sicilia. Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Messina, 3-6 xii 1979), in Two Volumes, Vol. 1, Messina 1983, 97-125, 102-112. Other examples include bishop Lucius at Alexandria (344), and bishop Eleusius at Cyzicus (362): see Ath. h. Ar. 18, 2 (Athanasius Werke, II.5-6, 192 Opitz); and Soz. h.e. V 15, 6-10 (CCS, 214 Bidez/Hansen) respectively.

352

Federico Fatti

Backed up by his "noble" supporters, the candidate for bishop may have given the fabricenses better assurances than his rivals. As milites, they enjoyed the privilege of exemption from curial duties, which made this kind of service so sought-after, that it even attracted decurions.47 Interestingly, as one of the most eminent decurions of Caesarea,48 Eusebius was in a position to promise to them that he would reinforce their privileges once he sat on the metropolitan throne. If the military body of a fabrica was really the stratiotike cheir that forced the principalis candidature through, it is easy to see why the provincial bishops were silenced as was Eusebius' enemy, the governor of Cappadocia, with his small guard. Because each factory had from 200 to 500 workers, and Caesarea had more than one plant (the Notitia Dignitatum uses the plural: clibanaria). However, according to Gregory Nazianzen, Eusebius' stratiotike cheir only happened to be in Caesarea at the time of the election.49 The verb emSnmeco means 'to be at home', 'live at home', as the fabricenses did.50 But when joined to the adverb TTIViKauTa ("at the time when"), emSnmeco changes its meaning to signify temporary presence somewhere.51 This the fabricenses were clearly not, as they were permanently employed in the fabricae. Now, the only temporary military corps in the city, just before the emperor Julian arrived, could only have been the imperial army, or part of it. Unfortunately, we know very little about the route Julian's troops took on their way to Antioch. However, the Passio S. Basilii Ancyrani reports that the praefectus praetorio orientis or. Saturninius Secundus Salutius and the comes sacrae largitionis Felix were at Ancyra before Julian

47 48 49

Cf. James, The Fabricae (see note 40), 279-280. See note 16 above. So Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, C 2-3): (oxramcoxiKfjs Xeiros) aukois T T I V i rauxa

50

51

eriSrirmouoTis.

Cf. H.G. Liddell/R. Scott/H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1940, 630, s.v.: "I. to be at home, liveathome, opp. arroSrmeco ... III. of foreigners, come to stay in a city, reside in a place"; G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1976, 520, s.v. "A. go to dwell permanently ... B. come to reside in a place ... C. dwell among or with". This connotation is supported by the bishops' accusing Eusebius only after the force behind the violence "had dispersed". Cf. Gr. Naz. or. 18, 33 (PG 35, 1028, C 11-12): cJs gar aTrriAAagrioav aomevoi (i.e. Eusebius's supporters), ai gvcomri egevovxo Kurioi (i.e. the bishops gathered for the election) .... , with Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see n. 3), 72 with n. 95.


353

arrived, and they certainly did not travel without a military escort.52 Moreover, in a letter dated 362 Basil praises governor Candidianus - who in my opinion was Eusebius' enemy, Gregory of Nazianzus's anonymous governor of Cappadocia - for caring for "thousands of stratiotaf, which fell within the hospitium or hospitatitas - i.e. the obligation to house and feed traveling soldiers.53 According to Marcella Forlin Patrucco's edition of Basil's letters, "these soldiers must have belonged to a unit camped near the city."54 But we have no information about such a unit. The only force we know about is the stratiotike cheir, which helped Eusebius when the Apostate and his army were about to come. It is therefore not implausible that this cheir was an imperial army unit.55 52

Cf. Passio S. Basilii Ancyrani 5; 8 (AASS Mart. Ill, 382, A; C), with C. Foss, Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara, D O P 32, 1977 (= C. Foss, History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor, London 1990, VI), 29-87, 40 and n. 43; and especially D. Woods, The Martyrdom of the Priest Basil of Ancyra, VigChr 46, 1992, 31-39, 3233 and nn. 12-20 (still valuable, pace H.C. Teitler, History and Hagiography. The Passio of Basil of Ancyra as a Historical Source, VChr 50, 1996, 73-80; see F. Scorza Barcellona, Martiri e confessori dell'eta di Giuliano l'Apostata: dalla storia alia leggenda, in: Pagani e cristiani da Giuliano l'Apostata al sacco di Roma, a cura di F.E. Consolino, Soveria Mannelli 1995, 53-83, 70-71). 53 Cf. Bas. ep. 3, 1, 11-12 [13 Courtonne]): ou ... xopnycov iievxo, rrAefova nup.ao. axpamcoTco-v. Chorego is clearly a technical verb, referring to a public duty. For the hospitium, see N. Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria, Ann Arbor 2000, 104-109; C. Tavolieri D'Andrea, La fiscalita nel mondo antico. II caso ddVhospitium militum, ZAC 11/3, 2008, 448-463, with bibliography; and, for a case (possibly) involving the provincial governor of Cappadocia, Metivier, La Cappadoce (see note 4), 405. For Candidianus, see Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 60 with nn. 42-43; 176 with nn. 124-125. 54 M. Forlin Patrucco, Basilio di Cesarea. Le latere I, Corona Patrum 11, Torino 1983, 277: "doveva trattarsi di milizie stanziate nelle vicinanze della citta". 55 Metivier and Norton, who refer to the troops mentioned by Gregory Nazianzen, also hypothesize a local garrison (see note 37). So did E. Kirsten, Art. Cappadocia, RAC 2, Stuttgart 1954, 861-891, 867-868, basing his conclusions upon H. Gregoire, Rapport sur un voyage d'exploration dans le Pont et en Cappadoce, BCH 33, 1909, 3-169, 67 nr. 45 (epitaph of a soldier of the Legio XII Fulminata, normally camped in Melitene), and W.M. Ramsay, The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor, Aberdeen 1941, 177. F. Hild, M. Restle, Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos), TIB 2, Wien 1981, 68; and M. Cassia, Cappadocia romana. Strutture urbane e strutture agrarie alia periferia dell'Impero, Catania 2004, 99 n. 52, agree with Kirsten. Cassia ascribes these measures to Julian, who was worried about the Persian campaign. But the epitaph edited by Gregoire dates back to the III century, and has nothing to do with the military manoeuvres of the Apostate. Nonetheless, according to B. Gain, Art. Kaisareia I (in Kappadokien), RACh, 19, Stuttgart 2000, 992-1026, 995-996, "kasernierten Truppe in oder bei K." would be indicated by the activity of the local clibanaria, whose original testimony, as we have seen, goes back to the seventies (see note 40).

354

Federico Fatti

In fact, as far as we know, it was not unusual for soldiers to meddle in an episcopal election. In 328, for instance, Antioch was troubled by "tremendous sedition", because of bishop Eustathius's successor. To restore order Constantine dispatched an "armed force", that is a cheir stratiotike^ In 342, Constantius II deployed another cheir stratiotike to Constantinople, led by the magister militum Hermogenes, to expel Paul, Macedon i a ' s rival.57 In 370, Valens finally dispatched one cheir stratiotike to Constantinople to put down unrest triggered by the consecration of bishop Demophilus, and a second to support Euzoius of Antioch in electing Lucius of Alexandria.58 That the army had done the same at Caesarea - even without the emperor's mandate 59 - is not unlikely. That Eusebius could have called upon part of Julian's armed forces on the eve of the election it is not unlikely either. As bishop, Basil was later good friend with some officials like Sophronius and Victor in the emperor Valens' army.60 There is no reason to believe that things were different in 362, when Eusebius or his supporters could have made good use of the duty of hospitalitas. Although Eusebius as decurion enjoyed exemption from that duty, he might willingly have opened the doors of his house to members of the army general staff to profit from friendship.61

Conclusion Whether the stratiotike cheir Eusebius used for his purposes was the militia of one or mote fabricae of Caesarea, or - as I believe - one or more of the units in Julian's army that was passing through the city will probably always be a matter of debate. However, Eusebius' election throws light not as much on an individual power struggle as on a struggle between

56 57 58 59 60

61

Cf. Socr. h.c. I 24, 6 (GCS, 71 Hansen). See also Bus. vita Const. Ill 59, 2 (FC 83, 388-390 Bleckmann). Cf. Socr. h.e. II 13, 3 (GCS, 104 Hansen). Cf. once again Socr. h.e. IV 15, 2; 21, 3 (GCS 244 and 248 Hansen). On this problem, see Fatti, Giuliano a Cesarea (see note 3), 79-81. Cf. M. Raimondi, II Breviarium di Festo e il funzionariato cappadoce alia corte di Valente, Historia 55, 2006, 191-206, 201-204; and U. Roberto, II magister Victor e lopposizione ortodossa all'imperatore Valente nella storiografia e nell'agiografia, MedAnt 6, 2003, 61-93 respectively. "Was sie sicherlich gelegentlich getan haben, um befreundete Offiziere, Verwandte und einflu&eiche Personen, insbesondere aus der Suite der Kaiser aufzunehmen" (W. Langhammer, Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistral municipales und der Decuriones, Wiesbaden 1973, 137-138).


355

different, somewhat contrasting conceptions of the Church after Constantine the Great. Eusebius seems to have been a man of his times in the methods he used to reach his goal: a curtails who did not hesitate to take advantage of the complex range of social alliances that a local patronus can count on to gain something that, after Constantine, had become more and more attractive for such men. Why he felt compelled to do it, however, seems to show he was far from ordinary. Since emperor Julian had downsized the privileges of the decurions, personal interest and ambition were no longer driving him. Since Basil, his powerful rival, was considered a threat to the lifestyle of the principalis and his supporters, and to their idea of what the Church should be, Eusebius appears to have been motivated by ecclesiastical concerns. And a show offeree was the best way for him to prevail.

The Election and Deposition of Meletius of Antioch: The Fall of an Integrative Bishop' Oliver Hihn The Question: The Short Duration of Meletius' Term of Office In the winter 360/361 Homoian bishops assembled at a synod in Antioch in the presence of the Emperor Constantius II and elected Meletius, then bishop of Sebaste and later president of the Council of Constantinople, to be bishop of that strategically important city and prestigious see.2 Only 30 days later, however, so John Chrysostom tells us,3 Meletius was deposed 1

2

3

I would like to thank Hartmut Leppin, Peter Van Nuffelen and Hans-Ulrich Wiemer for questions and critical remarks and Peter Di Natale and especially David Toalster for improving my English. Indepent of my research, in his doctoral thesis published in 2009 (see note 4) Th. R. Karmann came to very similar conclusions about the reasons for the deposition of Meletius. Recently, A. Martin and the other commentators of the SC-Vol. Theodora de Cyr, Histoire ecclesiastique, T. 1 [(livres I-II). Texte grec de L. Parmentier et G.C. Hansen avec annotation par J. Bouffartigue, introduction par A. Martin, traduction par P. Canivet, revue et annotee par J. Bouffartigue, A. Martin, L. Pietri et F. Thelamon, SC 501, Paris 2006, here: 488 with note 1] put forward a new hypothesis for the chronology. They believe that Meletius had already been elected in 360 after the synod of Constantinople (however without adding any arguments for this view) and that Constantius II had not been in Antioch at the time. According to this interpretation, the account of Theodoret in his historia ecclesiustka would be an extreme misrepresentation of the facts and of the course of events, i.e. "un amalgame". However, it is methodically problematic to follow only the description of Athanasius about the Antiochene synod of 360/361 (Athan. syn. 31 [Athanasius Werke I I / l , 259,21-260,6 Opitz]) and the narratives of Socrates and Sozomen which depend on Athanasius. The account of Athanasius in De synodis is very biased and very short (see note 4 for a short commentary on this passage). Therefore, it is a very weak argumentum ex silentio to conclude that Athanasius' description is complete and that Theodoret's is wrong. The 30-day period is only mentioned by John Chrysostom in his homily about Meletius delivered at Antioch in 386 (Chrys. pan. Melet. PC 50, col. 516): L i n o u men o n en TPiaKonTa rmepais ou5' oAais io X uoen ouxcos umaS OemeAicSoai en xc3 CÂco xrjs M-iOTeCOS, cJs mupicon mexa Tama TTpooâAonxcon rrneumaxcon, aaeiaron meinai Tr,n

358

Oliver Hihn

by his fellow-bishops and exiled by the emperor.4 Unfortunately, we have no statistics indicating how long a bishop was in office. However, under normal circumstances a bishop was elected until his death. So by any standard, the reign of Meletius was somewhat short. But this is not the only aspect of this affair that calls for an explanation: If Constantius within 30 days agreed both to the election of Meletius and to his deposition, something evidently went seriously wrong in the plans of imperial church policy, if there was any. Therefore, in this paper I will try to answer the following three fundamental questions: Why of all possible candidates was Meletius elected? Why was he deposed so quickly? And thirdly: Which conclusions for the character of imperial church policy can we draw from this example? I wish to argue that firstly Meletius was the candidate of the Homoians and especially of the emperor, secondly that he was deposed because of his "integrative" reorganisation of the Antiochene clergy, al-

4

S.SaoKoX.'ov eKe,'vr,v. Possibly, the 30-day period should not be understood literally, but as a short period of time {post non grande temporis intervallum: Hier. chron. ad a. 360 [GSCEusebius VII, 241,26-242,1 Helm]). The main sources for these events are: Theod. h.e. II 31 (GCS Theodora, 170,11173,16 Parmentier/Hansen): Theodora is the only source which mentions the Antiochene synod of 360/361; Socr. h.e. II 44 (GCS Sokrates, 181,22-182,20 Hansen); Soz. h.e. IV 28 (GCS Sozomenus, 184,24-186,15 Bidez/Hansen); Ruf. h.e. X 25 (GCS Eusebius II/2, 989,8-15 Mommsen); Philost. h.e. V 1 (GCS Philostorgius, 67,1-6 Bidez/Winkelmann) and V 5 (69,9-15 Bi./W.); Chron. Pasch. ad a. 362 (GSC Philostorgius 230,14-22 Bidez/Winkelmann); Epiph. haer. 73,28-35 (GSC Epiphanius III, 302,18-310,11 Holl/Dummer); Hier. chron. ad a. 360 (241,24-242,4 Helm); Hist. Aceph. 2,7 (SC 317, 146,34-35 + 148,1-2 Martin). The passage in the Desynodis of Athanasius (Athan. syn. 31 [259,21-260,6 Opitz]) probably describing the Antiochene synod of 360/361 does not give us a reliable account of that synod: Firstly, Athanasius mentions neither the election nor the deposition of Meletius; secondly, according to Athanasius, the Homoian bishops approved of an Anhomoian credo at this Antiochene synod. This cannot be right, because Constantius was clearly an opponent of Aetius' theology and the Homoian bishops had formulated credos anathematising the Anhomoian dogma, at the synods of the years 358-360. Cf. Brennecke, Studien (as below in this note), 78-80, who rightly suggests that Athanasius describes the synod in this way because an old companion of Arius, Euzoius, was elected as Meletius' successor to the Antiochene bishopric at that synod. Athanasius believes Euzoius to be an follower of the Anhomoians. The most useful modern contributions to the analysis of these events are: H. Ch. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homoer. Der Osten bis zum Ende der homoischen Reichskirche, BHTh 73, Tubingen 1988, 66-81; F. Diinzl, Die Absetzung des Bischofs Meletius von Antiochien 361 n C , JAC 43, 2000, 71-93; and most recently Th. R. Karmann, Meletius von Antiochien. Studien zur Geschichte des trinitatstheologischen Streits in den jahren 360-364 n.Chr., RSTh 68, Frankfurt/Main 2009, 51-149. For the older literature on the subject of my essay, see these three publications.

The Election and Deposition of Meletius of Antioch

359

though he agreed with the religious policy of Constantius altogether. Thirdly, I will try to show that Constantius decided to support his most powerful religious advisers in their conflict with Meletius and that his decision had far-reaching consequences for his church policy.

The Sources: Theodoret as the Best-informed Author To make sense of the Antiochene synod of 360/361, a short survey of the source material is called for. The Nicene church historians Theodoret, Socrates and Sozomen present a seriously distorted image: Writing after the final victory of the Homoousian interpretation of the Nicene creed, they regard Meletius not only as the man who presided over the Council of Constantinople in 381, where the homoousios was confirmed, but as a staunch defender of orthodoxy who from the beginning to the end of his service as a clergyman had never wavered in his adherence to the true faith. From their point of view, Meletius was a confessor who had been exiled twice - under the emperors Constantius II and Valens - precisely because he had always, before and after his deposition as bishop of Antioch, clung to the Nicene creed.5 5

This tendency stems from an interpret*** ex eventu, cf. Diinzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 71. The 'Nicene' statements about Meletius differ slightly one from another. Only Theodoret insists that Meletius had always been orthodox. According to him, the Arians' W W that Meletius was of their own faith, but the orthodox' Christians of Antioch knew that he was of the right faith: Theod. h.e. II 31,3-4 (171,1-2; 171,6-9 P./H.). However, the accounts of Socrates and Sozomen allow the conclusion that Meletius was a former Arian' (i.e. Homoian) before his election. Sozomen says this explicitly (Soz. h.e. IV 28,3 [185,2-5 B./HJ): outco de diaKeiHenTIS trjs'AntioxeCAn eKKATIOiaS edo?e t o i S aui t o n Eudoôn KaAoSs exein l i e t a o t r j o a i en8ade MeAetion eK tTJS I e B a o t e i a s , o i a ye Aeyein te a i peiOein iranon a i t a p e r i t o n Bion ayaOon a i

onodo£on autoi? to prin ont a. Socrates repeatedly mentions the Paulinian accusation that Meletius was elected and ordained by the Arians. He does not try to defend Meletius against this accusation: Socr. h.e. II 44,6 (182,15-18 H.); see also Soz. h.e. IV 28,10-11 (186,11-15 B./H.); Socr. h.e. V 5,3-7 (277,3-16 H.); see also Soz. h.e. VII 3,1-5 (304,1-18 B./H.). Note that the synoptic Nicene church historians assume that Meletius was only exiled twice, once by Constantius in 361 and again by Valens in 364 or 365. From this point of view, the continuous exile of Meletius under the reign of Valens indicates that Valens is a fierce persecutor of the orthodox Nicene Christians. However, the kudatio funebris of Gregor of Nyssa, delivered shortly after the death of Meletius at the Council of Constantinople in 381, tells us that Meletius was exiled twice during the reign of Valens (cf. Gr. Nyss. oratio funebris in Meletium episcopum, ed. A. Spira, in: Gregorii Nysseni Opera IX, Sermones I, ed. Guntherus Heil et a l , Leiden 1967, 441-457, here: 449,4-7 and 450,4-13).

360

Oliver Hihn

The only source setting the election and deposition of Meletius in a concrete historical context is Theodoret's historia ecclesiastica. It connects both events with an Antiochene synod in 360/361. 6 Theodoret was better informed than the others, since he had access to archives and libraries in Antioch 7 and to the oral Antiochene tradition, which looks with an hagiographical perspective on the life of Meletius.8 Therefore, we should follow Thedoret's account concerning the course of events which occurred during that Antiochene synod. But Theodoret's apologetic tendency and his construction of a continuity of orthodox and Nicene bishops9 in Antioch make it evident that we have to distrust his description in detail.10 Besides, his account is rather short and imprecise. Fortunately, we have sources at our disposal that can be used as a corrective against the tendency of the Nicene church historians: On the one 6 7

See also H. Ch. Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 68. For the sources of Theodoret's narrative about Antioch see A. Martin, L'eglise dAntioche dans Yhistoire ecclesiastique de Theodoret, in: Antioche de Syrie. Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique, ed. by B. Cabouret et a l , Actes colloque, Lyon, Maison de l'Orient 4-6 octobre 2001, Topoi Supplement 5, Paris 2004, 481-506, here: 481, 483. For the thesis of a 'Eustathian library in Antioch consulted by Theodoret see the arguments of M. Tetz, Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra I. Fine Markellische Schrift "De incarnatione et contra Arianos", ZKG 75, 1964, 217-270, here: 233-238 which are based on the thesis of M. Richard, Notes sur les florileges dogmatiques du V= et du VP siecle, in: Actes du VP Congres international d' Etudes Byzantines (Paris, 27 juillet - 2 aout 1948), Vol. 1, Paris 1950, 307-318, here: 31 If. (ND: M. Richard, Opera minora I, Turnhout/Leuven 1976, Nr. 2).

8

For the influence of the hagiographical tradition on Theodoret's account of Meletius see L. Parmentier, Einleitung, in: Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, ed. by. L. Parmentier, 3rd revised edition by G. Chr. Hansen, Berlin 1998, IX-CVIII, here: XCVf. This tradition emerged in Meletius' lifetime and shortly after his death: See the kudatio funebris of Gregor of Nyssa (see note 5), the homily of John Chrysostom (see note 3), and especially Epiph. haer. 73,28,2 (302,24-27 H./D.) and 73,35,1 (309,22-25 H./D.). Cf. also Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 70, note 67. Theodoret defends the Antiochene theology against the accusation of heresy which is connected with the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Theodoret declares that Eustathius, Meletius and Flavian remained orthodox in the Arian Controversy and a stronghold against heresy. In this way, their pupils Diodor of Tarsus and Theodor of Mopsuestia, who are suspected of Nestorianism by Cyrill and his followers, are also orthodox. On the other hand, Theodoret sees Cyril and the other opponents of the Antiochene theology as being tainted by Arianism: cf. P. Allen, The Use of Heretics and Heresies in the Greek Church Historians. Studies in Socrates and Theodoret, in: Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, ed. by G. Clarke, Rushcutters Bay 1990, 265-289, here: 272.

9

10

E.g. Theodoret does not mention the Eustathians in his narrative about the election and deposition of Meletius and about the following schism (Theod. h.e. II 31 [170,11-173,16 P./HJ). This makes his bias very evident.


361

hand, the heterodox church histories of Philostorgius and an anonymous Homoian author draw a very negative picture of Meletius. The Heterousian Philostorgius describes Meletius as an apostate, who (in his view) became a disgrace to the "orthodox" Heterousian church, because he went over to the Homoousian bishops.11 On the other hand, there still exist writings (by Jerome and Epiphanius of Salamis) reflecting the point of view of those who believed that Meletius never had been the rightful bishop of Antioch because that honour had at the time of his election been held by Paulinus. This Paulinian source tradition has very different stories to tell and furnishes us with important details about Meletius and his career that would otherwise be simply unknown. 12 In his Panarion omnium haeresium, Epiphanius handed down the homily, which Meletius delivered at the Antiochene synod, word for word.13 The account of Epiphanius was written in the years 375-377, in a period in which the Paulinians looked at Meletius and his followers as possible allies in their fight against the Homoians. Therefore, Epiphanius, otherwise a clear supporter of Paulinus and an opponent of Meletius, collected much information about Meletius being reluctant to make a clear statement about his orthodoxy. He leaves it to the reader to make a decision about Meletius' dogmatic position of whose orthodoxy he has still doubts.14

The Religious Policy of Constantius II and the Aim of the Antiochene Synod in 360/361 In the next step we have to set the Antiochene synod, during which Meletius was elected, in the context of the religious policy of Constantius. 15 11

I.e. because he deserted the Heterousian church. See Philost. h.e. V 1 (67,3-5 B./W.): o de M e l e / t i o j t a me n p r w t a t h t o u b a s i l e / w j r o p h qetapeu/wn t o eteroou/sion upekri/neto kai t w to/mw t w n Esperi/wn upe/grayen. See also Philost. h.e. V 5 (69,1113 B./W.).

12 13 14 15

For the relevant passages of these sources, see above note 4. Epiph. haer. 73,29-33 (303,8-308,31 H./D.). See also Diinzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 76f. For the following and for general considerations about Constantius II and his church policy cf. Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 5-66; T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge (Mass.)/London 1993, here: 144-149 and 165-170; Ch. Pietri, La politique de Constance II: Un premier 'Cesaropapisme' ou Yimhatio Constantino in: L'eglise et l'empire au IV= siecle, ed. by A. Dihle, Entretiens sur lAntiquite classique 34, Vandceuvres 1989, 113-172.

362

Oliver Hihn

After his victory over Magnentius in 353, 16 Constantius endeavoured to unite the divided church and overcome the unrest among the Christians by putting an end to the controversy about the relationship between Father and Son. To achieve these goals, Constantius pursued a consistent policy and initiated a number of synods between 358 and 359. The Homoian credo finally agreed upon by a synod in 359/360 at Constantinople was simply based on the Bible and prohibited the use of the disputed terms ousia and hypostasis. By the final formula omoon t w gennh/santi auton 7 p a t r i kata t a j grafa/j, 1 8 the emperor intended to integrate various moderate theological positions. It seems unlikely that in the face of Julian's usurpation and the military conflict with Shapur II, Constantius had the intention of continuing these dogmatical discussions when he summoned the Antiochene synod in 360/361. In my opinion, Constantius did so because he wanted to have the Homoian credo confirmed19 and thus to celebrate and publicise the cessation of the endless quarrels about the true doctrine and this precisely at the place where Aetius had caused the renewed outbreak of theological discussions and unrest in the church.

The Election of Meletius: the Candidate of the Emperor Obviously, the election of a new Antiochene bishop was by no means the main subject of the Antiochene synod. It was, however, necessary due to the fact that the seat was vacant after Eudoxius of Antioch had been translated to Constantinople. 20 For this reason, the assembled bishops asked the

16

Before gaining the whole empire Constantius had to obey his brother's demands on imperial church policy.

17

Sc.tonuio/n.

18 Athan. syn. 30,3 (258,29-30 O.). 19

I agree w i t h Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 68, note 61 and D i i n z l , Absetzung (see note 4), 90f. that Theodoret gets the aims o f the emperor out o f perspective, when he writes (h.e. I I 31,1 [170,11-14 P . / H J ) : K a t a t o u t o n de t o n xro/non o K w n s t a / n t i o j en 'Antioxei/a die/tribe. t h j de a n a k w x h j genome/nhj kai t o u Persikou pausame/nou pole/mou, pa/lin episko/pouj sunh/qroisen, arnhqhnai p a / n t a j kai t o omoou/sion anagka/zwn kai t o eteroou/sion. T h e term omoou/sioj/-on had not yet attained any importance i n the discussions o f the Eastern bishops.

20

Theod. h.e. II 31,1 (170,14-17 P./H.); Socr. h.e. II 44,3 (182,4-6 H.); Philost. h.e. V 1 (67,1-3 B./W.); Soz. h.e. IV 28,1 (184,24-25 B./H.); Ruf. h.e. X 25 (989,9-10 M.). The later two allude only very briefly to the election. The historia acephala presents a very distorted picture of the event (hist, aceph. 2,7 [146,34-35 M.]): According to it, the Arians deposed the later Nicene rival of Meletius, Paulinus, and elected Meletius as his successor. However, Paulinus was not ordained by Lucifer of Calaris until 362.


363

emperor for permission to elect a new Antiochene bishop, before they would begin discussions on the true (i.e. Homoian) dogma.21 Who were they? It is noticeable that nearly all sources which treat the election of Meletius mention the participation of the "Arians", i.e. Homoians.22 According to the Paulinian sources, the Homoian bishop Acacius of Caesarea and his followers had engineered Meletius' election.23 Given the historical context and C o n s t a n t s ' intention in arranging the synod, only Homoian bishops therefore could have ordained Meletius. These bishops probably were Acacius, George of Alexandria, Eusebius of Samosata and their respective followers.24 But we do not know any details about the electoral procedure: The account of Theodoret about the election and its protocol is presumably a hagiographical story told to justify the participation of the 'heretical' Homoians and to praise the steadfast-

21

Theod. h.c. I I 31,2 (170,17-20 P./H.): to/te dh ou]n oi sunelhluqo/tej epi/skopoi ( p o l l o i de h]san pa/ntoqen suneilegme/noi) x r h n a i elegon p r o b l h q h n a i p r o/teron t h poimnh nomea, ei]q o u t w koinh sun ekei/nw p e r i t w n dogma/twn bouleu/sasqai.

22

Theod. h.e. II 31,3 (171,1-6 P./H.); Socr. h.e. II 44,6 (182,13-18 H.): indirectly, since he tells us the Paulinian accusation that the Arians had elected Meletius and had ordained his clergy; Soz. h.e. IV 28,3-4 (185,2-9 B./H.) who writes that Meletius was the candidate of the Eudoxians (oi amfi ton Eudo/cion), probably because of his Constantinopolitan perspective; Hist, aceph. 2,7 (146,34-35 M.); the account of Rufinus (Ruf. h.e. X 25 [989,9-12 M.]) is extremely vague in the matter of the electorate (multi diversarum urbium episcopi), but he qualifies the translation of Meletius as contra decretaconcilii.

23

Hier. chron. ad a. 360 (241,24-26 H.): Meletius Sebastiae Armeniorum episcopus ab Acacio et Georgia episcopis Arrianis Antiochiam transfers Epiph. haer. 73,28,1 (302,18-24 H . / D . ) : M e l i / t i o j men g a r o en 'Antioxei/a k a t a s t a q e i j upo t w n p e r i Aka/kion [...] k a t a s t a q e i j goun o M e l i / t i o j o u t o j u p a u t w n t w n p e r i Aka/kion, enomi/zeto p a r a u t w n ei]nai t h j a u t w n do/chj, a l l oux eure/qh, w j p o l l o i p e r i tou/tou apagge/lousi.

24

According to Theodoret's historia ecclesiastica, the 'Arians' elected Meletius, though he does not mention any of their names. Acacius of Caesarea and George of Alexandria were members of the oratory contest taking place at the same synod (Theod. h.e. II 31,7 [172,2-6 P./HJ). Theodoret errs in thinking that the George at that synod was the bishop of Laodicea, because George of Laodicea had presumably died between the Council of Seleucia 359 and the Council of Constantinople in January 360. For this mistake of Theodoret see Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 71, note 70 and now M. DelCogliano, The Death of George of Laodicea, JThS N.S. 60, 2009, 181-190, both with further literature. Although Philostorgius does not mention who elected or ordained Meletius, the context of the passage (h.e. V 1 [66,18-67,7 B./WJ) makes it evident that Acacius of Caesarea ordained Meletius: cf. also Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 67 with note 50. The lacking precision of that passage could perhaps stem from the Photian excerpts.

364

Oliver Hihn

ness of the Nicenes and especially of the 'confessor' Eusebius of Samosata.25 Why then did they elect this Meletius? Meletius was probably descended from a rich family of landowners in Melitene, a town in Roman Armenia.26 Probably in the year 358 or 359, 27 a synod had been held which had deposed Eustathius of Sebaste, an important representative of the evolving Homoiousians28. The election of Meletius as his successor to the bishopric of Sebaste29 will probably not have been coincidental. Mele25

26

Theod. h.c. II 31,3-5 (171,1-13 P./H.). According to Theod. h.c. II 32,1-5 (173,17174,14 P./H.), Constantius II and the Arians requested Eusebius of Samosata to hand over the protocol of the election after the deposition of Meletius. When Eusebius refused, he was threatened with the cutting off of his right hand. Like a Christian martyr, who had refused to give up the holy scriptures to a pagan emperor, Eusebius also asked for his left hand to be cut off. However, the emperor was now convinced that Eusebius had acted as a holy man and admired him. For Theodoret, it is crucial to preserve the hagiographical tradition of Eusebius of Samosata, since he ordained his predecessor, Isidorus (Theod. h.e. V 4,5 [283,4-5 P./H.]). Perhaps the core of truth consists only in the participation of Eusebius in the election. Only Philostorgius mentions that Constantius II exiled Meletius to his home town of Melitene (h.e. V 5 [69,9-11 B./WJ): ton 'Antioxeias MeAetion urro tou Kconatantiou

27

28

29

a i autou en 'Antioxei'a Siatpi'BontoS urrepopion eis tr,n eautou rratpiSa tr,n

MeAitinnn eKTreÔfinai. The homily of John Chrysostom on Meletius confirms this. In one passage John states that Meletius comes from Armenia minor (Joh. Chrys. pan. Melet. [PC 50, col. 517]). For the origin of Meletius see Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 51, note 2. For the synod of Melitene see Soz. h.e. IV 24,9 (180,5-14, esp. 12-14); 24,16-25,1 (181,13-21); Basil, ep. 263,3 (ed. by Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Lettres, vol. 3, CUF, Paris 1966, 123); for its date see T. D. Barnes, The Date of the Council of Gangra, JThS N.S. 40, 1989, 121-124, here: 123 and Basilius von Caesarea, Briefe, 3. Teil, introduction, translation and commentary by W.-D. Hauschild, BGrL 37, Stuttgart 1993, 229, note 455. I agree with T. D. Barnes, A Note on the Term Homoioousios, ZAC 10, 2006, 276285 arguing that "the 'homoioousians' were never a firmly defined and cohesive party in ecclesiastical politics" (285). Barnes demonstrates that the term 'homoioousios was only used in a very short period and that it is not clear, if the 'Homoiousians' really invented or even used this expression for themselves. Nevertheless, we need an expression for the group of bishops and clerics around Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis who defined the relation of Father and Son with expressions such as o o i o s a t ouoian and insisted on the creed of the 'Dedication Council' of Antioch in 341, and also after the synods of 359 and 360. I use the term 'Homoiousians' for this group which lived in enmity with Homoians and Anhomoians, since it is the most common expression in modern research. Perhaps Meletius was elected as Eustathius' successor at the same synod of Melitene: cf. A. Martin, Theodoret de Cyr (see note 2), 488f, note 2. Unfortunately, the


365

tius and Eustathius may have been old enemies.30 Therefore, the Homoian bishops who elected Meletius could have believed him to be an opponent of the Homoiousians and an adherent of their position.31 If we can trust the accounts of Philostorgius and Socrates, Meletius had been at the synod of Seleucia and had signed the Tomus of the Westerners, i.e. the Homoian formula of Nike,32 Despite his "victory" over Eustathius, Meletius had not been able to assert his authority over the Christians of Sebaste and was forced to retire to Syrian Beroea,33 It is quite possible that the emperor had met Meletius sources do not inform us about the election of Meletius to the bishopric of Sebaste in any detail. Apart from Socrates, who writes that Meletius replaced Eustathius (Socr. h.e. II 43,2 and II 44,1 [180,4-5 and 181,22-182,1 H.]), the sources mention only that Meletius was translated from the bishopric of Sebaste to the bishopric of Antioch: Ruf. h.e. X 25 (989,10-12 M.) ; Hier. chron. ad a. 360 (241,24-26 H.); Soz. h.e. IV 28,3 (185,2-4 B./H.); Philost. h.e. V 1 (67,1-2 B./W.). Theodoret (h.e. II 31,2 [170,21-22 P./HJ) mentions only po/lin tina thj'Armeniaj, from which Meletius was translated to the Antiochene bishopric. 30

31

I do not agree with F. Cavallera, Le schisme dAntioche (IV=-V= siecle), Paris 1905, 95, who believes that "en tout cas Eustathe ne lui garda pas rancune" after the election of Meletius to the bishopric of Sebaste. There is no indication of that hypothesis in the sources. It is more plausible to assume an enmity between Eustathius and Meletius. The relevant passages of the Nicene church historians confirm that the Homoian bishops believed Meletius to be an adherent of their position. But these descriptions of the election are formed by an interpretatio ex eventu which can be found e.g. in the narrative of Theodoret: Two groups elect Meletius. The "Arians" believe him to be an adherent of their (heterodox) party, the orthodox Christians know of his "dogmatic soundness" (Theod. h.e. II 31,3-4 [171,1-2 and 171,6-8 P./HJ): touton u9potoph/santej oi t h j ' A r e i o u summori'/aj omo/frona ei]nai kai koinwnon t w n d o g ma/twn [...] oi de t w n a p o s t o l i k w n antexo/menoi dogma/twn, t o u mega/lou Meleti/ou

kai thn en t o i j do/gmasin ugeian ei0do/tej [...]. For this perspective see further: Epiph. haer. 73,28,2 (302,22-24 H./D.); Ruf. h.e. X 25 (989,12-14 M.) ; Soz. h.e. IV 28,3-5 (185,2-14 B./H.). 32

Philost. h.e. V 1 (67,4-5 B./W.): t w to/mw t w n Esperi/wn upe/grayen; Socr. h.e. I I 44,2 (182,2-3 H.): geno/menoj de en t h kata Seleu/keian suno/dw kai t h pi/stei t w n p e r i 'Aka/kion u p o g r a / y a j .

33

Socr. h.e. II 44,2 (182,1-4 H.); Theod. h.e. II 31,2 (170,22-171,1 P./H.). Probably, Socrates falsely assumes that Meletius was bishop of Beroea after he had not been able to assert his authority in Sebaste. F. Cavallera, Schisme (see note 30), 94 argues against the evidence of Socrates: he should have mentioned the translation of Meletius to Beroea in his list of translations in the fourth century, where he refers to the translation of Meletius from Sebaste to Antioch (Socr. h.e. VII 36,11 [385,20-21 H J ) . Theodoret is very vague about Meletius' retirement. Most other sources (Ruf. h.e. X 25 [989,10-12]; Soz. h.e. IV 28,3 [185,2-5 B./H.]; Philost. h.e. V 1 [1-3]; Hier. chron. ad. a. 360 [241,24-26 H.]) only mention the translation from the bishopric of Sebaste to that of Antioch without referring to the retirement.

366

Oliver Hihn

there on his way from Hierapolis to Antioch in December 360 34 and on this occasion had identified Meletius as a suitable candidate for the Antiochene bishopric because of his Homoian position and his integrative attitude. Theodoret, in any case, tells us, that Meletius was not present at his election, but arrived at Antioch later after an invitation from the emperor.35 Nevertheless, the election to the Antiochene bishopric was not without a stain on Meletius' reputation (whether Meletius was the imperial candidate or not): His rivals, especially the later ordained Paulinus could interpret his translation from the bishopric of Sebaste to that of Antioch as aviolationofcanonl5ofNicaea, %

The Reasons for Meletius' Deposition However, the problem remains: Why was Meletius deposed so quickly?37 The Nicene church histories give the following answer to this question: The Arians falsely believed that Meletius shared their dogmatic position and therefore elected him, but realized soon afterwards that they had been mistaken when after a short time Meletius confessed the homoousios in a

34

On 17 December 360, Constantly II was in Hierapolis. From there he came to Antioch where he arrived at the end of December. See O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fur die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 1919, 208; T.D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (see note 15), 224. The only Roman road from Hierapolis to Antioch went through Beroea. For the Roman roads in Syria see G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton 1961, plate 4; Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. by R. J. A. Talbert, Princeton/Oxford 2000, map 67 (Hierapolis F3 - Beroea E 4 -Antioch C 4).

35 36

Theod. h.e. II 31,5 (171,13-14 P./H): {Jao.X.KTi KXTJO.S. Ruf. h.e. X 25 (989,10-12 M.): Mektium de Sabastia Armeniae cwitate contra decreta concilii illuc transferunt. Possibly, Theodoret composed the story of the election protocol and accused the Arians of "illegal acts and changes" (Theod. h.e. II 31,3 [171,1-6 P./H.]) to defend Meletius against the charge of illegal translation. This charge stems from the Paulinian tradition (cf. A. Martin, Theodoret de Cyr [see note 2], 76f. and especially 489, note 3): The Homoians were certainly not interested in representing their own election of Meletius as being against canon law. The Eustathians/Paulinians had separated themselves from the Antiochene church after the deposition of their leader Eustathius between 326 and 330 and did not unite with the Meletians until 412 under the bishop Alexander. The translation of Meletius from Sebaste to Antioch served them as a pretext not to join the Meletians. For a detailed summary of the sources see Brennecke, Studien (see 4), 72-74; Diinzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 73-77; Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 136-141.

37


367

sermon. Infuriated, the Arians forced the emperor to exile Meletius.38 From Theodoret, we learn about the circumstances in which this so-called sermon was held. Outside the sessions of the synod itself, Emperor Cons t a n t ^ staged an oratorical contest on the interpretation of Proverbs 8,22, a traditional proof of Subordinatian theology.39 First spoke Acacius of Caesarea and then George of Alexandria,40 who, as Theodoret declares, held heretical sermons; only Meletius professed the apostolic doctrine, i.e. the homoousios: "First of all Georgius of Laodicea gave vent to his foul heresy. After him Acacius of Caesarea propounded a doctrine of compromise far removed indeed from the blasphemy of the enemy, but not preserving the apostolic doctrine pure and undefiled. Then up rose the great Meletius and exhibited the unbending line of the canon of the faith, for using the truth as a carpenter does his rule he avoided excess and defect. Then the multitude broke into loud applause and besought him to give them a short summary of his teaching. Accordingly after showing three fingers, he withdrew two, left one, and uttered the memorable sentence, 'In thought they are three but we speak astoone." 4 1

As I have already stated, it seems unlikely in the extreme that by staging this oratorical contest Constantius wished to revive any dogmatic dis38

Theod. h.e. II 31,3-10 (171,1-172,18 P./H.); Soz. h.e. IV 28,6-9 (185,14-186,8 B./H.); Rufi h.e. X 25 (989,12-14) (briefly); Hist, aceph. 2,7 (146,35 + 148,1-2 M.) (very vaguely: only the term eo nolente eorum make menti consentire could perhaps allude to that dogmatic difference of opinion). According to Socrates (h.e. II 44,4-5 [182,8-11 H.]), only the emperor (not the "Arian" bishops) acted. Constantius banished Meletius after he had learned that Meletius had professed the homoousios. The Heterousian church historian Philostorgius also has an interpretatio ex eventu in respect to the banishment of Meletius, but a specifically Anhomoian one (Philost. h.e. V 5 [69,9-13 B./W.]): ton'Antioxei/aj Mele/tion upo tou Kwnstanti/ou kai autou en Antioxeia diatri/bontoj upe ro/rion eij thn eautou patri/da thn Melitinhn ekpemfqhnai, w j epiorkiaij alo/nta kai o t i , t o omoou/sion presbeu/wn ekto/pwj, t o eteroou/sion katesxhmati/zeto.

39

Theod. h.e. I I 31,6 (171,19-172,2 P./H.):'O de basileuj ka i autw kai t o i j a l l o i j oi le/gein hdu/nanto t o "ku/rioj ektise me arxhn odwn autou eij erga autou" parhggu/hsen anaptu/cai t w plh/qei: t o u j de gra/fein eij ta/xoj pepaideume/nouj gra/yai prose/tace t a par eka/stou lego/mena, akribeste/ran esesqai thn didaskal i a n upolabw/n. I do not agree with A. Martin, Theodoret de Cyr (see note 2), 11, who argues that the active role of Acacius of Caesarea and George of Alexandria during Meletius' ordination speak against the authenticity of the oratorical contest. However, her argument cannot convince. The presence of Acacius and George during the ordination of Meletius does not exclude their participation in an authentic oratorical contest. Theod. h.e. II 31,7-8 (172,2-13 P./H.). The English translation is quoted according to: Theodoret, Church History, Dialogues, and Letters. Translated, with ample prolegomena and explanatory notes, by B. Jackson, in: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings, NPNF 2, Vol. 3, New York 1892, 163.

40

41

368

Oliver Hihn

course about the relationship of Father and Son. His aim in staging this event would rather seem to have been to mark the end of this theological debate and to proclaim the beginning of a new era of concord and peace within the church.42 However, Theodoret's assertion that Meletius confessed the homoousios in his sermon and was, in consequence, exiled by the emperor, is incorrect,43 although the accounts of Socrates and Sozomen and some other sources seem to corroborate Theodoret's version.44 We cannot take these Nicene accounts at face value, since Epiphanius handed down a sermon of Meletius which we can identify with the sermon at the Antiochene synod.45 Hanns Christof Brennecke and Franz Dunzl have plausibly argued that the sermon is Homoian. 46 In that homily, Meletius unambiguously calls for peace in the church and for an end to dogmatic discussions.47 He 42 43

Cf. also Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 74f. Scholars have believed again and again that Meletius' sermon was the cause for his deposition and exile (see e.g. recently again K. McCarthy Spoerl, The Schism at Antioch since Cavallera, in: Arianism after Arius. Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, ed. by M.R. Barnes/D.H. Williams, Edinburgh 1993, 101-126, here: 125 and P. Gemeinhardt, Der Tomus ad Antiochenos (362) und die Vielfalt orthodoxer Theologien im 4. jahrhundert, ZKG 117, 2006, 169-196, here: 188). Many modern scholars believe that Meletius' sermon has either a Nicene or an Homoiousian character. The different positions of modern research are listed by F. Dunzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 71f; Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 143f. with notes 255 and 256.

44

For these sources see above, note 38. Epiphanius o f Salamis (73,34,1 [309,1-5 H . / D J ) believes that the sermon o f Meletius was the cause o f his exile. Nevertheless, he does not mention which points o f the sermon annoyed the H o m o i a n bishops and the emperor. H e merely indicates w i t h which arguments the H o m o i a n bishops convinced the emperor to banish Meletius:"Edoce de t o u t o [i.e. t h e s e r m o n ] t o i j metene/gkai auton a p o t h j P o n t i k h j x w / r a j < spouda/sasi > t o u j p l e i / o u j t w n Areianwn ouk epi x a r a j < k a t a s t h s a i >, oude e i j a u t w n a na/pausin, a l l ' e i j epaxqeian < eirhsqai xenteuqen kinousi t o n basile/a ka i suskeua/zontai t o n a n d r a w j dia t o mh wmologhke/nai kti/sma te/leion auton kai eceousi t h j autou kaqe/draj.

45

For the identification of the sermon in the Panarion haeresium with Meletius' sermon in Theodoret's church history see the arguments of H. Chr. Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 73 with note 74 and Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 77 with note 76; 82, note 90. For an analysis of the sermon see especially H. Chr. Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 73fi; F. Dunzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 82-91; Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 83-134 and K. McCarthy Spoerl, Schism at Antioch (see note 43), 110-126. H. Chr. Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 73fi; F. Diinzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 91.

46 47

E.g. Epiph. haer. 73,29,3 (303,19-24): Ti/na d an t i j t o u lo/gou t o u p r o j umaj a r x h n poih/saito; h] dhlon w j p a n t o j arxome/nou kai lo/gou kai ergou prosh/kei t h n eirh/nhn a r x h n poieisqai kai t e / l o j , kai a p ' a u t h j arxome/nouj kai e i j authn katalh/gein. „ t o u t o ga/r f h s i n o a p o s t o l o j apobh/sesqai e i j s w t h r i a n , dia t h j umw n


369

asks the bishops and theologians to stop scrutinising the nature of God and to abstain from any deeper analysis of the Son's genesis.48 Besides, he professes the homoios twice in his sermon.49 And further, some terms and passages in the homily of Meletius seem to demonstrate that the speech was directed both at an Homoian and Homoiousian audience.50 In his sermon, Meletius did not distance himself from the imperial church policy of Constantius II or even subtly criticise the emperor, as Franz Dunzl, Thomas R. Karmann and especially Volker H. Drecoll believed recently. We can deduce from this homily that Meletius altogether agreed with the Homoian and integrative religious policy of Constantius II.51

48

49

Senoecos ai epixoriiYias xou pveâxos". See F. Dunzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 82: "Irenisch ist auch der Grundtenor der gesamten Predigt." This concept widely held under the Homoians ap,ears very often in the sermon of Meletius: e g . Epiph. haer. 73,30,4 (305,14 H./D.) where he characterises the Son as "the ineffable Interpreter of the Ineffable" (xou aSinytiTou er|Jr,veus a S i w o s ) ; Epiph. haer. 73,32,3 (307,17-19 H./D.): 5eos y a r ecm m pcos eK xf,s xcov araxaATipxcov iAoveiKias ai xr]s xcov aveiKTCov C W e c o s eiS Mo a oe&ias eupeocouev. See also the long passage Epiph. haer. 73,32,1-33,3 (307,5-308,23 H./D.). Meletius professes the homoiosl-on in two central passages of his sermon: At first, he uses it in his christological profession (Epiph. haer. 73,30,6 [305,23-24 H./D.]). A second time, the term appears in his exegesis of Prov. 8,22 (Epiph. haer. 73,31,5 [ 3 0 6 , 2 0 - 2 1 H . / D J ) : e5ei <ei5evai> xous pioxeuovxas eis X r i o x o v , cos ouoio S ecmv o uiosrapaxri.

50

The Homoians had forbidden the use of the terms ousia and hypostasis in dogmatic debates and Meletius complies with that rule. Nevertheless, he paraphrases that Father and Son are two separate hypostaseis: see Diinzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 83f. Therefore, it is not surprising that McCarthy Spoerl, Schism at Antioch (see note 43), concludes her analysis of Meletius' sermon with the sentence: "Meletius' theology is a Homoiousian one couched in cautious Homoian terms." (125). On basis of this hypothesis, she concludes (falsely): "It was Meletius' basically Homoiousian, not Homoousion, theology that prompted his exile shortly after he delivered this sermon." However, the majority of the latest modern research characterises the theological position of Meletius in his sermon either as Homoian or with terms such as "Eusebian". See eg. Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 133; H. Chr. Brennecke, Studien (see note 4), 73: "Diese Predigt zeigt auch nicht die geringsten Anklange an eine homousianische Theologie. Theologisch ist sie ganz und gar homoisch, d.h. sie bietet die vertraute ostliche eusebianische Theologie."

51

Cf Diinzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 90f, Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see 4), e.g. 92f with note 122, 118f. with note 183 and V. H. Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitatslehre des Basilius von Casarea. Sein Weg vom Homousianer zum Neonizaner, FKDG 66, Gottingen 1996, 15. With formulations like ai Sia xouxo 5eos eoxi rf pcos PiaCoiievoi Aeyeiv p e r i cJv ou 5uva|ie8a Aeyeiv, w e x i ouyxcorriOoSiiev mSe

peri

cSv 5uvaue6a (Epiph. haer. 73,32,4 [307,23-25 H./D.]) Meletius does not intend to criticise the emperor, but perhaps intends to ask his audience not to participate in debates with dialecticians like Aetius.

370

Oliver Hihn

This sermon, therefore, cannot have been the cause of Meletius' deposition. Consequently, we must explore the reasons for the deposition of Meletius by looking at the complicated situation of the Antiochene church. In the middle of C o n s t a n t s ' reign, the Antiochene bishop Leontius had already tried to foster the dialectical talent of Aetius. Furthermore, he had promoted him to the office of a deacon,52 whereas the moderate Subordinatian clergy opposed a further promotion of Aetius. Leontius then degraded Aetius, Aetius left Antioch and went to Alexandria.53 Eudoxius, however, Leontius' more extreme successor, supported Aetius again and the opposing Antiochene clerics were deposed. Probably, these deposed clerics who supported a moderate Subordinatian theology later became advocates of the Homoiousian doctrine. We can deduce this from Sozomen's account on a letter sent by George of Laodicea to the later Homoiousian bishops at the synod in Ancyra 358. Sozomen mentions that Eudoxius had expelled many Antiochene Christians who probably later became Homoiousians. 54 In his letter on the 52

Athan. syn. 38,4 (265,4-6 O.); Philost. h.c. Ill 17 (47,25; 48,1-3 B./W.); Theod. h.c. II 24,6 (153,25-154,2 P./H.); Socr. h.c. II 35,5 (150,15-17 H.); II 37,7 (153,5-6 H.); Soz.h.e. IV 12,1 (154,13-15 B./H.). 53 We can deduce this from the accounts of Theodoret and Socrates who mention the degradation of Aetius: Theod. h.e. II 24,7-8 (154,2-11 B./W.); implicitly: Socr. h.e. II 37,10 (153,13-14 H.). But note that Philostorgius hands down a very different version: Acccording to him, Aetius was not degraded by Leontius, but decided voluntarily to leave Antioch intending to support the opponents of Athanasius in Alexandria: Philost. h.e. Ill 17 (48,3-8 B./W.). 54 Soz. h.e. IV 13,1 (155,15-17 B./H.):'Epei de wde enewte/rizen Eudo/cioj kai p o l l o i t h j 'Antioxe/wn ekklhsi/aj

enantiou/menoi a u t w

echla/qhsan, gra/mmata

labo/ntej

Gewrgiou tou Laodikeiaj episko/pou parege/nonto eij Agkuran t h j G a l a t i a j . Possibly, these Antiochene Christians expelled by Eudoxius were Homoiousians or at least followers of the bishops around Basil of Ancyra. This hypothesis can be deduced from two further passages: In his narrative about Acacius' of Caesarea reorganisations in the Eastern church after the synod of Constantinople (January 360), Philostorgius mentions that the Antiochene clerics who had supported Basil of Ancyra in his fight against Eudoxius and Aetius were expelled (h.e. V 1 [66,24-67,1 B./W.]): en de t h Antioxei/a, osoi me/n p o t e t w n en t w k l h / r w sune/pracan Basilei'/w en t o i j

kata

tou

Eudociou kai Aeti/ou tolmhqeisin erh/mhn h l au/nonto. Secondly, a fragment of an anonymous Homoian historian handed down in the Chronkon Paschak, is not sufficiently taken into account by modern research. This source tells us about the return of Meletius from his exile in 362 under Julian (Chron. Pasch. ad a. 362 [230,14-17 B./W.]): O u t w j ou]n kai M e l e / t i o j , o epi asebei/a kai ete/roij k a k o i j kaqhrhme/noj, epanelqwn en A n t i o x e i a t h n p a l a i a n hrpasen ekklhsian, sundramo/ntwn a u t w kai

twn hdh ek tou klh/rou kaqaireqe/ntwn enqe/smwj upo t h j a g i a j suno/dou. When Meletius returned to Antioch in 362, "those of the clergy who had already been legally demoted by the holy synod also ran to join him." (transl. M. Whitby/M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale, 284-628 AD, Liverpool 1989, 38). Who were these clerics? In


371

other hand, George complains about Eudoxius supporting Aetius and his followers. Furthermore, George mentions that Eudoxius agrees with Aetius to use the term anhomoios, and points out that he is going to raise Aetius'pupils to the clergy.55 My hypothesis is that Meletius simply went too far with his integrative course. In my opinion, Meletius tried to reform the Antiochene clergy and endeavoured to integrate the Homoiousian clerics whom his predecessor Eudoxius had deposed and expelled. This reorganisation of the clergy lies at the bottom of an explanation for the short duration of his episcopate. This hypothesis is supported by the explicit testimony of sources that are much closer to the events than the Nicene church historians.56. Jerome mentions that Meletius was exiled due to the fact that he rehabilitated and readmitted the presbyters which his predecessor Eudoxius had previously deposed.57 Furthermore, in his homily on Meletius John Chrysostom my opinion, they must have been "old" supporters of Meletius, i.e. his followers from his first sojourn as bishop of Antioch (at the beginning of 361). What is meant by the "holy synod"? From the perspective of the Homoian source, it could only be the synod of Constantinople in January 360 where the Homoiousian bishops were deposed. 55

56

E.g. Soz. h.e. I V 13,2-3 (155,23-26 B./H.): To 'Aeti/ou naua/gion s x edo/n pou p a s a n katei/lhfe thn'Antioxe/wn. t o u j gar p a r ' umin atimazome/nouj m a q h t a j t o u d u s w numou Aeti/ou p a / n t a j k a t a l a b w n Eudo/cioj e i j k l h r i k o u j p r o b a / l l e t a i , en t o i j ma/lista tetimhme/noij exwn t o n a i r e t i k o n Ae/tion.[...] Emperor Constantius I I m i g h t have alluded to these measures o f Eudoxius i n a letter to the Antiochene church, i n which he condemned Eudoxius and his followers: Soz. h.e. I V 14,6 (157,14-16 B./H.). For the p r o m o t i o n o f Eunomius to the diaconate by Eudoxius see Philost. h.e. IV5(61,3-5B./W.).

The hypothesis was first adumbrated by E. Schwartz, Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts, Z N T W 34, 1935, 129-213, here: 162f. (reprinted in: E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 4: Zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche und ihres Rechts, Berlin I960, 1-110, here: 44f). It has recently been taken up by F. Diinzl, Absetzung (see note 4), 92f, Th. R. Karmann, Meletius (see note 4), 145-147 with notes 260-262, especially note 261. 57 Hier. chron. ad a. 360 (241,24-242,4 H.): Meletius Sebastiae Armeniorum episcopus ab Acacio et Georgia episcopis Arrianis Antiochiam transfertur etpost non grande temporis intemallum, cum presbyteros, qui ab Eudoxio antecessor suo depositi fuerant, suscepisset, exilii iustissimam causam subita fidei mutatione delusit. Another clue can be found in a passage of Epiphanius' Panarion omnium haeresium. There Epiphanius gives a review of accusations against Meletius which could have caused the bishops to depose Meletius, but with which Epiphanius does not agree (Epiph. haer. 73,35,2 [309,25-310,2 H . / D J ) : "[some] have said something about him to the effect that the rebellion against him was not over his orthodoxy, but because of canonical matters and the quarrel between him and his priests, and because he received certain persons whom he had previously expelled and condemned." (transl. F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), Leiden/New York/Koln 1994, 468). The term kai o t i t i n a j ede/cato, ouj pa/lai

372

Oliver Hihn

mentions that Meletius as the new Antiochene bishop "cut the rotting and incurable limbs from the body of the church, thus giving it back its health".58 This statement in all probability alludes to the fact that Meletius expelled or excommunicated several of ("heterodox") Antiochene Christians or clerics who had previously supported his predecessor Eudoxius, as well as Aetius. This in turn promptly led to Meletius' own deposition and to the election of Euzoius as his successor.59 We simply do not know, if this old companion of Arius supported C o n s t a n t s ' religious policy. Between the years 335 and 360/361 there is no information or any indication of his theological or political position.60

apeba/leto kai aneqema/tisen (Epiph. haer. 73,35,2 [310,1-2 H . / D J ) does surely not describe the right cause of Meletius' deposition: How could Meletius have anathematised and taken back the same clerics in a period of 30 days? It is more plausible that Epiphanius confused the facts (cf. also Th. R. Karmann, Meletius [see note 4], 139, note 242: perhaps a corruptek of the original text). Probably, the passage in the Panarion haeresium alludes to the reintegration of the Homoiousian clerics by Meletius whom his successor Eudoxius had expelled. 58 Chrys. pan. Melet. (PG 50, col. 516): Kai gar euqe/wj eiselqwn, t h j po/lewj eceba/lleto, twn t h j alhqeiaj exqrwn apelauno/ntwn auto/n. [...] Epeidh ga r eiselqwn, kaqa/per Mwushj eij Aigupton, airetikhj t h n po/lin aph/llace pla/nh j , kai t a seshpo/ta me/lh kai ania/twj exonta tou loipou sw/m a t o j apoko/yaj, ake/raion thn ugi/eian epanh/gage t w plh/qei t h j Ekklhsiaj, oi t h j alhqeiaj exqroi thn dio/rqwsin ouk enegko/ntej, ton basileuonta to/te kinh/santej, t h j po/lewj auton ece/balon. 59

There could be another reason for the deposition of Meletius: The Homoian bishops elected Euzoius, an Alexandrian cleric of George of Alexandria and old companion of Arius, as Meletius' successor (cf. Theod. h.e. II 31,10 [172,18-21 P./HJ; Socr. h.e. II 44,5 [182,11-13 H.]; Soz. h.e. IV 28,10 [186,8-10 B./H.]; Philost. h.e. V 5 [69,1315 B./WJ; Hist, aceph. 2,7 [148,1-2 M.]: Euzoium presbyterum Georgii alexandrini eius loco ordinauerunt). Since George of Alexandria was present at the Antiochene synod, it is not implausible to assume that he stirred up the opinions of the Homoian bishops against Meletius and in favour of Euzoius (cf. H. Chr. Brennecke, Studien [see note 4], 771, 81 and especially M. DelCogliano, George of Laodicea [see note 24], 188f). Therefore, an arisen dispute and a following division under the Homoians could have additionally been causes for Meletius' deposition: see also Diinzl, Absetzung[seenote4],92f.

60

Cf. Spanneut, Art. Euzoius, D H G E 16, Paris 1967, 98-101, here: 99. It is very problematic to deduce his theological and political position from his agreement with Arius or from his deeds as the Antiochene bishop under Valens as modern research has previously often done. For Euzoius under Valens see especially J. D. Smith III, Reflections on Euzoius in Alexandria and Antioch, StudPatr36,2001, 514-519.


373

Conclusion There is thus good reason to believe that the same Homoian bishops who had elected Meletius deposed him at an Antiochene synod in 3 6 1 . " These bishops, especially the particularly influential Acacius of Caesarea and George of Alexandria, had no use for a bishop in Antioch attempting to integrate their newly arisen opponents since the synod of Seleucia: the Homoiousian clerics. Paradoxically, Emperor Constantius II, who consistently pursued a religious policy of integration and unity, was compelled by his most influential theological advisers to exile a bishop who was in complete and total agreement with his religious policy. This example serves as a demonstration of the limits of imperial religious policy; in a time of growing theological differentiation it was up to the emperor to solve two nearly insoluble problems: to find both a compromise solution for the dogmatic discourse and to pursue a consistent and integrative church policy. Although the emperor sometimes had a great influence on episcopal elections in Late Antiquity (especially on the episcopal elections of the greater sees), a miscalculation' by the emperor (and/or his religious advisers) could have serious effects on the success or failure of imperial church policy (and on the history of factionalism in a Roman metropolis such as Antioch). Such a miscalculation could very easily occur in times of theological differentiation, when the dividing lines between groups of bishops were very fluid. With the election and deposition of Meletius, the church policy of Constantius had the opposite effect: A schism in the Homoian church was caused that resulted in a considerable weakening of this church.62 Shortly after his deposition, the followers of Meletius turned to the homoousios and to the position of Neo-Nicenism. Ironically, Meletius, the earlier Homoian candidate of Constantius, at first presided over the Council of Constantinople in 381, this synod responsible for establishing the homoousios as the "right" term to describe the relation between Father and Son.

61

62

Ruf. h.e. X 25 (989,9-12 M.): cum multi diversarum urbium episcopi [...] ad ultimum Meletium de Sabastia Armeniae civitate contra decreta concilii illuc transferunt. qui tamen ab ipsis rursum in exilmm truditur. Naturally, this is only one reason for the weakening and failure of the Homoian church.

Haeres Petri: Kontinuitat und Wandel in der Bischofsnachfolge des Siricius von Rom Christian Hornung Einleitung Am 11. Dezember 384 starb Damasus von Rom. 1 Die Wahl seines Nachfolgers vollzog sich offenbar schnell: Siricius erlangte die Bischofswiirde, wahrscheinlich noch im selben Jahr, woruber Prosper Tiro von Aquitanien informiert.2 Vom Februar des Jahres 385 ist in der Collectio Avelkna zudem ein kurzes kaiserliches Bestatigungsschreiben an den romischen Stadtprafekten erhalten, das die Ereignisse zusammenfasst. Hiernach wurde Siricius in groEem Einvernehmen gewahlt, Ursinus hingegen, der vormalige Widersacher des Damasus und Konkurrent urn das Bischofsamt, von der anwesenden Menge abgelehnt;3 der Kaiser wertete es als Indiz fur die Richtigkeit der Wahl, dass in una acckmatione et ipsum eligi et ceteros improbari - „in einer Akklamation sowohl Siricius selbst ausgewahlt als auch die ubrigen [scil. Kandidaten] verworfen wurden." 4 Hintergrund der Freude liber die zugige Wahl des Siricius durfte vor allem die Erinnerung an die seines Vorgangers Damasus gewesen sein. Damals durchzogen Unruhe und Krawall die StraEen Roms, und die Gemeinde spaltete sich uber die Wahl des richtigen Kandidaten in zwei feindliche Lager,5 was man jetzt zu vermeiden suchte. Nicht zuletzt dieser

1

2 3 4 5

Vgl. Hier. vir. ill. 103 (A. Ceresa-Gastaldo, Gerokmo. Gli Uomini Illustri. De viris illustribus, Florence 1988, 208): [...] etprope octogenarius sub Theodosioprincipe mortuus est sowie umfassend zu seinem Episkopat E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 1, Tiibingen 1930, 196-256. Vgl. Prosp. chron. 1182 zj. 384 (MGH AA 9, 461 Mommsen): Romanae ecclesiaepost Damasum XXXVI Siricius episcopuspraefuit. Coll. Avell. 4,lf. (CSEL 35, 1, 47f. Guenther). Coll. Avell. 4,2 (48 G.). Vgl. Amm. XXVII 3,12 (ed. by M.-A. Marie, Ammien Marcellin. Histoire, vol. 5, CUF, Paris 1984, 110): Damasus et Ursinus supra humanum modum adrapiendam epi-

376

Christian Hornung

Intention diirfte wohl die kaiserliche Bestatigung dienen, die zum innerkirchlichen Verfahren der Bischofswahl hinzu trat und Siricius allgemeine Akzeptanz verleihen sollte.6 Uber ihn selbst, die Person des Siricius, haben wir nur wenige Informationen; eine Grabinschrift bezeugt seine Laufbahn im stadtromischen Klerus/ und Hieronymus spottete bekanndich uber seine Einfalt.8 Im Folgenden sollen die Bischofswahl und -nachfolge des Siricius unter zwei Aspekten betrachtet werden, der Kontinuitat und dem Wandel. Sie sind geeignet, die erstaunliche und wichtige Zasur, die mit Siricius in der romischen Bischofsgeschichte wahrnehmbar wird, zu beschreiben und sie in ihrer Bedeutung fur den romischen Primat darzustellen. An ihnen soil aufgezeigt werden, wie sich vor dem Hintergrund auEerer Kontinuitat Anspruch und Selbstdarstellung des romischen Bischofs wandeln und welche Verfahren zur Legitimierung seiner Nachfolge angewendet werden. Daher wird besonders im zweiten Teil der Untersuchung in einer Detailstudie das Prooemium 9 der sogenannten ersten Dekretale10 des Siricius untersucht (JK 255): Was verraten ihr Aufbau und ihre Terminologie im Zusammenhang der genannten Fragestellung uber Tendenzen des Siricius? Welche theologische wie auch romisch-rechtliche Argumentationsstruktur steht am Anfang dieser Bischofsnachfolge und der Legitimierung eines sich mehr und mehr abzeichnenden romischen Primatsanspruchs, der am Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts deutlicher artikuliert wird und gleichzeitig noch starker argumentativer Absicherung bedarf?

6

7 8

9

10

scopi sedem ardentes scissis studiis asperrime conflictabant ad usque mortis vulnerumque discrimina adiumentis utriusque progressis, [...]; Coll. Avell. 1 (1-4 G.); A. Coskun, Der Praefect Maximinus, der Jude Isaak und der Strafprozefi gegen den Bischof Damasus, JbAC 46, 2003, 17-44; U. Reutter, Damasus. Bischof von Rom (366-384), STAC 55, Tubingen u. a. 2009, 31-56. Bereits bei der Wahl des Damasus sollte der Legitimierung des neuen Bischofs ein kaiserliches Bestatigungsschreiben dienen; vgl. E. Wirbelauer, Die Nachfolgerbestimmung im romischen Bistum (3.-6. Jh.). Doppelwahlen und Absetzungen in ihrer herrschaftssoziologischen Bedeutung, Klio 76, 1994, 409. Vgl. hierzu die Darstellung unter Punkt 2 des Beitrags. Vgl. Hier. en. 127,9 (CSEL 56, 152 Hilberg): [...] ac simplicitati illuderet episcopi, qui de sua ingenio ceteros aestimabat sowie N. Adkin, Pope Siricius' .Simplicity (Hier. ep. 127, 9, 3), VetChr 33, 1996, 25-28. Vgl. P. E. Pieler, Die Rechtsliteratur, in: Spatantike. Mit einem Panorama der byzantinischen Literatur, hrsg. von L. j . Engels/H. Hofmann, N H L 4, Wiesbaden 1997, 571-573 und zum ,Prooemium' als Teil der antiken Rede H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, Stuttgart 3 1990, 150-160. Zum Terminus vgl. D. jasper, The Beginning of the Decretal Tradition, in: Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages, hrsg. von D. Jasper/H. Fuhrmann, H M C L 2, Washington 2001, 3-133.

Kontinuitat und Wandel in der Bischofsnachfolge des Siricius von Rom

377

Aspekte von Kontinuitat: Siricius, ein Diakon, wird romischer Bischof Die Kontinuitat in der Bischofsnachfolge des Siricius zeigt sich darin, dass in ihm erneut ein vormaliger Diakon zum romischen Bischofsamt gelangte. Denn es war lokalromische Tradition, dass gerade aus diesem Kollegium, das nach dem Vorbild der Apostelgeschichte auf sieben begrenzt war," der Nachfolger bestimmt wurde. Ja, bis in das 5. Jahrhundert hinein lasst sich unter den romischen Bischofen keiner nachweisen, der vormals Presbyter war, dagegen mehrere, die zuvor Diakone waren, worauf u. a. EckhardWirbelauerhinweist. 12 Die romischen Diakone machte wohl besonders ihre zahlenmaEige Begrenzung und ihre durch die Kirchenverwaltung gegebene Nahe zum Bischof zu einem gleichsam erlesenen, elitaren Club, die sie den Presbytern vorgeordnet erscheinen lieE;13 darauf spricht beispielsweise Hieronymus in dem Wort an: Diaconos paucitas honorabiles, presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit - „Die Diakone macht ihre geringe Anzahl verehrungswurdig, die Presbyter [hingegen] ihre Masse verachtlich."14 Dass aber soviel Ansehen auch Fehlentwicklungen forderte, bezeugt bereits das zur Uberwindung des Donatismus einberufene Konzil von Aries v.J. 314. Urn Einfluss und Position der romischen Diakone zu begrenzen, bestimmt es in seinem 18. Kanon, dass sie den Presbytern ihre Ehrenstellung {honor) belassen und nichts ohne deren Einverstandnis tun sollen.15 Im Hintergrund der Bestimmung stehen offenbar Auseinandersetzungen innerhalb des romischen Klerus, bei denen Diakone den Presbytern den Vorrang streitig machten. Griffes Interpretation, der rein innerromische Auseinandersetzungen als Hintergrund des Kanons ausschliefo und die Bestimmung auf Zerwurfnisse zwischen romischen Diakonen und Presbytern aus anderen Ortskirchen zuruckfuhrt, die anlasslich eines romi11 Vgl. Act. 6,1-6. 12 Wirbelauer, Nachfolgerbestimmung (s. Anm. 6), 411. 13 Vgl. F. Prat, Les pretentions des diacres Remains au quatrieme siecle, RSR 3, 1912, 463-475; B. Domagalski, Romische Diakone im 4. jahrhundert. Zum Verhaltnis von Bischof, Diakon und Presbyter, in: Der Diakon. Wiederentdeckung und Erneuerung seines Dienstes, hrsg. von J. G. Ploger/H. J. Weber, Freiburg u. a. 1980, 44-56. 14 Hier. cp. 146,2 (311 H.); vgl. Ps.-Aug. quaes, test. 101,3 (CSEL 50, 195 Souter): multitude [...]clerkorum. 15 Vgl. Cone. Arelatense vj. 314 en. 18 (CChr.SL 148, 13 Munier): De diaconibus urbicis: Ut nan sibi tantum praesumant, sed honorem presbyteris reservent, ut sine conscientia ipsorum nihil tale faciant.

378

Christian Hornung

schen Konzils v.J. 313 in der Stadt gewesen seien,16 ist daher keineswegs zwingend. Denn gerade die romischen Diakone sind fur ihr anmaEendes Auftreten auch durch andere Quellen bekannt. Der Ambrosiaster nennt in der zweiten Halfte des 4. Jahrhunderts als negative Eigenschaften der Diakone Prahlerei und Kuhnheit17 sowie AnmaEung18 und Dreistigkeit.19 Die sicher auch tendenziose Kritik verdeutlicht ihre herausgehobene Stellung, die sie im stadtromischen Klerus ein gleichsam oligarchisches Regiment fuhren liefi und die es zur Regel machte, dass aus ihrem Kreis der romischeBischofbestimmtwurde. 20 Des Siricius direkter Aufstieg vom Diakonat zum Episkopat ist einerseits sicher vor diesem Hintergrund, namlich seiner Zugehorigkeit zu eben jenem Kollegium der Diakone, zu erklaren, andererseits qualifizierte ihn wohl fur das hochste Amt seine in Rom absolvierte Klerikerlaufbahn. Denn nach seiner Grabinschrift war Siricius bereits unter Liberius Lektor, bald Diakon und diente spater dem Damasus.21 Beide Faktoren durften die traditionelle Wahl des Siricius unterstutzt und gleichzeitig verhindert haben, dass der bekanntere Hieronymus an seiner Stelle reussierte, der sich zu dieser Zeit in Rom aufhielt und sich als vormaliger Vertrauter des Damasus Chancen auf dessen Nachfolge ausgerechnet hatte.22 Denn Hieronymus gehorte eben nicht dem engeren stadtromischen Zirkel an, konnte nicht auf entsprechende Fursprecher zuruckgreifen und hatte vielleicht durch seine asketisch motivierte, intensive Kritik am romischen Klerus AnsehenundEinflussverspielt. 23 Insofern lasst sich aus der Nachfolge des Siricius ein interessantes Schlaglicht auf die institutionelle Struktur des romischen Klerus werfen: Offensichtlich wurde aus einem kleinen Zirkel, im vierten Jahrhundert 16

Vgl. E. Griffe, La Gaule chretienne a l'epoque Romaine 1. Des origines chretiennes a lafinduIV=siecle,Parisl964,198. 17 Vgl. Ps.-Aug. quaes, test. 101,1-10 passim (193/8 S.). 18 Vgl. Ps.-Aug. quaes, test. 101,8 (197 S.): [...] [scil. diaconos] praecipites illosfaciunt, utplussibiputentlicere, [...]. 19 Vgl. Ps.-Aug. quaes, test. 101,1 (194 S.): vanapraesumptio. 20 Vgl. Caspar, Geschichte (s. Anm. 1), 257-259. 21 Vgl. Ps.-Damas. epigr. 93,lf. (96 Ihm): Liberium lector max et levita secutus, I post Damasum, dams totos quos vixit in annos. 22 Vgl. Hier. ep. 45,3 (CSEL 54, 325 Hilberg): Omnium paene iudicio dignus summo sacerdotio decernebar; beatae memoriae Damasi os meus sermo erat; dicebar sanctus, dicebar humilis et disertus und Domagalski, Diakone (s. Anm. 13), 44. 23 Vgl. Hier. ep. 46,11 (CSEL 54, 340f. Hilberg) und iibereinstimmend das Urteil bei Amm. XXVII 3 (107-111 Marie) sowie D. G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity. The Jovinianist Controversy, Oxford 2007, 208f.; R. Hennings, Hieronymus zum Bischofsamt, ZKG 108, 1997, 6-8.


379

exklusiv, der Nachfolger des Leitungsamts der romischen Gemeinde rekrutiert, die zu diesem Zeitpunkt verstarkt den Vorrang in der Gesamtkirchebeanspruchte. 24

Aspekte von Wandel: Die neuartige Legitimierung des romischen Primatsanspruchs An der Bischofsnachfolge des Siricius ist ein neues Amtsverstandnis des romischen Bischofs wahrzunehmen. Es kann, zumindest seinem Anspruch nach, als Primat bezeichnet werden und steht in markantem Gegensatz zur auEeren Kontinuitat seiner Nachfolge. Lassen sich zwar bereits bei seinen Vorgangern in Verhalten und eigenen Verlautbarungen erste Ansatze eines Vorrangsanspruchs finden - erinnert sei an den Ketzertaufstreit zwischen Cyprian25 und Stephan26 oder auch an die selbstbewusste Formulierung dctpraerogativa sedis apostolicae aus der Zeit des Damasus27 - , so zeigt sich in Konzeption, Ausgestaltung und Legitimierung bei Siricius etwas Neues. Dies auEert sich sogleich in seinem ersten, an Himerius von Tarragona28 adressierten Schreiben vom Jahr 385, der ersten erhaltenen Dekretale,29

24 25 26

27 28 29

Vgl. J. Gaudemet, L'Eglise dans l'Empire Romain (IV=-V=), H D I E O 3, Paris 1958, 438f. Vgl. zu seiner Position gegeniiber dem romischen Primat W. Marschall, Karthago und Rom, PuP 1, Stuttgart 1971, 29-41. 100-102. Vgl. seine, unter den romischen Bischofen, erstmalige Berufung auf Mt 16, 18f., die Cypr. cp. 75,17 (CChr.SL 3C, 596f. Diercks) iiberliefert, sowie N. Brox, Tendenzen und Parteilichkeiten im Osterfeststreit des 2. Jahrhunderts, ZKG 83, 1972, 291-324; S. Schima, Caput occidentis? Die romische Kirche und der Westen von den Anfangen bis Konstantin, KuR 23, Wien 2000, 85-103. Eine Relatio der romischen Synode vom Jahr 378 an die Kaiser Gratian und Valentinian ist erhalten: Ambr. ep. extra collect. 7,10 (CSEL 82, 3, 196 Zelzer). J. Vilella, La ,Epfstola 1' de Siricio. Estudio prosopografico de Himerio de Tarragona, Aug. 44, 2004, 337-369. Die Zuschreibung und Datierung der Dekretale Ad Gallos episcopos ist umstritten. E. Ch. Babut, La plus ancienne decretale, Paris 1904; Reutter, Damasus (s. Anm. 5) 192-232 und, mit vorsichtigerem Urteil, Y.-M. Duval, La decretale Ad Gallos episcopos. Son texte et son auteur. Texte critique, traduction francaise et commentaire, SVigChr 73, Leiden/Boston 2005 sprachen sich fur ihre Datierung in den Episkopat des Damasus aus. Uberzeugender scheint jedoch D. jasper zu sein, der aufgrund der Uberlieferungsgeschichte zu einer Zuschreibung an Siricius kommt: ders., Die Canones synodi Romanorum ad Gallos episcopos - die alteste Dekretale?, ZKG 107, 1996, 319-326 und erneut ders., Rez. zu La decretale Ad Gallos episcopos. Son texte et son auteur. Texte critique, traduction francaise et commentaire par Yves-Marie Duval, DA 62, 1, 2006, 257f

380

Christian Hornung

mit der der vormalige Diakon seinen primatialen Anspruch liber die Ortskirche hinaus argumentativ abzusichern sucht. Bischof Himerius aus dem spanischen Tarragona hatte noch an Damasus ein Schreiben gerichtet, in dem er verschiedene Fragen der Gemeinde- und Klerikerdisziplin formulierte. Ihre Beantwortung zahlte zu den ersten Amtshandlungen des Siricius. Wohl auch deshalb erachtete er es als notwendig, seine Nachfolge anzuzeigen und sich auf diese Weise gegenuber dem Amtsbruder sogleich zu positionieren. Und gerade fur diesen Aspekt ist das erste Kapitel des Schreibens bedeutsam, in dem exemplarisch Mechanismen bischoflicher, hier besonders romischprimatialer Nachfolge, ablesbar werden, die dem Neugewahlten Akzeptanz verleihen sollen. Das erste Kapitel hat folgenden Wortlaut: „Gerichtet an meinen Vorganger Damasus seligen Angedenkens, fand der Bericht deiner Briiderlichkeit mich schon auf dessen Stuhl selbst vor, weil es der Herr so eingerichtet hat. Als wir diesen Brief in der Versammlung der Briider voll Unruhe lasen, fanden wir so Vieles, was des Tadels und der Verbesserung wiirdig ist, wie wir Lobenswertes zu erfahren wiinschten. Und weil wir dem, dem wir durch die Gnade Gottes in das Amt gefolgt sind, auch in seine Miihen und Sorgen folgen mussten, verweigern wir nicht, nachdem zunachst pflichtgemafi meine Beforderung angezeigt worden ist, eine sachgemafe Antwort auf die einzelnen Punkte deiner Anfrage, so wie es der Herr wiirdig hielt einzugeben. Denn in Anbetracht unseres Amtes haben wir weder die Freiheit, etwas zu iibergehen, noch zu schweigen, wir, denen ein grofcrer Eifer fur die christliche Religion auferlegt ist als alien iibrigen. Wir tragen die Lasten aller, die beschwert sind: Nein, vielmehr tragi diese in uns der selige Apostel Petrus, der uns in alien Angelegenheiten, wie wir vertrauen, als Erben seines Amtes beschiitzt und bewahrt." 30

Soweit die Einleitung der ersten Dekretale; es folgen im Schreiben die Beantwortung der von Himerius gestellten gemeinde- und klerikerdisziplinaren Fragen, u. a. in Bezug auf die Wiedertaufe, Tauftermine, Bufivorschriften, die Problematik einer allgemeinen Enthaltsamkeitsverpflichtung fur den hoheren Klerus und Vorschriften uber einen cursus clericorum die Bestimmungen geben einen interessanten Uberblick uber die Disziplin 30

Siricius cp. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132f): Directa ad decessorem nostrum sanctae recordations Damasumfraternitatis tuae relatio me iam in sede ipsius constitutum, quia sic Dominus ordinavit, invenit. Quam cum in conventu fratrum sollicitms legeremus tanta invenimus, quae reprehensione et correctione sint digna, quanta optaremus kudanda cognosces Et quia necesse nos erat, in eius kbores curasquesuccedere, cui per Dei gratiam successimus in honorem; facto, ut oportebat, primitus meaeprovectionis indicio, ad singuk, prout Dominus aspirare dignatus est, consultationi tuae responsum competens non negamus, quia officii nostri consideratione, non est nobis dissimukre, non est tacere libertas quibus maior cunctis Christianae religionis zelus incumbit. Portamus onera omnium qui gravantur: quin immo haec portat in nobis beatus apostolus Petrus, qui nos in omnibus, ut confidimus, administrationis suaeprotegit et tuetur haeredes.


381

der Kirche; dennoch mussen sie an dieser Stelle unberiicksichtigt bleiben, da vor allem das Prooemium fur das Amtsverstandnis entscheidend ist. Inhaklich steht am Anfang der ersten Dekretale die akkirchlich nicht singulare Anzeige des Amtsantritts; Vergleichbares kennen wir etwa aus den sogenannten Gemeinschaftsbriefen: Er, Siricius, sei dem Damasus im Bischofsamt gefolgt; gottliche Einsetzung legitimiere seine Nachfolge,31 Ab dem zweiten Satz referiert Siricius kurz den Anlass fur sein Schreiben: Himerius habe noch an seinen Vorganger eine Anfrage gerichtet, in der er bedrohliche Zustande in der spanischen Kirche geschildert habe;32 da er, Siricius, nun dem Damasus gefolgt sei und ihm als Erben Petri {haeres) eine besondere Verantwortung fur die Gesamtkirche zukomme, antworte er ihm nun in einem Responsum, in dem er auf die einzelnen Punkte eingehe,33 Hiernach bilden die Angabe der Nachfolge im Amt, die Veranlassung des Schreibens und dessen Motivation drei unterscheidbare Abschnitte, in die sich das Prooemium gliedern lasst. Eine reine Inhaltswiedergabe aber ist unzureichend, denn damit sind noch nicht die Struktur des Kapitels, sein kunstvoller Stil und seine Intentional erkannt. Hierfur ist eine Analyse des Wortfelds notig, die im Text im Wesentlichen zwei Ebenen aufzeigen wird, eine romisch-rechtliche und eineamtstheologische. Zunachst zur ersten: Siricius nennt die Anfrage des Himerius gleich im ersten Satz eine relatio; spater bezeichnet er das Anschreiben in einer begrifflichen Variation als consultatio. Sein eigenes Schreiben hingegen nenmer em responsum. Alle drei Begriffe, mit denen Siricius den Briefverkehr mit seinem spanischen Amtsbruder charakterisiert, sind einer juristischen Diktion zuzurechnen,34 Denn dort ist eine relatio bzw. consultant der Bericht eines

31

32

33

34 35

Siricius en. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132): Directa ad decessorem nostrum sanctae recordations Damasumfraternitatis tuae relatio me iam in sede ipsius constitutum, quia sic Dominus ordinavit, invenit. Siricius cp. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132): Quam cum in conventu fratrum sollicitius legeremus tanta invenimus, quae reprehensione et correctione sint digna, quanta optaremus laudanda cognoscere. Siricius cp. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132): Facto, ut oportebat, primitus meaeprovectionis indicio, ad singula, prout Dominus aspirare dignatus est, consultationi tuae responsum competens non negamus. Vgl. W. Ullmann, Gclasius I. (492-496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spatantike zum Mittelalter, PuP 18, Stuttgart 1981, 25. Beide Begriffe werden im Romischen Recht weitgehend synonym verwendet; vgl. Cod. Theod. XI 29,4 vj. 369 (1, 2, 622 Mommsen): Si quando ratio aut necessitas est in negotiis nostra iudicia requirendi exspectandique responsa, omnem omnino causam relationis series comprehendat, ut recitata consultation, quae ita est dirigenda,

382

Christian Hornung

Beamten an seinen Vorgesetzten, besonders an den Kaiser, in dem er gebeten wird, zweifelhafte Fragen zu entscheiden;36 ein responsum hingegen ist die Antwort des Juristen, dann des Kaisers auf eine Anfrage.37 Im Briefwechsel des Plinius etwa, den er als Statthalter von Pontus-Bithynien im 2. Jahrhundert mit Kaiser Trajan fiihrte, finder sich diese Terminologie38 ebenso wie in kaiserlichen Konstitutionen des 4. Jahrhunderts, 39 und dem romischen Bischof war sie sicher aus der offiziellen Korrespondenz bekannt.40 Es ist daher bemerkenswert, dass liber die Rechtssprache in den bischoflichen Briefwechsel prazise das Hierarchieverhaltnis zwischen Verfasser und Adressat eingezogen wird, das dem zwischen Kaiser und untergeordnetem Beamten entspricht. Siricius wird so zum hierarchisch ubergeordnet Antwortenden, Himerius, der Amtsbruder, zu dem ihm untergeordnet Anfragenden. Subtil wandelt sich, so lasst sich folgern, uber die verwendete Terminologie die bischofliche Kollegialitat zu einem Subordinationsverhaltnis. Wie deutlich der Text mit einer juristischen Begrifflichkeit gleichsam durchsetzt ist, zeigt sich ferner an weiteren Wortern, auf die nur hingewiesen werden kann. Das Verb constituere im zweiten Satz beispielsweise bezeichnet den Vorgang einer gesetzlichen Bestimmung,41 cognosce* ist aus

36 37

38

39

40 41

propemodum actorum recensione non opus sit sowie Ch. Lecrivain, Art. Relatio, DAGR 4, 2, Paris 1911, 830. Vgl. O. Eger, Art. Relatio, RE 1A, 1, Stuttgart 1914, 563f.; L. Wenger, Die Quellen des romischen Rechts, DGA 2, Wien 1953, 431. Vgl. Th. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht 2, 2, Tubingen ^1952, 976£; M. Bretone, Geschichte des romischen Rechts. Von den Anfangen bis zu Justinian. Miinchen 1992, 138-146; T. Giaro, Art. Responsa, D N P 10, Stuttgart/Weimar 2001, 931f. Plin. ep. X 96, 9 (BSGRT, 356 Schuster): Idea dikta cognitione ad consulendum te decurri. Visa est enim mihi res digna consultatione, maxime propter periclitantium numerum. Vgl. Cod. Theod. XI 29,2 vj. 319 (622 M.); Cod. Theod. XI 29,4 vj. 369 (622 M.): Si quando ratio aut necessitas est in negotiis nostra mdkiu requirendi exspectandique responsa, omnem omnino causam rektionis series comprehendat, It recitata consultatione, quae ita est dirigenda, propemodum actorum recensione non opus sit, Cod. Theod. I 2,11 vj. 398 (33 M.): Rescripta ad consultationem emissa vel emittenda, in futurum his tantum negotiis opitulentur, quibus effusa docebuntur; Lecrivain, Relatio (s. Anm. 35), 830; ders., Art. Rescriptum, DAGR 4, 2, Paris 1911, 844-846 und F. Wieacker, R6mische Rechtsgeschichte. Zweiter Abschnitt, HAW 10, 3, 2, Miinchen 2006, 192207. Vgl.Coll.Avell.40(90f.G.). Vgl. X. Burger, Art. constituo, ThesLL 4, Lipsiae 1906-1909, 522f, A. Berger, Encyclopedic dictionary of Roman law, TAPhS NS 5, 43, 2, Philadelphia 1953, 409 s. v. constituere.


383

dem gerichtlichen Untersuchungsverfahren entlehnt,42 und das unscheinbare adjektivische Attribut competens in der Phrase consultation tuae responsum competens non negamus entstammt ebenfalls der Rechtssprache.43 Von ihr ist das erste Kapitel geradezu beherrscht, und kein Zweifel kann daruber bestehen, dass sie planvoll eingesetzt wird. Eine noch grofere Bedeutung aber, als den zuvor genannten Begriffen, kommt im ersten Kapitel dem romischen Erbrecht zu. Es ist ganz offensichtlich, dass der Verfasser sowohl Vorstellung als auch Terminologie seines Programms von hier entlehnt hat. Denn succedere, der erbrechtliche Zentralterminus, wird gleich zweimal gesetzt, die davon abhangigen Objekte sind chiastisch gestellt: in eius labores curasque succedere gegenuber successimus in honorem; haeres steht prominent am Ende des Prooemium. Beiden Begriffen kommt im Erbrecht eine spezifische Bedeutung zu: Succedere bezeichnet das Eintreten des Erben in das universale Recht des Erblassers, sein Vermogen und seine vererbbaren Rechte.44 Der haeres, der Erbe, wird so Reprasentant und Universalsukzessor des Verstorbenen.45 War der Erbe also einmal in die Erbschaft eingesetzt, bestand rechtlich kein Unterschied mehr zwischen dem Erblasser und dem Erben. Von hier aus ist der Gedanke, dass der Verstorbene in seinen Nachkommen fortlebe, nicht mehr fern und im romischen Rechtsdenken ebenfalls anzutreffen.46 Verwendung und Verwendungsweise von succedere sowie haeres lassen den Schluss zu, dass das romische Erbrecht wesentlich die ideengeschichtliche Grundlage des neuen Amtsverstandnisses des Siricius bildet.47 Relatio, consultatio und responsum beschreiben nur ein Hierarchieverhaltnis, gewahren aber noch keine ausreichende Begrundung des primatialen

42 43

44 45

46 47

Vgl. M. Lambertz, Art. cognosce, ThesLL 3, Lipsiae 1906-1912, 1506f. und zur kaiserlichen cognitio Mommsen, Staatsrecht 2, 2 (s. Anm. 37), 964-966. Vgl. CJust. XII 61,3 vj. 400 (CIC(B).C, 487 K^c^):poenam [...] legibus competentem; Scaev. Dig. XLV 1,122,5 (CIC(B).I, 780 Krueger/Mommsen): [...] victusprovocavitadcompetentem indices Scaev. Dig. XLVI 7,20 (811 K./M.): Cum apud competentem appelktioni iudkem res ageretur u. 6.; Berger, Dictionary (s. Anm. 41), 401 s. v. competens. Vgl. Gai. Dig. L 16,24 (910 K./M.): Nihil est aliud hereditas quam successio in universumius.quoddefunctushabuit. Vgl. J. Fellermayr, Tradition und Sukzession im Lichte des romisch-antiken Erbdenkens. Untersuchungen zu den lateinischen Kirchenvatern bis zu Leo dem Grofien, Minerva-Fachserie Theologie, Miinchen 1979, 391-397; ders., Art. Hereditas, RAC 14, Stuttgart 1988, 627. Vgl. A. Manigk, Art. Hereditarium ius, RE 8, 1, Stuttgart 1912, 625f. Vgl. zu weiteren Entlehnungen des Christentums aus dem romischen Erbrecht W. Selb, Art. Erbrecht, JAC 14, 1971, 182-184.

384

Christian Hornung

Anspruchs, der gegenuber Himerius erhoben wird. Diese ist erst aus dem Erbrechtsgedanken abzuleiten. So namlich, wie der Erbe in das Recht des Erblassers eintritt, so tritt der romische Bischof in das des Petrus ein. Er ist nach der Interpretation sein alleiniger Erbe (haeres), Trager seiner Autoritat und damit auch der ihm gegebenen VerheiEung von Mt. 16, 18f.48 Die Berufung auf Petrus setzt die Tradition, nach der die beiden vornehmsten der Apostel in Rom das Martyrium erlitten haben, voraus;49 die daraus abgeleitete Autoritat fur den romischen Bischof aber wird erst durch die Adaptation des Erbrechts ermoglicht. Erst das Erbrecht liefert das entscheidende Medium, das uber den Gedanken der Sukzession den zeitlichen Graben zwischen Petrus und, so die Interpretation, seinen Nachfolgern uberbruckbar macht: Daraus wird verstandlich, dass haeres und succedere nachfolgend begrifflich und ideengeschichtlich aus den Briefen romischer Bischofe nicht mehr wegzudenken sind.50 Die zunachst erstaunlich scheinende Vorstellung des Siricius, nach der nicht er selbst, sondern Petrus in ihm {in nobis) die Lasten aller fur die Kirche trage,51 ist ebenfalls vor diesem Hintergrund einzuordnen. Denn die Annahme einer inneren Identitat zwischen Petrus und Siricius, eines gleichsam mystischen Weiterlebens des Apostels in einem romischen Bischof des 4. Jahrhunderts, fiifit auf demselben Gedanken: Der Erblasser existiertimErbenweiter. 52

48

Mt 16,18 Vulg.: Tu es Petrus, et super bancpetram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, etportae inferi non praevalebunt adversus earn. 49 Vgl. jetzt dazu kritisch O. Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom. Die literarischen Zeugnisse. Mit einer kritischen Edition der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage, UALG 96, Berlin/New York 2009, bes. 332f. 50 Vgl. Siricius cp. 5 (CChr.SL 149, 63 Munier); Innoc. I en. 1 (PL 20, 465): Neque enimfas erat, ut aut ego contra tantorum bonorum virorum rudicrum venire tentarem, quorum in locum successisse dignoscor, aut tuo merito, cui praeckri viri tantam gratium auctoritatis huiusce contulisse videntur; Zos. ep. 12,1 (PL 20, 676): Tantam enim huic Apostolo canonica antiquitas per sententias omnium voluit esse potentiam, ex ipsa quoque Christi Dei nostri promissione, ut et ligata solveret, et soluta vinciret; par potestatis data conditio in eos, qui sedis haereditatem, ipso annuente, meruissent; Xyst. ep. 6,5 (PL 50, 609): Beatus Petrus apostolus in successoribus suis, quod accepit, hoc tradidit; Leo.-M. serm. 3,4 (CChr.SL 138, 13 Chavasse): His igitur modis, dilectissimi, rationabili obsequio celebratur hodierna festivitas, ut in persona humilhatis meae ilk [scil. Petrus] intelligatur, Me honoretur, in quo et omnium pastorum sollicitudo cum commendatarum sibi ovium custodia perseveral et cuius dignitas etium in indigno haerede non deficit; serm. 5,4 (24 Ch.): Soliditas enim ilia quam de Petra Christo etiam ipse petra factus accepit, in suos quoque se transfudit haeredes [scil. episcopi Romani], [...] u. 6. 51

Siricius ep. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132): Portamus onera omnium quigravantur: quin immo haec portat in nobis beatus apostolus Petrus, [...]. 52 Vgl. K. D. Schmidt, Papa Petrus ipse, ZKG 54, 1936, 267-275.


385

Die bisherige Interpretation hat deutlich gemacht, wie planvoll Siricius zu Beginn seines Episkopats auf romisch-rechtliche Termini zuruckgreift. Aus Kategorien der zivilen, romischen Herrschaft gewinnt er Muster fur die innerkirchliche Verfassung, aus dem zivilen, romischen Erbrecht Argumentationsvorbilder zu ihrer amtstheologischen Begrundung. Verweise darauf, dass der Herr die Nachfolge so eingerichtet babe,53 Amtsbruder bei den Beratungen uber den Brief des Himerius, wahrscheinlich aus Anlass einer Synode, zusammengekommen sind,54 sowie eine anklingende Inspirationsvorstellung55 erscheinen da fast als theologisches Beiwerk vor dem Hintergrund einer stringent ausgefuhrten Herleitung seines Amtsanspruchs. Als Folie, vor der die bisherigen Ergebnisse einzuordnen sind, werden im Folgenden weitere Schreiben romischer Bischofe berucksichtigt, in denen die Amtsnachfolge angezeigt wird. Unter den Nachfolgern des Siricius bis zum Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts besitzen wir solche von Innozenz (402/417), Bonifatius (418/422), Sixtus (432/440) und Felix III. (483/492). Sie alle zeigen topische Elemente, die einem quasi einheitlichen Repertoire zu entstammen scheinen. Dazu zahlen die lobende, oft hymnische Erwahnung des bzw. der Vorganger,56 in deren Sukzession die Nachfolger stehen, die Nennung der Einstimmigkeit der W a h F sowie die Betonung, dass bei ihr weitere Bischofe als Zeugen und Konsekratoren zugegen waren;58 stets erscheint die Nachfolge zudem als Ausdruck gottlichenWillens. 59 53 54

55 56

57

58

59

Vgl. Siricius ep. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132): [...], quia sic Dominus ordinavit. Vgl. Siricius ep. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132): Quam [scil. rektionem] cum in conventu fratrum sollicitius legeremus, [...] sowie fur conventus in der Bedeutung ,Synode' X. Burger, Art. conventus, ThesLL 4, Lipsiae 1906-1909, 848. Vgl. Siricius ep. 1,1 (PL 13, 1132): [...IproutDominusaspiraredignatus est. Vgl. Innoc. I ep. 1 (PL 20, 463. 465): Sanctae memoriae Anastasium episcopum; anteriores tanti ac tales viri praedecessores mei episcopi, id est, sanctae memoriae Damasus, Siricius atque supra memoratus vir, Bonif. I. ep. 1 (PL 20, 750): post abscessum sancti Zosimipapae ecclesiue catholicae urbis Romae; Felix III. ep. 1,1 (222f. Thiel): post sanctae memoriae decessoris mei papae Simplicii transitum; ep. 2 (232 Th.): sanctae memoriae decessore meo papa Simplicio de huius vitae cursu superna praeceptione migrante. Vgl. Innoc. I ep. 1 (PL 20, 463): consentientibus Sanctis sacerdotibus omnique clero ac populo; Bonif. I. ep. 1 (PL 20, 750): acckmatione totiuspopuli ac consensu meliorum civiuttir, Aug. ep. 209,1 (an Coelestin) (CSEL 57, 347 Goldbacher): Primum gratuktionem reddo meritis tuis, quod te in ilk sede dominus noster sine ulla, sicut audivimus, plebis discissione constituiAysx. ep. 1,1 (PL 50, 583): omnium concordia. Vgl. Bonif. I. ep. 1 (PL 20, 750): adstantibus novem diversarumprovinciarum episcopis; Xyst. ep. 1,1 (PL 50, 583): praesentiam sanctorum fratrum et coepiscoporum nostrorum HermogenisetLampetii. Vgl. Innoc. I ep. 1 (PL 20, 463-465): passim; Bonif. I. ep. 1 (PL 20, 750): ibique participate cum christiana plebe consilio, quern Deus iussit elegimus; Xyst. ep. 1,1 (PL

386

Christian Hornung

Daneben finden sich audi, zumindest unter den beriicksichtigten Briefen, differierende Elemente. Im Schreiben romischer Presbyter an Kaiser Honorius beispielsweise wird positiv das Alter des Bonifatius vermerkt, ferner in einem Bescheidenheitstopos, dass er gegen seinen Willen {invitus) das Amt ubernommen habe.60 Das besondere Gewicht, das die Presbyter hier auf die individuellen Qualitaten des Bonifatius legen, erklart sich wohl daraus, dass entgegen der Tradition in Bonifatius ein Presbyter auf den romischen Bischofsstuhl gelangt war.61 In Schreiben an den Kaiser konnte zudem die Anzeige der Nachfolge mit einer Ehrerbietung gegenuber dem weltlichen Herrscher verknupft sein.62 Uberblickt man die angefuhrten Quellen, dann zeigt sich, dass unter ihnen eine groEe Vergleichbarkeit herrscht und sie weitgehend unaufgeregt den oder die Adressaten daruber informieren wollen, dass in Rom ein neuer Bischof gewahlt ist. Sie zahlen damit zur Reihe typischer altkirchlicher Gemeinschaftsbriefe, mit denen zwischen den Gemeinden Nachrichten uber Bischofswahlen ausgetauscht wurden. 63 Hierbei lasst sich kein romspezifisches Programm nachweisen. Zwar fuhrt Innozenz an, dass er fur wurdig gehalten worden sei, an die Stelle so grower und guter Manner zu treten, und druckt dies mit succedere aus,64 parallelisiert ferner Felix III. seine Aufgaben fur die Gesamtkirche mit denen des Petrus,65 aber ein wirklich koharentes Programm, wie wir es bei Siricius in seinem ersten Schreiben kennenlernten, findet sich bei ihnen nicht. Die ausgefeilte erste Dekretale des Siricius bleibt damit, soweit ich sehe, zumindest in den ersten Schreiben, die aus den jeweiligen Episkopaten erhalten sind, singular, und gerade in ihnen ware es wohl besonders wichtig gewesen, den romischen Anspruch in vergleichbarer Weise zu dokumentieren.

50, 583): Gratiam habentes Dei nostri circa nos humanitati, quod eo tempore quo nos ad supremumsacerdotiiapicem vocare dignatus est, [...]; Felix III. ep. 1,1 (222f. Th.): meque [scil. Felicem] in eius locum divina gratia subrogatum. 60 Vgl. Bonif. I. ep. 1 (PL 20, 750): veterem presbyterum; invitum. 61 Vgl. Wirbelauer, Nachfolgerbestimmung (s. Amn. 6), 410-415. 62 Vgl. Felix III. ep. 1,1 (222f. Th.). 63 Vgl. P. Zmire, Recherches sur la collegialite episcopate dans l'Eglise d'Afrique: RechAug 7, 1971, 24-29; J. Schneider, Art. Brief, RAC 2, Stuttgart 1954, 579; W. Pokes, Art. Gemeinschaft, RAC 9, Stuttgart 1976, 1136. 64 Vgl. Innoc. I ep. 1 (PL 20, 465): [...], ut aut ego contra tantorum bonorum virorum rudicrum venire tentarem, quorum in locum successisse dignoscor, aut [...]. 65 Vgl. Felix III. ep. 2,1 (232 Th.): [...], interdiversasgeneralis ecclesiae curas, quas ubique terrarum cunctispopulis Christianis summi pastoris voce delegante beatissimus Petrus apostolus pervigili moderationedispensat, continuo mesollicitudo maxima [...]me except.


387

Zusammenfassung und Auswertung Die Bischofsnachfolge des Siricius wurde im Rahmen dieser Untersuchung mit den Begriffen Kontinuitat und Wandel beschrieben. Vor dem Hintergrund des fur Rom durchaus typischen Umstands, dass Siricius als vormaliger Diakon zum romischen Bischof gewahlt wurde, war besonders auffallend, dass mit seiner Nachfolge ein neuer Amtsanspruch gegeben ist, den man bereits als Primatsanspruch bezeichnen kann. Zu seiner Legitimierung wurde im Prooemium der ersten Dekretale, das im Vergleich mit anderen Schreiben romischer Bischofe dieser Zeit als singular gelten kann, systematisch auf Begriffe und Kategorien des Romischen Rechts rekurriert. Abschlieflend soil moglichen Grunden nachgegangen werden, die fur die an Siricius wahrgenommene Zasur am Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts benannt werden konnen. Sie durften, auch wenn sich Paulinus von Nola uber die anmaEende Zuruckhaltung des romischen Bischofs beklagt," wohl weniger in der Person des Siricius selbst als vielmehr in innerkirchlichen Entwicklungen und, erganzend, einer spezifisch stadtromischen Konstellation der Zeit zu suchen sein. Denn am Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts lasst sich eine Umbruchsphase in der Alten Kirche beobachten. Kirchliche Institutionen verstetigen sich, und die hierarchische Verfasstheit der Kirche nimmt insgesamt zu.67 Die romische Ortskirche erlangt in diesem Prozess eine herausgehobene Stellung, wohl auch deshalb, weil die Stadt im Westen die einzige Gemeinde ist, die sich auf apostolischen Ursprung berufen kann.68 Das zeichnet sie vor den anderen Gemeinden im Westen aus und verleiht ihr besonderes Ansehen.

66

Vgl. P.-Nol. ep. 5,14 (CSEL 29, 33f. De Hartel/Kamptner): Sed plenius indkare potuerunt conservi nostri, pueri tui, quantum nobis gratiae dominicae detrimentum faciat urbici pupae superba discretio, quipaucis ipsis diebus quibus interfuere viderunt, quam adsidua nos, quam seduk sollkitorum fratrum monachorum antistkum clerkorumatque etiam saepe saecularium officia toto Mo nostro aegritudinis tempore celebraverint. 67 Vgl. Gaudemet, Eglise (s. Anm. 24), 438f.; J. Speigl, Die Papste in der Reichskirche des 4. und friihen 5. Jahrhunderts, in: Das Papsttum I. Von den Anfangen bis zu den Papsten von Avignon, hrsg. von M. Greschat, GKG 11, Stuttgart u. a. 1984, 43f. 68 Vgl. N . Brox, Das Papsttum in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, in: Das Papsttum I (s. Anm. 67) 26f. mit Verweis auf Tert. praescr. 36,1-3 (CChr.SL 1, 216f. Refoule): Age iam, qui uoles curioskatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae, percurre ecclesias apostolkas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis lock praesident, apud quas ipsae authenticae litterae eorum recitantur sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque. Proxima est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos; sipotes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum; si autem Italiae adiaces, habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctorkaspraesto est.

388

Christian Hornung

Aber die Position Roms und ihres Bischofs ist am Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts keineswegs abgesichert, sie verlangt daher noch starkere Legitimation als in den folgenden Jahrzehnten, wie exemplarisch Briefe der Nachfolger zeigen. Die Ausfuhrlichkeit, mit der Siricius seine Position erbrechtlich begrundet, erscheint also gerade als ein Indiz kirchlicher Umbruchszeit, indem Rom einen neuen Anspruch erhebt. Dieser tendiert von einem Ehrenvorrang mehr und mehr zu einem Primat, wird aber keineswegs sogleich von alien anderen Gemeinden akzeptiert. Daher ist eine ideologische Absicherung und Legitimierung notig, die von Siricius geschickt in der Verschrankung von Rechtskategorien und Theologumena geleistetwird. Diese zunachst innerkirchliche Entwicklung durfte zudem vom politischen Bedeutungsverlust der Stadt Rom profitiert haben; die Kaiser residierten nicht mehr in ihr, sie verwaiste politisch,69 und der romische Bischof konnte in diesem Prozess eine groEere, auch gesellschaftliche Rolle Ubernehmen, gerade weil die Stadt noch von einer GroEe lebte, die nicht mehr politisch reprasentiert wurde. Geradezu gegenlaufig bestarkte so die stadtromische Deszendenz eine kirchliche Aszendenz ihres Bischofs.70 Es ist kaum zu bezweifeln, dass auch diese gemeinstaatlichen Faktoren die Zasur in der Geschichte romischer Bischofe unterstiitzten, die an Siricius und dem Prooemium seiner ersten Dekretale wahrzunehmen ist. Diese allein aber konnten weder seine Nachfolge noch seinen neuartigen Anspruch legitimieren, dafur bedurfte es eines argumentativen und diskursiven Fundaments, das mit der ersten Dekretale erstmalig vorliegt. Sie ist das erste Schreiben in einem neuen herrscherlichen Stil, das an den kaiserlichen Konstitutionen orientiert ist, und zugleich das erste Dokument, in dem ein romischer Bischof, aufbauend auf der Rezeption des romischen Erbrechts, beansprucht, alleiniger Erbe Petri {haeres) zu sein. Damit verlieh Siricius, der vormalige Diakon, seiner Bischofsnachfolge gleich zu Beginn im Februar des Jahres 385 die Legitimitation, die offenbar noch nicht unmittelbar mit der Wahl gegeben war, und markiert zugleich in der Geschichte des romischen Primats einen - zumindest seinem Anspruch nach - entscheidenden, in der Forschung bisher wenig wahrgenommenen Entwicklungsschritt an der Wende vom 4. zum 5. Jahrhundert. 69

70

Vgl. A. Demandt, Spatantike. Romische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284565 n. Chr., HAW 3, 6, Miinchen 2 2007, 423-425; J. Elbern, Das Verhaltnis der spatantiken Kaiser zur Stadt Rom, R Q 8 5 , 1990, 19-49. Vgl. P. Stockmeier, Primat und Kollegialitat im Licht der alten Kirche, T h P Q 121, 1973, 318-328 und, besonders fur Leo den Grofien, C. Lepelley, Saint Leon le Grand et la cite Romaine, RSR 35, 1961, 130-150.

Episcopal Succession as Criterion of Communion: The Rise of Rival Episcopal Genealogies in Alexandria according to Liberatus of Carthage 1 Shawn W. J. Keough A North African Perspective on the Three Chapters Controversy The Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, the only text to have survived from the pen of its author, is an invaluable source of information regarding ecclesiastical controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries.2 The text is often mined as a useful fund of data by historians, but it is rarely read as a whole. The first modern study focused specifically on Liberatus and his Breviarium was published in 1675, the most recent appeared in 1937, and there was little else in the way of dedicated critical analysis in the centuries intervening,' However, in more recent scholarship

1 2

3

I am grateful to Pauline Allen, Philippe Blaudeau and Peter Van Nuffelen for their comments on a draft of this essay which were instrumental to its improvement. A critical edition was published by Eduard Schwartz, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum. Collectio Sangermanensis. Concilium universale chalcedonense,ACOII.5, Berlin 1936. J. Gamier, Liberati archdiaconi Ecclesiae Carthaginensis Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum emendatum, Paris 1675 and Eduard Schwartz, De Liberati Breviario. Concilium universale chalcedonense, ACO II.5, Berlin 1936. Garnier's Dissertatio and Schwartz's introduction to his edition of the text remain fundamental. Besides these two studies (both written in Latin) the only monograph devoted to Liberatus remains Vito DAlto, II 'Breviarium' di Liberate e le controversie cristologiche del V-VI secolo, Napoli 1949, which concentrates exclusively on the theological issues at stake in the Christological debates of Liberatus' world. More recently an Italian translation has appeared, containing a concise introduction with valuable bibliography: Liberate di Cartagine. Breve storia della controversia nestoriana ed eutichiana. Introduzione, traduzione e note a cura di Filippo Carcione, Anagni 1989. As Mischa Meier, Das Breviarium des Liberatus von Karthago. Einige Hypothesen zu seiner Intention, ZAC 14, 2010, 130-148 at 130 comments, "Die Forschungsliteratur zu

390

ShawnW.J.Keough

there are signs that Liberatus is increasingly recognized as a church historian in his own right,4 one whose name belongs alongside those of Evagrius and Zachariah Scholastics 5 This is as it should be. Not only did Liberatus write one of the few narrative histories to survive from the latter sixth century, but his North African perspective on more than one hundred years of ecclesiastical conflict gave voice to the "third main doctrinal standpoint" 6 of the Roman world in a bitter controversy that divided church and empire, ultimately establishing a breach that has endured almost fifteen hundred years in the ongoing schism between the Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox churches. The bare outline of what is known of Liberatus can be summarized rather quickly/ An archdeacon of the church of Carthage, in 535 Libera-

Liberatus ist ausgesprochen iiberschaubar". Interest devoted specifically to Liberatus of Carthage and his Breviarium has traditionally focused on information he provides regarding Pope Vigilius (cf. P. Hildebrand, Die Absetzung des Papstes Silverius, Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorres-Gesellschaft 42, 1922, 223-232; F. Savio, II papa Vigilio (537-555). Saggio storico-critico, Rome 1904, 9-35, 59-63) or his citation of Ps. Dionysius 'the Areopagite' (cf. H. Ch. Puech, Liberatus de Carthage et la date de l'apparition des ecrits dionysiens, Annuaire de l'Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes. Section des Sciences Religieuse, 1930-1931, 3-39; R. Devreesse, Denys lAreopagite et Severe dAntioche, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age 4, 1929, 59-167; G. Bardy, Autour de Denys lAreopagite, RSR 21, 1931, 201-204). Although abbreviated references to Liberatus' Breviarium are readily found in the footnotes of the standard histories of theological disputes in the fifth and sixth centuries, his full name rarely appears in an actual sentence. The lion's share of scholarship devoted specifically to Liberatus consists of dictionary and encyclopaedia articles, which are enumerated in Breve storia della controversia nestoriana ed eutichiana (see above), 14 fn. 12. 4

Averil Cameron emphasized Liberatus' importance in "Byzantine Africa, the literary evidence", in: j . Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the University of Michigan 1975, Vol. II, Ann Arbor 1978, 26-92, and Michael Whitby devoted several pages to Liberatus in his essay "The Church Historians and Chalcedon", in: Gabriele Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Leiden 2003, 449-495. Especially significant is the recent issue of the Zeitschrift fur antikes Christentum edited by Volker Drecoll: Das 'Breviarium" des Liberatus von Karthago, ZAC 14, 2010, and Philippe Blaudeau's forthcoming volume devoted to Liberatus in Sources Chretiennes.

5

Bruno Bleckmann's essay Tendenziose Historiographie bei Liberatus: Von Proterius bis Athanasios II, ZAC 14, 2010, 166-195, provides an interesting comparison of Liberatus and Zachariah. Whitby, The Church Historians (see note 4), 473; cf. Meier, Das Breviarium (see note 3), 138: "Das Breviarium des Liberatus eroffnet uns stattdessen einen Einblick in die innere Zerrissenheit des Klerus im post- vandalischen Afrika". Cf. Andre Mandouze, Anne-Marie La Bonnardiere and Claude-Helene Lacroix, Prosopographie de l'Afrique chretienne (303-533), Prosopographie chretienne du BasEmpire 1: Etudes d'antiquites africaines, Paris 1982, 637-639.

6

7

Episcopal Succession as Criterion of Communion

391

tus was one of three legates sent by the African episcopal synod to consult with Pope John II regarding the reception of repentant Arian bishops. John died around the time of the delegation's arrival, and as a result they returned to Africa with the answer of Pope Agapetus.8 Liberatus had been to Rome at least once before: during John IPs pontificate he had participated in the deliberations that followed Justinian's request that the Pope condemn the Acoemetae monks for refusing to support his ruling on the theopaschite controversy.9 However, it was only ten years later, when Justinian attempted to unify his divided empire by issuing posthumous condemnations of the person and works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and certain writings of Theodoret of Cyr and Ibas of Edessa, that the Cartha8

The synod in question was held shortly after Belisarius had liberated North Africa from the (Arian) Vandals; Liberatus had been sent to Rome along with the bishops Caius and Peter, and he is mentioned by name in the letter Agapetus sent to the African bishops: Coll. Avell. ep. 85-87; cf. Konrad Vossing, Africa zwischen Vandalen, Mauren und Byzantinern (533-548 n.Chr.), ZAC 14, 2010, 196-225; Robert Devreesse, L'eglise dAfrique durant Inoccupation byzantine, Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire 57, 1940, 143-166; Pierre Champetier, Les conciles africains durant la periode byzantine" Revue Africaine 91, 1951, 103-120; Jean Louis Maier, L'episcopat de lAfrique romaine, vandale, et byzantine, Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 11, Rome 1973. For an overview of North African Nicene episcopal elections under the Vandals see Carla Nicolaye's contribution to this volume.

9

The theopaschite controversy was provoked in 518 by the arrival of monks from Scythia in Constantinople teaching that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh' {Unus de Trinitatepassus est came). In his edict Justinian legislated that the same Jesus who suffered and died in his flesh is one of the consubstantial Trinity (Codex Iustinianus 1.1.5-6). This was vigorously protested by the Acoemetae, or 'Sleepless Monks' of Constantinople, who in protest went so far as to deny the title 'Theotokos' to the Virgin Mary. The Emperor wrote to the Pope in Rome, sending two prominent bishops as his legates, and the Acoemetae promptly followed suit, sending a delegation to John II that included their abbot. Pope John received both delegations and assembled his clergy, but clarity was not forthcoming until the Roman deacon Anatolius consulted with the North African cleric Ferrandus, a deacon from Carthage, whose opinion favourable to Justinian's legislation was adopted by the Roman synod. Pope John's reply to the Emperor affirmed that the incarnate deity had suffered in the flesh and announced his excommunication of the intractable Acoemetae monks (Codex Iustinianus 1.1.8). The incident is referred to in passing by Liberatus (Brev. 21). For more detailed treatments of the theopaschite controversy see Dana Iuliana Viezure, Verbum crucis, virtus dei: A Study of Theopaschism from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to the age of Justinian, PhD diss. University of Toronto, 2009 and David Russell Maxwell, Christology and Grace in the Sixth-century Latin West: The Theopaschite Controversy, PhD diss. University of Notre Dame, 2003; cf. Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God, Oxford 2004 and Milton V. Anastos, Justinian's Despotic Control over the Church as illustrated by his Edicts on the Theopaschite Formula and his Letter to Pope John II in 533, in: Milton V. Anastos, Studies in Byzantine Intellectual History, London 1979.

392

ShawnW.J.Keough

ginian archdeacon took up the historical research that would result in the publication of his Breviarium}0 The Emperor's condemnation of the Three Chapters was rejected out of hand by the Latin church of the western empire, and opposition was particularly fierce in North Africa.11 In

10

CPG 6881. The edict has not survived in its original version. The Three Chapters controversy has been treated extensively in several recent essays by Richard Price: General Introduction, in: Richard Price (ed.), The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, with related texts on the Three Chapters controversy, vol. I, T T H 51, Liverpool 2009; The Second Council of Constantinople (553) and the Malleable Past, in: Richard Price / Mary Whitby (eds.), Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400700, Liverpool 2009, 117-132; The Three Chapters Controversy and the Council of Chalcedon, in: Celia Chazelle / Catherine Cubitt (eds.), The Crisis of the Oikoumene: the Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-century Mediterranean, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14, Turnhout 2007, 17-38. See also Patrick T. R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553), Leiden 1979; Aloys Grillmeier, From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590604): Reception and Contradiction. The Development of the Discussion about Chalcedon from 451 to the Beginning of the Reign of Justinian, trans. Pauline Allen and John Cawte, second revised edition, Atlanta 1987; Hanns Christof Brennecke, Chalkedonense und Henotikon. Bemerkungen zum Prozess der ostlichen Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, in: Uta Heil, Annette von Stockhausen and Jorg Ulrich (eds.), Ecclesia est in re publica: Studien zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte im Kontext des Imperium Romanum, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 100, Berlin 2007, 259-290; Volker L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford 2008; The Crisis of the Oikoumene (see above); Patrick T. R. Gray, The Legacy of Chalcedon: Christological Problems and their Significance, in: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. Michael Maas, Cambridge 2005, 215-238; Claire Sotinel, Le concile, l'empereur, l'eveque. Les statuts d'autorite dans le debat sur les Trois Chapitres, in: Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire, ed. S. Elm, E. Rebillard and A. Romano, Collection de l'Ecole francaise de Rome 270, Rome 2000, 275-299; Emile Amann, Art. Trois-Chapitres, D T h C 15/2 (1950) 1868-1924 remains helpful. For the specifically North African response to Justinian's edict against the Three Chapters, see Yves Moderan, L'Afrique reconquise et les Trois Chapitres, in: The Crisis of the Oikoumene (see above), 39-82.

11

Cameron, Byzantine Africa (see note 4), 25: "For Africa, it was soon clear that the price of liberation' was, besides taxation, the acceptance of Byzantine ideas, especially in matters of doctrine." Cf. Robert A. Markus, Justinian's Ecclesiastical Politics and the Western Church, in: Id. (ed.), Sacred and Secular: Studies on Augustine and Latin Christianity, Aldershot 1994; Id., Carthage-Prima Justiniana-Ravenna: an Aspect of Justinian's Kirchenpolitik, Byzantion 49, 1979, 277-302; Id., Christianity and Dissent in Roman North Africa: Changing Perspectives in Recent Work, in: D. Baker (ed.), Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Cambridge 1972, 21-36; Id., Reflections on Religious Dissent in North Africa in the Byzantine Period, in: G.J. Cuming (ed.), Studies in Church History 3, London 1966, 140-149; Claire Sotinel, Emperors and Popes in the Sixth Century: the Western View, in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (see note 10), 267-290.


393

548 Pope Vigilius sent the patriarch of Constantinople his Iudicatum condemning the Three Chapters, and the western backlash was swift. In North Africa the bishops held a synod in Carthage and excommunicated the bishop of Rome.12 Not long afterwards Liberatus accompanied his bishop to Constantinople in order to participate in the discussions preceding Justinian's ecumenical council. The character of these discussions may be inferred by their result: Reparatus was exiled to Euchana in Pontus before the council took place.13 It has been suggested that the loyal archdeacon followed his bishop into exile upon the council's conclusion, only returning home to North Africa after Reparatus' death in 563. 14 Nothing further is known of the archdeacon's career; even the dates of his birth and death remain obscure. Nor is it clear precisely when Liberatus wrote or published his ecclesiastical history, although internal evidence places the Breviarium in the decade immediately following Justinian's council.15 It is clear, however, that his research required a fair bit of travel, including an extended stay in Alexandria where he evidently made good use of the patriarchal archives.16 Liberatus considered the results of his archival research to be of urgent contemporary significance: his stated intent in undertaking such pains was to clarify the underlying cause of the contemporary crisis for western clergy.17 By providing an accurate over-

12

13

14 15

16

17

The Council of Carthage (550), which was the second African episcopal synod since Belisarius' reconquest. cf. Victor of Tunnuna chron. annis 549-550 (CCSL 173A, 2001, 139-141 Hartmann). When he refused to subscribe to the Emperor's proposed anathemas, Reparatus was arraigned on trumped up charges and found guilty of the murder of Africa's imperial magister militum (Areobindus, a relation of Justinian's). Before being exiled he was deprived of personal property and deposed from episcopal office; his successor was only installed after military intervention brutally silenced popular dissent and the opposition of North African clergy: Vict. Tunn. chron. annis 551-552 (47 Hartmann); ^ . , / m V . / W ^ [ P L 6 9 115-116]. The thesis was first put forward by J. Gamier, Liberati archidiaconi (see note 2), PraefatioXII. Liberatus knew of Pope Vigilius' death (7 June 555) but referred to Theodosius of Alexandria as still living in exile (d. 566 or 567); cf. Liberatus brev. 22 (ACO II.5 138) and Liberatus brev. 20 (ACO II.5 135). The principal sources of his history were an (unidentified) ecclesiastical history written in Greek, Cassiodorus' Latin translation of Theodore Lector's Historia Tripartita, a Latin translation of the acts of Chalcedon, collections of letters and the testimony of trustworthy informants: Liberatus brev. 1 (ACO II.5 98-99); cf. Eduard Schwartz, De Liberati Breviario (see note 2), xvi-xix and Volker Henning Drecoll, Kommentierende Analyse zu Liberatus, Breviarium 1-7, ZAC 14, 2010, 16-17. Liberatus brev. 1 (ACO II.5 99); Drecoll refers to the text as an "Argumentationshilfe", cf. Drecoll, Kommentierende Analyse (see note 15), 17.

394

ShawnW.J.Keough

view of the preceding century and a quarter's ecclesiastical turmoil Liberat e intended to equip his North African colleagues to better confront contemporary heresy and schism. The Breviarium, while indubitably one of the most important narrative histories to survive from the sixth centurywas an apologetic text provoked by the crisis of protest, persecution and schism that followed in the wake of Justinian's doctrinal and ecclesiastical legislation.19 Liberatus' understood his labour as an historian to be an extension of his diaconal vocation.20 The fruit of a Carthaginian archdeacon's loyalty to his bishop, Liberatus' Breviarium was both a history of heresy and the final North African cry of protest against Justinian's condemnation of the Three Chapters.21

The Bishop of Alexandria and the Root of Schism Liberatus' defense of the Three Chapters was of a quite different character than other (and better known) North African works published in their support. Chief among these is the voluminous treatise of the bishop Facundus of Hermiane appearing in 551, the Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum, which built a painstakingly detailed theological counter argument to Justinian's edict of 544.22 Although it is somewhat shorter than Facundus' contribution to the Three Chapters controversy, Liberatus' is arguably the more interesting. In his 'Brief Account of the Affairs of the 18

The text was preserved in a collection of Chalcedonian material, the Collectio Sangermanensis: cf. Steffen Patzold, Spurensuche: Beobachtungen zur Rezeption des Liberatus in der Karolingerzeit und im Hochmittelalter, ZAC 14, 2010, 226-249 for the manuscript tradition and reception of the Breviarium. 19 A, Averil Cameron (Byzantine Africa (see note 4), 28) observed, "his [liberatus'] work is firmly hostile to Justinian"; cf. Whitby, The Church Historians (see note 4), 472. 20 Blaudeau, commenting on the text's incipit and explicit, describes the Breviarium as "une protestation de fidelite a la mission qu'il recut au jour de son ordination," Philippe Blaudeau, Liberatus de Carthage, ou l'historiographie comme service diaconal, Augustinianum50,2010,545. 21 There is little evidence of African resistance to Justinian's legislation following the council of Constantinople in 553; cf. Moderan, L'Afrique reconquise (see note 10), 54-58. Liberatus concluded his Breviarium by observing that there was no need for him to recount how African bishops remaining in possession of their sees had been bought by Justinian's gold, as the scandal was well known: Liberatus brev. 24 (ACO II.5 141). 22 Pro defensione trium capitulorum, ed. J.-M. Clement and R. Vander Plaetse, CCSL 90A, Turnhout 1974); Defense de trois chapitres (a Justinien), ed. Anne Frai'sseBetoulieres, 5 vols, SC 471, 478, 479, 484, 499, Paris 2002-2006.


395

Eutychians and Nestorians' Liberatus approached the crisis of schism from an historical rather than an explicitly theological perspective, placing the conflict as a whole within a succession of controversies triggered by the ordination of Nestorius to the see of Constantinople in 428. His narrative served to place Justinian's council of 553 along a trajectory provided by the first and second councils of Ephesus (431/449) and the council of Chalcedon (451). Liberatus did not write an itemized theological defence of the Three Chapters that argued from scripture and tradition to refute the arguments, claims and counter-claims of his opponents. Rather, he responded to the crisis of communion afflicting the Roman world by tracing its ancestry, by seeking out its causes, and by narrating the fortunes of its central protagonists. Certain themes emerge when the Breviarium is read as a whole and with a view to the goals of its Carthaginian author writing in the decade immediately following Justinian's ecumenical council. For example, a glance at the document's twenty-four section headings demonstrates the degree to which Liberatus brought bishops to the fore of his narrative. The principal protagonists in this story of controversy were not Emperors but bishops,23 particularly the bishops of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria. Together these three episcopates established the fundamental framework of Liberatus' history, not to mention the primary poles determining the communion of the empire's churches, or the lack thereof. Alexandrian bishops received particular attention. From start to finish there is a clear thread of sustained focus on Alexandria and its bishop in Liberatus' narration of more than a century of ecclesiastical controversy. Liberatus did not devote comparable focus to the bishops of Rome or Constantinople. Rather, the reader is continually redirected to the successive elections, ordinations and depositions of the rival claimants to the throne of St Mark.24 While the sees of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria were indeed constantly related to each other in this history of schism, the decisive turning points in the archdeacon's storyline were almost invariably paired to events triggered by or related to the see of Alexandria, particularly episcopal successions. Circumstances and events that many modern readers might consider critically significant often received rather short shrift in the Breviarium. For example, one might assume the plot to be nearing its climax when Liberatus turned to the machinations of the Em23

24

Hartmut Leppin, Das Bild der Kaiser bei Liberatus, ZAC 14, 2010, 149-165; cf. 152 for his apt observation that, for Liberatus, the establishment of peace in the Roman empire was considered "nicht als kaiserliche, sondern als bischofliche Leistung." For more on Alexandrian episcopal elections in this period, see Philippe Blaudeaus and Ewa Wipszycka's contributions to this volume.

396

ShawnW.J.Keough

press Theodora and the prevarications of Pope Vigilius, describing schemes that would result in Silverius' downfall and set in motion scandalous intrigues implicating both Pope and Emperor at the ecumenical council of 553. However, Liberatus did not provide more than a perfunctory outline of the Pope's and Empress' activities, an outline he abruptly concluded by directing the reader's attention elsewhere: "But let us return to matters pertinent to the Church of Alexandria."25 sed redeamus ad causam Alexandrinorum: Liberatus' treatment of Vigilius' and Theodora's recent activity was concluded almost as if it were an excursus, a digression from the central arc of his story.26 It may well strike the modern reader as odd that this archdeacon from Carthage, persevering in his defense of the Three Chapters despite the effective silencing of North African resistance following Justinian's council, thought it best to abandon events and protagonists central to the current controversy in order to dedicate the penultimate chapter of his history to chronicling the appointments and depositions of the several Alexandrian bishops that followed each other in swift succession during the exile of their rival Theodosius. However, this interest in Alexandrian episcopal succession was more than the idiosyncratic predilection of an African archdeacon. By explicitly redirecting his reader ad causam Alexandrinorum at such a critical juncture, Liberatus was signalling to his reader that the paramount concern of his history remained Alexandrian episcopal succession.

Two Crises of Communion Liberatus opened his history of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies by tracing their respective origins to the heresiarchs Paul of Samosata and Apollinarius.27 After these two initial chapters, however, Liberatus did not so much outline the ancestry of heresy as the genealogy of schism. It has already been noted that Liberatus chose to write a history rather than a specifically theological treatise in defence of the Three Chapters. It is particularly telling that, of more than a century and a quarter of ecclesiastical controversy, the greater part of Liberatus' narrative is devoted to its first

25 26

27

Liberatus brev. 22 (ACO II.5 138). Benjamin Gleede, Liberatus' Polemik gegen die Verurteilung der drei Kapitel und seine alexandrinische Quelle. Einige Beobachtungen zu Breviarium 19-24, ZAC 14, 2010, 96-129, at 99: "In diesem deutlich als Exkurs gekennzeichneten Abschnitt ...". Liberatus brev. 2-3 (ACO II.5 99-101).


397

quarter century alone (ca. 42S-454). 28 Rather than simply describing the present crisis Liberatus sought its cause, having become convinced that it was necessary to identify the origins of the schism before tracing its development. The years separating Nestorius' ordination to the see of Constantinople from the death of the deposed and exiled Dioscorus were of fundamental importance to Liberatus because it was the events of these two decades that precipitated what he considered to be the fundamental crisis, a crisis that remained unresolved over a century later. Liberatus' narrative of the Nestorian controversy up to the council of Chalcedon (428-451) can be read as a commentary on two crises of communion, crises that concluded very differently from each other. The first followed hard upon the ordination of a priest from Antioch to the see of Constantinople 29 . When their new bishop rejected the propriety of referring to the Virgin Mary as the 'Mother of God' the citizens of New Rome were thrown into turmoil, and a series of events was set in motion that would have grave repercussions for both church and empire.30 Liberatus was keen to emphasize that the bishop of Alexandria, who had quickly perceived Nestorius' heresy, looked to the bishop of Rome at each step in the escalating crisis. Liberatus reminded his readers that Pope Celestine himself wrote to Nestorius after the Emperor Theodosius published the edict calling the bishops to council in Ephesus, informing the bishop of Constantinople that the bishop of Alexandria had been authorized to expel him from communion should he fail to recant from his heresy within ten days time.31 Nevertheless, Liberatus did not gloss over Cyril's attempts to discredit Nestorius immediately following his arrival in Ephesus, nor did he overlook Cyril's refusal to wait upon John of Antioch's arrival before calling the council to order, despite receipt of John's epistolary plea sent en route. Liberatus even frankly acknowledged that Cyril's desire to depose

28

29 30 31

The Breviarium is comprised of twenty-four chapters; the history proper begins with Nestorius' ordination in chapter four and concludes with events on the eve of Constantinople II (553); more than two-thirds of the total text is devoted to the first half century (ca. 428-482) of the more than one hundred and fifty years under consideration. Liberatus brev. 4 (ACO 11.5 101). Liberatus brev. 4 (ACO II.5 101): unde divisio nam est in ecclesia et concussionem magnam orbi terramm tepidissimi tractatus Nestorii concitauerunt. Liberatus in fact inverted the chronology: the Pope's letter to Nestorius (Coll. Vat. 10, ACO 1.1.1 77-83) was dated 11 August 430 and was issued following the Roman synod of that same year; three months later Theodosius summoned the bishops to Ephesus (Coll. Vat. 25, ACO 1.1.1114).

398

ShawnW.J.Keough

Nestorius did not spring from purely pastoral motives.32 And yet, despite the many difficulties presented by Cyril's conduct and by the scandalous events that transpired Ephesus, it was fundamental to Liberatus' narrative that the bishop of Alexandria was acting in partnership with, and as an authorized representative of, the apostolic see.33 Cyril's questionable motives and unbecoming conduct were less important to Liberatus than the careful effort Alexandria's bishop devoted to maintaining communication and preserving communion with the bishop of Rome. When John arrived in Ephesus only to find the council already in session and Nestorius deposed he convoked a rival council and promptly deposed Cyril. Both Cyril and John attempted to gain imperial support of their respective councils; Liberatus emphasized how the distance between Alexandria and Antioch widened as their bishops repeatedly condemned each other in the turmoil subsequent to Ephesus 431. 34 Although the Emperor had confirmed Nestorius' deposition and exiled him to 'the Oasis', the ongoing controversy between Cyril and John continued to escalate,35 The Emperor sought the advice of the new bishop of Constantinople and subsequently presented both Cyril and John with the threat of exile should they remain unreconciled and their dioceses divided. Liberatus wrote that the central point of disagreement between Cyril and John were the twelve anathemas of Cyril's third letter to Nestorius: Cyril would not retract them and John could not accept them. The crisis of communion was only resolved when John held a council in Antioch in which a profession of faith was drawn up and sent to Cyril. Liberatus described Cyril as subscribing wholeheartedly to what had been written by the Antiochene bishops,36 thereby ending the ongoing division between Antioch and Alexandria which had been prompted by the controversy surrounding Nestorius' teaching. In Liberatus' narrative events in Ephesus and their immediate aftermath did not hint at such a happy ending, and yet the crisis had seemingly been resolved only two years following the mutual excommunications levelled by rival synods in Ephesus. The heresiarch had been removed from office and the doctrinal dispute between Cyril and John was clarified to the satisfaction of both parties, neither having been required to formally 32 33 34 35 36

Liberatus brev. 5 [ACO II.5 103]: Cyrillus autem deflorationes quasdam librorum Nestoriifaciebat, eumperturbare uolens, erat enim, ut dkkur, eius inimkus. Liberatus brev. 4 (ACO 11.5 103). Liberatus brev. 6 (ACO 11.5 104-106). Liberatus brev. 8 (ACO 11.5 106). Liberatus brev. 8 (ACO II.5 107): scrip* et subscripsitpraefatam fidem et Orientalibus direxitepiscopis.


399

retract any of their previous writings. The first council of Ephesus, which had seemed less and less like a universal synod as bishops partisan to Cyril and John met in rival conclaves to condemn and depose each other, was the catalyst of the Peace of 433. Despite the doctrinal and ecclesiastical upheaval brought about by Nestorius' teaching, the condemnations and depositions pronounced by rival councils, and the bitter animosity that developed between Cyril and John, two calendar years later the sees of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch were once more in full communion. The bishop of Alexandria played a crucial role in Liberatus' narrative of this first crisis of communion in Ephesus, standing out in at least two respects: Cyril's actions were consistently carried out in partnership with (or even in submission to) the bishop of Rome, and, Cyril was willing to acknowledge and subscribe to a statement of faith drawn up by his erstwhile rival despite the personal animosities involved. Despite the bishop of Alexandria's role in the scandals accompanying and following the council of Ephesus in 431, Liberatus understood Cyril to have acted decisively in the interests of communion at two critical turns: when Nestorius' teaching first caused a commotion in Constantinople it was Cyril who contacted him while also alerting the bishop of Rome, and, when the sees of Antioch and Alexandria were divided, it was Cyril who embraced the confession of faith offered by the bishops of Oriens and dedicated himself to its communication and clarification. Liberatus acknowledged the antipathy between Cyril and Nestorius, just as he frankly described the rivalry between Cyril and John that followed the synod in Ephesus. Nevertheless, it was the bishop of Alexandria whom the Carthaginian archdeacon described as playing a critical role in the achievement of the Peace of 433. 37 While the first crisis of communion outlined by Liberatus concluded happily with Cyril's letter Laetentur Cadi, the second had a quite different outcome. Liberatus set the stage for this second crisis by taking notice of a transition prompted by the successions of Dioscorus, Domnus and Flavian to the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople following the deaths of their predecessors Cyril, John and Proclus.38 These bishops, newly ordained to their sees, would be confronted with a new crisis of 37

38

Uta Heil, Liberatus von Karthago und die „Drei Kapitel". Anmerkungen zum Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutvchianorum 8-10, ZAC 14, 2010, 31-59, at 58, comments that not only is Liberatus' portrayal of Cyril extremely positive, but that the Nestorian crisis as a whole is presented "aus einer alexandrinischen Perspektive; Rom, Konstantinopel und Antiochia kommen fast nur mit ihren Beziehungen zu Alexandria in den Blick." Liberatus brev. 10 (ACO 11.5 113).

400

ShawnW.J.Keough

communion. The outcome would not follow the pattern set by their predecessors.39 Liberatus had cast the first crisis as a revival of the heresy of Paul of Samosata in Nestorius' rejection of the propriety of referring to the Virgin as Theotokos. The second, following hard on its heels, he would describe in terms associated with the heresy of Apollinarius. Liberatus wrote that Eutyches, a priest in Constantinople and archimandrite of'the city's most prestigious monastery,' set the second crisis in motion when he began teaching that Jesus Christ was not consubstantial with humanity but had instead received his body from heaven. The matter was quickly brought to the attention of Constantinople's new bishop, Flavian.40 After consulting the city's home synod he excommunicated Eutyches and informed the bishop of Rome of what had taken place.41 However, the elderly archimandrite was shrewd enough to seek aid from the bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who as yet had not taken part in these proceedings.42 Cyril's successor, Liberatus wrote, successfully persuaded the Emperor to call another ecumenical council in Ephesus in order to examine Flavian's judgment against Eutyches. Liberatus described Dioscorus as accompanied by a formidable gang of soldiers and monks, despite having received instructions from the Emperor to bring no more than ten metropolitan bishops to Ephesus.43 Liberatus' subsequent narrative stands in stark contrast to his account of Ephesus I: rather than working in concert with the bishop of Rome Dioscorus did not even allow the letter sent by Pope Leo be read, and he rejected the right of Leo's deacon Hilary to claim the president's chair as the Pope's representative.44 In the same vein, Liberatus wrote that the bishop of Alexandria stood upon his chair and proclaimed the orthodoxy of Eutyches' faith just as the general discussion of Flavian's judgement against the archimandrite was beginning. This was followed by the swift condemnation and deposition of several bishops, all in obedience to Dioscorus' orders. Liberatus wrote that

39

40 41 42 43 44

Cf. Shawn W. J. Keough, Rival Standards of Faith & Contested Canons of Episcopal Authority: The Correspondence between Dioscorus and Domnus preserved in the Syriac Acts of Ephesus II (449)," Parole de l'Orient 35, 2010, 407-427, and George Bevans contribution to this volume. Liberatus brev. 11 (ACO II.5 113-114). Liberatusbrev.il (ACO 11.5 115-116). Liberatus brev. 12 (ACO 11.5 117). Liberatus brev. 12 (ACO II.5 117): Dioscorus uero habebat secum fortissimos milhes rei publicaecummonachisBarsumae. Liberatus brev. 12 (ACO 11.5 117).


401

Dioscorus ruled the council through intimidation and fear,45 describing Cyril's successor as an imperious tyrant who deposed Flavian and sent the bishop of Constantinople into exile, turning a deaf ear to the pleas offered on bended knee by many of the council's most venerable bishops. Liberatus described Flavian's death, following hard upon his expulsion from Ephesus, as nothing less than politically motivated murder: after abusing Flavian so shamefully, it was the deacon Anatolius, Dioscorus' apocrisiarius in Constantinople, who ascended to the patriarchal throne as Flavian's successor.46 The second council held in Ephesus, despite being less chaotic and ambiguous than the rival councils held by Cyril and John, was likewise followed by two years of turmoil. A schism of hitherto unknown magnitude was the fruit of Dioscorus' council: the bishop of Egypt, along with his supporters in Palestine and Thrace, were divided from all the bishops of the East.47 Readers of Liberatus' Breviarium would anticipate that this schism would not last long. Following the Emperor Theodosius' fatal injury in a riding accident, the same bishops who had gathered in Ephesus met yet again in council only two years later, this time at Chalcedon. Liberatus wrote that the Emperor Marcian had called the council in response to a request made by the Pope and the other Roman bishops to determine what had happened in Ephesus two years earlier. For Dioscorus the council of Chalcedon was an unmitigated disaster: the bishops who had gathered in Ephesus two years earlier held him responsible for the wrongful deposition of orthodox bishops, among them Flavian, whose deposition and death were constantly linked to Dioscorus' actions two years earlier.48 Dioscorus refused to answer for his crimes before the council, and as a result the assembled bishops were left no choice but to condemn and depose Cyril's successor to the throne of St Mark and set about rectifying the unjust depositions of orthodox bishops he had ordered two years before. As the council concluded it was further ordered that Dioscorus be exiled to Gangra. The Egyptian bishops and clerics who had accompanied him to 45

46

47

48

Liberatus brev. 12 (ACO II.5 119): Dioscorus ui magis quam vustitia in ilk egerit synodo, in cuius gesta timore episcopi subscripserunt in Eutychis absolutione et depositione orthodoxorum episcoporum haeresim non recipiendum. Liberatus brev. 12 (ACO II.5 118): His ergo omnibus mails a Dioscoroperpetratis, caesus Fkvianus, et multis injuriis affectus, dolore pkgarum migravit ad Dominum, ordinatusque est pro eo Anatolius diaconus, quifuit Constantinopoli apocrisiarius Dioscori. Liberatus brev. 12 (ACO II.5 118-119): Soluto ergo illo concilio, et adsuas sedes reversis episcopis, scissio facta est inter eos, qualis antea nunquam contigerat. Aegyptii, Thraces et Pakestini episcopi Dioscorum sequebantur; Oriental, Pontici et Asiani sanctae memoriae Fkvianum, quod schismapermansit usque ad obitum Theodosiiprincipis. Liberatus brev. 13 (ACO II.5 119-120).

402

ShawnW.J.Keough

Chalcedon were sent home with the charge to elect a new bishop for Alexandria: one who would subscribe to Chalcedon's conciliar acts in their entirety.49 This conclusion to Chalcedon was no doubt well known to Liberatus' readers, who would have anticipated that the schism occasioned by the second council of Ephesus ended at Chalcedon, after which Rome would once again enjoy communion with the Eastern bishops until the Acacian Schism some thirty years later. However, having read Liberatus' treatment of Chalcedon and its immediate aftermath, one might well question whether the crisis of communion provoked by Ephesus II was indeed resolved at Chalcedon or whether Chalcedon served to intensify, rather than alleviate, an escalating conflict. Liberatus' narration of Chalcedon's opening three sessions, in which Dioscorus was deposed and the Egyptian bishops instructed to elect his successor, had already alerted his readers that there would be no straightforward resolution to this second crisis of communion. Liberatus wrote that the council fathers found it necessary to follow Dioscorus' deposition with an edict publicly announcing that his loss of episcopal rank was irreversible; apparently it had been widely supposed that Dioscorus might yet reclaim the episcopal seat from which he had been expelled.50 This report, read with Liberatus' treatment of events immediately following Chalcedon, intimates that a schism of two years would mark the onset, rather than the conclusion, of this second crisis of communion, a crisis which Chalcedon did little to resolve and much to exacerbate.51

The Rise of Rival Episcopal Genealogies Liberatus' record of the Nestorian controversy up to the council of Chalcedon (428-451) set two crises of communion in stark relief and established the Breviariums fundamental point of departure. His account of the strife that followed in Chalcedon's wake, up to Zeno's promulgation of the Henoticon (451-482), would trace the impact of these crises upon Alexandrian episcopal succession. The previous quarter century had been marked by two crises of communion in which Alexandria's bishop had played a leading role, for good or for ill. The next three decades would be 49 50 51

Liberatus brev. 14 (ACO II.5 123). Liberatus brev. 13 (ACO 11.5 121). Martin Wallraff, Das Konzil von Chalkedon in der Darstellung des Liberatus von Karthago, ZAC 14, 2010, 60-73, at 62: "Dass die Konsequenzen des Konzils vor allem fur Alexandria gravierend waren, liegt auf der Hand ... Es gibt Schwierigkeiten bei der Besetzung der Nachfolge Dioskurs."


403

marked by the establishment of parallel lines of succession to Alexandria's episcopal seat, and these lines of succession would soon be identified with the boundaries of communion between the empire's major sees. The Breviarium, having concluded its account of Chalcedon, immediately redirected the reader ad causam Akxandrinorum* Liberatus' report in the previous chapter, that it had been necessary to disillusion Dioscorus' supporters regarding the possibility of his ever regaining the throne of St Mark, would have prepared his readers for Alexandria's hesitancy and indecision when faced with the task of electing Dioscorus' successor. Even if he had been deposed and exiled by an ecumenical council, Dioscorus yet lived, and as long as Cyril's successor drew breath the thought of ordaining a bishop in his place was considered tantamount to parricide by many Alexandrians.53 As a result the ordination of Dioscorus' former archpresbyter Proterius divided the Alexandrian populace: elected by the nobiles ciuitatis and rejected by the general populace, Proterius was forced to hire a military escort for protection from his fellow countrymen. 54 Alexandrian episcopal succession had been disrupted by Dioscorus' deposition and Proterius' ordination; the Alexandrian church had been sundered by the introduction of a rival claimant to the episcopal throne. There was no mention of doctrinal questions in the Liberatus' account of the fracturing of Alexandria's unity. The Carthaginian historian simply repeated that so long as Dioscorus lived, albeit deposed by an ecumenical council and exiled from his former see, any other claimant to the throne of St Mark would have difficulty establishing and maintaining his episcopal rights, rights which many Alexandrians rejected out of hand.55 Opposition to Proterius' episcopacy hardened. Alexandrians spurning communion with Dioscorus' rival rallied around the banner of two clerics ordained by their bishop in exile, Timothy Aelurus and the deacon Peter Mongus. A critical turning point was reached, as Liberatus recorded in the final sentence to this chapter of the Breviarium, when Proterius offered the right hand of fellowship to Aelurus and Mongus, hoping thereby to draw them into the fold of his own clergy. Dioscorus' devoted presbyter and deacon proved uncompromisingly steadfast in their rejection of his rival;

52

53 54

55

Hanns Christof Brennecke, Das akakianische Schisma: Liberatus, Breviarium 15-18, ZAC 14, 2010, 74-95 at 85: "Die anderen ostlichen Patriarchate hat Liberatus iiberhauptnichtimBlick." Liberatus brev. 14 (ACO 11.5 123). Liberatus brev. 14 (ACO II.5 123-124); for more on Proterius see Philippe Blaudeaus contribution to this volume under the section heading "Proterius, ou la recherche d u n e certaine delegation successorale". Liberatus brev. 14 (ACO 11.5 123).

404

ShawnW.J.Keough

as a result they were condemned by the throne of St Mark and divided from the church of Alexandria.56 Dioscorus died only three years after his banishment to Gangra, and it was still three years more before the depth Alexandria's division was manifest. The Emperor's death was once more the catalyst of considerable commotion in the church. Six years had passed since Marcian had overturned the second council of Ephesus, ratified the council of Chalcedon and supported Proterius' succession to the episcopal seat of the deposed and exiled Dioscorus. Proterius had been in possession of the throne of St Mark for six years, sitting as Alexandria's unrivalled bishop for the latter half of the duration. Evidently this mattered little to those who had remained loyal to Dioscorus and his legacy: the passing years had served to inflame, rather than extinguish, the smouldering animosity separating Alexandrians loyal to rival bishops. The Marcian's death was the spark that set a city ablaze. Liberatus' description of events was terse.57 When news of Marcian's death reached Alexandria the supporters of Dioscorus ordained Timothy Aelurus as his successor. Aelurus returned to the city, and on Holy Thursday a mob descended on Proterius as he was celebrating the liturgy, killing him in the baptistery where he had sought sanctuary. His body was burnt, his ashes scattered to the winds. This savage outburst, Liberatus commented, transformed the Alexandrian ecclesial landscape: from this point forward rival bishops would lay rival claims to the throne of St Mark. According to Liberatus' narration the founding of rival genealogies of Alexandrian episcopal succession would come to transform the conditions by which the empire's churches would both enter into and withdraw from communion with each other.58 The new Emperor, Leo, confronted with a situation which demanded a swift response, took the unprecedented action of polling the empire's episcopate. Leo enquired of the bishops their opinion on two matters: the legitimacy of Chalcedon, and the legitimacy of Timothy Aelurus' episcopal election. While one bishop spoke out against Chalcedon, not one single voice was raised in defence of Timothy Aelurus.59 The Emperor ordered Timothy stripped of episcopal rank, commanding the Alexandrians 56 57 58 59

Liberatus brev. 14 (ACO 11.5 124). The episode fills no more than five lines of text in Schwartz's edition: Liberatus brev. 15 (ACO 11.5 124). Cf Philippe Blaudeau, Timothee Aelure et la direction ecclesiale de l'empire postchalcedonien, Revue des etudes byzantines 54, 1996, 107-133. Liberatus brev. 15 (ACO II.5 124-125). The letters have been preserved in the Codex Encyclkus compiled by the order of Emperor Leo in 458.


405

to separate themselves from his fellowship and to consecrate for themselves another bishop. Leo further specified that the new bishop must be elected with undivided popular support and defend the council of Chalcedon.60 Timothy Aelurus, like Dioscorus before him, was exiled to Gangra, where he exercized his episcopate-in-exile while his rival held the episcopal throne in Alexandria.61 Liberatus described Aelurus' rival, Timothy Salofaciolus, as a conciliatory figure whose episcopal policy was overly indulgent to his opponents. 62 Liberatus noted, however, that the Alexandrians held no particular grudge against Salofaciolus. Unlike Proterius he certainly did not require the protection of armed guards in his own see. The cry of the Alexandrian populace to Salofaciolus, 'although we are not in communion with you, know that we love you,' stood in stark contrast to Liberatus' description of the treatment Proterius had recently received at the hands of that same mob. 63 Searching for the cause of Alexandria's division some hundred years later, Liberatus recognized that the relative popularity enjoyed by rivals to Alexandria's episcopal throne did not affect the popular recognition of their episcopal election. The election of Timothy Salofaciolus had much the same effect as the election of Proterius: the city remained divided by rival allegiances to competing claims of legitimate episcopal succession. Salofaciolus was universally esteemed and loved, nevertheless, popular affection was not pertinent to episcopal claims or the boundaries of communion in Alexandria. This was plainly illustrated more than fifteen years later: when Aelurus was triumphantly restored to the chair of St Mark Salofaciolus withdrew from Alexandria and quietly retired to his monastery.64 In less than three years, however, he ascended once more to Alexandria's episcopal throne, and when Peter Mongus was elected Aelurus' successor he did not so meekly yield his office. Peter Mongus, unlike his predecessors, remained in Alexandria, where he successfully eluded capture and openly opposed Salofaciolus in the exercise of Alexandria's episcopal ministry. The aging Salofaciolus sought the support of Rome and Constantin_ 60 61

62

63 64

Liberatus brev. 15 (ACO 11.5 125). Liberatus brev. 15-16 (ACO II.5 124-125). On the question of exile see Philippe Blaudeau, "Quand les papes parlent d'exil: laffirmation d u n e conception pontificale de la peine d'eloignement durant la controverse chalcedonienne (449-523)," In : Exil et relegation: les tribulations du sage et du saint durant lAntiquite romaine et chretienne (IerVle s. ap. J-C), edited by Philippe Blaudeau, Paris, De Bocard, 2008, 273-308. Liberatus brev. 16 (ACO II.5 126). For more on Timothy Salofaciolus, see Philippe Blaudeaus contribution to this volume under the section heading "Timothee Salophaciol, ou la recherche de l'assentiment populaire." Liberatus brev. 16 (ACO II.5 126): uelsi non tibi communicamus, tamen amamus te. Liberatus brev. 16 (ACO 11.5 125).

406

ShawnW.J.Keough

ople in his contest with Mongus, particularly in the increasingly urgent matter of his own succession. Salofaciolus laboured ineffectually to expel Mongus from Alexandria until his death almost five years later, when he was succeeded by his erstwhile oeconomus, John Talaia, a fellow monk fromCanopus. 65

The Criterion of Communion The deaths of Timothy Aelurus and Timothy Salofaciolus, and the consequent episcopal successions of Peter Mongus and John Talaia, marked a critical turning point in Liberatus' history. Peter Mongus' episcopal election was followed by an imperial order expelling him from the priesthood. His fortunes would abruptly improve, however, when John Talaia's generosity toward the Isaurian general Illus became a political liability. This resulted in what Liberatus considered a disastrous volte-face in imperial policy: Zeno revoked his previous condemnation of Aelurus' successor, instructing Apollonius the Praefectus Augustalis and the dux Pergamius to instead depose the recently elevated oeconomus and to raise Peter Mongus to the episcopal throne in Talaia's place.66 The Emperor would soon discover that by doing so he had enabled a regional schism to alter the conditions by which the empire's churches would enter into communion. The repercussions of what had been a local dispute over episcopal succession were soon felt across the entire Roman world.67 Liberatus' frame of reference had ceased to encompass the empire as a whole following Proterius' election; the bishops of Rome and Constantinople had faded into the background as the Carthaginian archdeacon chronicled an essentially Egyptian conflict. With the election of Peter Mongus, however, the historian's perspective once more expanded beyond the confines of Alexandria; the Patriarch and Emperor in Constantinople, as well as the Pope in Rome, reappeared as active protagonists in a contest affecting the whole of the empire. 65

Liberatus brev. 16-17 (ACO II.5 125-126); cf. C. Pietri, DAlexandrie a Rome: Jean Talaia, emule d'Athanase au Ve siecle, in: Alexandrina: hellenisme, judai'sme et christianisme a Alexandria Melanges offerts au P. Claude Mondesert, Paris 1987 and Bruno Bleckmann, Tendenziose Historiographie (see note 5), 176-187, as well as Philippe Blaudeaus contribution to this volume under the section heading "jean Talai'a, ou la revendication d'une autonomic federatrice?"

66 67

Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO II.5 126-127). The most detailed analysis of the period and events under discussion is Philippe Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 451-491: de Fhistoire a la geo-ecclesiologie, Rome 2006.


407

Central to this new crisis of communion was the question of episcopal genealogies. Liberatus had already hinted at the growing importance of the developing rivalry of episcopal genealogies when he noted that Timothy Salofaciolus' efforts to gain Alexandria's fellowship extended so far as to replace the name of Dioscorus to the cathedral's diptychs.68 And once Zeno decided Peter Mongus was more likely to restore unity to the Egyptian church than John Talaia, the significance of which names were listed on the diptychs of the empire's churches took on a significance almost impossible to exaggerate.69 Liberatus recorded that Zeno's support for Mongus was immediately followed by that of Constantinople's bishop, who accepted Talaia's deposition and promptly placed Peter Mongus' name on the diptychs of the eastern capital.70 Liberatus noted that when Peter Mongus began putting his own house in order he had the names of Proterius and Timothy Salofaciolus stricken from Alexandria's diptychs, replacing them with the names of Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus. Mongus' determination to eradicate the memory of his rival extended even to the disinterment of his mortal remains from the episcopal cemetery, casting the corpse outside the city limits.71 Mongus literally denied Salofaciolus any ground which could be used to extend an episcopal genealogy that rivalled his own succession to the throne of St Mark. Rome did not look kindly upon amendments to Alexandria's and Constantinople's diptychs. The primary disagreement, Liberatus wrote, concerned the rival claims of Peter Mongus and John Talaia to the episcopal throne of Alexandria: both Simplicius and his successor Felix supported John Talaia while Acacius had rejected their demands that he do the same.72 John Talaia abandoned Alexandria, and after seeking shelter with Illus in Antioch he fled to Rome so that he might petition papal support of his claim to the Alexandrian episcopate as Salofaciolus' legitimate successor. The crisis came to a head when Pope Felix sent two of his bishops 68 69

Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO II.5 126-127). Menze, Justinian (see note 9), demonstrates the pervasive significance of the liturgical diptychs in the controversies of this period. Richard Price acknowledged the importance of Menze's work in his introductory essay to The acts of the Council of Constantinople (see note 9), 1.36, where he argues that there was only one "decisive obstruction that frustrated union between the Christians of the east and created a permanent gulf after the dismemberment of the empire in the following century." This single obstruction was neither "the notorious inability of theologians to agree" nor "regional separatism," but was rather "a concrete liturgical fact": "the selection of names for inclusions in the diptychs."

70 71 72

Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO 11.5 127). Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO 11.5 130). Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO II.5 129-131).

408

ShawnW.J.Keough

to Constantinople with instructions to denounce Peter Mongus as a heretic and demand his immediate deposition and excommunication. The pope's legates did not succeed in their mission, and were denounced at Rome for having betrayed the Pope by entering into communion with Talaia's rival when they communicated at a liturgy in which Mongus' name was read from Acacius' diptychs/ 3 Felix responded by writing Acacius in the following terms: peccastr, ne adiciasJ' When Acacius persisted in rejecting Rome's demands that Constantinople condemn Peter Mongus and break communion with Alexandria, Felix dispatched eastward a sentence of excommunication that was served Acacius as he was about to celebrate the liturgy/5 The schism between Rome and the eastern churches would endure until the accession of Justinian's uncle thirty-five years later, and it was nearly sixty years before Alexandrian bishops standing in succession to Proterius and John Talaia would once more rival Peter Mongus' successors. Three quarters of a century later an archdeacon from Carthage would study these events and explore Alexandria's episcopal archives in his attempt to understand the schism and persecution his church had suffered in the wake of Justinian's condemnation of the Three Chapters. The result was not so much a record of doctrinal disputes as a history of successive crises of communion in which the bishops of Alexandria had played the pivotal role. When framing his 'Brief Account' of the origins of the crisis facing his North African colleagues, it was to Alexandria that Liberatus turned first, and it was in Alexandria that he lingered longest. The contrasting crises of communion in which Cyril and Dioscorus had taken part established the foundation of his Breviarium, and the subsequent contest for Alexandrian episcopal succession determined its trajectory. Having narrated in some detail the fundamental crises of communion that gave rise to rival Alexandrian episcopal genealogies, Liberatus could draw his account to a close relatively quickly. Accordingly, less than the final third of the Breviarium was devoted to more than half of its chronological scope.76

73

74 75 76

Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO II.5 130-131); cf. Evagr. h.c. Ill 20 (ed.by J. Bidez/L. Parmentier, The ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, Byzantine Texts, London 1898, 117-118). Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO 11.5 131). The Pope's envoy Totus approached Acacius in Hagia Sophia and pinned the document to his pallium: Liberatus brev. 17 (ACO II.5 131). In Schwartz's edition, the fifty-six years intervening between Nestorius' ordination to the see of Constantinople and the establishment of the Acacian schism [Liberatus brev. 4-17; = 428-484] occupies thirty-one pages, while the remaining sixty years [until the first edict against the Three Chapters in 544; Liberatus brev. 18-24] occupies less than ten.


409

After the second council of Ephesus concluded and Dioscorus had failed to answer his summons at Chalcedon, the fundamental concern of Liberatus' Breviarium became the contest for the chair of St Mark; from that point onward every critical crossroads in his narrative would be explicitly framed as a crisis of Alexandrian episcopal succession/ 7 The die was cast when Zeno, hoping to end decades of episcopal rivalry in Alexandria, chose to align himself with one episcopal genealogy and reject its rival. The genesis of the Acacian schism did not so much lie in a doctrinal compromise (i.e., the Henoticon) according to Liberatus, whose account focused instead upon Zeno's rejection of John Talaia and support of Peter Mongus/ 8 The Acacian schism for Liberatus was as much a difference of opinion over which episcopal genealogy would be commemorated in the churches' diptychs as it was a matter touching the doctrines represented by Chalcedon and Leo's tome/ 9 Papal rejection of Peter Mongus' claim to legitimate succession in Alexandria had come to function as the criterion of communion between Rome and Constantinople. The disputed diptychs80 had indicated to Liberatus that the root of schism was to be found not so much in doctrinal subtleties as in an unresolved crisis of episcopal succession. The establishment of rival episcopal genealogies in Alexandria had taken on far more than local significance: Rome would never enter into communion with the successors to Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus, nor share fellowship with those who would.81 Tellingly, the chapter following Liberatus' account of Talaia's expulsion from Alexandria and Mongus' establishment as the city's unrivalled

77

78

79 80 81

Gleede, Liberatus' Polemik (see note 25), 96-97, notes that after Chalcedon Liberatus follows a clear thread in his sequence of events, "namlich der Sequenz alexandrinischer Patriarchen," and, that "die alexandrinische Perspektive" and "das Interesse am Schicksal des Petrus Mongus" dominates Liberatus' treatment of the Acacian schism. Hanns Christof Brennecke, Das akakianische Schisma (see note 52), 93: "Dass es sich urn einen Versuch handelte, ein Schisma mit der agyptischen Kirche zu verhindern, zeigt die Tatsache, dass das Henotikon vorerst nur fur Agypten als Voraussetzung der Ordination des Petrus Mongos zum Bischof von Alexandria gait." See Philippe Blaudeau, "Motifs et structures de divisions ecclesiales. Le schisme acacien (484-519)," A H C 39, 2007, 65-98 for a much more detailed analysis. Cf Meier's mention of 'die Diptychen-Frage', Das Breviarium des Liberatus (see note 3), 142. By so emphasizing the connection between episcopal succession and ecclesial communion Liberatus was developing an already well established principle in Christian historiography: Eusebius' own interest in the continuity of apostolic and episcopal succession reflected a similar concern for institutional and doctrinal unity. See Robert Lee Williams, Bishop Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises, Piscataway, N . J , Gorgias Press, 2005, 181-228.

410

ShawnW.J.Keough

patriarch was entitled T h e Bishops of Alexandria'.82 In that chapter he reviewed the subsequent three and half decades of schism by tracing Alexandria's subsequent episcopal successions, repeatedly noting that the churches remained sundered when Peter Mongus' name was not removed from the diptychs.83 The continuing schism was not described in terms restricted to Chalcedon or Leo's tome. For Liberatus, Zeno's promulgation of the Henoticon was inseparable from the decision to depose John Talaia and enthrone Peter Mongus, just as the consequent schism between Rome and the East was inseparable from the liturgical commemoration of a specific episcopal genealogy. When this fundamental framework is recognized, Liberatus' decision to conclude the story of Pope Vigilius by abruptly redirecting his readers ad causam Alexandrinorum becomes much more intelligible. Liberatus' Breviarium was not so much an account of divergent heresies as it was the history of rival episcopal genealogies. As important as the machinations of Theodora and the prevarications of Vigilius were to the Three Chapters controversy, it was Justinian's repeated attempts to undo Zeno's suppression of Proterius' episcopal succession that Liberatus chose to chronicle in the penultimate chapter of his 'Brief Account'. The purpose of a chapter devoted to a detailed description of the successive ordinations and depositions of bishops in Alexandria while Peter Mongus' successor hid in Constantinople, exiled by the Emperor and sheltered by the Empress, is explicable only when the centrality of Alexandrian episcopal succession to Liberatus' understanding of the origins of the schism afflicting the Roman world is recognized. Liberatus yoked his history of ecclesiastical controversy to the history of Alexandrian episcopal succession because his research had convinced him that an unresolved crisis of Alexandrian episcopal succession had become the cause of a crisis affecting the communion of an entire empire. The see of Alexandria functioned as the fixed point by which all relations were determined in the Breviarium: the North African historian took Alexandria as his fundamental point of reference, and, standing there, proceeded to correlate and the crises of communion that followed in the wake of the Nestorian controversy. The whole of church and empire was defined by its relation to Alexandria and the rival claimants to its episcopal throne: the commemoration of rival Alexandrian episcopal genealogies determined one's relation the rest of the Roman world. Alexandrian episcopal succession had become the criterion of communion.

82 83

Liberatus brev. (ACO 11.5 132-133). Liberatus brev. 18 (ACO II.5 132-133).

Epiphanius of Cyprus vs. John of Jerusalem: An Improper Ordination and the Escalation of the Origenist Controversy Young Richard Kim The aftermath of the Origenist controversy was not a pretty sight. Exiled bishops, bruised and battered monks, ruined friendships, tarnished reputations, broken hearts, and shattered spirits marked just some of the debris left by the tempest. The debate over Origen and the legacy of his thought and writings had been simmering for quite some time before the climax in 403, and the dispute was as much about theology as it was about biblical hermeneutics, principles of translation and censorship, and the role of speculation in Christian thought. 1 But as Elizabeth Clark has shown us, the Origenist controversy entailed other underlying issues that bubbled up to the surface in the late fourth century, including ecclesiastical politics, Christian attitudes to classical culture, and the nature and function of asceticism in the life of faith.2 Personal relationships and rivalries played a central role in the dispute, and the key players included influential bishops and clerics, devout and learned monks, wealthy female aristocrats-turnedascetics, and even powerful servants of the imperial court. By now we are well aware of the central role of Jerome and Rufinus, and in many ways their troubled relationship perhaps best embodied the deeply interpersonal aspect of the controversy. We may also think of Theophilus, a figure notorious for his seemingly politically motivated about-face against Origenism, 1 2

By climax, I refer here to the deposition of John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak and not the later "official" condemnations. E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, Princeton 1992, is the best recent account of the issues and individuals in this dispute. For other accounts of the Origenist controversy, see: F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome. Sa vie et son oeuvre. Tomes I-II, Louvain 1922, Vol. 1, 193-286; J. Kelly, Jerome. His Life, Writings, and Controversies, London 1975, 195-272; J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity. Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen, North American Patristics Society Patristic Monograph Series 13, Macon 1988; J. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London 1995, 191-227.

412

Young Richard Kim

his violent hostilities toward the Origenist monks in Egypt, and his sinister machinations against John Chrysostom.3 And of course we must think of Epiphanius of Cyprus, who perhaps single-handedly escalated the disagreements over Origen's theology into the all-out controversy that it became. Indeed I will suggest that it was Epiphanius' calculated and improper act of the ordination of Paulinian, Jerome's brother, that set alight the conflagration by creating contentious relational and political situations, which on the one hand forced John of Jerusalem to respond to the challenge against his authority and on the other hand brought Jerome firmly into Epiphanius' anti-Origenist camp. Epiphanius was invited to become the metropolitan of Cyprus in 367, after living some thirty years as an abbot of a monastery in his native Palestine.4 Over the next decade and a half, he was quite productive and proactive, both as a writer and as a leader in the church. In 374 he composed the Ancoratus, a defense of the Trinity in the form of a long letter to a monastic community in Pamphylia, and he followed this with the Panarion, his magnum opus, in which he described and refuted eighty different heresies, including the important book 64 against Origenism.5 In the midst of composing the Panarion, Epiphanius involved himself in the Meletian schism and the Apollinarian controversy, and his encroachment in these affairs took him to Antioch itself and as far as Rome in 382. 6 He 3

4

5 6

On Theophilus' role, see E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy (see note 2), 105-121; N. Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers, London 2007, 1535. On the life of Epiphanius, including his selection as bishop on Cyprus, see P. Nautin, Art. Epiphane (Saint) de Salamine, D H G E 15, Paris 1963, 617-631, though later modified in P. Nautin, Art. Eutychius, D H G E 16, Paris 1967) 95-97; J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism (see note 2), 25-124; A. Pourkier, L'heresiologie chez Epiphane de Salamine, Paris 1992, 29-51; O. Kosters, Die Trinitatslehre des Epiphanius von Salamis. Ein Kommentar zum „Ancoratus", Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 86, Gottingen 2003, 29-36. His move to Cyprus may have been due in part to the influence of the monk Hilarion, who spent his final years on Cyprus, because of Epiphanius' strong Nicene position, and his failed attempt to succeed Eutychius in Eleutheropolis; see J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism (see note 2), 4 1 43. Epiphanius' education and experiences as a monk in Egypt were also quite formative in his condemnation of Origen: J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism (see note 2), 93-124, though this strong assertion is disputed by O. Kosters, Die Trinitatslehre, 2029. For the editions of both texts, see GCS Epiphanius I-III Holl/Dummer. Cf. Epiph. haer. 77,1.1-2.5; 77,14.1-15.2; 77.20.1-23.3 (GCS Epiphanius III 416417; 428; 434-436 Holl); Bas. ep. 258.1-3 (ed. by Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Lettres, vol. 3, CUF, Paris 1966, 100-103). See J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism (see note 2), 73-86. For a thorough but old analysis of the schism: F. Cavallera, Le schisme d'Antioche (IVe-Ve siecle), Paris 1905, and a more recent reassessment, K. Spoerl,

Epiphanius of Cyprus vs. John of Jerusalem

413

traveled to the old western capital for a council in the company of Jerome and Paulinus, whose legitimacy as bishop of Antioch was seriously in question, and he enjoyed the hospitality of Paula, the wealthy widow and aristocrat who would become Jerome's patroness and companion/ In the following years, the remainder of the 380s and early 390s, we know little in the way of specifics about Epiphanius' activities, though we can certainly assume he continued to write, preach, and campaign for Nicene orthodoxy and against heresies, especially on Cyprus and in the Greek East. We do know that in 385 he hosted some very important visitors traveling from Rome to Palestine, namely Jerome and Paula, on perhaps two separate but chronologically close occasions, and he also wrote two minor treatises by 392 entitled De mensuribus etponderibus and De XIIgemmis? However, in the seven or so intervening years of this period we do not have precise details of his activities. This changed starting in 393. At the beginning of that year, we hear of a certain anti-Origenist monk named Atarbius, who was in Palestine trying to secure public condemnations of Origen from prominent Christians, including Jerome and Rufinus.9 It seems that the former was willing to concede to Atarbius, while the latter refused even to grant him an audience.10 Though there is no explicit link, this Atarbius may have been

7

8

9

The Schism at Antioch since Cavallera, in Arianism After Arius. Essays on the Development of Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, ed. by M. Barnes and D. Williams, Edinburgh 1993, 101-126. On the journey to Rome, cf. Hier. ep. 108,6.1 (CSEL 55, 310-311 Hilberg); 127,7.1 (CSEL 56/1, 150,22-24 Hilberg): cum et me Romam cum Sanctispontificibus Paulino et Epiphanio ecclesiastica traxisset necessitas. On the synod in Rome, see F. Cavallera, Le schisme (see note 6), 245-262. Cf. Hier. ep. adv. Rufin. 22 (CChr.SL 79, 93-94 Lardet); Hier. ep. 108,7.1-3 (312313 Hil.). It seems Jerome and Paula clearly left Rome on separate occasions, and they may have reunited either on Cyprus or in Antioch. On Jerome's expulsion from Rome, see F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 2), Vol. 1, 123-128; P. Nautin, L'excommunication de Saint Jerome, AEPHE, V=Section 80/81, 1972-3, 7-37; J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 104-128; Y.-M. Duval (ed.), Jerome entre L'Occident et L'Orient. XVP centenaire du depart de saint Jerome de Rome et de son installation a Bethleem. Actes du Colloque de Chantilly (septembre 1986), Paris 1988; S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis. Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Stuttgart 1992, 193-208; A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome. Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2009, 99-128.

Cf. Hier. ep. adv. Rufin. 33 (103-104 Lar.). F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 1), Vol. 1,205-206. 10 Jerome's motives for condemning Origen have been a point of confusion among modern scholars. J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 198 suggests Jerome wanted to appease Epiphanius and to start with a 'clean conscience' with respect to his work on Origen,

414

Young Richard Kim

working at the behest of Epiphanius.11 Perhaps what is most telling about this Atarbius' efforts in 393 was the corresponding return of Epiphanius to the heresy-hunting scene, thus adding credence to the connection between the two. Most likely during the season of Lent and the lead up to Easter of that year, Epiphanius was in Palestine and then in Jerusalem as a guest of bishop John. 12 What ensued between them was a war of words, with public sermons and passive aggression as the weapons of choice. The exact sequence, based on Jerome's recollection some three years after the fact, is murky, but we can discern what seem to have been at least four different moments of verbal confrontation.13 The first melee occurred when Epiphanius preached a sermon specifically against Origenism in John's presence, and Jerome conceded that though the ostensible target of the sermon was Origen, the actual attack since he admired only the exegetical work of the Alexandrian, and not his heretical doctrines. Perhaps the concern over his public persona following his expulsion from Rome and 'damage control' over his seeming devotion to Origen influenced his change of heart; see M. Vessey, Jerome's Origen: The Making of a Christian Literary Persona, StPatr 28, 1993, 135-145. Jerome's ultimate convictions on Origen also may have been influenced by Christian attitudes toward the body and sexuality; see P. Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York 1988, 379-385. See also B. Jeanjean, Saint Jerome et l'heresie, Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes, Serie Antiquite 161, Paris 1999, 37-55, 12849. 11 J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 198 suggests this link. 12 Cf. Hier. c. loan. 10-14 (CChr.SL 79A, 18-24 Feiertag). The exact occasion in which these events occurred is disputed, either the celebrations surrounded Easter or the Encaenia in September, which was the Dedication celebrating the inauguration of the Martyrium basilica (basilica of the Holy Sepulchre). However, based on Jerome's descriptions of the overall context of the sermons delivered by Epiphanius and John, I am inclined to accept the Paschal season for these events. For Epiphanius in Jerusalem during Lent and Easter, see J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism (see note 2), 397-403; and during the Encaenia, see P. Nautin, Etudes de chronologie hieronymienne (393397), REAug 19.1-2, 1973, 69-86; J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 199. On the liturgy in Jerusalem, especially leading up to Easter, see E. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Late Roman Empire AD 312-460, Oxford 1982, 107-127; J. Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, Third Edition, Oxford 1999, 50-88. On the Encaenia, see J. Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 80; M. Fraser, The Feast of the Encaenia in the Fourth Century and in the Ancient Liturgical Sources of Jerusalem, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Durham 1996. This visit to Palestine could also have been the occasion for Epiphanius' alleged iconoclastic activity in the village church of Anablatha; see J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism (see note 2), 392-397. For a recent critical assessment, see. S. Bigham, Epiphanius of Salamis, Doctor of Iconoclasm? Deconstruction of a Myth, Patristic Theological Library 3, Rollinsford 2008. 13

On the date of the composition of c. loan., see P. Nautin, Etudes de chronologie hieronymienne (393-397), REAug 18.3-4, 1972, 209-218.


415

was directed at John." Jerome then described how, "you [John] and your posse, with canine smiles and wrinkled noses, scratching your heads, with nods you were talking about the crazy old man." 15 John then sent one of his archdeacons to tell Epiphanius to cease and desist, and Jerome characterized this move as a grave insult to the venerable old bishop. The second confrontation occurred during a procession from one church building to another, during which crowds of people surged to meet Epiphanius to present to him their children for a blessing, and the throng was apparently so dense that he could hardly take a step forward. Jerome then chided John, who was apparently displeased by Epiphanius' popularity: "were you not so twisted with jealousy that you yelled at the "vainglorious old man"? You were not ashamed to say to his face that he was willingly and deliberately delayed."16 The third skirmish occurred on a day when gathered congregants had waited until the seventh hour for a chance to hear the delayed Epiphanius preach. John seems to have preached first, delivering a harsh sermon against the Anthropomorphites, and through his gestures insinuated Epiphanius as one among their number. Once John finished his apparently too long sermon, Epiphanius arose and said: "All that has been said against the heresy of the Anthropomorphites by my brother and colleague, my son in age, has been said well and faithfully. What has been condemned, I also do with my voice. But equally in the manner in which we have condemned this heresy, we ought also to condemn the perverse doctrines of Origen."17 Jerome then reminded John how the audience burst forth with laughter and applause. The final scuffle took place on another occasion when John delivered a sermon summarizing his 40-day catechetical instruction, after which he invited Epiphanius to speak, a request considered to be a great honor. Jerome tells us that though Epiphanius affirmed what John had preached, he was internally troubled that 14

Hier. c. loan. 11 (19,1-3 Fci.): nos hie eramus, cuncta novimus, quando contra Origenem in ecclesia tua papa Epiphanius loquebatur, quando sub illius nomine in vos torquebantur. 15 Hier. c. loan. 11 (19,3-5 Fci.): tu et chorus tuus canino risu, naribus contractis, scabentes capita, delirumsenem nutibus bquebamini. 16 Hier. c. loan. 11 (20,12-14 Fci.): tu tortus invidia gloriosum senem clamitabas? nee erubuisti in eius ore dicere quod volens et de industriu moreretur. 17 Hier. c. loan. 11 (20,27-31 Fci.): cuncta, inquit, quae locutus est collegio frater, aetate films meus, contra anthropomorphitarum haeresim, bene etfideliter est locutus. Quae mea quoque damnatur voce, sed aequum est ut quomodo hanc haeresim condemnamus, etium Origenis perversa dogmata condemnemus. Though John implied Epiphanius held anthropomorphite beliefs, in reality Epiphanius also condemned human characterizations of God, as in Epiph. haer. 70.2.1-8.11 (233-241 Holl); J. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism (see note 2), 396-398.

416

Young Richard Kim

John had attempted to convey the faith and all doctrines of the church in a single sermon. Epiphanius departed John's company and interestingly made his way to Jerome's monastery at Bethlehem, where he lamented about John's preaching. The monks then persuaded Epiphanius to return to the city, which he did, only to leave that same night, presumably back to Cyprus.18 These verbal confrontations openly revealed the rift between the two bishops, as well as Epiphanius' blatant attempts to bring John's alleged Origenism to the fore, though John seems to have avoided the subject altogether. These events then set the scene for what would transpire in the next year. Sometime after Pentecost in 394, Epiphanius paid a visit to his native Palestine in the region of Eleutheropolis, where he had established a monastery near Besanduc, the town of his birth. While there, he was visited by a delegation of monks from the monastery at Bethlehem, and Epiphanius tells us in a letter written to John about what transpired during a worship service: While therefore the Collect was being celebrated in the church of the villa which is next to our monastery, I ordered him, though unaware and bearing no suspicion, to be "seized" by a number of deacons and his voice silenced, lest in his desire to free himself he might adjure me in the name of Christ. And I ordained him first as a deacon, pressing upon him the fear of God and compelling him, so that he might minister. He resisted mightily, contesting that he was unworthy. Thus hardly was I able to compel him, and we were able to persuade him with the testimonies of the Scriptures and with a presentation of the commandments of God. And when he had ministered the holy sacraments, again with great difficulty and with his mouth silenced, I ordained him presbyter. And with the same words with which I had previously persuaded him, I pressed him to sit in the row of presbyters."

The "seized" monk was none other than Jerome's younger brother Pacinian. Epiphanius explained that his pretext for this ordination was that the monastic community at Bethlehem did not have someone who was either

18 19

Cf.Hier.c. loan. 14 (23-24 Fei.). Hier. ep. 51,1.5-6 (CSEL 54, 397,5-17 Hilberg): cum igitur celebraretur collecta in ecclesia vilke, quae est iuxta monasterium nostrum, ignorantem eum et nullum penitus habentem suspicionem per multos diaconos adprehendi iussimus et teneri os eius, ne forte liberare se cupiens adiuraret nos per nomen Christi, et primum diaconum ordinauimus proponentes ei timorem dei et conpellentes, ut ministraret; ualdeque obnitebatur indignum esse se contemns. uiX ergo conpulimus eum et suaderepotuimus testimoniis scripturarum et propositione mandatorum dei. et cum ministrasset in Sanctis sacrifice, rursus cum ingenti difficultate tento ore eius ordinauimus presbyterum et isdem verbis, quibus antea suaseramus, inpulimus, ut sederet in ordinepresbyterii.


417

able or willing to administer the sacraments, so he took the initiative to ordain Paulinian.20 When Epiphanius wrote this letter to John months after the event, he knew exactly what he had done. John had apparently already made public and written complaints concerning Epiphanius' actions, and in his reply Epiphanius maintained that he, "had done him no harm, caused no injury, nor extorted any violence. In a monastery of brothers-and brothers who were foreigners, who were under no obligation to your jurisdiction and because of our own insignificance and letters, which we frequently directed to them, they also began to have a sense of disunity with your communion." 21 In fact, Epiphanius audaciously declared that John in fact ought to have been grateful for this, and he reiterated the fact that John had already tried on numerous occasions to ordain Paulinian but failed because the candidate fled on each occasion.22 In other words, Paulinian's status as a yet-to-be ordained monk was known to John, and Epiphanius must have recognized that Paulinian was a coveted asset in the environs of Jerusalem. Thus this act of ordination was doubly provocative, because it was improperly conducted for a monastery within John's jurisdiction and thwarted John's previous attempts to ordain Paulinian himself. Epiphanius veiled the entire discussion and justification of this act with a thin veneer of Christian love. He even explained how pleased he was at the news of his own episcopal colleagues ordaining presbyters and other clergymen: "for many bishops in communion with me have both ordained presbyters in our own jurisdiction, whom we were not able to "capture", and have sent to us deacons and sub-deacons, whom we have received with gratitude."23 Here Epiphanius has betrayed his own duplicity, because he implied that he indeed recognized something irregular and improper had in fact taken place with his ordination of Paulinian, though he had tried to make claims to the contrary. So did Epiphanius genuinely believe he had behaved properly, either because John's jurisdiction did not 20

21

22 23

Cf. Hier. ep. 51,1.7 (397,17-24 Hil). On the ordination of Paulinian and ensuing escalation, see F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 2), Vol. 1, 211-227; J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 200-209; S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis (see note 8), 198-199. Hier. ep. 51,1.2-3 (396,3-7 H i l ) : nihil tibi nocuimus, nihil inuriae fecimus nee quicquam vioknter extorsimus. in monasterio fratrum - et fratrum peregrinorum, qui provineiae tuae nihil debuere et propter nostrum paruitatem et litteras, quas ad eos erebro direximus, eommunionis quoque tuae coeperunt habere discordiam. Though Hier. ep. 82,8.1-5 (114-115 Hil.) seems to indicate that John later complained to western bishops that Paulinian was too young to be ordained. Hier. ep. 51.2.1 (398,4-7 H i l ) : nam multi episcopi eommunionis nostrae etpresbyteros in nostra ordinaueruntprouineia, quos nos eomprehendere non potueramus, et miserunt ad nos et diaconos et hypodiaconos, quos suscepimus cum gratia.

418

Young Richard Kim

cover the monasteries at Besanduc and Bethlehem or "since there is no difference in the priesthood of God when it is provided for the benefit of the church?"24 What is perhaps most telling about this letter is that for the opening paragraphs, Epiphanius addressed the issue of the ordination, an act which clearly had irked John; but for the rest and vast majority of the letter, Epiphanius devoted his pen to condemning Origen and accusing John of Origenism. Thus by deliberately committing an act in violation of episcopal practice, Epiphanius was able to provoke a quarrel and shift the attention to his intended target all along, John the alleged Origenist. Thus my argument is that this improper ordination was in fact a calculated move, which accomplished two goals for Epiphanius. The first intended outcome was to put John in a position in which he had little choice but to respond. There was simply no way John could idly sit by and allow such a blatant violation of his episcopal authority, and he did indeed take appropriate action. As bishop of Jerusalem, John had jurisdiction over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which was closely linked to the monastic community established by Jerome. John acted on this affront to his authority, and he excommunicated Jerome and those who belonged to his monastic community at Bethlehem. This punishment effectively barred Jerome and his colleagues from entering the Cave and Church of the Nativity and churches in the diocese of Jerusalem, and they were essentially denied administration of and participation in the Eucharist.25 John was also able to add to this ecclesiastical punishment the seal of the imperial court when he secured from the Praetorian Prefect of the East, Flavius Rufinus, an official banishment of Jerome and his monks from Palestine, though the penalty was not carried out due to the assassination of the prefect on November 27, 395. 26 Nevertheless for the time being John was forced to alienate and exclude from communion Jerome and his monastic brethren. Epiphanius' second goal in improperly ordaining Paulinian was to make Jerome an anti-Origenist ally. Jerome, who was already sensitive about the perception of his public persona, seemed eager to avoid the charge of heresy, especially if we recall his willingness to concede to the demands of Atarbius. But this was not enough for Epiphanius. By using Jerome's own brother as leverage, Epiphanius also forced Jerome's hand in 24 25 26

Hier. en. 51,1.3 (396,12-13 H i l ) : cum nulla sit diuersitas in sacerdotio dei et ubi utilitatieccksiaeprouidetur. Cf. Hier. c. loan. 42 (79-80 Fei.). Cf. Hier. c. loan. 43 (80 Fei.); en. 60,16.1 (570,5-8 H i l ) ; 82,10.1-3 (116-117 H i l ) . John later lifted the punishment on Holy Thursday (April 2), 397.


419

the simmering dispute. By the time these events took place, Epiphanius already had an established relationship with Jerome.27 We know that in 382 they had traveled together to Rome along with Paulinus of Antioch; and after Jerome's expulsion from Rome, Epiphanius welcomed him to the island of Cyprus. Perhaps what is most interesting about this relationship during the 380s is that Jerome was at the time an admirer and translator of the works of Origen, while Epiphanius was an openly staunch critic of the Alexandrian, as evidenced in Panarion 64.2S Jerome's early translation projects included Origen's homilies on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Song of Songs, and Luke, which introduced some of the works of Origen to the Latin West for the first time.29 Even up to 393, it is clear Jerome still admired Origen, as when he published On Illustrious Men, in which he extolled Origen's "immortal genius".30 But in the same work, Jerome praised Epiphanius as an illustrious man, so it seems he also admired the bishop for his work and faith: "Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis on Cyprus, wrote books Against All Heresies and many other things, which are read by the educated on account of their matter, by the simpler folk as well on account of the words. He is up today still alive and now in ex27

28

29

30

For Jerome's life and writings, see G. Griitzmacher, Hieronymus: Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte, 3 Vols., Leipzig 1901-8; F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 2); J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2); S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis (see note 8); S. Rebenich, Jerome, The Early Church Fathers, London 2002; M. Williams, The Monk and the Book. Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship, Chicago 2006, especially the Appendix on the Chronology of Jerome's Career, 267301; A. Cain and J. Lossl (eds.), Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings, and Legacy, Burlington 2009. Hier. ep. 33 (253-259 H i l ) , for his knowledge of Origen's works. Epiphanius had also attacked Origen's thinking in Epiph. anc. 54; 62-63; 87 (GCS Epiphanius I, 6364; 74-76; 107-108 Holl). Jerome had translated Origen's homilies on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah from 380-1, Origen's homilies on Song of Songs from 383-384. For Jerome's literary activities in this period, see F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 2), Vol. 2, 153-165; P. Nautin, L'activite litteraire de Jerome de 387 a 392, RThPh 115,1983, 247-259. Hier. vir. ill. 54.8 (A. Ceresa-Gastaldo, Gerolamo. Gli Uomini Illustri. De viris illustribus, Florence 1988, 154): de immortali eius ingenio. For the date of vir. ill, see P. Nautin, La date du De viris inlustribus de Jerome, de la mort de Cyrille de Jerusalem et de celle de Gregoire de Nazianze, RHE 56 (1961): 33-35. See Ruf. apol. 1.22-44, 2.13-22 (CChr.SL 20, 56-80; 93-99 Simonetti) on Jerome's hypocritical relationship with Origen. For more nuanced assessments of Jerome's relationship to Origen, see E. Clark, The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy: the Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals, VigChr 4 1 , 1987, 154-171; E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy (see note 2), 121-151; R. Heine, The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Oxford 2002; M. Williams, The Monk and the Book (see note 27), 73-81.

420

Young Richard Kim

treme old age is producing various works."31 Prior to the escalation of the Origenist controversy, Jerome had crafted carefully a public persona as the Latin West's version of Origen, that is, Jerome the biblical scholar and exegete,32 Thus scholars have been puzzled in many ways by Jerome's rather sudden turn away from his admiration of Origen and also his rapidly deteriorating friendship with Rufinus,33 But whatever ambiguous or troubled feelings Jerome may have had about certain aspects of Origen's thought, the events of 394 moved him firmly into the anti-Origenist camp. The presence of Paulinian in the historical record is felt most in the accounts over his improper ordination. However, we also have other moments in our sources that provide some clues as to the nature of the relationship between the two brothers. When Jerome was expelled from Rome, we know that among his companions was his younger brother Paulinian, who accompanied Jerome all the way to Bethlehem and followed his exiled brother,34 When Jerome completed his translation of Didymus the Blind's treatise On the Holy Spirit in 387, a project ostensibly commissioned by Pope Damasus in 385, the preface was addressed to Paulinian,35 In the immediate aftermath of his ordination, it seems Paulinian moved to Cyprus to serve as a cleric under Epiphanius, at least up to 397, though Jerome did mention that his brother visited him from time to time,36 But we find in a letter dated to after Easter 398, Jerome had written in consolation to his friend Pammachius, in which he explained that 31

Hier. vir. ill. 114 (216 Cer.-Gas.): Epiphanius, Cypri Sakminae episcopus, scripsit Adversum omnes haereses libros et multa alia, quae ab eruduispropter res, a simplkioribuspropter verba quoque lectitantur. Superest usque hodie et in extrema iam senectute variacuditopuscuk 32 See M. Vessey, Jerome's Origen (see note 10); also S. Rebenich, Jerome: The "Vir Trilinguis" and the "Hebraica Veritas", VigChr 47, 1993, 50-77; M. Williams, The Monk and the Book (see note 27), 45-62; A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome (see note 8), 43-67. 33 See note 10 above. 34 Cf. Hier. adv. Rutin. 3.22 (93-94 Lar.). On the departure from Rome, see F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 2), Vol. 1, 120; J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 114; S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis (see note 8), 193; A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome (see note 8), 124-128. 35 Hier. Did. spir. prologus (SC 386, 136-141 Doutreleau). Also see F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 1), 134-135; J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 142; S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis (see note 8), 148; A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome (see note 8), 48-49. 36 Hier. c. loan. 41 (79,23-26 Fei.): sin autem de Pauliniano tibi sermo est, uide eum episcoposuo esse subiectum, versari Cypri, ad uisitationem nostram interdum uenire, non ut tuum, sed ut alienum, eius uidelket, a quo ordinatus est.


421

due to financial difficulties he was constrained to send his brother to Italy to sell property they had inherited from their parents.37 So despite any physical distance that may have separated them, the brothers maintained their relationship, and Jerome entrusted to Paulinian the important task of selling their inheritance. In a letter written to Theophilus dated to 399, Jerome revealed that John had apparently continued to raise the issue of Paulinian's ordination as one of the issues in the dispute, and Jerome continued to defend Paulinian as one "who is content to stay a cell of the monastery and regards clerical office not as an honorable, but a burden." 38 And finally, during the ongoing war of words between Jerome and Rufinus, it was Paulinian who reported to his older brother in 401 that Rufinus was composing his Apology against Jerome, which prompted Jerome to compose his own response,39 So even from these few mentions of Paulinian, it is clear that these brothers were indeed close. Thus Epiphanius' decision to ordain Paulinian forcibly was a stroke of genius. Perhaps Epiphanius at the time had no idea just how vitriolic a writer Jerome could be, but it was certain, at least in the immediate years to come, that the Cypriote had made for himself a truly useful ally. In the years following the events of 393 and 394, others including Theophilus of Alexandria, his priest Isidore, Popes Siricius and Anastasias, Eusebius of Cremona, various western Christians, Origenist monks in Egypt, and John Chrysostom became involved in the escalating disputes, and there would be moments of reconciliation, renewed hostilities, apologies, counter-apologies, translations, counter-translations, accusations, and denials.40 Perhaps the debates over Origen's thought and legacy could have been carried out in a civilized and reasoned manner, but this was not at all what Epiphanius desired. And so, with a calculated move intended to provoke John, his ecclesiastical colleague and rival, and to create an ally out of Jerome, Epiphanius lit the fuse that would explode into the Origenist Controversy. What this episode demonstrates is that the selection and ordination of clergy in the churches of Late Antiquity were not always motivated by the desire to choose the best person for the job, in the best interests of the 37

38 39 40

Cf. Hier. ep. 66,14.1-2 (665,3-13 Hil.). See F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 2), Vol. 1, 229; J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 226; S. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis(seenote8),194. Hier. ep. 82,8.1 (114,14-16 H i l ) : qui quksck in monasterii cellula et clericatum non honoreminterpretatunsedonus. Hier. adv. Rutin. 1.21 (20-21 Lar.); 1.23 (22-23 Lar.). Cf. F. Cavallera, Saint Jerome (see note 2), Vol. 1, 273-275; J. Kelly, Jerome (see note 2), 251. See n. 1 above for accounts of the subsequent years of the Origenist Controversy.

422

Young Richard Kim

local and broader Christian community. Indeed it seems that other motives, rooted in the competition for political and ecclesiastical authority, disputes over theology, and personal rivalries, were at the center of these processes. While much of the focus of this volume and the conference which inspired it has been on ecclesiastical elections at the highest level, the office of bishop, I hope that my examination of this particular episode reveals at least the equal importance of considering selections and ordinations at the lower clerical levels, because I suspect that they too will demonstrate the complexities of ecclesiastical succession in Late Antiquity.

Episcopal Elections in Gaul: The Normative View of the Concilia Galliae versus the Narrative Accounts 1 Susan Loftus The aim of this article is a reconsideration of the process of episcopal election through a comparative and close reading of the terminology in both the canonical and narrative evidence in order to gain a fuller insight into the idealized model and the pictured reality of episcopal elections. Accordingly, this study will pay particular attention to the language as well as the attendant friction or disparity between the sources to try to tease out a fuller picture. Evidence or text types comprise (a) the Concilia Galliae from AD 500 to 680, 2 and (b) narrative accounts (including hagiographical works), poems and letters written in Gaul from AD 470 to 690. 3 After briefly reviewing the evidence in the period prior to 500 to observe earlier practice, I propose to discuss three points: (1) the specific terminology of election used in all genres; (2) the canonical evidence for the process of election; and (3) evidence from contemporary accounts or sources other than canon law. It will be argued that election terminology should be considered in isolation - that is without confusing the process of election with that of ordination, and that when this is done, significant light is shed on the process.4 Indeed, by the use of this methodology a

1

2 3

4

I would like to acknowledge Prof. Alanna Nobbs, Dr. Stephen Llewelyn and Mathew Loftus for the support and suggestions they have given when I was writing and editing this paper. Any mistakes therein I admit are my own. C. Munier/C. de Clercq, Concilia Galliae 511-695, CChr. SL 148, 148A, Turnhout 1963. Sidonius Apollinaris, Poems and Letters, 2 Vol., trans, by W.B. Anderson, London 1963-1965; Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. (Gregorii episcopii Turonensis historiarum libri historiarum X, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,1, Hannover 2 1951, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison; Greg. Tur. vit. patr. (Gregorii episcopii Turonensis miracula et opera minora, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,2, Hannover 1885, ed. B. Krusch). For translations, see Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, trans, by L. Thorpe, Harmondsworth 1974; Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, trans, by E. Brehaut, New York 1973; Lives of the Fathers, trans, by E. James, Liverpool 1985. W. Goffart, Barbarian Tides in the Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire, Pennsylvania 2006, 9, 199; Goffart has warned of indiscriminate selection of words

424

Susan Loftus

different picture of the process of episcopal choice will emerge. This study is necessarily limited but it adds a new dimension to our understanding of the period after 511 when the first councils in Gaul were held under the auspices of newly converted Catholic kings.

A Short Examination of the Period Prior to 500 The formula of episcopal installation in the Roman Empire stemmed from the earliest Christian traditions established between the second and third centuries and further developed from the fourth century onwards.5 The formula is consistent. Initially several men were nominated as candidates of whom one was then officially elected by three groups in the community, namely, at least three provincial bishops, clerics from the see and the local people; following this the elected candidate was taken to the church over which he was to have authority and there he was consecrated by the metropolitan bishop. The terms consistently used for the procedures in all the evidence are the noun ordinate or verb ordinare for the procedure as a whole, the noun electio or verb eligere for the process of election and the noun consecrate or the verb consecrare for the final procedure performed by the metropolitan bishop.6 In the era prior to regal intervention in the western province of Gaul a canon from the Council of Aries of the fifth century clearly states the ob-

5

6

from random texts without the full context of the terminology. The larger study from which this paper was developed included a much closer contextualization of each example. P.F. Bradshaw (ed.), The Canons of Hippolytus, trans, by C. Bebawi, Nottingham 1987; G. Alberigo/A. Melloni (eds.), Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta, Vol. 1, The Oecumenical Councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II, CChr. C O G D , Turnhout 2006, 325-787. The most important canons are: Council of Nicaea, I, 325, Canon 4 (CChr. C O G D , vol. 1, 21,89-22,101 Alberigo); Epistula Nicaeni concilii ad Aegyptios (32,479-33,499 Alberigo); Regarding voting and ordination of the bishops of Cyprus, (CChr. C O G D , vol. 1, 111,1142-112,1185 Abramowski), Council of Chalcedon, 451, Canons 2, 6, 10, 25 (CChr. C O G D , vol. 1, 138,420-444; 141,520-530; 142,588-143,604; 149,814-825 Muhlenberg). Concilia Galliae (see note 2): Council of Aries, 314, Canons 20, 21, 26 (CChr.SL 148, 13,65-72 and 25,4-6 Munier); Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, 475, Canon 84 (179,203180,208 Munier); Council of Aries II, 442-506, Canons 13, 54 (116,43-49 and 125,207-210 Munier); Council of Agde, 506, Canons 1, 9 (193,20-26 and 196,84-87 Munier). These references from the first church councils and subsequent councils give a clear description of the procedures in the early church. If the metropolitan bishop was not present through distance or illness he would give his written consent and the more senior bishop would perform the consecration.

Episcopal Elections in Gaul

425

served order for ordination. Once all obstacles have been removed, "men are nominated by the bishops, who with the clerics and local people would have power to elect one."7 The canon makes clear that the responsibility for the election of the candidate was divided between three groups: provincial bishops, clerics and local people. Not until there was consensus between them on the choice of candidate could they proceed.8 The following example illustrates that in reality problems did occur with this process. In an early reference to episcopal elections before 449, Pope Leo reprimanded Bishop Hilarius of Aries supported by an edict of Emperor Valentinian III. The papal letter indicates that inconsistencies had emerged in the procedure of episcopal installation in Gaul.9 The reason for both the pope's and emperor's involvement was Bishop Hilarius's disregard for canon law in the election of a bishop of Besancon. Hilarius used excessive military force to resolve the election and ignored the required involvement in the choice of bishop by clerics and the people of the community to resolve the election. Bishop Mamertus of Vienne was similarly reprimanded by Pope Hilarius for his unlawful involvement in the episcopal election at Die.10 Additionally, detailed letters of Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont, who adjudicated over an episcopal election at Bourges, inform us of similar problems in the late fifth century.11 In the first letter Sidonius gives a clear description of the electoral procedure and makes reference to non-canonical procedures. In the second letter, Sidonius enunciated all the problems with the election and the choice of candidate, Simplicius, but then goes on to raise points of canon law in support of his choice of

7 8

9

10

11

Council of Aries, 442-506, Canon 54 (125,207-210 Munier). R. MacMullen, Voting about God in Early Church Councils, New Haven 2006, 1822, 48. McMullen concentrates on the procedure of voting in church councils and discusses the history and tradition of local Roman municipal councils from which the process of ecclesiastical voting and election stemmed. He emphasizes that first it was important to have consensus and that some discussion of the opposing views would have taken place before the actual vote. R.W. Mathisen, Hilarius, Germanus, and Lupus: The Aristocratic Background of the Chelidonius Affair, Phoenix 33, 1997, 160-169. This latter work gives a detailed discussion with the relevant texts on the topic. Leo, Ep. (PL 54,618-636); Nov. Val. 17 (PL 54,636-640). Hil. ep. 11 (PL 58, 28-32). See references to the same topic in P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007, 157158. Sid. ep. VII 7-9 (ed. by W.B. Anderson, Sidonius. Poems and Letters, vol. 2, London/Cambridge 1965, 330-358) See J. van Waarden, Episcopal Self-Representation: Sidonius Apollinaris and the Episcopal Election in Bourges AD 470, in this volume.

426

Susan Loftus

Simplicius as the most suitable candidate.12 Sidonius was requested to choose the candidate and he appeared to resolve the many problems presented, undoubtedly because of his political influence and social position as a former prefect of Rome who hailed from a famous senatorial family.13 A third letter concerns an episcopal election at Chalons.14 Sidonius mentions three candidates who were all vying for popularity in different ways but again there was factional interference with the choice of candidate. These three letters give us a clear picture of the problems emerging in connection with the installation of bishops in Gaul when the transition to kingdoms began to take place. Canon law attempted to regulate procedures for episcopal elections but from the above examples it is clear the canonical procedure was often circumvented. We can therefore see good reason why later the kings of autonomous kingdoms might have intervened in episcopal elections, given the proven need in some cases for a strong hand or influential person to resolve the situation. With some justification kings may have also emulated emperors.15 Norton offers one of many studies that suggest the Merovingian kings had complete power over elections.16 In his 2007 book Norton suggests "in the West, electoral practice appears by the end of the sixth century to have crystallized into a system of regal appointments under the control of the barbarian kings, while in the East, Justinian's legislation enshrined into law the patterns that had been established as the norm." While the topic of Norton's work is episcopal election he broadens his discussion to in12

Sid. ep. VII 9,17 (348 Anderson). Sidonius detailed the problems manifested at the election at Bourges including the large number of episcopal candidates, the various passionate parties, a disturbed crowd that was originally not compliant, and clerics who were afraid of other members of the clerical order and thus did not speak out against or in defence of a candidate. 13 Sid. ep. VII 9,17; VII 9,6 (348; 338-340 Anderson) when he refers to the choice he uses the term eligere. Sidonius points out the other qualities of Simplicius, as well as his reputation as an upstanding member of his community: he was well known by the people of Bourges and he had good family connections. Two other candidates who had both been married twice were deemed unsuitable. 14 Sid. ep. IV 25 (164-168 Anderson). 15 P.G. Caron, L'intervention de lautorite imperiale romaine dans l'election des eveques, Revue de Droit Canonique 28, 1978, 76-83; J.R. Palanque/G. Bardy. P. deLabriolle/G. de Plinval/L. Brehier, The Church in the Christian Roman Empire, London 1952, trans, by E.C. Messenger, Vol. 2, 602. Palanque notes that at Milan in 398 the precedent was formed when the Emperor was allowed to nominate the candidate for the episcopate. 16 P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 10), 11, 115-116, 161; J.M. WallaceHadrill, The Frankish Church, Oxford 1983, 105; O. Pontal, Histoire des conciles merovingiens, Paris 1989, 44, 45.


427

elude ordination and the election of kings.17 This re-examination of solely episcopal election expects to add further dimensions to the discussion.

Terminology of Elections In a perusal of the Concilia Galliae from 500-680, it was found that the terms electio or eligere were most often used to signify episcopal election and its procedure. These two terms were less utilized than the term ordination and its cognates' ordinatio and ordinare when referring to episcopal elections. The term ordination is used to signify the setting apart of a person from the secular world for installation into the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is an overall process beginning on the death of the previous bishop to the questioning of the candidate and the confirmation of his suitability prior to election and consecration.18 Considering that a bishop's legitimacy depended on a valid election this lack of concern for precision in canon law for the electoral process is noteworthy. In a further survey of the terms used in the canons of the two centuries of the Concilia Galliae, ordination is mentioned approximately forty six times in connection with the installation of a bishop, whereas terms denoting only the procedure of election of bishops were referred to eighteen times. Did ordination, then, encompass both election and ordination? If so, then why were the two terms used together in at least five canons and one letter?19 One example is Orleans (533); canon 7 reads "In the ordina17 18

19

P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 10), 253, 255-258. For a different analysis, see B. Dumezil, La royaute merovingienne et les elections episcopales au Vie siecle, in this volume. W.H. Frere, Notes and Studies Early Ordination Services, JThS 16, 1915, 323-371; E. Ferguson, Ordination in the Ancient Church, Restoration Quarterly 5, 1961, 1732; E. Ferguson, Selection and Installation to Office in Roman, Greek, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity, ThLZ 30, 1974, 273-284; P. van Benedon, Aux origines d'une terminologie sacramentelle. Ordo, ordinare, ordinatio dans la literature chretienne avant 313, Louvain 1974; A. Santantoni, Lordinazione episcopale: Storia e teologia dei riti dellordinazione nelle antiche liturgie dell'Occidente, SA 69, Analectica Liturgica 2 Rome 1976; P.F. Bradshaw, The Participation of Other Bishops in the Ordination of a Bishop in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, Studia Patristica 18.2, 1989, 335-339; J. Lecuyer, Le sacrement de lordination. Recherche historique et theologique, Paris 1983; A. Stewart-Sykes, The Integrity of the Hippolytean Ordination Rites, Augustinianum 39, 1999, 97-127. Cone. Aurelianense, 533, Canon 7 (CChr.SL 148A, 100,3-37 De Clercq) (see text in note 20); Cone. Aurelianense, 538, Canon 3 (115,27-37 De Clercq): De metropolitanorum uero ordinationibus id placuit, ut metropolitan a metropolitan omnibus, si fieri potest, praesentibus conprouincialibus ordinentur, ita ut ipsi metropolitan ordinandi priuilegium maneat, quern ordinationis consuitudo requirit. Ipse tamen metropolitans a

428

Susan Loftus

tion of metropolitan bishops we revive the ancient law of the institution that has been lost through neglect in every possible way. And so the metropolitan bishop (after) having been elected by provincial bishops, clerics and by the people coming to an agreement as one let him be ordained by all the provincial bishops...." 20 This canon clarifies the desired procedure that involves only local people, clerics and bishops. By referring to ancient customs of the church the canon clearly states that the old canons have been ignored, forgotten or transgressed. The terminology for consecration of bishops {consecratio) presents a similar problem. There are only two examples from the period 500-680, where all three terms were used together.21 The evidence suggests that ordination was more frequently used to indicate also election and consecration. In other words, ordinate and its cognates could be used to represent the procedure as a whole or either element of it (i.e. electio or consecratio). The examples in footnote 21 show the use of all three terms as three separate procedures. The first one states "the bishop should be consecrated in the city where he is elected and ordained."22 conprovincialibus episcopis, sicut decreta sedis apostolicae continent cum consensu clems uel cmium elegatur, qui* aequum est, sicut ipsa sedis apostolica dixit: "qui praeponendus est omnibus, ab omnibus elegatur. " Deprouincialibus uero ordinandis cum consensu metropolitan clems et cmium iuxtapriorum canonum statuta uolumtas et electio requiratur ...; Cone. Paris, 556-573 Canon 8 (208,112-129 De Clereq) (see text in note 28); additionally a letter from Cone. Paris 573, Epistola pappoli episeopi Carnotensis ad synodem (212,12 De Clereq); Cone. Paris, 614, Canon 2 (275,13-20 De Clereq); Cone. Cabilonense, 647-653, Canon 10 (305,51-54 De Clereq); Cone. Latunense, 673-675, eanon 5 (315,23-24 De Clereq). 20

Cone. Aurelianense, 533, Canon 7 (100,31-37 De Clereq): In ordinandis metropolitans episcopis antiquum institutions furmulam renouamus, quam per incuriam omnimodis uidemus amissam. Itaque metropolitans episcopus a comprouincialibus, clericis uel populis electus, congregatis inunum omnibus conprouincialibus episcopis, ordinetur, ut talis Deopropicio adgradum hums dignitatis accedat, per quern reguk ecclesiae in melius aucta plus fbreat. 21 Cone. Aurelianense, 541, Canon 5 (133,34-40 De Clereq): Id etiam regukre esse praespeximus decernendum, ut episcopus in cruitate, in qua per decretum elegitur ordinandi, in sua ecclesiae, cui praefutums est, consecretur. Sane si subito necessitas temporis hoc implere non patitur, licit melius esset in sua ecclesia fieri, tamen aut sub praesentia metropolitan aut certe cum eius auctoritate intra prouinciam omnino a conprouincialibus ordinetur; Cone. Aurelianense, 549, Canon 10 (151,92-152,98 De Clereq): Ut nulli episcopatumpraemiis aut conparatione liceat adipisci, sed cum voluntate regis iuxta electione cleri acplebis, sicut in antiquis canonibus tenetur scriptum, a metropolitan vel, quern in vice sua praemiserit, cum comprouincialibus pontifex consecretur. Quod si quis per coemtionem banc regulam huius sanctae constitutions excesserit, eum, qui per praemia ordinate fuerit, statuimus remouendum. 22

Cone. Aurelianense, 541, Canon 5 (133,34-40 De Clereq). The examples in the Latin texts in note 21 above show the use of all three terms together: Cone. Aurelianense, 549, Canon 10 (151,92-152,98 De Clereq).


429

Terms Used for Election in the Narrative In Gregory of Tour's Histories both electio and ordinatio were used to refer to election, but the latter term is clearly preferred. Gregory makes many references to election and to the installation of bishops but in order to avoid ambiguity in a study of this topic, only electio or eligere should be included. Gregory uses the terms, election, ordination and consecration together in one extract, and his usage again highlights the conception of episcopal installation as a whole {ordinatio) consisting of two parts {electio and consecration However, in the hagiography Vitae Patrum, Gregory chooses to use both the terms electio and ordinatio in the installation of the six bishops' lives he includes in his work. Thus it is said of Saint Quintianus that he was "elected, asked for and ordained."24 The terminology of election at times appears inconsistent but it was clearly a specific and separate procedure.

The Process of Election in Canon Law« Election is a transparent procedure separate from ordination or consecration. It could be argued that there was less interest in the canons that delineate election because it was a procedure with shared authority between the people, clerics and bishops whereas ordination or consecration involved only bishops. If this is the case why is there also less interest in consecration, a procedure certainly connected to episcopal authority and which remained only in the domain of the bishops? Frequent reiteration 23

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 15 (147 Krusch/Levison): De episcopatu sancti Eufroni. ...acta consensu in Eufronio presbtero, ad eum pergunt. Data quoque suggestionem, respondit rex: "Praeciperam enim, ut Cato presbiter illuc ordinaretur; et cur est spreta iussio nostra?" Responderuntque: "Petivimus enim eum, sed venire noluit". Haec Mis dicentibus, advent subito Cato presbiter, depraecans regem, ut, eiecto Cautino, ipsumArverno iuberet imtitui Quod rege inridente, petit iterum, ut Turonus ordinaretur, quod ante dispexerat. Cui rex ait: "Ego primum praecipi, ut Turonus te ad episcopatum consecrarent, sed quantum audio, despectui habuisti ecclesium Mam; ideoque elongaveris a dominatione eius". Etsic confusus abscesst De sancto vero Eufronio interrogans, dixerunt, eum nepotem esse beati Gregorii, cui supra meminimus. Respondit rex: "Prima haec est et magna generatio. Fiat voluntas Dei et beati Martini, electio compleatur". Et data praeceptione, octavos decimuspost beatum Martinum sanctus Eufronius ordinatur episcopus.

24

Greg. Tur. vit. patr. IV, 1 (135 Krusch), where the terms used are: ...ad episcopatum Rutinae, eclesiue elegtur, expettur, ordinatur.... See P. Van Nuffelen, The Rhetoric of Rules of Consensus, in this volume, for further reflection on the nature of episcopal elections.

25

430

Susan Loftus

of canons that regulated the procedure of ordination indicates an increased concern with the ordination process. Whereas the fewer references to the two other procedures of election and consecration, essential requirements for episcopal installation, indicate these two processes were less problematic to the bishops who attended and subscribed to the councils. Or was it because the term ordination was, as argued above, used to mean all three procedures? Ecclesiastical power was dependent on a number of factors, one of which was a legitimately elected and ordained episcopate that derived its authority from the church canons. But as already observed canon law depicted an ideal which was not always practised. Furthermore, when a particular topic is reiterated at councils over a number of centuries, one may reasonably infer concern about that law's effectiveness. And this is what one finds in the case of canons dealing with ordination, a process that included at times elements of election and consecration. Canons recorded during the early years of the Frankish kingdom depict only occasional changes that relate to the role of the king. In the analysis of the terminology used for episcopal election, references to the king's wishes occur in only two canons. Canon 4 of the Council of Orleans (511) states that the promotion of a layperson to the clerical office is not permitted "except by order of the king." This council was the first occasion in which a king who had converted to the Catholic faith, was in attendance. Canon 10 of the Council of Orleans (549) states the election was "with the assent of the king."26 But instances where the king or persons of influence were expressly excluded from the election process occur in four canons.27 Indeed, canon 8 of the 3rd council of Paris sets limits on the authority of kings to intervene in episcopal elections.28 The wording of 26

27

28

Cone. Aurelianense, 511, Canon 4 (6,48-53 De Clercq): De ordinationibus derkorum id obseruandum esse censuimus, ut nullus saecukrium ad clericatus officium praesumatur nisi aut cum regis iussione aut cum mdicis uoluntate: ita utfilii clericorum, id est patrum, auorum ac proauorum, quos supradicto ordine parentum constat obseruatione subiunctus, in episcoporum potestate ac districtione consistant. Cone. Aurelianense, 549, Canon 10 (151,92-152,98 De Clereq) (see Latin text in note 21). Cone. Parisiense, 556-573, Canon 8 (208,112-209,129 De Clereq) (see text in note 28 below); Cone. Aurelianense 538, Canon 3(115, 27-37 De Clereq) (see text in note 19). This explicitly states that the bishop should be ehosen by all with the free election of the people. Cone. Claremontanum, 535, Canon 2 (105,17-106,30 De Clereq) (see the Latin text of this eanon in note 30 below). Cone. Aurelianense, 549, Canon 11 (152, 99-104 De Clereq). These last two eanons prohibit interference by patronage and the powerful. Cone. Parisiense, 556-573, Canon 8 (208,112-209,129 De Clereq): Et quia in aliquibus rebus consuetude prisca neglegitur ac decreta canonum uiokntur, pkcuit iuxta antiquam consuetudinem, ut canonum decreta seruentur. Nullus ciuibus inuitis ordinetur epi-


431

the canon is clear: "...election was obtained with the full consent of the people and of the clergy, not by the authority of the leader or king and nor should it be forced through any agreement against the desire of the metropolitan or the provincial bishops..." The canon emphasizes the importance of the metropolitan in the final selection of the bishop and the canon attempts to prevent the use of patronage or threat by the powerful.29 At the Council of Clermont (535), canon 2, and much later at the Council of Paris (614), canon 2, there are proscriptions against regal intervention into episcopal elections. At Clermont the canon states "no appeal should be made to the powerful or patronage" and at Paris "no intervention by another party or money." Both canons also include the traditional formula of election by people, clerics and provincial bishops. Furthermore, the canons stress the importance of the metropolitan in the procedure and omit all references to the king's wishes, orders or agreement.30 De Clercq and Wallace-Hadrill point out that the King Lothar II issued his own scopus, nisi quempopuli et clericorum electio plenissima quesierit uoluntate; non principes imperio neque per quamlibet conditionem contra metropolis uoluntatem uel episcoporum comprouincialium ingeratur. Quod si per ordinationem regiam honoris iustius culmen peruaderi aliquis nimiu temeritate praesumpserit, a comprouincialibus loci ipsius episcopus recepipenitus nulktenus mereatur, quem indebete ordinatum agnuscunt. Si quis de comprouincialibus recipere contra interdicta praesumpserit, sit a fratribus omnibus segregatus et ab ipsorum omnium caritate semotus. Nam de ante actis ordinationibus pontificum ita conuenit, ut coniuncti metropolis cum suis comprouincialibus episcopis uel, quos uicinos episcopos eligere uoluerit, in loco, ubi conuenerit, iuxta antiqua statuta canonum omnia communi consilium et sententia decemantur. See also Cone. Aurelianense, 549, Canon 11 (152, 99-104 De Clercq): Item, sicut antiqui canones decreuerunt, nullus inuitis detur episcopus, sed nee per oppressionem potentium personarum ad consensum faciendum dues aut clirici, quod did nefas est, inclinentur. Quod si factum fuerit, ipse episcopus, qui magisper uiolentiam quam per decretum legitimum ordinatur, ab indepto pontificatus honoreinperpetuodeponatur. 29

30

R. Van Dam, Emperors, Bishops and Friends in Late Antique Cappadocia, JThS N.S. 37, 1986, 53-76, 63. Van Dam draws attention to the same ideals that Basil of Caesarea carried out to curb the influence of rural bishops on local elections of bishops by making metropolitan bishops responsible for the final selection of candidates for rural positions as bishops Cone. Claremontanum, 535, Canon 2 (106,24-29 De Clercq): ...Episcopatum ergo desiderans electione clericorum uel ciuium, consensu etiam metropoletani eiusdem prouinciaepontifex ordinetur; non patrociniapotentum adhibeat, non calleditate subdola ad conscribendum decretum alios orteturpraemiis, alios timore conpellat... Cone. Parisiense, 614, Canon 2 (275,13-20 De Clercq): Hoc est: ut decedente episcopo in loco ipsius ilk Christopropitio debeat ordinari, quem metropolitans, a quo ordinandus est, cum conprouincialibus suis, clerus uelpopulus ciuitatis illius absque ullo quommodo uel datione pecuniae elegerint. Quod si aliter aut potestatis subreptione aut quacumque neglegentia absque electione metropolitan^ cleri consensu uel ciuium fuerit in ecclesiaintromissus, ordinatio ipsius secundum statutapatrum irrita habeatur.

432

Susan Loftus

edict following the Council of Paris. In this edict Lothar altered the words of the canon by adding that the episcopal candidate required the endorsement by the king.31 The evidence from this regal decree is significant because it indicates that during this reign bishops had regained power over episcopal elections. There are thirteen canonical references to episcopal election using electio and its cognates. In eleven of the thirteen examples the same formula citing participation by provincial bishops, local clerics and people is repeated. There is no mention of the king.32 Canon 3 of the Council of Orleans (538) illustrates the formula and emphasized the traditional electoral procedure, stating that "the metropolitan bishop is to be chosen, with his provincial bishops present, as the decree of the apostolic see states, when the consensus is declared he may be elected with the consent of the clerics and by the laity...'"33 The second part of this canon deals with ordination of provincial bishops and states that their election requires the consensus of the clerics, the local people and consent of the metropolitan. The king was not present at the council and no reference is made to any requirement for his permission. This above examination of the canonical procedure for election indicates that the bishops from 500-690 endeavoured to conform to the ancient custom and wished to exclude outside interference. There is sparse reference to regal intervention.

The Election Process in Narrative Texts Gregory of Tours mentions the episcopal installation frequently but it is Book X, Chapter 31 that offers the best evidence. Here Gregory confines his narrative to the installation of the prior eighteen bishops of Tours. Gregory uses the verbal form ordinatur for installation of fourteen bi31

32

33

C. de Clercq, La legislation religieuse franque de Clovis a Charlemagne 507-81, Louvain/Paris 1936, 57-62, 91. The canons were dated before the edict. J.M. WallaceHadrill, The Frankish Church (see note 16), 105. Lothar omitted canons 8-12/14-16 as well as the section on simony in canon. Cone. Aurelianense, 538, Canon 3 (115,27-37 De Clercq); Cone. Aurelianense, 549, Canon 11 (152, 99-104 De Clercq); Cone. Parisiense, 556-573, Canon 8 (208,112209,129 De Clercq); Cone. Tours, 567, Canon 20 (183,216-184,259 De Clercq); Cone. Parisiense, 614, Canon 2 (275,13-20 De Clercq); Cone. Clippiacense, 626627, Canon 28 (296,181-186 De Clercq); Cone. Cabilonense, 647-653, Canon 10 (305,51-54 De Clercq); Cone. Latunense, 673-675, Canon 5 (315,23-24 De Clercq). Cone. Aurelianense, 538, Canon 3 (115,27-37 De Clercq) (see the full Latin text in note 19).


433

shops.34 There are only two episcopal appointments in Book XXXI where Gregory uses eligere or electio. One of these elections was not straightforward.35 This was the case of Dinifius, whose election was proposed beforehand by the queen,36 In another case, Theodorus and Proculus were nominated as successors in Tours by order of the queen; here Gregory uses the term subrogantur.v During the discussion Gregory mentions that Clovis came to power in Gaul during the time of the seventh bishop Volusianus,38 Apart from the involvement of Queen Clothild in these two episcopal installations, there are no other references to regal intervention in election to the see of Tours. Gregory does not give details of his own election,39 In all the other eighteen bishops' installations, Gregory uses the term ordination or the verb to ordain thirteen times rather than election or the verb to elect. He also uses statuerunt once for Bishop Armerius and the noun consecration or the verb consecrate four times in connection with episcopal procedure. But Gregory was not naive and he shows that he was aware of regal intervention by the remark "Even then that seed of iniquity had begun to germinate, that bishoprics were sold by kings and bought by the clerks."40 Additionally on occasion interference in elections was due to hostility between brother kings or kings and their sons. Gregory records examples where kings were depicted in opposition to each other at episcopal elections.41 Political or economic purposes often motivated regal intervention

34 35 36 37

38 39

40 41

L. Thorpe, History (see note 3). Thorpe translates ordinatur as consecrate in the all fourteen cases in his translation of Gregory's History of the Franks. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 31,8 (531 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 31,11(532 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 31,10 (531-2 Krusch/Levison). These two men were elected elsewhere first in Burgundy as it states they came with the queen from Burgundy, where the cities deposed them and as the Latin states subrogantur this may possibly be a term specifically used in these cases although it can be translated as elected, nominated or substituted as a successor. It also appears as if they were counted as one bishop as Gregory does not note the separate numbers but states, decimus loco and their name. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 31,7(531 Krusch/Levison). J. George, Venantius Fortunatus, a Poet in Merovingian Gaul, Oxford 1992, 192193, Venant. Fort. carm. 5,3; L. Thorpe, History (see note 3), 9. Venantius gives an account of the installation of Gregory in his poem. Thorpe consistently uses consecration in all cases where Gregory uses ordinatur. Greg. Tur. vit. patr. VI, 3 (231-2 Krusch). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 18 (150-1 Krusch/Levison); IV 3 (136-7 Krusch/Levison); X 31 (532 Krusch/Levison).

434

Susan Loftus

in the installation of bishops rather than choosing the most suitable candidate.42 Complex elections with multiple problems may have required intervention to stabilise the situation. Gregory of Tours narrates that King Lothar intervened in the well-known episcopal election in Tours involving Cato. 43 The priest Cato had been nominated by the king but refused the post, while the people and bishops voted for Euphronius and discussed their wishes with the king who initially refused but eventually allowed Euphronius to take the position.44 The king eventually respected the will of the local people, bishops and clerics: "The king answered "Let the election be confirmed". And having given his instruction, bishop Euphronius was ordained bishop".45 Of the many other episcopal installations that Gregory narrates, regal intervention appears a natural feature of the discussion. A number of the examples of benign regal involvement fell within canonical law, for example sons or nephews or grandsons of bishops automatically were allowed to succeed to the bishopric of their family member.46 An example of benign involvement was when the King Childebert allowed Sacerdos of Lyons prior to his death to support the election of his nephew Nicetius to succeed him. 47 On other occasions bishops, clerics or local people are depicted requesting help from the king to confirm their choice for bishop.48 Gregory mentions that when Avitus was chosen and nominated by the clergy and people, approval of the king was sought when a local count intervened against Avitus. This illustrates again that regal intervention into elections

42 43 44 45

46

47 48

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 1 (135 Krusch/Levison). See note 23 for Latin text on this topic. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 15 (285 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 15 (147 Krusch/Levison): Respondit Rex "Prima haec est et magna generatio. Fiat voluntas Dei et beati Martini, electio compleatur. " Brehaut, History (see note 3), 85. This translation slightly differs from Thorpe who states "Let God's will be done and that of St Martin. I order him to be elected." Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 36 (306-8 Krusch/Levison); Cone. Aurelianense, 511, Canon 4 (6,48-53 De Clercq). The example in the narrative and the canon shows this was commonly allowed and Sacerdos chose his family member to succeed to the episcopate in Lyons within the canonical rules. Greg. Tur. vit. patr. VIII, 3 (242-3 Krusch). Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. IV, 35 (167-8 Krusch/Levison); IV 36 (168-9 Krusch/Levison); IV 9 (140-1 Krusch/Levison). This help was requested in opposition to factional or powerful bishops. See K. Uhalde's review of P. Norton, Episcopal Elections, Church History 77, 2008, 1026. The emphasis is on the complexities, ambiguities and irregularities of episcopal elections in both the book and the article.


435

was often with the agreement of the people and clerics. Gregory stresses this point "...at, congregatis in unum civibus Arvernis, beams Abitus, qui tunc temporis, ut diximus, erat archidiaconus, a clero et populo electus cathedram pontificatus acciperet"; the king requested that Avitus was consecrated in Metz. Although this request overlooks the canon rule that the bishop should be consecrated in his own church and see. Gregory cites an example of another form of interference in the installation procedure. When Rusticus was chosen bishop of Clermont, Gregory states that a disagreement arose between the local factions; he depicts the election process as the bishops sat together on a Sunday and a woman, who previously had a vision of the new bishop, intervened on seeing Rusticus and declared "...this is the man who the Lord elects."49 Clearly spiritual power might be invoked to support a candidate.50 The last area of narrative evidence to examine is the hagiographical work Vitae Patrum ./Gregory of Tours. Here the author seeks to depict the ideal life lived by those sainted men who were his contemporary or past bishops. For example Bishop Callus's complicated election included the request by the people of Tours to the king to agree to his installation.51 But the king had already decided that Gallus should be bishop of Clermont. 52 Gregory states the clerics of that town went to the king "bearing gifts", to request approval after they had the agreement of the local people.53 It became a custom to give gifts or money to the king.54 Three of the four other bishops that are discussed in the Vitae Patrum, Quintianus of Clermont, Nicetius of Lyons and Gallus of Clermont, have already been mentioned. They were all chosen by the king and Gregory stresses in this section the need for the king's approval.55 In the case of the fourth bishop from this period, Gregory mentions that originally the 49 50

51 52 53

54 55

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. II, 13 (63 Krusch/Levison). Greg. Tur. vit. patr. II, 1 (219 Krusch). C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, Berekely/Los Angeles 2005, 16; 29; 104. Rapp examines closely the model of spiritual power in the construction of the authority of the episcopate and in the installation of bishops. The spiritual element appears more commonly the case in episcopal elections mentioned in the hagiography. Greg. Tur. vit. patr. VI, 3 (231-2 Krusch). Other bishops mentioned in the vit. patr. where election is discussed are Gregory of Langres, Nicetius of Lyons, Nicetius of Trier. Greg. Tur. vit. patr. VI, 3 (232 Krusch): ...elegentes sanctum Nicetium episcopum acceperunt. ordinatur....ordinatum, iussh rex, ... Ordinatur is translated as consecrated by E. James, Lives of the Fathers (see note 3), 55. This could be considered simony and this practice is a common theme of condemnation in the canons discussing both ordination and election. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. VI, 3 (267 Krusch/Levison).

436

Susan Loftus

people of Trier requested Gallus as their bishop but the king wanted Gallus to have the bishopric of Clermont. Nicetius was offered the episcopate by the king and he was made bishop of Trier in his stead. A closer examination of the process of election and its terminology allows a more complete picture of election to emerge. The brief examination of the earlier period has shown that problems existed under the late Roman Empire as well as during the transition period prior to the development of autonomous kingdoms. However, evidence for the subsequent period suggests a more nuanced picture of episcopal election is needed. To achieve this, it has been argued that one must (a) differentiate between the three separate terms for episcopal installation; and (b) examine the procedure recommended in canon law. In regard to (a) it is concluded that the installation of a bishop consisted of a two part procedure, namely "election" and "consecration", but that the term "ordination" could be used to refer to the procedure as a whole or to either of the two parts. In regard to (b) it was found in all but two cases, regal involvement was excluded from the process of "election". In other words, the picture that emerges from the narrative evidence of significant regal involvement in the episcopal election cannot be substantiated by canon evidence. In view of the favoured terminology of "to ordain" or "ordination" by both the normative canons and the narrative evidence for the installation of bishops we can conclude that the term was interchangeable with "to elect" or "election" and "consecrate" or "consecration". There is sufficient divergent evidence in relation to "election" to indicate regal intervention was not as common as scholarship has assumed and that bishops strove to conform to traditional procedure. Indeed, in the case of the narrative evidence we are given many examples of the divergence of procedures but we hear nothing of the usual election procedures that followed in the vast majority of elections that occurred in the many other sees to replace the more than five hundred known bishops in the two hundred year period.56 The comparative analysis of Council Acta and narrative evidence to study the specific terms for election as well as episcopal election procedure is important because where canons and the narrative are in agreement further examination is suggested.

56 A.C. Murray, Gregory of Tours: The Merovingians, Peterborough, Ont. 2006, 265266.

Ecclesia non abhorret a sanguine. Les elections episcopates dans l'Eglise armenienne aux IVe-Ve siecles Aram Mardirossian

Pour les fils d'Aaron, tu feras des tuniques et des ceintures. T u leur feras aussi des calottes qui leur ferom une glorieuse parure. Tu en revetiras Aaron, ton frere, et ses fils, puis tu les oindras, tu les investiras et tu les consacreras a mon sacerdoce (...). Les pretres levites, toute la tribu de Levi, nauront point de part ni d'heritage avec Israel: ils vivront des mets offerts a Yahve et de son patrimoine. Cette tribu n'aura pas d'heritage au milieu de ses freres; c'est Yahve qui sera son heritage, ainsi qu'il le lui a dit. 1

"L'eveque doit porter en lui le modele de la conduite angelique et de la vie eternelle et de meme tous les docteurs; ou il n'y a pas de parente ni d'acception de personne, ni de corruption, ni aucune glorification de fortune, mais avec modestie et observation des commandements ils s'appliquent a devenir le peuple de Dieu." 2 Cet extrait des Canons de Sa1 2

Exod28, 40-41, Deut 18, 1-2. Canon 49 de Sahak le Parthe (V. Hakobyan, Livre des canons armeniens, vol. I, Erevan 1964, 409-410). Sauf mention contraire, l'ensemble des traductions des canons armeniens et grecs qui suivent sont les notres. Les Canons de Sahak le Parthe font partie du Livre des canons armeniens (Kanonagirk' Hayoc\ desormais KH) compose par le catholicos Yovhannes Awjnec'i en 719. V. Hakobyan a donne une excellente edi-

siecle et le X F siecle (Livre des canons armeniens, vol. II, Erevan 1971). La recente remise en cause de ce travail philologique par A. Hakobyan, Les sources de la litterature canonique armenienne V e -XIF siecles. Catalogue de Imposition Armenie: La magie de l'ecrit au Centre de la Vieille Charite a Marseille (27 avril-22 millet 2007), Paris/Marseille 2007, 158-159, nemporte pas la conviction. Examen des Canons de Sahak le Parthe par N. Akinian, Les canons attribues a saint Sahak. Etude litteraire, Handes Amsoreay 60, 1946-1947, 48-70, ici 61, qui nidentifie toutefois pas leur veritable auteur, cf. A. Mardirossian, Le Livre des canons armeniens (Kanonagirk' Hayoc)

438

Aram Mardirossian

hak le Parthe, pseudepigraphe compose au debut du V I F siecle par Yovhannes Mayragomec'i - chef de la frange julianiste au sein de l'Eglise armenienne - denonce en termes colores la principale caracteiistique du clerge armenien antique et medieval, a savoir l'heredite du sacerdoce, et plus particulierement de l'episcopat3. En ce sens, l'Eglise armenienne ne detestait done pas le sang, et cette specificite remontait a ses origines qu'il faut dater de la conversion au christianisme du pays par le roi Trdat IV le Grand en 311. 4 En effet, contre toute attente, la conversion officielle des institutions et des personnes n'entraina pas de profondes remises en cause. Trdat aide de Grigor l'llluminateur - premier patriarche du pays a partir de 314 - s'efforcerent de substituer le christianisme au zoroastrisme - qui etait jusqu'alors la religion officiellement pronee par le pouvoir - en modifiant le moins possible l'ordre de la societe ou de l'Etat. Ainsi, au sein de la societe armenienne, le principe d'heredite et le systeme des trois classes - a savoir les princes (isxan) ou dynastes (naxarar), les nobles (azat) et les non nobles (ramik ou Hnakan) - etaient si profondement ancres qu'ils s'etendaient meme a l'Eglise.5 Des lors, le principe du cursus honorum qui, en theorie, regissait alors l'accession a l'episcopat dans l'Empire romain n'avait guere de chance de trouver une application en Armenie. C'est contre cet etat de fait que les autorites ecclesiastiques armeniennes tenterent de reagir a l'occasion du synode de Sahapivan de AAA en elaborant une legislation canonique destinees a instaurer un recrutement a l'episcopat fonde desormais sur le merite du candidat et non plus sa nais-

3

4

de Yovhannes Awjnec i. Eglise, droit et societe en Annenie du IV* au V I I F siecle, CSCO 606 Subsidia 116, Louvain2004, 582-588. Sur Yovhannes Mayragomec'i et son immense ceuvre de faussaire qui s'etend aussi bien au droit, q u a la theologie, la pastorale ou la liturgie, cf. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 255-268, 533-625. En dehors des textes canoniques, les Conseils moraux (Xrat varuc) - faussement attribues au patriarche Yovhannes Mandakuni (478-490) constitue l'une des creations les plus importantes du vardapet (docteur) julianiste "Conseils moraux (en armenien classique)", Venise I860; traduction francaise Y. Tabakian, Les sermons de Jean Mandakuni, these de l'lnstitut catholique de Paris 1970, cf. aussi K. Ter Mkrc'ean, Yovhan Mandakuni et Yovhan Mayragomec'i, Solakat 1913,84-136). A. Mardirossian, Le synode de Valarsapat (491) et la date de la conversion au christianisme du royaume de Grande Armenie (311), Revue des etudes armeniennes N.S. 28, 2001-2002, 249-260, pour l'hypothese d'une conversion de Trdat en 311. L'episcopat hereditaire n'etait alors pas uniquement present en Armenie. On le retrouve aussi, par exemple, au sein de l'Eglise merovingienne, cf. M. Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien. Zur Kontinuitat romischer Fiihrungsschichten vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhun-

vaux et Memoires 13, 2000, 683-705, i d 695-696.

Ecclesianonabhorret a sanguine

439

sance.6 Chacun salt qu'en matiere de droit, il faut toujours distinguer la theorie et la pratique. Une chose est le programme contenu dans un texte juridique, une autre est son application concrete sur le terrain. Notre expose sur les elections episcopales dans l'Eglise armenienne de l'Antiquite tardive sera done porte par cette dialectique, d'abord la theorie, puis la pratique.

La theorie Afin de cerner au mieux la strategie mise en place par les autorites ecclesiastiques armeniennes, nous esquisserons dans un premier temps le systeme traditionnel d'accession hereditaire a l'episcopat, avant d'examiner, dans un second temps, les mesures elaborees par le synode de Sahapivan pour lutter contre ce systeme traditionnel.

Lesysteme traditionnel Le caractere pregnant du principe d'heredite au sein de l'Eglise armenienne de l'Antiquite tardive a tout d'abord pour consequence que le clerge loin de former une classe particuliere est issu des deux classes superieures, a savoir les princes ou dynastes et les nobles. Ainsi le patriarche et non encore catholicos puisque ce titre n'apparait officiellement qu'au Vie si ^ cle 7 _ e s t u n i n c e c o m m e k -eure i e d e s iYt alors les pretres, les diacres et les religieux sont principalement des nobles. A ce titre, tous beneficient d'une immunite fiscale qui fait d'eux des "azat 'libre' dans le Christ."8 Ensuite, a l'instar du patriarche, les autres membres de la 6

7

8

Hakobyan, Livre (cit. note 2), 422-466 pour l'edition des dispositions de ce synode dont le contenu a ete analyse par N. Akinian, Les canons du synode de Sahapivan. Etude litteraire a loccasion du 1500= anniversaire [du synode], Handes Amsoreay 63, 1949, 79-170 (en armenien moderne) et Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 41-251, 501-510. N. Garsoi'an, L'Armenie, in: Histoire du christianisme. Vol. 3. Les Eglises d'Orient et d'Occident (432-610), ed. par J.-M. Mayeur et alii, Paris 1998, 1125-1167, 1130 n. 20. Expression employee par Lazar P'arpeci dans sa Lettre a Vahan Mamikonean (Lazar P'arpec'i, Histoire de l'Armenie et Lettre a Vahan Mamikonean [en armenien classique], ed. par G. Ter Mkrtc'ean et S. Makaseanc', Tbilissi 1904 [= New York 1985]; R.W. Thomson, The History of Lazar P'arpec'i, Atlanta 1991, 250). Cf. aussi Elise, ch. 2 (R. W. Thomson, Elishe. History of Vartan and the Armenian War, Cambridge, Ma. 1982, 97).

440

AramMardirossian

hierarchie ecclesiastique transmettent en principe le sacerdoce a leurs descendants, en meme temps que les biens fonciers qui sont lies a la charge. L'existence d u n tel type de clerge constitue une reprise pure et simple du systeme qui regissait la caste sacerdotale de l'ancien culte. De meme, qu'apres la christianisation du pays, Grigor l'llluminateur, chef de la nouvelle Eglise, reprend a son compte l'ensemble des titres et prerogatives detenus precedemment par le chef de la religion zoroastrienne, les autres membres du nouveau clerge heritent des droits et des biens des sanctuaires et ministres de l'ancienne religion. Toutefois, afin d'eviter qu'une telle mesure ne soit assimilee a une ^possession sommaire qui deboucherait immanquablement sur un engrenage de vengeance de sang entre les clans de l'ancienne caste sacerdotale et ceux des ministres chretiens, le roi Trdat le Grand et Grigor l'llluminateur deciderent d'elever de facon systematique les descendants des pretres paiens dans la foi chretienne, pour les rendre aptes a succeder a leurs parents comme ministres du vrai Dieu.9 Cependant, en raison de l'accroissement des lieux de culte, mais aussi de la liquidation de certaines families de l'ancienne caste sacerdotale restees fideles a leur culte traditionnel, et enfin, du probable refus de Grigor l'llluminateur de faire appel aux clercs du courant chretien syrien presents depuis longtemps dans le sud de l'Armenie, il fut necessaire de faire venir des ecclesiastiques de l'etranger. Ceci pourrait expliquer le long sejour de Grigor a Sebastee, en Armenie Mineure, pour recruter un "grand nombre de freres", selon l'expression d'Agat'angelos - source anonyme redigee vers 451 par un auteur qui se presentait faussement comme secretaire du roi Trdat le Grand - a qui Grigor confererait le sacerdoce et qu'il enverrait evangeliser le royaume de Grande Armenie.10 Le principe hereditaire et la societe dynastique ne concedaient aux autorites ecclesiastiques qu'une faible maitrise sur le recrutement de ses cadres. Dans la societe de l'epoque, ou toutes les charges et tous les privileges resultaient de droits hereditaires et inalienables des families nobles ou princieres, l'impossibilite de choisir veritablement les eveques et les pretres 9

J.-P. Mahe, Loys Hawat: Foi lumineuse. La christianisation de l'Armenie, in: Tresors de l'Armenie ancienne, des origines au IV e siecle (Exposition au musee Dobree), ed. par J. Santrot e.a., Nantes 1996, 256-263, ici 259-262. Pour des exemples de cycles de vengeances dans l'Armenie antique et medievale, cf. N. Garsoi'an, Prolegomena to a Study of the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia", in: Ead., Armenia between Byzantium and Sasanians, Variorum Reprints, Londres 1985, X, col. 214-215 n. 47. 10 Agat'angelos, Histoire de l'Armenie 806 (R. W. Thomson, Agat'angefos. History of the Armenians, Albany et New York, 1976, 344-345), cf. les commentaires de G. Garitte, Documents pour l'etude du livre d'Agathange, Studi e Testi 127, Vatican 1946 ; J.-P. Mahe, Le premier siecle de l'Armenie chretienne (298-387): De la litterature a l'histoire, Roma-Armenia, Le Vatican 1999, 64-72.


441

affaiblissait grandement 1'institution patriarcale, surtout apres l'abolition de la royaute armenienne en 428 par l'empire perse et plus encore apres la disparition en 438 de Sahak le Parthe, qui fut Fultime descendant de Grigor rilluminateur a la tete de l'Eglise armenienne. II ne fait guere de doute, qu'une telle situation etait particulierement perilleuse au moment ou cette derniere, menee par les disciples de Sahak le Parthe et de Mesrop Mastoc', l'inventeur de l'alphabet armenien, luttait pour sa survie. En effet, l'empereur perse Yazdgerd II, qui regne a partir de 438, decide d'imposer le zoroastrisme a tous les territoires armeniens places sous son autorite. C'est dans ces conditions que le 24 juin AAA, l'ensemble des dynastes et des princes armeniens, accompagnes de leurs armees, ainsi que des eveques et des clercs assembles pour la reunion traditionnelle du nouvel an dans la residence du general en chef, Vardan Mamikonean a Sahapivan, deciderent, pour la premiere fois dans l'histoire de l'Eglise armenienne de se consumer en synode.11 L'objectif premier de cette assemble etait d'elire et de consacrer Yovsep' Holoc'mec'i, disciple de Mesrop Mastoc', comme patriarche. Mais les peres de Sahapivan estimerent aussi que l'adoption d u n e legislation canonique reellement adaptee au pays constituait un acte essentiel pour la preservation de leur Eglise face a la menace perse, ainsi q u a celle que faisait peser les differents courants heterodoxes presents alors dans le pays.12 Les dispositions qu'ils promulguerent n'etaient pas entierement nouvelles: certaines reprenaient la Collection d'Antioche - premier corpus ca-

tion en armenien etait alors toute recente, tandis que d'autres s'inspiraient de la Doctrine des apotres, c'est-a-dire une serie de canons pseudoapostoliques syriens egalement presents dans le pays depuis peu de temps.13 Afin de donner plus d'autorite et d'autonomie a 1'institution patriarcale, le synode de Sahapivan prit des dispositions pratiquement revolutionnaires qui heurtaient de front le mode traditionnel d'accession a la clericature et tout particulierement a l'episcopat. Passons a l'examen de ces mesures.

11 12 13

Determination de cette date par Akinian, Les canons (cit. note 6), 91-97. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 41-251, 501-532. Sur la Collection d'Antioche, cf. A. Mardirossian, La Collection canonique d'Antioche. Eglise, her&ie et droit a travers le premier recueil de legislation canonique, A C H C Byz, Paris 2010 et pour l'edition de la Doctrine des apotres Y. Tasean, Doctrine des apotres. Livre de canons apocryphes (en armenien classique), Vienne 1896.

442

Aram Mardirossian

La reformedu synode de Sahapivan Commencons immediatement par mentionner le texte initial du canon 16 du synode de Sahapivan debarrasse des interpolations operees par la suite au Vlie siecle par Yovhannes Mayragomec'i, dont nous avons deja parle plus haut: "Que nul sans la volonte de l'eveque principal du pays ne devienne eveque." Le passage est court mais clair. La suite du canon qui evoque les ordinations de facon generale ajoute que, si pour installer des prelats ou des pasteurs pour l'Eglise, l'ordinand "accepte des gratifications et refuse de choisir la verite, c'est-a-dire le candidat le plus digne, meme si ce candidat fait partie des plus humbles et des plus meprisables, que ceux qui ont recu les dons corrupteurs soient anathematises par le Seigneur, et qu'ils restituent le double. Ceux qui ont donne les dons corrupteurs ne pourront les reprendre, et ceux-ci seront distribues aux pauvres."14 II ressort de ce texte que desormais le merite constitue l'unique critere de recrutement des nouveaux eveques, afin d'instaurer un acces egal a la clericature. Pour cela, le canon denonce les autorites ecclesiastiques qui se rendent coupables de simonie ou de partialite dans 1'intention d'ecarter les candidats de basse origine. Ainsi ce texte condamne aussi bien le corrupt e e que l'ordinand, tout en rappelant que les candidats aux dignites ecclesiastiques ne doivent pas etre choisis en fonction de leur origine sociale, mais en raison de leurs merites personnels, "meme s'il s'agit — ajoute le texte - d u n individu des moins honorables et des plus meprises, pourvu qu'il ait le zele de la saintete et de la loi divine". Sur ce point, les peres de Sahapivan pouvaient s'inspirer du canon 20 de la Doctrine des apotres d'origine syrienne qui disposaient que: "Ceux qui ecartent leur personne de Mamon, et ne courent pas apres le gain pecuniaire, qu'ils soient choisis et s'approchent du ministere de l'autel". De plus le canon 26 de ce meme texte precise: "Celui qui est revetu de l'autorite sacerdotale ne doit pas agir d'une facon injuste et malhonnete, mais uniquement avec justice et sans hypocrisie."15 Quoiqu'il en soit, le synode de Sahapivan laisse entendre qu'il y avait deja a cette epoque en Armenie des dignitaires ecclesiastiques d'origine non noble. Le canon 16 de cette assembled evoque en effet "les eveques ou les pretres d'origine noble ou paysanne." Mais de tels cas devaient etre relativement rares, l'objectif de la disposition etant precisement de supprimer toute discrimination sociale, car dans la pratique, lorsqu'une personne de basse origine cherchait a acceder a l'episcopat, elle pouvait en etre

14 15

Cf. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 142-162. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 144-145.


443

empechee au moins de deux manieres: soit par prejuge nobiliaire, soit par corruption. Ceci nous amene a passer au second volet de notre expose, qui peut se resumer en une question: la legislation revolutionnaire du synode de Sahapivan relative a l'accession a l'episcopat a-t-elle connu une application concrete surle terrain?

La p r a t i q u e Le canon 16 de Sahapivan indiquait de facon imperative que nul ne pouvait devenir eveque sans l'accord du patriarche. Le pouvoir de consacrer de nouveaux eveques revient au chef de l'Eglise armenienne des saint Grigor rilluminateur. Apres la conversion du royaume, il est probable - comme nous l'avons vu - que ce dernier avait recrute la majeure partie des eveques de son Eglise parmi les "freres de Sebastee", qu'il avait ramene avec lui en grande Armenie. En effet, sur les douze eveques consacres par le saint qui sont mentionnes par Agat'angelos, huit portent des noms d'origine grecque ou semitique et, par consequent, ne peuvent etre des enfants des membres de l'ancienne caste sacerdotale locale.16 Grigor rilluminateur souhaitait evidemment placer des hommes de confiance pour encadrer les pretres et les diacres de la nouvelle Eglise, qui, dans leur majorite eux devaient etre les descendants de ces pretres de l'ancien culte. Grigor et le roi Trdat ont du en l'occurrence negocier avec les chefs de ces families princieres allies, afin qu'ils acceptent, dans un premier temps, qu'un prelat etranger soit l'eveque de leur canton, quitte a ce que par la suite, une fois le diocese mieux organise, un membre du clan local prenne le relais.17 Le pouvoir exclusif reconnu au patriarche de creer des eveques, qui procurait a son detenteur une tres grande autorite, y compris vis-a-vis du pouvoir seculier, ne fut que tres rarement remis en cause.18 Le Buzandamn - source armenienne anonyme redigee vers 470 et attribute a tort a un

ayant etabli Yusik II a sa place, en le dispensant de se rendre a Cesaree de Cappadoce pour recevoir la consecration episcopale, l'archeveque de cette 16 Agat'angelos 845 (Thomson, Agat'angelos. [cit. note 10], 378-381).

N. Garsoi'an et J.-P. Mahe, Des Parthes au Califat. Quatre lemons sur la formation de I'identite armenienne. Centre de recherche d'histoire et de civilisation de Byzance, Paris 1997,79-105,88.

444

AramMardirossian

cite aurait replique en reunissant un concile provincial, qui decida de retirer au chef de l'Eglise armenienne le droit de consacrer des eveques. Desormais tous les futurs candidats a l'episcopat auraient du - d'apres le Buzandaran - se rendre a Cesaree pour y etre consacres.19 Mais Nina Garsoi'an a montre que ce recit confond deux evenements distincts: d u n e part l'arret de facto de la consecration du patriarche armenien a Cesaree, et d'autre part, a la suite de cette rupture, la consecration des eveques armeniens sous le controle des Perses au V^ siecle, ce qui represent! une pratique contemporaine et de fait bien connu de l'auteur du Buzandaran™ Si le canon 16 de Sahapivan ne formule aucune autre exigence concernant la mise en place des eveques, il n'en va de meme pour les dispositions de la Collection d'Antioche. Pour une meilleure clarte de l'analyse, il cons e n t de mentionner a grand traits, l'ensemble des modalites d'acces a l'episcopat en vigueur dans l'Eglise imperiale aux IVe-Ve siecles. L'accession de l'eveque a la fonction se deroule en deux etapes. Dans un premier temps, le choix de la personne, pour lequel la regie est l'election; puis dans un second temps, la consecration. Mais il faut reconnaitre que la distinction entre les deux phases n'est pas toujours tres claire dans certains textes. Un bon exemple est fourni dans ce domaine par le canon 4 du concile de Nicee qui emploie successivement deux expressions differentes: kathistasthai, puis cheirotonia, deux termes dont les sens respectifs peuvent preter a discussion. Certains auteurs estiment que le premier vocable fait reference a l'ensemble de la procedure d'accession a l'episcopat, a savoir l'election, la consecration ainsi que Installation, et de fait, ils le traduisent par "etre etabli". Quand au second mot, cheirotonia, il indiquerait l'accomplissement d'un rite d'ordination, d'ou sa traduction par "consecration."21 Dans tous les cas, s'agissant du choix, le principe est que tous les eveques de la province doivent prendre part a l'election de leur nouveau collegue, qui devra etre confirmee par le metropolitain comme le precise de facon explicite le canon 19 du concile d'Antioche reuni en 328: "Un eveque ne sera pas ordonne sans un synode ni la presence de l'eveque de la metropole de la province ; celui-ci present, mieux vaut en tout cas que se trouvent avec lui tous [les eveques] de la province collegues dans le minis19 20 21

Buzandaran V, 29 (N. Garsoi'an, The Epic Histories Attributed to P'awstos Buzand, Cambridge Ma. 1989,209-210). Garsoi'an, Epic Histories (cit. note 19), 322-323 n. 7. C. Vogel, Ordinations inconsistantes et caractere inamissible, Turin 1978, J. Gaudemet, L'Eglise dans l'Empire romain (IV e "V e siecles), Paris 2 1990, 330; P. L'Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils. The Disciplinary Work of the Four First Ecumenical Councils, Crestwood, NY 1996, 36-37.


445

tere, que le metropolite doit convoquer par lettre ; et si tous peuvent venir, ce sera mieux ; mais si cela etait difficile, au moins faut-il que la majorite en tout cas soit presente ou apporte ses suffrages par ecrit a institution [de l'eveque] ; et, de cette facon, l'institution se fera en presence ou avec le suffrage de la majorite. Mais s'il arrive que l'institution ait lieu d u n e mamere contraire a ce qui a ete reglemente, l'ordination sera sans effet. Mais si l'institution a lieu selon le canon reglemente, [et] que quelques-uns s'y opposent par leur esprit de chicane, le vote de la majorite l'emportera."22 Peu apres, les Canons de Laodicee rappellent que "les eveques seront etablis par le jugement des metropolites et des eveques des environs pour l'autorite ecclesiastique, apres avoir ete longuement eprouves a la fois dans l'expression de la foi et dans l'honnetete de leur conduite de vie."23 Le silence de ces differents canons sur une quelconque participation du clerge diocesain ou des laics a la designation de l'eveque ne signifiait pas que ceux-ci ne jouaient aucun role a cette occasion. Cette participation parait toutefois se reduire progressivement au IV* siecle, et la hierarchie gagne ce que perd le peuple. S'agissant de la consecration, le concile de Nicee et les autres dispositions de la Collection d'Antioche laissent entendre que celle-ci doit se derouler en presence de tous les comprovinciaux. Toutefois, une procedure moins exigeante est prevue au cas ou des motifs serieux rendraient impossible cette reunion pleniere. En effet, la presence de trois eveques sera alors suffisante, les autres faisant parvenir leur accord par ecrit.24 Quelle effective pouvait avoir ces differentes mesures en Armenie? A priori, l'heredite du sacerdoce avait pour consequence d'exclure tout sys22

23

24

Mardirossian, La Collection (cit. note 13), 296-297. Sur la date de ce concile longtemps confondu avec l'assemblee inEncaeniis tenue dans la meme ville en 341, cf. E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, in: Id., Gesammelte Schrifien, Vol. 3, Berlin 1959, 216230 ; R. W. Burgess, The Date of the Deposition of Eustathius of Antioch, journal of Theological Studies, NS 51,2000, 150-160. La version armenienne du c. 19 d'Antioche present dans le KH (Hakobyan, Livre [cit. note 2], 217-218) reprend assez fidelement son "modele" grec, cf. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 332-333. Mardirossian, La Collection (cit. note 13), 304-305. C. 12. La encore, le texte armenien (Hakobyan, Livre [cit. note 2], 217-218) reste tres proche de l'original grec, cf. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), p. 333. Examen de la version latine du canon par j . Gaudemet, Note sur la transmission des canons 12 et 13 du Concile de Laodicee relatifs a la designation des eveques, Liber amicorum Monseigneur Onclin, ed. par R.Baccarie.a.,Gembloux 1976, 87-98. C. 4 du concile de Nicee. Les Canons apostoliques (c. 1) prevoient une procedure encore plus souple: "L'eveque est done ordonne par deux ou trois eveques (...)", traduction M. Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques, t. Ill, Sources chretiennes 336, Paris 1987, 275, cf. Mardirossian, La Collection (cit. note 13), 173-174.

446

Aram Mardirossian

teme electif et on note que les peres de Sahapivan n'emploient a aucun moment le terme antrut'iwn qui signifie "election" en armenien, mais plutot l'expression "celui qui devient {lic'i) eveque." De plus, en l'absence d'organisation metropolitan, tous les dioceses d e p e n d e n t directement du patriarcat. Par consequent, l'unique type d'assemblee synodale connu pour notre periode est celui qui reunissait l'ensemble de l'episcopat autour du patriarche et done, seul ce synode general aurait pu servir de support a la procedure collective prevue par les canons de la Collection d'Antioche. Or, aucun des synodes generaux connus ne parait avoir eu pour objet de designer un simple eveque. Cela se comprend aisement du fait que, la reunion de ces assemblies constituait une procedure materiellement extremement lourde qu'il etait impossible de repeter regulierement. Des lors, compte tenu du principe hereditaire et du systeme des classes, on peut penser que lorsque, dans un canton, le siege episcopal etait vacant, le clan maitre des lieux designait l'un de ses membres comme successeur de l'ancien eveque. Ce candidat devait ensuite etre consacre par le patriarche, qui, en theorie, pouvait le rejeter s'il ne lui convenait pas. Face a cette sorte de droit de veto dont disposait le chef de l'Eglise, le prince du clan pouvait s'adresser au roi, puis apres 428, au gouverneur (marzpan) pour lui dem a n d s de faire pression sur le patriarche, afin qu'il acceptat de consacrer son candidat. L'issue d u n tel conflit devait dependre avant tout du rapport de force entre les parties.25 Observons que le synode de Sahapivan ne dit mot sur trois autres questions soulevees par differents canons de la Collection d'Antioche, a savoir les interstices, l'age du candidat a l'episcopat et la libre acception de la prelature par ce candidat. Ce silence pourrait d'une maniere generale s'expliquer par le fait que ces differentes modalites d'accession a l'episcopat devaient largement s'effacer devant le caractere imperieux de l'heredite du sacerdoce dans le pays de Grigor l'llluminateur.26 Quel bilan pouvons-nous dresser de la reforme projetee par le canon 16 du synode de Sahapivan? Force est de constater quelle ne put s'appliquer integralement et durablement. En depit d'une nouvelle et vigoureuse tentative impulsee pour des motifs totalement differents que les peres de Sahapivan - par Yovhannes Mayragomec'i au debut du V I F siecle contre l'heredite du sacerdoce, l'ensemble des resistances evoquees ci-dessus aboutit a ce que ni le systeme des classes, ni l'heredite du sacerdoce ne furent reellement remis

25 26

Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 155. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 157-159.


447

en cause.27 Bien au contraire, au debut du VIIF siecle, le synode de Duin, reuni en 719 par le catholicos Yovhannes Awjnec'i - redacteur a cette occasion du corpus officiel de droit canonique armenien, le Kanonagirk' Hayoc'- legitime le principe d'heredite lorsqu'il replique avec vigueur aux critiques formulees, en 692, par le concile in Trullo sur cet aspect des moeurs ecclesiastiques armeniennes.28 Yovhannes Awjnec'i proclame dans le canon 8 du synode de Duin, "qu'il convient, selon la regie des Levites, de recevoir a titre hereditaire la grace de l'Eglise." Les temps avaient change. Contrairement aux peres de Sahapivan qui representaient une Eglise aux abois, recherchant ardemment la communion de l'Eglise grecque, le catholicos Yovhannes Awjnec'i est le chef dune institution solidement etablie, concordataire avec le califat et premunie, par les armes arabes, contre toute intervention byzantine. Le catholicos constitue desormais la seule autorite stable, representant permanent de la nation toute entiere. Promoteur dune politique anti-chalcedonienne de rupture avec l'empire byzantin, il milite pour la preservation des particularismes de l'organisation ecclesiastique armenienne dont l'heredite du sacerdoce constitue un des elements les plus notable.

27

L'episcopat cessa certes d'etre hereditaire en Armenie apres la disparition en 438 du patriarche Sahak le Parthe - lui-meme marie - , mais le reste du clerge demeura largement hereditaire. Les pretres et les diacres pouvaient avoir une epouse pour peu qu'ils aient pris la peine de se marier avant leur ordination. Plus generalement, meme pour les eveques et les prelats reguliers, le sacerdoce - ainsi que les biens qui y etaient attaches - restaient en principe au sein du clan, car, c'est presque toujours un proche parent qui prenait la suite du clerc defunt y compris parfois s'agissant du catholicos, cf. Mahe, Le role (cit. note 18), 84-85. Des donnees importantes sont fournies en matiere de droit successoral par le synode de Duin de 645 (c. 8) dont les dispositions n'ont pas ete integrees par Yovhannes Awjnec'i dans son KH, cf. Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 277-278, 352.

28

C. 33 du concile in Trullo, cf. H. Ohme, Concilium Quinisextum - Das Konzil Quinisextum, Turnhout 2006, 74-75. Les Seconds canons apostoliques (c. 70) presents dans le KH (Hakobyan, Livre [cit. note 2], 94) - dont loriginal grec avait ete compose vers 370 a Antioche, cf. Mardirossian, La Collection (cit. note 13), 65-72 - prohibaient deja l'heredite des offices ecclesiastiques, cf. Mahe, Le role (cit. note 18), 82 n. 13. De plus, le concile d'Antioche (c. 22) defendait a un eveque de designer son successes: "II n'est pas permis a un eveque d'etablir quelqu'un a sa place, s'il est deja pres de la mort. Mais si une chose de ce genre se produit, Installation de cet (homme-)la sera invalide. Mais il faut observer les dispositions de l'Eglise, a savoir qu'on ne peut pas faire un eveque, a moins de promouvoir quelqu'un en union avec d'autres eveques et a la suite d'une election faites par eux apres la mort de l'eveque, selon leur pouvoir et le selon le merite du candidat" (traduction C. Mercier, j . - P . Mahe, Les canons des conciles cecumeniques et locaux en version armenienne, Revue des etudes armeniennes N.S. 15, 1981, 187-262); cf Mardirossian, Le Livre (cit. note 2), 333 n. 228.

Education, Humility and Choosing Ideal Bishops in Late Antiquity Jaclyn Maxwell Divergent views about exactly what constituted the ideal bishop developed in Late Antiquity. Incorporating traditional notions about leadership as well as specifically Christian elements, these expectations for bishops allow us to distinguish conflicting attitudes about education and social class. A number of studies have explored bishops' elite origins and how their social class and cultural refinement affected the nature of Christian leadership. A peculiar combination of traits converged in the ideal bishop: according to standards developing during this period, bishops were to be recognizably of the elite (in their education and family background) and the non-elite (through volunteer poverty and "simplicity" of lifestyle). The resulting complicated relationship of education, social class and religious authority is apparent in the careers of many of the most famous bishops.1 Andrea Sterk and Claudia Rapp have noted that the ideal bishop's professional development was comparable to the life of Moses: first, he would be educated in worldly, pagan knowledge; then he would reject this as well as his secular prospects, choosing instead a religious life of contemplation and seclusion.2 Finally, with great reluctance, he would return to the world to serve the church and minister to the people. A particular

1

2

For recent studies on elites in Late Antiquity, see M. Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire, Cambridge, Mass. 2002. The essays in Arethusa 33.3 (2000) are dedicated to the theme of elites in Late Antiquity: especially relevant to the discussion here are P. Brown, The Study of Elites in Late Antiquity, 321-346 and C. Rapp, The Elite Status of Bishops in Late Antiquity in Ecclesiastical, Spiritual, and Social Contexts, 379-99. See also the essays in Le Trasformazioni delle elites in eta tardoantica, ed. by R. Lizzi Testa, Rome 2006. In particular, see N. McLynn, Curiales into Churchmen: The Case of Gregory of Nazianzen, 277-296. On bishops with elite origins, see F. Gilliard, Senatorial Bishops in the Fourth Century, HThR 11, 1984, 153-175. A. Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Mass. 2004, 95-118; C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley 2005, 125-136.

450

jaclyn Maxwell

point of chronology in the Moses model stands out: the bishop should start off wealthy and educated and then volunteer to become poor and downplay his pedigree. The bishop should have humility, but not a humble background. Although Christian intellectuals vigorously defended (and attacked) the relevance of pagan learning to their religion, it is significant that they did not show similar unease regarding the close association between traditional education and elite status and resources. Bishops would (ideally) occupy a new position in society and would display the competence of educated men as well as the meekness of common men. 3 Among the desirable attributes for bishops, "humility" (Tcnrsivos; TcnrsivofrpoauvTi) was among the most important and problematic, for it was bound up with opposing elements of the episcopal office. One way potential bishops displayed their "humility," in fact, was by resisting ordination by claiming they weren't worthy. Hagiographers and church historians tell of many men who fled attempts at ordination only to be dragged from their hiding places and forced into office. Some did more than hide: Ambrose ordered prisoners to be tortured and invited prostitutes to his house in an attempt to disqualify himself. Certain Egyptian ascetics cut off their ears. Peter Norton's recent book includes a catalogue of such examples.4 The refusal of office became a topos: an expected moment in the story of a bishop's career. The most outlandish stories (such as Ambrose's schemes to avoid office) are most likely fictitious, but the stories themselves reveal that this was an important part of the image of a good bishop.5

3

On the social tensions faced by bishops and their interactions with various levels of society, see L. Cracco Ruggini, I vescovi e il dinamismo sociale nel mondo citadino di Basilio di Cesarea, in: Basilio di Cesarea: la sua eta, la sua opera e il basilianesimo in Sicilia, Messina 1983, 97-123. P. Brown remarks on the church's "amphibious quality" that allowed it to bring together different social and economic strata: The Study of Elites, 345. On the social and legal status of bishops, see R. Lizzi Testa, Privilegi economici e definizione di 'status': il caso del vescovo tardoantico, RAL 11, 2000, 55103. On the Cappadocians' use of their elite standing and education in the service of the poor, see B. Daley, 1998 NAPS Presidential Address Building a New City: The Cappadocian Fathers and the Rhetoric of Philanthropy, JECS 7, 1999, 431-461. Most recently, see E. Watts on the strategies used by Alexandrian bishops to cement their claims to authority: Riot in Alexandria: Tradition and Group Dynamics in Late Antique Pagan and Christian Communities, Berkeley 2010, 163-189.

4

P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007, 191-196. Basil, who later compelled Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus to become bishops, stands out insofar as he was not reluctant to become a bishop, which surprised Gregory of Nazianzus (whose father also had been compelled): see A. Sterk, Renouncing the World (see note 2), 125. For a study of the bishops' refusal of office, see R. Lizzi Testa, II potere episcopale nell'oriente romano: Rappresentazione ideologica e realta politica, Rome 1987, 33-55.

5

Education, Humility and Choosing Ideal Bishops in Late Antiquity

451

Lack of ambition became an expectation of a successful candidate. By the late 5th c , this preference was codified in Roman law. An edict of 469 concludes: "For surely he is unworthy of the priesthood unless he is ordained against his consent."6 In some ways, this type of leader was closely related to the traditional philosopher: both were highly educated men who had rejected social norms in their pursuit of virtue. Indifference to power proved one's trustworthy motives/ Reluctance to take office also evokes the false humility standard in rhetorical circles, where educated men praised each other by eloquently referring to their own lack of rhetorical skill. Self-effacing remarks were an integral part of elite discourse. The rejection of episcopal office could simultaneously express one's Christian humility and one's elite qualifications-the men avoiding office clearly did not need the position: they preferred leisure and contemplation. They were well-positioned enough not to have to worry about their careers or their standing in society. In short, they had other options.8 Although some of the clergy actually came from the lower and middling classes, most of the bishops we know from literary sources were from the curial class or higher.9 Many communities naturally preferred bishops

6 7

Testa concludes that, despite its being a topos, the refusal of office would have been sincere in many cases, and that the refusal was itself a form of power, 35-6. Cod. Just. I 3,30 (CIC(B).C 22 Krueger); cited in Norton, 198. For earlier expressions of this view, see Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 4), 197. The ability to stand up to temporal authorities and practice parrhesia was another way in which the ideal bishops would require aristocratic ways of leadership. See S. Elm, A Programmatic Life: Gregory of Nazianzus' Orations 42 and 43 and the Constantinopolitan Elites, Arethusa 33.3 2000, 411-427, at 427; R. Teja, Valores aristocraticos en la configuration de la imagen del obispo tardoantiguo: Basilio de Cesarea y la Oratio 43 de Gregorio de Nacianzo, in: "Humana Sapit": Etudes d'antiquite tardive offertes a Lellia Cracco Ruggini, ed. by J.-M. Carrie and R. Lizzi Testa, Turnhout 2002, 283289. On parrhesia and leadership, see P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: towards a Christian Empire, Madison 1992, 61-70.

8

On the importance of elite qualifications as well as a cultivated disdain for office, see S. Elm, A Programmatic Life (see note 7), 422-425. The similarity between the bishop's and the emperor's attitude toward power is noted without much further elaboration by C. Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 2), 144, and P. Norton, Episcopal Elections (see note 4), 197. R. Lizzi Testa, proposes that the rejection of office in both cases stemmed from same cultural milieu but also developed independently among Christians: II potere episcopate (see note 5), 36-7. All three draw on j . Beranger's study of the humble approach to power of the Roman princeps, Le refus du pouvoir, in: Principatus: Etudes de notions et d'histoire politiques dans l'Antiquite grecoromaine, Geneva 1973, 165-190.

9

C. Rapp, The Elite Status of Bishops (see note 1), 387; R. Van Dam, Becoming Christian: the Conversion of Roman Cappadocia, Philadelphia 2003, 58. R. Teja, Organization Economica y Social de Capadocia en el Siglo IV, segun los Padres Ca-

452

jaclyn Maxwell

with family connections and educations. But what they expected of bishops was not in complete harmony with the culture of elite families. For instance, church councils imposed restrictions on bishops' mobility (to prevent them from neglecting pastoral duties) and on their ability to climb to more important offices.10 In the case of education, we find a great deal of tension between the values of higher learning and Christian humility, even among men who embraced asceticism. The rest of this article will focus on examples of these conflicting values in the works of two of the most well known bishops from Late Antiquity (Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus). Their discussions of the social status and education of bishops reveal that their pride in their own elite identities did not coexist neatly with their promotion of Christian humility.

Bishops Were Expected to Belong to the Elite and Non-elite The delicate balance of the social and cultural characteristics of bishops is strikingly illustrated in the well-known case of Gregory Thaumaturgus' surprise choice of bishop for the town of Comana in Pontus in the mid 3 rd c. According to Gregory of Nyssa, the town's leading men selected episcopal candidates based on their eloquence and good families: "For they supposed, since these things were also qualities of the Great Gregory, they should also not be lacking to the one who entered upon this office." But Gregory Thaumaturgus valued a virtuous lifestyle above all other considerations. The prominent citizens were shocked by the implication that he might prefer a laborer for the job; one of them joked that Gregory might as well choose the charcoal-burner Alexander. This Alexander, in rags and

10

padocios, Salamanca 1974, 88-96. T. Kopecek observes a "curial class-consciousness" in the Cappadocian Fathers: The Social Class of the Cappadocian Fathers, ChHist. 42, 1973, 453-466, at 457. On the elite social background of bishops and priests compared to that of lower clergy and clergy in smaller dioceses, see S. Hiibner, Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft des spatantiken Kleinasiens, Stuttgart 2005, 229-267. The Council of Serdica in 343 placed restrictions on wealthy men and rhetors who sought advancement in the clerical ranks. This seems to reflect the concerns of clerics who feared being replaced and surpassed by more influential and more educated candidates who joined the church after the conversion of Constantine. See P. G. Delage, Le Canon 14 de Sardique ou les inquietudes d'eveques dorigine modeste, in: Les Peres de l'Eglise et la voix des pauvres, ed. by H. Gaudin and G. Pontier, La Rochelle 2006, 55-74; H. Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, Oxford 2002.


453

covered in soot, would turn out to be Gregory's pick: with this choice, Gregory explicitly valued humility over traditional qualifications.11 But it was not really as simple as that. Gregory of Nyssa fills us in on Alexander's true identity: "Not by necessity of poverty had he come to such a life, but rather he was a kind of philosopher, as his later life revealed. But he pursued anonymity; being superior to the general eagerness for success...he contrived to be unnoticed by hiding himself in the lowliest of occupations as if it were some ugly mask." 12

Cleaned up and dressed in a cleric's robe, Alexander stood before the people of Comana and gave a good speech, "full of penetrating insight, but less ornamented with flowery language."13 On the one hand, the Wonderworker treated high status as less important than spiritual worth. But, on the other hand, the charcoal burner was cleansed and revealed as a man of perfectly respectable background, who could give a good speech, and who had chosen a lowly life. In this story, the ideal bishop is chosen based on both elite and non-elite traits. This combination was essential because his humility simply would not have been impressive, and would not have served as a qualification for office, if he had not volunteered for the life of a poor charcoal burner. This is quite different from the promotion of a truly lower class man as the preferred episcopal candidate. Gregory of Nyssa again addresses the relationship between social class and Christian humility in his letter to the Church of Nicomedia, in which he offers advice on the selection of a new bishop.14 He cautions that the

11

Greg. Nyss. v. Gr. Thaum. (GNO pars II, vol. 10/1, 35,22-41,15 Hcil). English translation in St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works. Trans. M. Slusser, FaCh 98, 68-73. Van Dam examines how Gregory Thaumaturgus "slipped into the interstices between social categories" (305), by remaining connected with his aristocratic roots while drawing on "new sources of authority and prestige"(308). Hagiography and History: The Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, ClAnt 1, 1982, 272-308. 12 Greg. Nyss. v. Gr. Thaum. (38,10-17 Heil; Engl. tr. 71 Slusser). On this section, see J. Bernardi, La predication des Peres Cappadociens: le predicates et son auditoire, Paris 1968, 312-313; R. Van Dam, Becoming Christian (see note 9), 59. 13 Greg. Nyss. v. Gr. Thaum. (40,6-7 Heil; Engl. tr. 72 Slusser). On the paradoxical expectation of bishops to exhibit skillful, yet somehow humble, rhetoric, see H. Chadwick, The Role of the Christian Bishop in Ancient Society, in The Protocol of the 35 th Colloquy, Center for Hermeneutical Studies, ed. by E. Hobbs and W. Muellner, Berkeley 1980, 1-14 at 13-14. On Christian rhetoric more generally, see A. Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse, Berkeley 1994; on Basil's combination of classical rhetoric with simplicity, 144. 14 Greg. Nyss. ep. 17 (SC 363, 215-233 Maraval). English translation by A. Silvas, in Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, Leiden 2007. On this letter, see J. Danielou, L'eveque

454

jaclyn Maxwell

bishop should be fit for leadership, but that the traditional qualities of leaders should not be their first concern. Noting that there were no requirements (biblical or otherwise) of high birth, wealth and honor for bishops, Gregory conceded that an episcopal candidate possessed such traits, they should be considered like "a shadow that happens to follow along."15 Although wealth and honor certainly should not disqualify someone from the episcopal throne, he calls on everyone to remember the lowly professions of the Apostles: "They were not of consular rank or generals or prefects or noted for rhetoric and philosophy, but poor and common folk who began in the humbler occupations."16 Later in the letter, Gregory emphasizes that the bishop should set a good example for his community, fulfilling the difficult task of being "humble-minded, calm in manner, moderate, superior to the love of money-making, wise in things divine and trained to virtue and fairness."17 In this letter, Gregory of Nyssa acknowledges that the bishop might happen to be wealthy and educated, but these qualities should not be the main criteria. Commentators have pointed out that this letter was written in response to the selection of a well-connected doctor from Milan named Gerontius for this see. Sozomen tells us that the bishop Helladius of Caesarea was behind his selection.18 This letter, then, can be seen as making an argument against Gerontius and, presumably, in favor of another candidate with less prestigious credentials. In this case, it was useful for Gregory to cite the low social status of the Apostles when his candidate was less well connected than his opponent's favorite. Perhaps not surprisingly, Gregory of Nyssa's support for the lowly and his devaluation of earthly honors was not always consistent. His reaction to an insult to his own honor is revealing. One of Gregory's letters describes another falling out with Helladius of Caesarea. In this letter, addressed to Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, Gregory describes his attempt to clear up a misunderstanding by travelling to meet Helladius in a mountain village. After a difficult trip over rough terrain by carriage, then horseback, and finally on foot, when Gregory arrived, he was not well received. He

15 16 17 18

d'apres une lettre de Gregoire de Nysse (Lettre 17 aux pretres de Nicomedie), Euntes Docete 20 (1967) 85-97. Greg. Nyss.ep. 17,10 (222 Mar.). Greg. Nyss.ep. 17,11 (222 Mar.). Greg. Nyss.ep. 17,25 (228 Mar.). See P. Maraval's comments in SC 363, 39-40. On Gerontius' previous career, falling out with Ambrose and ordination by Helladius: Soz. h.e. VIII 6, 2-8 (GCS Sozomenus, 358,12-359,14 Bidez/Hansen). R. Van Dam, Becoming Christian (see note 9), 62-63; J. Danielou, L'eveque d'apres une lettre (see note 14).


455

was barely received at all. To Gregory, such rudeness evoked "Hades, or a lightless dungeon, or a dismal torture-chamber."19 Gregory was shocked that his equal would treat him this way. He remarked to Flavian that while God had humbled himself by becoming human, Helladius would not even deign to greet a fellow bishop. Gregory was especially indignant because "we are about on par, whether concerning nobility or free-birth"20 In this letter, he concedes that true freedom and nobility is of the soul and all men are equally slaves to sin. He acknowledges, briefly, that his own nobility and free birth were not significant in a cosmic sense. Nevertheless he could not excuse the insult: "[Helladius] has no authority to disdain and dishonor those of the same mind and the same rank."21 The church, Gregory argues, does not support "hubris against a free-born person and dishonor against one of equal rank."22 Gregory comes back to this point about their equality several more times: aside from their episcopal rank, they were equals in family and education, both could claim "freebirth among the noblest and most renowned."23 Gregory, bewildered, wonders to Flavian: "What, therefore, is the authority for this insolence against us, if he has neither superiority of birth, nor illustrious dignity, nor a commanding power of speech, nor any previous benefaction?"24 It is noteworthy that Gregory focuses less on their equality in terms of their shared rank as bishops, but more on their equality in worldly status. This implies that bishops' interactions with each other were governed as much or more by the conventions of their earthly ranks. Gregory's shock at being insulted and his emphasis on his equality in rank and birth and education imply, of course, that social difference would make this sort of insult acceptable, or at least excusable, even among men who shared the rank of bishop. Gregory recognizes that, ultimately, all are equal as prisoners of sin-but he could not contain his astonishment and horror at this insult from his social peer. When, as was mentioned previously, he advised the people of Nicomedia that bishops should be "humble-minded and calm in manner," 25 would he have expected this sort of bishop to submit serenely to such an insult to his status? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Greg. Nyss. ep. 1,15 (92-94 Mar.). R. Van Dam, Becoming Christian (see note 9), 61-62. Greg. Nyss. ep. 1,17 (94-96 Mar.). Greg. Nyss. ep. 1,27 (100-102 Mar.); J. Danielou, Ueveque d'apres une lettre (see note 14), 93. Greg. Nyss. ep. 1,29 (102 Mar.). Greg. Nyss. ep. 1,32 (102-104 Mar.). Greg. Nyss. ep. 1,34 (104 Mar.). See above, note 17.

456

jaclyn Maxwell

Was humility only relevant in certain contexts? Do we even know what Gregory (and others) envisioned when they referred to "humility of mindas a virtue? A more precise explanation of humility is provided in the Apophthegmata Patrum: the monk Motius advises his disciples to follow the same manner of life as everyone else: "For this is humility: to see yourself to be the same as the rest."26

Gregory of Nazianzus, On Himself and the Bishops Turning to Gregory of Nazianzus, we find some striking statements defending the importance of traditional elite qualities in bishops. The issues of social class and humility arise in his poetry, where he described his vision of the ideal bishop as well as the reality of the less desirable ones that he had come into contact with.2? In the poem Concerning Himself and the Bishops, he responds to the bishops who had dismissed him from the patriarchate in Constantinople. Throughout this poem he contrasts the ascetic, serious bishop with the worldly and sinful bishop. This opposition between good and bad included social and cultural credentials: the good, ascetic bishop was from a good family and well-educated, whereas objectionable bishops and their irreligious lifestyles were associated with lower class backgrounds. This strategy of associating an unimpressive family background and poor education with signs of being unfit for spiritual leadership was not uncommon. 28

26

27

28

Apophth. Patr. alphabetical collection, Motius 1 (PG 65, 300 Migne). Interestingly, Motius 2 reveals that this monk and his disciple Abba Isaac both became bishops, without any reference to resistance to the office. See also the collected sayings on humility in Apophth. Patr. systematic collection 15 (SC 474, 284-389 Guy). On Gregory's reaction to Nectarius, his successor as bishop of Constantinople, see Elm, A Programmatic Life (see note 7). A. Louth notes Gregory's "aristocratic horror" for less qualified bishops: St. Gregory Nazianzen on the Bishops and the Episcopate, in: Vescovi e pastori in epoca Teodosiana Vol. 2, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 58, Rome 1997, 281-285, at 282-3. In the same collection of essays, see also K. Demoen, Acteurs de pantomimes, trafiquants du christ, flaneurs de femmes ... Les eveques dans les Poemes autobiographiques de Gregoire de Nazianze, 287-298 and N . McLynn, The Voice of Conscience: Gregory Nazianzen in Retirement, 299-308. On the connections between elite qualities and good bishops in Gregory's funeral oration for Basil (or. 43), see R. Teja, Valores aristocraticos (see note 7). On the use of education in polemical attacks, see R. Kaster on Jerome in Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 1988, 74-75. On Gregory of Nazianzus' views and bishops with humble backgrounds, see C. Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 2), 173-76.


457

Gregory describes how his fellow bishops had attacked him out of jealousy: "rusticity," he explains, "does not tolerate culture."29 When these bishops called for his resignation, Gregory was willing to go. He was ashamed to be associated with these people-these bishops who were formerly tax collectors, sunburned farmers, soldiers, sailors smelling like bilge water, or men with branded bodies: Then there are those who, as yet, have not washed the soot of their fiery occupations from their persons, slave material who ought to be in the mills. In the old days, before they could scrape together a ransom for their masters they would get little enough respite from hard labor. But now you can't hold them back, and either by persuasion or intimidation they've succeeded in filching away a section of the people. So these heaven-bound dung beetles continue their ascent; but their vehicle is no longer from the dung-heap...They think they have the power of heavenly beings themselves, and keep spouting pernicious stuff, though they're unable to count their hands or their feet' 0

In this passage, Gregory associates bad bishops with lower class men in the worst possible way: he emphasizes the bad smells and grunge that result from manual labor in order to depict these men as unfit for episcopal office. Of course, there was no such rule or general consensus to that effect, which is exactly what Gregory addresses in the following section of the poem on the humility of the Apostles: However much we are concerned about humility, let's not be so silly as to take a lowly view of that office, which is no mean thing. A bishop should be from among the best, indeed, let me say it openly, he should be the very best! It follows that he should certainly not be the very worst 31

This conclusion - bishops should be selected from the best possible candidates - Gregory thought, should be obvious. Old standards should not be discarded. But his opponents, he acknowledged, could evoke the Apostles, 29

Greg. Naz. de seipso et de episcopis = carm. 2,1.12, v. 136-147: ou gar 4>erei TTaiSeuoiv r| agroiKia (38 Meier). Text and German translation in Gregor von Nazianz Uber die Bischofe, ed. and trans, by B. Meier, SGKA Neue Folge 2.7, Munich 1989. English translation in Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: Three Poems, trans, by D. Meehan, FaCh 75, Washington, D.C. 1987. On Gregory's attack on the rusticity of these bishops, see K. Demoen, Acteurs de pantomimes (see note 27), 292; Louth, St. Gregory Nazianzen on Bishops (see note 27), 282-283; C. Rapp, Holy Bishops (see note 2), 173; R. Teja, Valores Aristocraticos (see note 7), 288-289.

30

Greg. Naz. carm. 2,1.12, v. 163-175 (40 Meier). On the clergy who engaged in manual labor and trade in Late Antiquity, see W. Eck, Handelstatigkeit christlicher Kleriker in der Spatantike, in MHA 4, 1980, 129-137. S. Huebner, Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft (see note 9) 260-267, emphasizes that manual laborers would have been confined to the least important church offices and that the church hierarchy preserved and reinforced the status distinctions of Roman society. Greg. Naz. carm. 2,1.12, v. 178-182 (40 Meier).

31

458

jaclyn Maxwell

the fishermen and publicans: their simple preaching had convinced the world, even the wise men. Gregory reports that "such a line of argument is very ready on the lips of many."32 But if people wished to emulate the Apostles, Gregory argues, the last characteristic they should strive for is a lowly background. Instead, they should imitate apostolic faith and ascetic renunciation. The low social status and lack of education of the Apostles could be overlooked in the presence of these virtues, but, he emphasizes, they absolutely are not virtues in and of themselves: low birth and humble professions were not the basis for the Apostles' greatness. Gregory derides his opponent who defends lowly bishops with this argument, as a painter who focuses only on "the blemishes and defects of a beautiful model." 33 In Gregory's view, the humble station of these models for bishops and pastors was an embarrassing fact that should not be highlighted or replicated. He makes an additional case against honoring fishermen and publicans per se: Biblical texts were complex works that would inspire countless commentaries and hours of study. Therefore, he argues, their authors must have had some amount of eloquence (and education). Gregory did not see any reason to attribute their skills to the Holy Spirit, which all Christians shared in. Instead, he insists, the Apostles must have had some degree of cultural competence: "So much for your argument, which is the sort one expects from the ignorant....Those men were well-trained, outstandingly so, but not in the sense of making a display."34 Later in the same poem, Gregory's cultural snobbery relents a little when he claims that rustic speech does not bother him. He could be humble with the best of them: "I, too, know the lowly pathways."35 He points out that he rejects elaborate food and clothing, and, he claims, he also abstains from heavy rhetoric: "Do your philosophizing in simple language, and, however untutored your style, you will satisfy me." 36 Also, later in the poem, we learn that uneducated, socially mobile bishops were not quite as bad as the bishops who abused their power and were unstable in their theological views. The latter leaned too heavily on their social and cultural

32 33 34 35 36

Greg. Naz. carm. 2,1.12, v. 194-197 (40 Meier). Greg. Naz. carm. 2,1.12, v. 227-229 (43 Meier). Greg. Naz. carm. 2.1.12, v. 262-266 (44 Meier). Greg. Naz. carm. 2.1.12, v. 295-298 (46 Meier). Greg. Naz. carm. 2.1.12, v. 307-308 (46 Meier). In his orations, Gregory sometimes praises the simple style of speaking that is comprehensible by the crowds: or. 32,26 (SC 318, 140 Moreschini); 36,2 (242-246 Mor.); 37,3 (276 Mor.). On the accessibility of the Cappadocians' rhetorical style, see R. Van Dam, Becoming Christian (see note 9), 101-104.


459

qualifications and neglected their sacred duties. In both cases, communities chose poorly when they selected bishops who were unprepared and fundamentally unfit for the job. In his description of the ideal bishop in the same poem, Gregory does not say anything surprising: a good bishop should be prepared for the job (like anyone should be prepared for any job); he should give to the poor and live frugally. The best bishop would be an ascetic: a rich man who chose to become poor. He would give his wealth to the poor, rejecting his other opportunities in the world. An ascetic would provide a good example to the community; Gregory argues that such otherworldly men shouldn't be rejected as incapable of dealing with the practical matters of a bishop. Poverty due to necessity and a lack of traditional education, traits that would be shared with the Apostles, would not make a man, in Gregory's view, a good episcopal candidate. In contrast to this attitude, however, we also find Gregory of Nazianzus praising good bishops for their "simplicity" as opposed to "sophistication." In his poem De Vita Sua, he warns that bishops should not rely too much on eloquence: "The language of even a simple faith suffices .. .If faith were the province of the wise alone nothing in our world would be poorer than God."37 Also, in his orations (which were meant for a wider audience than his poems), he spoke in positive terms about the lowliness of the Apostles. In contrast to his arguments in his poem On the Bishops, he referred to the Apostles, approvingly, as "the little people" and pointed out the superiority of these fishermen over intellectuals.38 In another oration, he compared his friend Basil's manner and way of life to the "frugality and simplicity of all the disciples;" as a bishop, Basil had been a "guide for simple men."39 Gregory of Nazianzus also praised Athanasius of Alexandria for his "lowliness of mind," his "condescension to the lowly" and for being a guide to simple people.40 Later in the same oration on Athana37 38

39

40

Greg. Naz. de vita sua = carm. 2,1.11, v. 1227-1232 (Saint Gregoire de Nazianze, Ouevres Poetiques, 1, Societe d'edition Les Belles Lettres, 107 Tuilier/Bady). For "little people": Greg. Naz. or. 2,24 (SC 247, 122 Bernardi) " t o lieya Krjpuyiaa liiKpois eyxeipiCoiJenon Kai Katop8ouiienon;" Fishermen: or. 16,2 (PG 35, 936-937 Migne); 36,4 (251 Mor.). On noble ancestry: Greg. Naz. or. 43,3-4 (SC 384, 122-124 Bernardi); on simplicity of disciples: Greg. Naz. or. 43,76 (294 Bern.); Basil's funeral: Greg. Naz. or. 43,80-81 (300-304 Bern). On his praise for the aristocratic elements in Basil's leadership, see Teja, Valores aristocraticos (see note 7). Greg. Naz. or. 21,9-10 (SC 270, 126-132 Mossay). The simple and the speculative are contrasted, but Athanasius teaches them both: simple folk [should praise] their guide (oi tfjs arrAotntos, ton o5r,yon, t he speculative [should praise] their theologian (oi tfjs eecopias, ton OeoAoyon). On Gregory's praise of Athanasius as a monk-bishop,

460

jaclyn Maxwell

sius, however, Gregory attacked Athanasius' Arian rival George precisely in terms of his lowliness: George was "a monster from Cappadocia, born on our farthest confines, of low birth, and lower mind, whose blood was not perfectly free, but mongrel." George was "a good for nothing, who never had a liberal education, [and] who lacked fluency in conversation," who claimed to be a theologian.41 As in his poem On himself and on the Bishops, Gregory's attack honed in on a rival bishop's low social class and cultural ignorance.

Conclusions The imagining of the ideal bishop and the process of selecting bishops in Late Antiquity tended to bring together conflicting elements of a Christian vision of society: old traditions of leadership joined new ideals, and humble elements of society mingled with the aristocratic.42 Highly educated bishops, such as the ones discussed in this article, were aware that privileges based on their social standing and cultural milieu were, to some degree, inconsistent with a community structured by Christian beliefs.43

see J-R. Pouchet, Athanase d'Alexandrie, modele de l'eveque selon Gregoire de Nazianze, discours 21, in: Vescovi e pastori in epoca Teodosiana Vol. 2, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 58, Rome 1997, 347-357. On the mixed attitudes of traditionally educated church leaders toward their congregations, see J. Maxwell, The Attitudes of Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus toward Uneducated Christians, Studia Patristica 47, 117- 122. On the various roles of classical and nascent Christian paideia in 4* c. saints' lives, see S. Rubenson, Philosophy and Simplicity: the Problem of Classical Education in Early Christian Biography, in: Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. by T. Hagg and P. Rousseau, Berkeley 2000, 110-139. 41 42

Greg. Naz. or. 21,16 (142 Moss.). In several related articles, J.-M. Salamito examines how the adoption of a religion with humble beginnings by the economic and cultural elite led to new connections between aristocratic and popular worldviews. See La christianisation et les nouvelles regies de la vie sociale, in: Histoire du christianisme: des origins a nos jours. Tome 2: Naissance d'une chretiente, Paris 1995, 675-717; Predication chretienne et mentalite aristocratique: aspects occidentaux d'une confrontation (IVe-Ve Siecle), in: El Cristianismo: aspectos historicos de su origen y diffusion en Hispania, Vitoria, Spain 2000, 37-52; Christianisation et democratisation de la culture: aspects aristocratiques et aspects populaires de l'etre-chretien aux Hie et IVe siecles, Antiquite Tardive 9, 2002, 165-178.

43

Henry Chadwick observed the paradox of learned bishops who were "identified with a community which included many individuals of high culture but was not as such as body intended for the diffusion of high culture and indeed often regarded high culture


461

Some church leaders, the Cappadocian Fathers being among the most well-known, envisioned bishops at the helm of a radical social reformation that promoted the virtue of charity and belief in human equality, while condemning the excesses of the wealthy. As Brian Daley has shown, classical rhetoric and philosophical discourse were integral to communicating this vision, building support for it and producing concrete results such as Basil's hospice for the poor.44 Cultural credentials and skills would continue to play important roles in the bishop's profile: condemnation of the propertied classes would be made via the traditional education that was so central to elite identity. Also, in the context of the selection of bishops, the popularity of the prominent men (often at least partially on the basis of their rhetorical skill) indicates that the laity generally expected their spiritual leaders to be recognizable as members of the traditional elite. Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus were clearly alert to the conflict between their regard for the lowly Apostles and their respect for superior educations and pedigrees. They dealt with the lower class backgrounds of the Apostles in different ways, depending on their audiences and the context of their arguments. Overall, we can see that the same men who had rejected material comforts could not really disregard family background and education; elite identity and their standing in their communities continued to be meaningful to them (and to the laity), despite the troubling example set by the non-elite Apostles. Their education and traditional values, including the examples of philosophers, had prepared them to reject luxury and excess, but they were also trained to expect proper respect from their social inferiors. In the examples I have given here, the two Gregories attempted to reconcile their roles in the existing social hierarchy with the spiritual equality envisioned in parts of the Christian Scriptures. They hung onto elite values while accepting the lowly Apostles as their models. When chosen as bishops, they had to act as though they were not worthy of the honor, and so they resisted election. But, however much spiritual and ascetic qualifications, including humility of mind, were definitive aspects of the ideal bishop, social connections and cultural credentials continued

44

as aristocratic and elitist...the bishop's right to be listened to lies in his being the successor of God's fishermen." The Role of the Christian Bishop (see note 13), 14. B. Daley, The Cappadocian Fathers (see note 3). On Basil's social vision, see also J. Gribomont, Un aristocrate revolutionnaire, eveque et moine: S. Basile, Augustinianum 17, 1977, 79-191. On Basil's close ties to the artisan and merchant classes as patron, euergetist, and bishop, and how he benefited from these relationships, see L. Cracco Ruggini, I vescovi e il dinamismo sociale (see note 3), 97-123.

462

jaclyn Maxwell

to matter very much in the selections of individual bishops. These ambivalent attitudes about education, social class and spiritual authority are evidence for the complex processes by which a religion first embraced by tent-makers and fishermen found a place in the upper levels of Roman society.

The Manipulation of Tradition: The Past as a Tool for Political and Religious Victory during the Laurentian Controversy David McOmish In the evolving political landscape of late 5th, early 6th century Italy, the shared cultural, political, and religious traditions of the Roman elite provided them with the social glue necessary for their continued survival as a coherent group. 1 Those shared traditions, however, were subject to reinterpretation in the 5th century, as the gravitational pull of a new political orbit promised both exciting new possibilities and reassuring continuity. The theatre of religious politics was one area where this process played out. The circumstances surrounding the contested episcopal election between Symmachus and Laurentius provide numerous examples of these tensions. This investigation will focus on the sources from the period which provide evidence of the Roman elite interacting with their past.2 Such an approach allows us to witness the creation, maintenance, and progress of those circulating discourses which informed the behavioural patterns of the Roman elite. These discourses were responding to the

1

2

The development and articulation of elite identity through an understanding of a shared tradition is witnessed no where more clearly than in the realm of education: 'the grammarian's school did one thing superbly, providing the languagc.through which a social and political elite recognized its members'. Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 1988, 12-14. See also Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: towards a Christian Empire, Madison 1992, 35-70. See Eckhard Wirbelauer, Zwei Papste in Rom. Der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498-514), Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 16, Miinchen 1993, for an exhaustive study on manuscript traditions, literary forms, and dating issues of all the relevant documentation from the period. Raymond Davis, The Book of Pontiffs, Liverpool 1989, provides a brief but instructive overview of the main source, Liber Pontificalis (henceforth abbreviated to Lib. pom.), ix-xlviii. The work of Louis Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire, 2 vols., Paris 1886-92, endures as the most complete and comprehensive study of the Liber Pontificalis, while also providing a good edition of the text.

464

David McOmish

evolving cultural and social trends of this fascinating period in Roman history. From the active manipulation of shared cultural traditions, to the passive interaction with still-living traditions, the circumstances surrounding the contested election between Laurentius and Symmachus provide valuable evidence of the power of the past as both sword and shield (attack and defence). Importantly, within each interaction with tradition, it is possible to discern clusters of recurring, ideologically-inspired narratives. These narratives were attempts to control the evolution of the political and cultural landscape of Italy in this period. The institutions of the church presented the Roman elite of the Late 5th century Italy with the potential to influence not only the cultural and social evolution of the Western Roman World, but also that of the East. One group from within the Roman elite - who would eventually champion the cause of Pope Symmachus - attempted to exploit the opportunities presented by the constantly evolving political situation in Rome and Italy. The intellectual and theological freedom, which political freedom from the imperial capital in Constantinople provided, encouraged them to shape and develop an independent cultural and religious environment. As they sought to exploit this opportunity, the situation also presented them with some problems. The political masters of post-imperial Italy, Odoacer and Theoderic, were non-catholic and non-Roman, and could be easily characterized as heretics and barbarians.3 The authority of the Roman church, which would have facilitated the exportation of the Roman West's ideas and theological decrees to the wider Roman world, was undermined by this state of affairs. In this volatile and changing environment, tradition and the past became invaluable mechanisms for negotiating a fraught position. The shared traditions of the elite were also employed to facilitate the ideological goals of those who attempted to install Laurentius on the papal throne. These members of the Roman elite believed that those who sought to exploit the evolving political landscape were in fact threatening traditional Roman civilisation and the religious and cultural continuity which preserved it. This group's relationship with the past reflected and projected their naturally conservative ideological concerns. A consciously-

3

The author of the Anonymus Valesianus Pars Posterior (MGH AA 9, 324 Mommsen, henceforth rendered as AV) while attempting to present Theoderic in a positive fashion describes him as: devotissimus ac si Catholicus (65 [324,4 Mommsen]). Here Theoderics lack of orthodoxy makes it difficult to fully embrace him even when praising him. The attempts of Cassiodorus to romanize the history and political actions of the Goths (in his now lost Historic his Chronica, and the Variae) provide further evidence of this unease. See James J. O'Donnell, Cassiodorus, Berkeley 1979, chp. 2, for an extended discussion of Cassiodorus' accommodation approach.

The Manipulation of Tradition

465

inhabited, still-living past helped to defend, and to attack any threats to their interests. Exactly five days after the death of Pope Anastasius in 498 A.D., two candidates were simultaneously elected pope. The Sardinian deacon Symmachus was proclaimed pontiff at a ceremony in San Giovanni in Laterano. On the other side of town, the Roman Archpriest Laurentius was proclaimed pope at a ceremony in the equally grand basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.4 This began what is known as the Laurentian schism. The conflict was at its most intense during the years 498 to 506 A.D. (when Laurentius finally went into exile in Naples) and dragged on until Pope Symmachus died in 514 A.D. However the election was but one phase of an ideological conflict within the Roman elite at Rome. The Diphysite and Monophysite christological disputes of the 5th century witnessed the beginning of the process which would see the Roman elite battle among themselves for control of the future direction of the Roman church. The Roman episcopal election of 498 A.D. was a product of this fractious environment. The Diphysite and Monophysite positions were most associated in the contemporary mind with two individuals: Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople and Eutyches.5 In response to these christological issues Pope Leo took action by articulating the official Roman position in a letter of 449 AD. This letter or T o m e ' was the basis for his recommendations at a new council 2 years later in Chalcedon in 451. 6 It was against this backdrop that a schism divided the church of the Imperial East from that of post-imperial Italy. 16 years before the contested election of Symmachus and Laurentius, through the agency of Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, published the document known as the

4 5

6

AV 65 (324 Mommsen); Lib. pom. 53 (vol. 1, 260,2-3 Duchesne). Eutyches: PLRE 1, 319-321; for Nestorius' christological position: A. Fliche/V. Martin (eds.), Histoire de l'eglise, Paris 1939, vol. 4, 163-196. Boethius Euth. V 18-20 (ed. by H.F. Stewart/E.K. Rand, Boethius. The Theological Tractates. The Consolation of Philosophy, Loeb Classical Library, London/Cambridge, MA 1968, 100) provides a contemporary view of the issues at stake: Nestorius recte tenens duplicem in Christo esse naturam sacrilege confitetur duos esse personas...Eutyches uero recte credens unam esse personam impie credit unam quoque esse naturam. Lib. pont. 47,2 (vol. 1, 238,2-6 Duchesne): Hie inuenit duos hereses, Eutychiana et Nestoriana. Hie ordinauitpraecepta sua auctoritate et misit adMarcianum Augustum, orthodoxum principem, catholicum, et facta conlatione cum eodem principem collecti sunt episcope et factum est concilium sanctum episcoporum Calcedona.. .qui exposuerunt fidem catholicam, duos naturas in Christo, Deum et hominum.

466

David McOmish

Henotikon/ It was an attempt at unity between those who agreed to the creed of the council of Chalcedon, and the powerful Monophysite faction in the East who violently opposed it. The responses made by the elite in the West to this Eastern compromise strategy differed. However, the past which was used to validate those responses was shared. In these responses we first apprehend those methods of articulating the past which, significantly, would determine the success of the narrative strategies utilized by the followers of Laurentius and Symmachus. Firstly, let us examine the activities of Laurentius and those of his supporters in relation to these compromise and accommodation strategies from the Imperial East. Laurentius and his supporters represented a group within the Roman elite at Rome who opposed the supremacy narratives pursued by Symmachus, his predecessors, and successors. There is an addition to the official version of the lives of the popes, The Liber Pontifical known as the Laurentian fragment.8 In it, the ecclesiastical writings of Pope Anastasius II, the man whose death sparked Laurentius and Symmachus contested election, are described. They were instilled with divine authority; their celestially-validated sentiments were given as proof that the continuing rejection of the Henotikon was, as the source says, quite pointless'.9 This was the same Anastasius described in the official LP (LIII) as having been struck down by God's will for having been in league with the excommunicated Acacius - qui nutu divino percussus est. The LP and the fragment present the reader with a divergent view on a single issue (this pope). However, they also present the outlines of an alternative approaches: one which esteemed East/West unity; and another whose preeminent concern was Western supremacy. Betraying a very different rela7

8

9

Full text of the Henotikon can be found in Evagr. h.e. Ill 14-15 (FC 57/2, 358-366 Hiibner). See also: W.T. Townsend, The Heniticon Schism and the Roman Church, JR 16, 1936, 78-86, for a good overview of the text and its significance. It is difficult to assert with any confidence which version was produced first. It seems likely that the official Liber Pontificalis was produced first by a supporter of Symmachus, and the Laurentian fragment later by a supporter of Laurentius. Wirbelauer, Zwei Papste (see note 2), 142-147, following Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (see note 2), suggests as much, but cautions: "Uber ihr Verhaltnis zueinander, abgesehen von der erkennbaren Gegnerschaft, ist nichts weiter bekannt: ich sehe insbesondere keine Moglichkeit, ihre zeitliche Abfolge zu entscheiden." See commentary in Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (see note 2), XXX/XXXII for discussion on origin and identity of the compiler; also introduction in Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (see note 2), on potential motivations for the production of the divergent Laurentian fragment. Laurentian Fragment (vol 1, 43-46 Duchesne): [...] imperatorem Anastasium...quae tanta scribturamm caekstium auctoritate suffulta est, ut qui banc intenta mente sub dmino timore perlegerit, inaniter hactenus inter ecclesias Orientis et Italia* tarn schisma nefariumperdurarecognoscit.


467

tionship with the past to that of the Symmachans, the Roman priest Laurentius and his supporters inherited, represented, and attempted to propagate discourses which grew out of attempts to achieve this unity between East and West. The account of the election of Laurentius and Symmachus in the divergent manuscript allows us to appreciate how different both approaches were to the past. Describing the resolution to the immediate problem of who should hold the papacy, the standard, pro-Symmachan I P version of the Life of Symmachus informs us that both contestants willingly agreed to let the King arbitrate. The King set out sound and fair conditions (who was first ordained and whose faction was the largest). The narrative then states that Symmachus was duly, and fairly, elected.10 There is a startlingly different account given in the Laurentian fragment. Where the LP proclaimed the fairness of proceedings, the fragment bitterly lamented the lurid, underhand bribery and physical intimidation. What is particularly interesting, though, is the presentation of the king in both narratives. In the pro-Symmachan LP, the King was the wise and just ruler of Old Testament and Imperial biography.11 Theoderic wisely set out two guiding principles which were deemed 'fair', and he applied them to the situation in front of him. Consequently Symmachus was the logical choice for the new pope. The Laurentian fragment did not construct a short direct attack upon the King in the way that the LP pointedly and laconically lauded him. The criticism is indirect and subtle, drawing on implication and prejudice. Only after this well-crafted message had acquired most of its strength, did the author's narrative point directly at Theoderic, gently placing the weak and ineffectual King at the head of proceedings: coguntur utrique, Symmachus scilicet et Laurentius, regium subituri iudicium petere comitatum: ibi Symmachus multispecuniis optinet, Laurentius... plurimis coactus minis promissionibusque dirigitur. At the beginning, the unprecedented nature of proceedings was implied. Both of them {utrique) were compelled {coguntur) to go to court in order to submit {subituri) themselves to royal judg-

10

Lib. pom. 53, 2 (vol. 1, 260,4-8 Duchesne): Et facta intentione hoc constituerunt partes, ut ambo ad Ravennam pergerent, ad iudicium regis Theodorici. Qui dum ambo introissent Ravennam, hoc iudicium aequitatis invenit ut qui primo ordinatus fuisset, vel ubi pars maxima cognosceretur, ipse sederet in sedem apostolicam. Quod tamen aequitas in Symmachum invenit cognitio uerhatis etfactus estpraesul Symmachus. 11 The presentation of the King as the wise and just ruler of old-testament literature, and the judicious emperor of imperial biography has contemporary precedent. S.J.B. Barnish, The Anonymous Valesianus II as a Source for the Last Years of Theoderic, Latomus 43, 1983, 572-596.

468

David McOmish

ment. Highlighting the subjugation of the office of the papacy to a secular ruler would have invited a less than flattering comparison with the thrusting and vigorous stance of Symmachus and those who shared his ideological goals.12 The subtext to the presentation of story of the papal election in the Laurentian fragment feeds into this extant discourse. The reader was encouraged to see the story as an attack upon the legitimacy of the election, because of the untraditional compulsion of the candidates to subject themselves to royal power. After implying illegitimacy, the author of the Laurentian fragment presented a royal court designed to inspire a particular response in the minds of its Roman audience - pro-Symmachan or pro-Laurentian. The account of the forcible subpoena is accompanied by a description of the nature of the court which they were summoned to. Luxury and corruption were presented as winning the day: Symmachus multis pecuniis optinet. Violence and intimidation were employed to exile Laurentius against his will. At the head of this court, the Laurentian fragment placed a passive King quite unlike the decisive and wise King of the LP: Ad banc insinuationem Regis animus delinitus; patricio Festo praecepta dirigit, admonens ut omnes ecclesiae tituli Symmacho reformentur et unum Romae pateretur esse pontificemP The decisive King of the LP gives way to a King whose weak resolve dissolved in the face of some minor sophistry from an Eastern bishop (the insinuate of the first line). This account of proceedings implied that the victory of Symmachus was the product of his fortune at having been able to negotiate his way through the corridors of power of an avaricious, violent, and intellectually-challenged administration. This was a court which would have provided a less than flattering contrast with the refinement, orthodoxy, and efficiency of the imperial court. Those who were clearly sympathetic to the same goals and prejudices as the writer of the Laurentian fragment often consciously inhabited stillliving traditions which helped facilitate their goals. Our sources provide further tantalizing evidence of this interaction. The I P provides the names of two prominent Roman citizens, Probinus and Festus, who attempted to

12 A, we shall see below, in the final pages of this article, the position Symmachus' predecessors Felix and Gelasius took when confronted with the imposition of the offices of secular rulers into ecclesiastical affairs was one of uncompromising attack. The opposition to secular interference in Roman Church affairs was painstakingly and forcefully articulated by both - and later Symmachus - using the power of a stillliving past to validate it. 13 Laurentian Fragment (vol. 1, 44 Duchesne).


469

overturn Symmachus eventual victory and return Laurentius to the post.14 The Laurentian fragment confirms that Festus had a particularly close relationship with Laurentius: Quod ubi Laurentius comperit, urbem noluit iuturna conluctatione uexari, ac sua sponte in praediis memorati patricii Festi sine delatione concessit. According to the chronicle of Theophanes, in 497 A.D. Festus promised Emperor Anastasius that he could get Pope Anastasius to accept the Henotikon. 15 Unfortunately Pope Anastasius died before he was able to comply with Festus' request. The importance to Festus of getting a pope elected who would accept the Henotikon is obvious. In order to honour his promise to the emperor he had to get another proHenotikon pope. In the same section of his Chronica, Theophanes provides the additional information that Festus bribed the clergy to make sure that Laurentius was elected. Festus' relationship with the cause of Laurentius is therefore unquestionable. His antipathy towards Symmachus and the ideology he stood for may actually explain this support for Laurentius. Festus used his understanding of tradition and time-honoured custom to directly attack something which Symmachus did which Festus saw as an innovation too far. The nature of Festus' attack upon Symmachus is revealed by the Laurentian fragment: the celebration of Easter.16 After his victory in the election, the then pope Symmachus, reverted to the old Roman, non-Alexandrian system of calculating Easter. Festus opposed this move. In doing so, he and his friends in the clergy presented themselves as the defenders of traditional Roman practice. They successfully petitioned the King to have Symmachus arraigned. They then asserted that according to tradition a Visitor' should be appointed in the interim to oversee papal business.17 The punishment Festus and Probinus felt was justified for Symmachus' transgressions over the dates of Easter looked to the past for justification. Both the LP and the Laurentian Fragment provide the valuable details. According to the LP: Tunc Festus et Probinus miserunt relationem regi et coeperunt agere ut visitatorem daret rex sedi apostolicae™ Festus and 14

15 16

17 18

Lib. pom. 53, 3 (vol. 1, 260,10-13 Duchesne): Post annos uero IIII, zelo duett aliqui ex elero et alii ex senatu, rmxime Festus et Probinus, incrimmauerunt Symmachum.. et occulte revocaueruntLaurentiumpastlibellum Romae factum; et fecerunt schisma, et dmisus ets iterum; et alii communicabant Symmacho, alii Laurentio. Theophan. chron. AM 5993 (ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, Hildesheim 1963, 143,3-19). Laurentian fragment (44, Duchesne): quern [Symmachum] rex sub occasione paschali, quod non cum universitate celebraverat ad comitatum convo[cat], rationem [quasi de] festivitatis dissonantia redditurum, fecit que aput Ariminum. Lib. pom. 53, 3 (vol. 1, 260,10-14 Duchesne). Lib. pom. 53, 3 (vol. 1, 260,13-14 Duchesne).

470

David McOmish

Probinus were effectively trying to depose Symmachus from the papal throne and, in the interim, have an external visitor execute his Episcopal duties. From the evidence of the sources, the interim period was to cover the celebration of Easter: Pro diebus autem paschalibus ab omnibuspaene vir venerabilis Petrus, Altinatis episcopus, a rege visitator Ecclesiae Romanae deposcitur {Laurentian fragment, vol. 1, 44-45, Duch.). Whether this was the Easter of 501 (and thus the Alexandrian date which Symmachus ignored) is difficult to determine.19 Nevertheless, what is significant is that, in attempting to have the King install a Visitor' in place of Symmachus, Festus and Probinus were using tradition to frame their intervention, not as that of a sectarian partisan, but as that of the impartial citizen troubled by the turn of events. For there was a clear and very apposite tradition set in the Western Empire which catered for this very occasion. In 419 A.D., during the disputed papal election between Boniface and Eulalius, the Emperor Honorius decreed that the bishop of Spoleto, Achilleus, should take over the celebration of the sanctae paschae dies?0 No doubt what may have made the move all the more attractive to Festus and the Laurentians was that its inspiration, the Eulalius/Boniface situation, had resulted in the deposition of one Pope and the re-election of his defeated rival. Such a precedent offered hope for the re-election of Laurentius. Attacking Symmachus was about more than simply backing Laurentius. It was about undermining the attempts to put further distance between Rome and the East. Laurentius was a vehicle who would have allowed Festus to implement the Henotikon. However, perhaps more importantly, this situation bought them time to regroup after the setback of Symmachus' election and perhaps undermine the legitimacy of that election. The move allowed Festus and others to do two things. At a micro-level it punished the adoption of a procedure (the adoption of the old Roman date for Easter) which would have undermined attempts at unity. In the grander scheme of things it empowered the pro-Henotikon cause by giving it a powerful and unquestionably Roman voice - one which was tied to an imperial past and looked forward to a continuing and close relationship with the Empire and its cultural concerns.

19

20

Various scholars have disagreed over the date: 'C'cst bien en 502 que Theodoric a suspendu le pane Symmaque et convoque le synode italien qui devait le juger, et non en 501, comme le croyaient Duchesne et Mommsen: l'argumentation de Pfeilschifter et de Sundwall est solidement etablie. Ernst Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, de la disparition de l'Empirc d Occident a la mort de Justinien (476-565), Paris 1949, 793. The full text of the imperial letter sent to the bishop of Spoleto is found at CSEL 35, 69.


471

Now let's examine the evolution of the antithetical ideological position and its concomitant discursive landscape which Symmachus inherited, represented, and propagated. When the Henotikon was published Pope Felix III sternly rebuked the Emperor Zeno for his foray into church affairs. He advised him to 'try and subject [his] royal will to the priests of God according to God's ordinance and to learn about sacred matters from the bishops rather than to teach them'. 21 When warning the Imperial tanks off of his lawn, Felix carefully selected the appropriate weapons to be employed in this war of words. Chalcedon was an ecumenical council presided over by the bishops and ratified by them. The Emperor had no jurisdiction here. Accordingly Felix was able to present the imperial edict as an attack upon the traditional Roman way of ordering religious and secular life. The Pope framed his language to ensure that Roman objections were seen as an attempt to uphold the traditional roles of the emperor and the church. The pope was taking advantage of the lack of political control the emperor had over him to undermine the emperor's attempts to pacify troubled parts of his empire in the east.22 What was surely a piece of low political opportunism, which was actually undermining the unity of the empire (both political and religious), Felix presented as a defence of the time-honoured, divinely ordained, spiritual and temporal Roman Empire. Establishing the primacy of the church in Rome, not securing the doctrinal unity of the Christian world, was the primary concern of this narrative. This approach was, as we shall see, shared by Symmachus and his predecessor Gelasius. Pope Gelasius, Felix's successor, took just as stringent a line against imperial attempts to find doctrinal compromise. In one letter he demanded that Acacius,23 the co-author of the Henotikon, should 'repent', and that, should he not penitently bend his knee to the compassion of the church in Rome, he would be condemned for all time. This letter reasserts the hegemony of the Bishop of Rome over Eastern affairs.24 In the famous

21 22

23 24

FelixIIIep.9(PL58,935,C-D). In 449 A.D. Emperor Theodosius II saw to it that Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was stripped of his title and exiled by a council whose members Theodosius had hand picked (Evagr. h.e. I.X. - the president of the council, Dioscorus, was bribed into position by one of Theodosius' minions Chrysaphius). From Constantine to John Chrysostom, imperial intervention in religious disputes (especially disputes which impacted upon religious policy) were common (Eus. vita Const. Ill 4-21; Soz. h.c. VIII 10-15). Patriarch of Constantinople, 471-489. Lib. pom. 51, 3 (vol 1, 255,6-10 Duchesne): Huius temporibus iterum uenit relatio de Grecias eo quod multa mala et homkidia fierent a Petro et Acacio Constantino-

472

David McOmish

duo sunt letter to Zeno's successor, the Emperor Anastasius, Gelasius combined this precedent with another precedent. In the letter he claimed that he, the bishop of Rome, had primacy over all churches, both in the east and west, and that the Emperor must acknowledge the time-honoured, divinely-ordained universe where priests and only priests can formulate spiritual doctrine.25 He further asserted that the emperor must especially bow down before the authority of the Pope, as must all of the priests in the East. It was at this point that Gelasius invoked the idea of the divine ordination of the Roman pontiff as a reason for papal religious (and, quite audaciously, temporal) superiority. In highlighting the auctoritas sacrata of the pontiffs, Gelasius also attempted to draw attention to an increasingly important topos: the apostolic nature of the Roman church.26 Gelasius built his argument not just upon the traditional authority which Leo had established in Chalcedon, but also on the Petrine tradition. This allowed Gelasius to do two things. Firstly, he reaffirmed the supremacy of his authority which had been called into question by the Henotikon. Significantly, however, he also attempted to clearly delineate boundaries for his authority which would surpass those he had previously. It is inconceivable that he could have been so daring, and clearly defined such a powerful position, had he been subject to the emperor's influence.27 At this stage it must be re-emphasized that lack of direct imperial control in Rome played a significant part in the evolution of events. Both Odoacer and Theoderic, who held political power during Felix's, Gelasius', and Symmachus' papacy, betrayed no inclination to force the papacy into accepting the Henotikon. In such an environment bishops of Rome could, if they wished, go beyond simply protecting Chalcedon. As we have seen, when dictating and limiting the parameters of the emperor's office, both Felix and Gelasius attempted to codify, by precedent and law, the almost limitless power and authority of the Episcopal seat at Rome. Symmachus and his cause were undoubtedly part of this movement to empower the office of the bishop of Rome. Magnus Felix Ennodius, who, interestingly, composed a panegyric to Theoderic, and who also, even _ _ _ _ _ polim.. .fecit synodum et misit per tractum Orientis et iterum misit et damnauit in perpetuumAcacium et Petrum, si non penitens. 25 Gelasius I en. 8 (PL 59, 42.A-B): duo quippe sunt, imperator auguste, quibus principals mundus hie regitur: auctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalispotestas. In quibus tanto gravius estpondussacerdotum quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus Domino in divino reddituri sunt examine rationem. 26 The assertion of this principle is a recurring aspect of Gelasius' papacy which Francis Dvornik has highlighted. Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, New York 1966, 50-57 27 See note 22.


473

more interestingly, refers to the King as dominus libertatis™ continued the work of Gelasius. He composed a defence of the papacy which moved beyond merely asserting Roman supremacy in church affairs. He boldly asserted that the pope was unable to be judged by anyone but God himself - an early, extraordinary, and crude example of papal infallibility. He justified this by invoking the Petrine tradition again - the Pope as successor of St Peter, and as inheritor of his personal sanctity and innocence, was above temporal censure.29 The pope whom Ennodius was defending in this instance was, of course, Pope Symmachus. Ennodius used the same arguments, with the same intentions (bolstering papal power) to ensure that Symmachus continued to be pope.30 The narrative strategies employed by Felix, Gelasius, and the pro-Symmachan Ennodius were innovative attempts, in changed times, to redefine and bolster an existing role using the power of Roman tradition and historical precedent. Although closely argued and intelligently positioned, the attempts of Symmachus and his predecessors to redefine the past and create a vigorous, independently-minded, pre-eminent ecclesiastical powerhouse in Rome were open to counter-attack. Their approach had to sustain a discursive coherence and moral integrity that could maintain the credibility necessary for the message to withstand the force of contemporary theological objections. In the battle to control the creation and dissemination of religious discourse, one had to allow as little room as possible for one's opponents to move. A scrupulously orthodox and untainted church was a sine qua non. This presented a problem to those who championed the cause of Symmachus. As we have seen above, their boldness in articulating their supremacy narratives relied on the autonomy afforded them by the Ostrogothic government. The Ostrogoths were Arians and thus heretics. How could the Roman church, even with the powerful weapon of a 'stillliving' tradition at their disposal, credibly lead the wider Imperial Roman world when it tolerated, and was supported by heretics?31 Arianism was on the radar and was a problem. It is possible to see a response to this problem which sought to create a narrative out of the solid,

28 29 30 31

Ennod. ep. IV 26 (MGH AA 7, 146 Vogel). Ennod. Libelluspro Synodo, 92-93 (61,30-39 Vogel). After his initial defeat of Laurentius (see above). Lib. pont. 55 (vol.1, 275,3-7 Duchesne)provides examples of the pro-Eastern Roman elite later characterizing the King and his actions as heretical: hie vocatus est a rege Theodorico Ravenna; quem ipse rex rogans misit in legationem Constantinopolim ad Iustinum imperatorem orthodoxum, quia eodem tempore Iustinus imperator, vir religiosus, summo ardoris amore religionis christian**, voluit hereticos extricare.. .pro banc causam bereticus rex Theodoricus audiens hoc exarsit et voluit totam Italiam adgkdium extinguere.

474

David McOmish

seemingly invariant building blocks of tradition. After his eventual victory over Laurentius, Symmachus was one of the three popes who followed Felix and who stoutly and resolutely refused to compromise on the Henotikon. In the LP they are all praised for their attempts to root out heresy wherever they find it. The LP describes a 5th century bonfire of the Manichean vanities before the doors of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome over which Gelasius presided.32 The Manichees were, of course, famously and canonically demonized by Augustine of Hippo, who was himself a convert from the sect. They had also been banned by Imperial decree some 100 years before.33 With rather less left to the imagination, and in much greater depth and colour, Augustine did to the Manichees what Livy had done to the Carthaginians. The act of deporting the Manichees from Italy, allied to the spectacular bonfire before the doors of Santa Maria Maggiore, was highly symbolic. It affirmed that Italy did not tolerate heretics, and presented those in Rome exercising power in the name of orthodoxy. The Manichees, traditional bogeymen of Orthodoxy were the vehicles for this message. Symmachus was once again at the forefront of this attempt to empower the papacy. The I P begins its formal introduction of Pope Symmachus' many worthy deeds with his discovery and treatment of heretics in Rome. The LP describes how Symmachus found some Manichees in Rome and, in a manner which evokes the achievements of Savonarola, burned the pictures and statues of the Manichees as well as their books,34 Symmachus was beholden to the Ostrogoths for his position of power. As were his supporters. Magnus Felix Ennodius, one of Symmachus' chief proponents, was Theoderic's arbiter Romanitatis. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, that the sympathetic LP* showcased Symmachus his anti-heretical credentials very prominently. The close relationship the papacy had with an Arian King is undeniable,36 Those exercising power and shaping policy 32

Lib. pom. 51,1 (vol. 1, 255,2-3 Duchesne): Huius temporibus inventi suntMankhei in urbe Roma quos exiUo deportari praecepit, quorum codices ante fores basilicae sanctae Mariaeincendioconcremavit. 33 Augustine wrote numerous works against the Manichees {contra Manicheos), as well as devoting sections of The Confessions (V especially) to attacking the Manichees and himself for his own weakness in following them. The emperor Theodosius in 381-382 A.D. by imperial decree stripped the Manichees of their rights and then outlawed them on pain of death. 34 Lib. pont. 53,5 (vol. 1, 260,8-9 Duchesne): beatus Symmachus invent Manicheos in urbe Roma, quorum omnia simulacra vel codices ante fores basilicae Constantinianae incendio concremavit et eos ipsos exilio religavit. 35 See Wirbelauer, Zwei Papste (see note 2), 142. 36 Witness the willingness of the Laurentians to use this in their attack upon the validity of Symmachus' election: Laurentian Fragment passim.


475

in the Roman church relied on the ability of the Ostrogothic regime to provide them with the freedom from political interference necessary to develop their powerbase. The emphasis on the anti-heretical nature of Symmachus' activities diverted attention away from the uncomfortable fact that Symmachus was beholden to the Ostrogoths for his individual position and for the increasing power and prestige of his office. This process is witnessed just as clearly in the LPs account of Symmachus' successor, Pope Hormisdas. He was the last of the anti-Henotikon popes to be presented as a scourge of the Manicheans. His regime eventually presided over the full capitulation of the East to the West's demands for total supremacy and full acceptance of Chalcedon - and the renunciation of the Henotikon. He too found some of them in Rome and burned their books in front of the doors of the basilica Constantiniana: hie invenit Manicheos, quos etiam discussit cum examination pkgarum, exilio deportavit; quorum codices ante fores basilicae Constantinianae incendio concremavitF Like Symmachus, Hormisdas relied on his relationship with Theoderic, King of Italy and Arian heretic, for his position of power. In the passage immediately preceding the above section describing his persecution of the Manichees, the LP described how the West had to rely on the advice and authority of the King in its dealings with the East. The King advised (cum consilio Regis Theodorici. LP 54) and directed the conduct of the Pope {Hormisdas perrexit ad regem Theodoricum Ravenna et cum consilio misit auctoritatem atLustinum). If the previous generation of popes had displayed similarly enthusiastic anti-Manichean credentials, interpreting the behaviour of the postImperial Italian popes in this way would, perhaps, have been more problematic. However, in the LP, which covers nearly 700 years of papal activity, the Manichees are only mentioned six times. Their first three appearances were during the 4th century, when the sect was bringing its influence to bear on figures such as Augustine of Hippo. Miltiades (310-314 A.D.) discovered some Manichees in Rome not long after the decrees of Diocletian outlawing them - though the LP does not elaborate. The next two discoveries happened under the watches of Siricius and Anastasius I (384401 A.D.). Both were leaders of the church at the time when Augustine was professor of rhetoric at Milan and was penning many of his antiManichean pamphlets.38 So the prevailing religious discourse was very much informed by a literary elite, whose theological output cultivated an environ-

37 38

Lib. pom. 54,9 (vol. 1, 270,20-271,1 Duchesne). Contra Faustum Manichaeum 397 A.D.; Contra Felicem Manichaeum Contra Secundinum Manichaeum 399 A.D.

398 A.D.;

476

David McOmish

ment in which attacking the Manichees was a peer-sanctioned holy mission. Of much more direct relevance to our argument, however, are the other three references to the Manichees found in the biographies of Gelasius, Symmachus, and Hormisdas. It is only in these three biographies that the popes are found burning the Manichean books and simulacra. So, there are only six references to the direct involvement of the elite of the Roman church with the Manichees in the nearly 700 years of papal activity the LP covers. The first three are clearly responding to the literary and political concerns of their time. The last three accounts, however, the savagery and violence of which marks them out from the other three, seem to me, at least, to be remarkable for their conveniently distracting timeliness. Freed from the sting of accusations of heretical tolerance, the church in Rome could continue to exploit the freedom the Ostrogoths gave them.39 So what have we learned from this brief examination of the impact the past had upon the development and outcome of the contested election of 498 A.D.? It is clear that those who were firm supporters of Laurentius clearly sympathised with Pope Anastasius and his efforts to find a compromise with Constantinople. In the same way, the supporters of Symmachus were supporters of Roman ecclesiastical supremacy and the freedom from Imperial intervention the Ostrogothic Kingdom gave them in their attempts to achieve it. Symmachus' camp, apparent from Ennodius' bold assertions, were following in the tradition of the anti-Henotikon popes who manipulated tradition in order to bolster their positions of power. Innovation was disguised as tradition and tradition used as justification for innovation. From Symmachus' claims of papal infallibility to Gelasius' claims of papal temporal and spiritual supremacy, an imagined past was used in each narrative to justify the position. The Laurentians on the other hand had a different approach to the past. They baulked at the innovations of the proSymmachan papacy and attempted to use their understanding of a stillliving past to stop it. Festus appealed to a shared imperial past, which avoided divergence and encouraged pan-imperial conformity. He used the precedents of the past in order to ensure an imperial future, where East and West were united under one, Catholic Church. His support for Laurentius was a support for this idea. His methods were an indicator of his close relationship with the empire of the past, of the present, and of the future. The Ostrogothic present, however, allowed the more vocal Symmachans to ignore politically expedient compromise, and drown out the more subtle machinations of the Laurentians. 39

The result, of course, was that it would be the East (in the person of Justinian) which would eventually fully capitulate to the religious discourses articulated by the stubbornly independent Symmachus, his predecessors, and successors.

Episcopal Elections in 5 ^-century Vandal North Africa CarlaNicolaye Introduction In 429 the Vandals, under their king Geiseric, invaded the Roman province of Africa. Within the next ten years they conquered its most important cities and established an independent kingdom on former Roman soil.1 Fortunately, within scholarly research this remarkable achievement is more and more recognized.2 Nevertheless, the typical assessment of the Vandals remains rather negative. Pre-eminently among the peoples who occupied the territories of the Roman Empire during the fifth century, it was the Vandals who retained the reputation of savage barbarians, particularly as persecutors of the North African church. The following paper will examine to what extent the Vandal occupation of the Roman provinces of North Africa influenced episcopal elections in the African Nicene 3 church during the fifth century. As Ralph Mathisen has convincingly shown, a closer look into the episcopal elections of the Vandal Arian church is prohibited by the simple fact that we do not have a single piece of evidence for their existence, be it ever so self-evident, or the circumstances sur1

2

3

For a general overview on the Vandals' kingdom in Roman North Africa see, amongst others, Christian Courtois' Les Vandales et l'Afrique, Paris 1955; A. Merrills/R. Miles, The Vandals, Oxford 2010. Most recently by Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.), Das Konigreich der Vandalen: Erben des Imperiums in Nordafrika, Mainz 2009, and H. Castritius, Barbaren im Garten „Eden": Der Sonderweg der Vandalen in Nordafrika, Historia 59, 2010,371-380. These Christians considered themselves cathoUci, but so did the Vandals. Although the term cathoUci is also used by late antique authors such as Victor of Vita, in order to prevent confusion and following Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), I will use the term "Nicene' instead. G. M. Berndt, Konflikt und Anpassung. Studien zur Migration und Ethnogenese der Vandalen, Husum 2007, speaks of "Athamsian Christians.

478

CarlaNicolaye

rounding them. 4 Although evidence for episcopal elections within the Nicene church during this period is scarce as well, our sources grant better insight into their circumstances. As Peter Norton has pointed out in his 2007 study on episcopal elections in the Roman West, the occupation of the African provinces by the Arian Vandals inevitably had far-reaching consequences for the structure of the African Nicene church.5 Although we can discard the suggestion put forward by scholars like Speel, who went as far as to blame the Vandals for the disappearance of Christianity from North Africa,6 Vandal rule seems to have been incisive enough to deserve a more thorough exploration. Therefore this paper will appraise the sources available in order to analyse the consequences of the Vandal occupation in episcopal elections of the Nicene church. This will contribute to a better understanding of an often neglected episode of North African history. The fact that Abbe Gregoire in his first Jiapport sur les destructions aperies par le vandalism? (published in 1794) deduced the neologism 'vandalism'from the name of the Vandals to denounce the gratuitous murders and the destruction of works of art by radical Jacobins7 cannot be simply ascribed to unfortunate coincidence. For centuries the term "Vandals" has carried negative connotations, the origins of which are to be found in the works of late antique Roman and early Byzantine

4

5 6

7

On the general structure and hierarchy of the Vandal Arian episcopate in North Africa see R. W. Mathisen, Barbarian Bishops and the Churches "in barbaricis gentibus" during Late Antiquity, Speculum 72, 1997, 664-695, here 686-688. Cf. P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-260. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford Classical Monographs, Oxford 2007, 111-114. C.J. Speel, The Disappearance of Christianity from North Africa in the Wake of the Rise of Islam, Church History 29, I960, 379-397, especially 379 and 383. Speel argues that there were 'theological similarities' between Vandal Arianism and early Islam, leading to the rapid conversion of the North African population to Islam and thus responsible for the demise of Christianity. Against Speel see, amongst others, M. Handley, Disputing the End of African Christianity, in: A. Merrills (ed.), Vandals, Romans and Berbers: New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa, Aldershot 2004, 291-310, especially 294. Gregoire, constitutional bishop of Blois, wrote his Rapports in the context of the French Revolution and used the term in his reports directed to the Republican Convention. Cf. Rapport sur les destructions operees par le vandalisme, et sur les moyens de le reprimer. Par Gregoire, seance du 14 fructidor, Fan second de la Republique une et indivisible [31 August 1794]: suivi du decret de la Convention nationals 2*» Rapport sur les destructions operees par le vandalisme (29. October 1795); 3&™ Rapport sur les destructions operees par le vandalisme (14. December 1795), in: Oeuvres II, 256-78, 321-57.

Episcopal Elections in 5th-century Vandal North Africa

479

historiographers such as Victor Vitensis8 and Procopius of Caesarea.9 The main reason for the development of this explicitly negative "Vandalenbild" seems to have been their alleged persecution of the African Nicene Church. Whereas Salvian (a contemporary of the Vandal king Geiseric) regards their conquest of Spain and the African provinces, not only as the vengeance of God, but even as God's reward for the Vandals' profound Christian morality,10 our most important source for the reign of the kings Geiseric and Huneric, Victor Vitensis' Historia persecutions Africanae provinciae (ca. 488 A.D.), depicts the Vandals as fanatical persecutors11 of the African Nicenes, the true catholici. Although we lack any certain evidence for the moment or circumstances of their conversion, the Vandals (like the Goths) most likely adopted Christianity during the reign of Constantius II (337-361),12 who had tried to unite the Church under a homoiousian creed, thus becoming 'Arians' simply by adopting the contemporary fashion of imperial orthodoxy.13 When in 381 the Council of Constantinople confirmed the Nicene Creed, the Vandals, like most other Germanic tribes became - as Salvian of Marseille describes it with 8

Victor episcopus Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae (CSEL 7, 1107, ed. M. Petschenig). Henceforth: Vict. Vit. HP. An English translation is provided by J. Moorhead, Victor of Vita. History of the Vandal Persecution, Translated Texts for Historians 10, Liverpool 1992; for a French translation see Victor de Vita. Histoire de la persecution vandale en Afrique suivi de La passion des sept martyrs, Registre des provinces et des cites d'Afrique. Textes etablis, traduits et commentes par S. LanceLCUF, Paris 2002. 9 Procopius, The Vandalic Wars [henceforth Procop. BV]. For both the Greek text and an English translation: Procopius, Vol. 2: History of the Wars, Book 3-4: The Vandalic Wars, ed. H. B. Dewing, LCL, Cambridge, Mass./London 1916. 10 Cf Salv. De Gub. 7, 12-23. 27 (MGH AA 1,1, Berlin 1877, 86ff, ed. K. Halm). 11 Gregory of Tours accounts that during the Vandal reign "many thousands" had been persecuted and killed, cf. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. II, 3 (Gregorii episcopii Turonensis historiarum libri historiarum X, M G H SS rer. Merov. 1,1, Hannover 2 1951, 44, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison): ...et multa milia virorum ac muliemm hancfidem asserentes interemptaatquedebilitatasunt. 12 Cf. most recently Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 178f 13 In 358 Constantius convoked two councils, one at Ariminum (Rimini) in the West and one at Seleucia in the East, to discuss the homoian controversy over the nature of Christ. These councils, held in 359, were not able to resolve the dispute: whereas the Council of Ariminum agreed on a homoian creed, the eastern bishops remained divided. Constantius II requested another council, this time joining both western and eastern bishops. This First Council of Constantinople, held in 360, eventually agreed to accept the homoian creed of Ariminum with minor modifications. On the Trinitarian controversy see F. Diinzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of Trinity in the Early Church, London 2007; R. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy, 318-381, London 2005.

480

CarlaNicolaye

remarkable accuracy - "ignorant heretics"14 who remained faithful to the only orthodox creed they knew. Further, when reading Victor, it soon becomes clear that there is absolutely no evidence for a systematic, overall persecution of Nicenes under the Vandal reign. Ultimately even Victor himself admits that the reasons for the actual measures taken by Geiseric against catholici during the first years of his reign were hardly religiously motivated.15 What does become clear, on the other hand, is that the Nicene clergy (and, more specifically, the Nicene episcopate) seems to have suffered tremendously from measures taken by the Vandal rulers. If there was no systematic persecution of Nicene Christians as such, why then did Nicene bishops apparently become a primary target of the Vandals' suppressive measures? From a Vandal point of view the answer to this question is rather simple: the Nicene episcopate was - like the Roman landowners - an influential elite which comprised a potential political threat to the establishment of Vandal authority. Being Catholic (Nicene) meant being "Roman" rather than Arian, and thus less prone to accepting the Vandal dominance over the African provinces.16 Suppressing the Nicene episcopate eliminated the risk that Nicene bishops might incite the population against their new overlords.

Episcopal Elections in 5th-century Vandal North Africa Bearing this in mind, let us now investigate the influence of the Vandals on episcopal elections and episcopal succession in North Africa - mainly during the reigns of the Vandal kings Geiseric and Huneric, but also keeping in mind their successors Gunthamund, Thrasamund and Hilderic. It appears most convenient to examine the measures taken by these kings in chronological order and afterward to give a more general

14

15 16

Salv. De Gub. 5,2 (57 Halm): Haeretici sunt sed non scientes. Denique apud nos sunt haeretki, apud se non sunt. Nam in tantum se catholkos esse judkant ut nos ipsos titulo haeretkae appellations infament. Quod ergo illi nobis sunt, hoc nos illis. Vict.Vit.HPl,12.18(7.9Petschenig). On the use of the antagonism Wandali-barbari and Arriani-heretici on the one hand and Romani-catholici on the other hand in the Historia of Victor Vitensis see S. Costanza, "Uandali-Arrianf e "Romani-Catholici" nella Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae di Vittore di Vita: una controversia per l'uso del latino nel concilio cartaginense del 484, in: Oikoumene: studi paleocristiani pubblicati in onore del Concilio Vaticano II, Catania 1964, 223-241; T. Howe, Vandalen, Barbaren und Arianer bei Victor von Vita, Frankfurt a. M. 2007, 229-281.


481

assessment, if possible, on the Vandals' influence on 5th-century elections of North African bishops. Victor Vitensis' already mentioned Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae - in full accordance with its title primarily, and with quite a bit of detail, informs us of the Vandals' atrocious treatment of the Nicene clergy, specifically the Nicene episcopate. Furthermore, we have access to a number of letters17 and treatises from 5th-century African ecclesiastical circles, which offer an insight into the perceived threat accompanying the Vandal invasion and occupation of the African provinces.18

Geiseric As mentioned above, the Vandals under their king Geiseric invaded the Roman provinces of North Africa in 429 A.D. This is also the year with which Victor of Vita opens his Historia. After asking "Quanti tunc ab eis praeckri pontifices et nobiles sacerdotes diversis poenarum generibus extincti sunt™ Victor continues with an account of how the bishops Pampinianus of Vita and Mansuetus of Urusi were tortured by the Vandals after they had invaded the North African coast and besieged Hippo Regius. He tells us how bishops were forced to flee their churches and residences, and, if 17

Cf. for example a letter of a bishop by the name of Honoratus, sent to Augustine asking the latter's advice on whether or not Nicene clergy should flee from the invading Vandals. This letter is quoted in Aug. ep. 228, which appears in Possid. vit. Aug. 30. The full text of letter 228 is printed in: Possidius, Vita Augustini, ed. W. Geerlings, Paderborn 2005, 86-102. For an English translation see The Life of St. Augustine. A Translation of the Sancti Augustini Vita by Possidius, Bishop of Calama. Translated and with an Introduction by H.T. Weiskotten, with a New Preface and Bibliography. Christian Roman Empire Series 6, Merchantville, NJ 2 2008, 44ff

18

These letters, treatises and homilies do not contain information on episcopal elections, they do however show that the Nicene episcopate was trying to find ways to resist and oppose the Vandal dominance. It becomes very clear that the Nicene bishops writing them perceived the Vandal threat as unambiguously religious and that they were very much willing to fight off the Arian heretics threatening the Nicene church. Cf. e.g. a sermon of Quodvultdeus of Carthage, who urged his congregation not only to resist but also to fight (Quodvultdeus de temp. barb. 2,14,4-6 [CCSL 60, 486, Braun]: Quare taces? Inimici tui sonuerunt, et qui te oderunt, ipsi te minorem dixerunt, ipsi membra tua rebatizando humi
avemnt. ... Ergo, domine Iesu Christe, David noster, rex noster, accipe vasa tua bellica, etprogredere, utpugnes contra ilium, qui obprobrium dkk adversusexercitumdeivivi).

19

Vict. Vit. HP 1,5 (4 Petsch). A similar statement can be found in Prosperi Tironis epitoma chronicon 1339 [AD 439] (MGH AA 9, 477, Mommsen): in universum captivipopuli ordinem saecus, sedpraecipue nobilitati et religioni infensus, ut non discerneretur, hominibus magis an dec bellum intulisset.

482

CarlaNicolaye

they failed to do so, were humiliated and enslaved by the Vandals. Others, like Quodvultdeus of Carthage, were banished and forcibly put on board of ships leaving Africa.20 Those who asked Geiseric to allow them to continue to practice their office even in those cities not ruled by the Vandals were banished as well.21 Most of these events must have taken place after 435, when the Vandals (through a treaty with emperor Valentinian III) became foedemtF and were granted territories in Mauretania and Numidia, or, even more likely, in the years following the conquest of Carthage in 439, which ushered in the formation of a Vandal state comprising the already mentioned territories in Mauretania and Numidia as well as Carthage and its hinterlands, and even parts of the rich provinces of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis. Prior to 435 the Vandals were preoccupied with conquering and consolidating their territories; a systematic policy against the Nicene church therefore seems to be unlikely. The actions that did occur against Nicene churches and clergy seem to have been random consequences of the conquest. Victor continues by mentioning a sanction of Geiseric - the so-called "pulpit act" - which most clearly indicates the political nature of the Vandal suppression of the Nicene episcopate: Geiseric prohibited every homiletical mention of biblical tyrants like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar or Holofernes in sermons in an attempt to prevent congregations from becoming incited against the Vandal king. Bishops that had indeed been protesting against the Vandal domination by referring to biblical tyrants in their sermons were sent into exile.23 Victor here mentions Urbanus of 20 21

22

23

Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 1,10. 14f. (6f. Petsch.). Cf. Vict. Vit. HP l,17f. (9 Petsch.). Also cf. W. Eck, Der Episkopat im spatantiken Africa, H Z 236, 1983, 265-295, here 271f; Courtois, Les Vandales (see note 1), 275ff.; C. Bourgeois, Les Vandales, le vandalisme et l'Afrique, AntAfr 16, 1980, 213ff. Prosper chron. 1321 [AD 435] (474 Mommsen): pax fata cum Vandalis data eis ad habitandumper Trigetium Afrkaeportione Hippone III. idus Februarii. As we lack legal documentation, the exact range of the term foederati is hard to determine, since our sources neither offer a distinct description of this status itself nor provide us with the contents of this kind of treaties. For the foederati states in this period see A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey Vol. I-III, Oxford 1964, Vol. I, 199-202; G. Wirth, Rome and its Germanic Partners in the Fourth Century, in: W. Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity, Leiden/Boston/Cologne 1997, 13-53. On the treaty of 435 see F. Ausbiittel, Die Vertrage zwischen den Vandalen und Romern, Romanobarbarica 11, 1991, 1-20, here 10. Cf. further F. M. Clover, Geiseric the Statesman: A Study of Vandal Foreign Policy, Diss. Chicago 1966, 62f, 90, 99f. Vict. Vit. H P 1,22 (lOf. Petsch.): Nam et diversae calumniae non deerant cotidie etium Mis sacerdotibus, qui in his regionibus versabantur, quae regiones palatio tributa pende-


483

Gerba, Crescens, the metropolitan of Aquitana, Eustratius of Sufes, Vicris of Sabratha, Cresconius of Oea, Felix of Hadrumetum as well as "alios multos, quos longum est manure"?* Quodvultdeus of Carthage may have been banished for similar reasons, for he evidently incited his congregation to resist the Vandals during the conquest and continued doing so while being in exile in Naples.25 Therefore it seems nothing but reasonable for Geiseric to banish such an influential opponent, especially since Quodvultdeus was preaching in the heart of the Vandal king's new capital. Apparently Geiseric was not willing to risk the uprising of Carthage's Nicene congregation, which - once deprived of its leader - seems to have offered no further threat to the king's authority. It is at this point that we find the first shred of evidence indicating that the Vandals did actively influence episcopal succession in Africa. Victor tells us that after the bishops who had been placed in exile died it was not permitted to ordain successors to the vacant sees.26 But immediately after mentioning this he recounts that in 454 A.D., after the death of the banished Quodvultdeus of Carthage, Geiseric allowed the ordination of Deogratias in his stead.27 This might seem an odd decision if Victor would not give the reason for Geiseric's indulgence: it was emperor Valentinian III who had asked the Vandal king to allow the Carthage

bant. Utsiforsitan quispiam, ut maris est, dum dei populum ammoneret, Pharaonem, Nabuchodonosor, Holofernem aut aliquem simikm nominasset, obiciebatur illi, quod in persona regis ista dixisset, etstatim esiho trudebatur. [...]. 24 V i c t . V i t . H P l , 2 3 ( l l P e t s c h . ) . 25 Cf. the sermon (de temp. barb. 2,14,4-6) mentioned above in note 18. During his exile he wrote his most important work, the Liber de Promissionum et Praedictorum Dei (Book of Promises and Predictions of God), in which he argued, that Arianism in Africa was the harbinger of the apocalypse. For Quodvultdeus in general see A. Mandouze, Prosopographie Chretienne de Bas-Empire I: Prosopographie de l'Afrique chretienne (303-533), Paris 1982, 947-949 s.v. Quodvultdeus 5; P. Courcelle, Histoire litteraire des grandes invasions germaniques, Paris 3 1964, 126-129. Quodvultdeus was banished shortly after the Vandal conquest of Carthage in 439 or 440 A.D. 26

Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 1,23 (11 Petsch.): [...] Quibus tamen in exilio positis dum obitus obvenisset, non licebat alios eorum civhatibus ordinari [...]. This restriction - as well as the other sanctions against the Nicene church mentioned by Victor - most probably was limited to the sees in the Provincia Proconsularis, the Vandal heartland. Cf. i.e. Vict. Vit. HP 1,22 [10 Petsch] (prohibition to exercise the Nicene cult): Et ut ad id redeamus unde digressi sumus, tenet [sc. Geisericus]praeceptis feralibus ut in medio Wandalorum nostri nullatenus respirarent neque usquam orandi aut immolandi concederetur gementibus locus, (...). 27 Deogratias was ordained bishop of Carthage on 24 October 454. For the date see Mandouze,PCBEI(seenote25),271.

484

CarlaNicolaye

congregation to elect and ordain a new bishop.28 It seems justifiable to assume that Geiseric acted upon diplomatic considerations. Valentinian III had acknowledged the Vandal's claim to power with a peace treaty in 442; 29 moreover, the two rulers had closed a marriage alliance between Geiseric's son Huneric and Valentinian's daughter Eudocia30 - and Geiseric may have felt the desire to secure these alliances by consenting to Valentinian's request. With the death of the emperor only a few months later Geiseric's indulgence became redundant, and, after the death of Deogratias in 457 A.D., Geiseric (once again) forbade the ordination of bishops for the Vandal heartland: Zeugitania and the Proconsularis. According to Victor, these provinces shared 164 bishops; a number - if we follow Victor's account - which had dwindled after Geiseric's intervention to a minimum of three, one of them in exile, some 25 years later.31 The number of 164 bishops for the proconsular province seems to be realistic,32 but whether Geiseric's prohibition of episcopal elections did have the effect described

28

29

Vict. Vit. HP 1,24 (11 Petsch.): Post haec factum est, supplicante Valentiniano Augusta, Carthaginieni ecclesiae post longum sikntium desolatinis episcopum ordinari, nomine Deogratias: (...). Prosper chron. 1347 [AD 422] (479 Mommsen): Cum Gisirico ab Augusto Valentiniano pax confirmata et certis spams Africa inter utrumque divisa est. This peace treaty divided the African provinces between the Western Roman emperor and Geiseric, the latter now also de iure gaining the control over the richest provinces, whereas the emperor was left only with the most devastated provinces. Cf Vict. Vit. HP 1,13 (7 Petsch.): Disponent quoque singulas quasqueprovincias sibi Bizacenam, Abaritanam atque Getuliam et partem Numidiae reservavit, exerchui vero Zeugitanam vel proconsularemfuniculo hereditatis divisit, Valentiniano adhuc imperatore reliquas licet iam exterminateas provincias defendente.

30

Eudocia was betrothed to Huneric sometime after the treaty of 442 (cf. Merobaudes paneg. 2,27-29 [MGH AA 14, Berlin 1905, 12, ed. F. Vollmer]) but the marriage did not follow until after the Vandal sack of Rome, when Geiseric took both Valentinian's widow and daughters - whether as hostages or on their own request can not be definitely affirmed - with him to North Africa where she married Huneric in 456 (cf. Procop. BV 3,5,6 [48f Dewing]) and became the mother of Huneric's son Hilderic (cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,19 [80 Petsch.]). This alliance also seems to have played an important role in Geiseric's decision to sack Rome at all; whether it was on the instigation of Valentinian's widow (cf. G. Moros, L'invito di Eudossia a Genserico. Studio critico, Firenze 1882; A. Gitti, Eudossia e Genserico, Archivio storico italiano 7,4, 1925, 3-38) remains uncertain.

31

Vict. Vit. HP 1,29 (13 Petsch.): Unde factum est, post obitum episcopi Carthaginis, Zeugitanae vel proconsulari provinciae episcopos interdiceret ordinandos, quorum erat numerus centum sexaginta quattuor. Qui paulatim deficiens, nunc, si vel ipsi supersunt, tres tantum esse videntur: (...). Cf. Lancel, Victor (see note 8), 288, Nr. 70.

32


485

by Victor is rather doubtful: at about the same time when, to Victor's knowledge, only three bishops remained in these provinces, a number of 461 bishops can be derived from the Notitia Provinciarum et Civitatum Africae. The Notitia is an obscure list that chronologically can be closely linked to the religious debate organized by Geiseric's son Huneric that took place in Carthage in February 484, 33 It gives the names of 54 bishops from the Provincia Proconsularis, 123 bishops from Numidia, 109 bishops from Byzacena, 120 bishops from Mauretania Caesariensis, 42 bishops from Mauretania Sitifensis, 5 bishops from the province of Tripolitana and 8 bishops from Sardinia. Bearing in mind Vict. Vit. HP 2,52: Conveniunt non solum universae Africae, verum etium insularum multarum episcopi (...), one is tempted to interpret the Notitia as an actual list of attendants of the debate in 484. Although the Notitia can indeed be dated at about 484, several scholars have convincingly shown that there are several other and more likely options; yet, they generally accept a dating in close proximity to the debate of 484, 34 To put these numbers into relation, we have of course to compare them to the number of bishops in the years before the Vandals' arrival in North Africa.35 As a result we can establish that under Vandal rule the number of Nicene bishops was not as high as it had been during the fourth century. Yet we must keep in mind that in those days African Christianity had been flourishing, and that no other region within the Roman Empire had as many bishoprics as North Africa:36 nearly every second town appears to have had its own bishop. Not seldom "dioecesis" and "dittos" were used synonymously,37 Even though many of these sees were not permanent and disappeared after a bishop died, other bishoprics would emerge elsewhere. During the Donatist schism, which had its origins in the election of a new bishop of Carthage in 311, the number of sees in Africa was once more 33 Notitia Provinciarum et Civitatum Africae (CSEL 7, 117-134, ed. M. Petschenig). 34 An in-depth analysis of the Notitia would go beyond the scope of this paper; cf Howe, Vandalen (see note 16), 82-91, who gives a detailed synthesis of the most important problems as well as a synopsis of the various interpretations of this source. Also cf. Ch. Courtois, Victor de Vita et son oeuvre. Etude critique, Algiers 1954, 9 1 100; Lancel, Victor (see note 8), 2002, 223-248. 35 For this I predominantly rely on R. Beaver, The Organization of the Church of Africa on the Eve of the Vandal Invasion, Church History 5 (1936) 168-181, who derives the numbers of bishops from F. Ferrere, La situation religieuse de l'Afrique romaine depuis la fin du IVe siecle jusqu'a l'invasion des Vandales (429), Paris 1897. 36 Cf. H. Leclercq, Dictionnaire darcheologie chretienne et de liturgie I, 1907, 576-591 s.v. Afrique (Histoire et topographie de 1'), here 583-584; Ferrere, La situation (see note 35), 15. 37 Cf. Aug. ep. 34,5 (CSEL 34.2, 26).

486

CarlaNicolaye

almost doubled, setting up "altar against altar" and bishop against bishop in each city.38 Therefore it is not at all surprising that the number of episcopal sees has been estimated as high as 700. 39 Even allowing for the duplication of dioceses, due to schism, such a number is exceedingly large. Several valuable Nicene episcopal lists exist, which - compiled by Ferrere from available sources - leave us with a list of Nicene sees numbering 594.40 But it was the Donatist church that was in ascendency shortly before the arrival of the Vandals in Africa (and when Saint Augustine became bishop of Hippo) and so probably had the larger number of prelates. Possidius informs us that there was at that time a distressing lack of clergy in the Nicene church, and that this deficiency was so thoroughly corrected by Augustine's labour and influence that by the time of his death the church was well supplied with properly educated bishops, priests, and other clergy.41 According to Beaver, by 411 the two rival churches were again quite evenly matched, at least in episcopal organization, and the lion's share of each party's episcopate must have attended the great conference at Carthage in that year.42 Saint Augustine reports that the Donatists numbered 279 and his own colleagues 2 8 6 « With 120 absentees and 64 sees vacant, the Nicene episcopate consequently numbered a total of 470 bishops.44 If we compare this number to the 466 Nicene bishops from the Notitia Provinciarum in 484, we can only conclude that during the Vandal reign their impact on episcopal succession in North Africa was not as severe as authors like Victor Vitensis wanted their readers to believe. Victor's inaccuracy in this regard could be explained away as an anachronism, but even if we assume that the number of only three remaining African bishops should be dated posterior to the measures taken by Geiseric's son Huneric - and the time when Victor himself wrote his Historic^ - Victor's statement remains rather doubtful. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Cf. Beaver, Organization (see note 35), 169. Cf. Ferrere, La situation (see note 35), 14. Cf. Ferrere, La situation (see note 35), 359-376. Cf. Possid. vit. Aug. 7. 11. 31 (38. 44ff. 102-106 Geerlings). Beaver, Organization (see note 35), 170. Cf. Aug. coll. c. Don. 1.14 (PL 43, 620). Cf. Beaver, Organization (see note 35), 170. When exactly Victor wrote and published his Historia has not been conclusively established. Nevertheless, the events mentioned by Victor give us the date of 22 December 484 (the death of Huneric; cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,71 [107 Petsch.]; on the exact date see Howe, Vandalen [see note 16], 40 with notes 52-54) as terminus post quern and 9 April 491 - the death of the emperor Zeno, mentioned HP 1,51; 2,2. 3. 38; 3,30. 32 (22; 24. 25. 38: 87. 88 Petsch.) - as terminus ante quern. For general discussions on the date of the Historia see Courtois, Victor (see note 34), 16-22; A. Pastori-


487

Later on, Victor relates of several other Vandal actions against Nicene Christians and concludes his account of the reign of Geiseric by stating that he persecuted the African Nicenes quanta sublimiter, tanto crudeliter" Although Victor wants his readers to believe that these actions were part of a persecution', a closer reading of these passages seems to indicate motives not necessarily religious. One example is Geiseric's decree, issued on the advice of his Arian bishops, that only Arians could become members of the Vandal royal courts or households.47 If Spielvogel's assumption that it must be dated after the Byzantine military campaign against the Vandals in 468 48 is indeed accurate, this decree seems to have a more political background: Geiseric wished an assurance of his court's loyalty; the court's conversion to Arianism would be a distinct way of proving loyalty to the king. The fact that Victor does not mention any kind of conflict at the king's own court,49 as well as the fact that we have evidence for Nicenes being part of Huneric's court50 after the death of Geiseric, further illustrates the limited impact of the decree. It only seems to have applied to new members, not to Nicenes already being employed at the king's court.

46 47

48 49

50

no, Osservazione sulk Historiapersecutions Africanae di Vita, in: S. Calderone (cd.), La storiografia ecclesiastica nella tarda antichita, Messina 1980, 53-57; A. Costanza, Vittore de Vita e la historia persecutions Africanae, Vetera Christianorum 17, 1980, 239-245; A. Costanza, Vittore di Vita: Storia della persecutione vandalica in Africa, Rome 1981, 12-14; Howe, Vandalen (see note 16), 38-60. Vict.Vit.HPl,51(23Petsch.). Vict. Vit. HP 1,43 (18f Petsch.): Ipso enim Geisericuspraeceperat tempore suadentibus episcopis sui, ut intra aukm suam filiorumque suorum nonnisi Arriani per diversa ministeriaponerentur. Cf J. Spielvogel, Arianische Vandalen, katholische Romer, Klio 87, 2005, 201-222, esp.206,218. Victor only knows of a conflict at the court of Geiseric's son Theoderic, who wanted to execute his employee Armogast for having refused to convert to Arianism (although this was not explicitly demanded by Geiseric's decree). His refusal did not bring him death, but he was banned from the court and forced to work on the land. Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 1,44 (19 Petsch.). Victor mentions e.g. the faith of Huneric's procurator domus Saturus, who refused to convert to Arianism and upon his refusal was exiled and banished. Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 1,48-50 (21-23 Petsch.).

488

CarlaNicolaye

Huneric If we now draw our attention to the reign of Geiseric's son Huneric, it appears as if the new Vandal king initially adopted his father's policy and during the first months of his reign even adopted a more tolerant attitude towards the Nicene church in North Africa. According to Victor's Historia Huneric took an active part in the election of a new bishop of Carthage in the year 480, three years after the death of Geiseric. After 24 years of being deprived of a bishop, Huneric - at the request of the Byzantine emperor Zeno and Placidia, the widow of the West Roman emperor Olybrius -gave the church of Carthage the freedom to ordain whomever it wished as bishop."* But this 'freedom to ordain' was bound to a condition, proclaimed by a royal edict and reproduced by Victor, who claims to have been present when it was read to the church of Carthage on June 18, 480: "You are to go ahead and ordain the man you want as your bishop, in accordance with what they have sought. There is one condition: the bishops of our religion who are at Constantinople and throughout the other provinces of the East are to have ... the right to preach to the people in whatever language they wish in their churches and to practice the Christian religion, just as you will have this right, here and in other churches which are in the provinces of Africa, to celebrate mass, preach and do the things which pertain to your religion, in whatever way you wish. Now, if this is not observed concerning them, the order is to be given for both the bishop who will be ordained and the clergy together with the other bishops with their clergy who are in the African provinces, to be sent among the Moors. 52

These lines are some of the most interesting within the entire Historia of Victor. Not only do they (at least partially) contain the authentic 53 word-

51

Vict. Vit. HP 2,2 (24 Petsch.): Dedit autem licentiam Zenone imperatore atque Placidia relicta Olibri rogantibus, ut Carthaginiensis ecclesia sibi quem velkt episcopum ordinasset

52

Vict. Vit. HP 2, 4 (25 Petsch.) Translation by Moorhead, Victor of Vita (see note 8), 25. Victor's Historia on principle has to be read with a fair amount of reservation; the authenticity of the edicts of Huneric he reproduces in his account, however, stands unchallenged. Cf. Lancel, Victor (see note 8), 22-24, as well as Howe, Vandalen (see note 16), 34 with note 28. Despite its difficulties, Victor's Historia therefore is an unexpectedly valuable source in regard to the Vandal legislation. On the publication of edicts and charters by the Vandal kings see R. Heuberger, Vandalische Reichskanzlei und Konigsurkunde im Vergleich mit verwandten Einrichtungen und Erscheinungen, in: Festschrift Oswald Redlich zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. W. Bauer, Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung Erg. Bd. 11, Innsbruck 1929, 76113.

U. 53


489

ing of a royal Vandal edict,54 they also, and most likely unintentionally, provide information which allows a reconstruction of the actual circumstances surrounding the election of Eugenius. First of all, we learn that a request was made by the emperor of the East, Zeno, and Placidia, the Western emperor Olybrius' widow. Immediately we are reminded of an earlier, similar imperial request by Valentinian after the peace treaty between Western Rome and Geiseric in 442. However, in this case there seems to be no immediate cause for the request; if there was one, our evidence does not preserve it. Neither Huneric 55 nor Zeno seem to have been in a position to assert claims, therefore, based on the lack of other evidence, the only supposable reason for Zeno to make this request must have been the complaints and request for intervention from the African Nicenes addressed to the court in Constantinople. For Huneric, one of the most important reasons to consent to the emperor's request must have been his desire to renew the peace treaty his father had made with Zeno in 475. 56 The Byzantine historian Malchus mentions an embassy sent to Huneric on behalf of the emperor,57 and although he does not speak of Zeno's request both Victor and Malchus must be referring to the same event. 54

55

56

57

The royal edicts preserved by Victor also give insight in the Vandal kings' dating system: instead of using consular dates, they dated their charters, letters, inscriptions and coins by regal years. They clearly diverged from former imperial administrative structures. Huneric was facing serious problems within the very heart of the Vandal kingdom. He suspected a developing conspiracy against his rule among his nearest relatives and advisors. Therefore he exiled his brother Theoderic and had Theoderics family and immediate entourage, as well as a number of prominent Vandals, executed. Cf Vict. Vit. HP 2,12-17 (28-30 Petsch.). Although Victor does not mention them earlier, these events must be dated prior to the election of Eugenius. Also cf. Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 75. For the treaty between Geiseric and Zeno see Procop. BV 3,7,26 (70f Dew.). Also cf. L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Wandalen, Miinchen 2 1942, 92f, Courtois, Les Vandales (see note 1), 196f; D. Henning, Periclitans res publica: Kaisertum und Eliten in der Krise des Westromischen Reiches 454/5-493 n. Chr., Stuttgart 1999, 239. The dating of this treaty is strongly disputed. D. Henning, Periclitans (see above), 239 argues for the fall of AD 467, whereas F. M. Ausbiittel, Die Vertrage zwischen den Vandalen und Romern: Romanobarbarica 11, 1991, 1-20, here 16f, R. Schulz, Die Entwicklung des romischen Volkerrechts im 4. und 5. Jh. n. Chr., Stuttgart 1993, 185 and P. Heather, The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe, in: EHR HO (1995), 4-41, here 36, believe the treaty was closed in AD 474. Malchus, frg. 17 (424ff Blockley). Fragments of the work of Malchus are only preserved in Byzantine excerpts and collected in The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, ed. R. C. Blockley, Vol. 2, Liverpool 1983.

490

CarlaNicolaye

Secondly, it becomes clear that Huneric seems to have had no intention to interfere with the actual process of election. Like Geiseric, he does not insist that a candidate of his own is elected bishop of Carthage: the Nicene congregation was free to ordain whomever it wished. Furthermore, Huneric conjoins his concession with a remarkable condition: he demands equal rights for Arian bishops in Constantinople and the East in exchange for his concession to the Nicene African church to ordain a new bishop of Carthage and allow the practice of the Nicene cult again. Although this condition must have been outrageous to Victor who, admittedly, intended to sketch a negative image of the Vandal king, this third bit of evidence sheds different light on Huneric. On the one hand we are informed of the king's apparently excellent knowledge of the situation of Arians in the East of the Roman Empire, from which we can draw conclusions regarding the Vandal's foreign policy and contacts outside their kingdom. More importantly, however, it becomes clear that Huneric is not on principle averse to the African Nicene church; he merely seems to wish an equal treatment of Arians in the East,58 a condition which, seen from an objective perspective, appears more reasonable than Victor portrays it. Huneric's demand seems to have been fulfilled: in that same year a man named Eugenius was ordained bishop of Carthage.59 According to Victor, this did not mean the end of the Vandal suppression of the Nicene church. Huneric seems to have regretted his decision rather soon. Eugenius apparently enjoyed a great popularity in Carthage, not least with Nicene members of the Vandal court.60 Whether because of the jealousy of

58

Other interpretations of this passage are possible as well. D. Claude, Probleme der vandalischen Herrschaftsnachfolge, Deutsches Archiv fur Erforschung des Mittelalters 30 (1974) 329-355, here 346, interprets Huneric's acceptance of a reoccupation of the Carthaginian episcopal see as an attempt of the Vandal king to install an independent African national Nicene church which had no more ties with the rest of the Western Roman empire. Against this see Howe, Vandalen (see note 16), 271 with note 116. Others, like e.g. Spielvogel (see note 48), 208, interpret Huneric's condition as evidence for a new religious self-concept of the Vandal king: "In seinem Verhalten spiegelt sich sein Selbstverstandis wider, fur die Gleichbehandlung der arianischen Glaubensgemeinschaft verantwortlich zu sein. Diese offene Soldidaritatsbekundung bestatigt die Intensity der ' i n t e r n a t i o n a l ' Auseinandersetzung zwischen Arianern undKatholikenim5Jahrhundert".

59

Vict. Vit. HP 2,6 (26 Petsch.): Ordinate itaque episcopo Eugenia, viro sancto deoque accepto, sublimis nam est ketitia etgaudium cumuktum est eccksiae dei. Excultans multitude cattolka sub barbara domination de ordinationepontificis reparati. Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 2,8 (27 Petsch.). Victor uses in habitu barbaro for members of the royal household. Also cf. Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 103.

60


491

the Arian bishops61 surrounding Huneric or because the king feared a renewed loyalty conflict,62 Huneric took measures to prevent members of the court visiting a Nicene mass celebrated by Eugenius.63 If we interpret his reaction as an attempt to secure his immediate entourage's loyalty, this also puts his renewal of Geiseric's decree preventing non-Arians from becoming members of the court64 in a different light. Another possible reason for Huneric to change his policy towards the Nicene church might be found in the fact that the emperor no longer met Huneric's condition for the reoccupation of the Carthaginian see. According to Victor, however, this single event heralded a general change of policy in Huneric's attitude towards the Nicene church and was the beginning of a persecution: "Hinc iam Hunerici persecutio doloris atque parturitionis nostrae sumpsit initium"* He recounts various atrocities committed against the Nicenes by the Vandals, an account so polemical that its historical value appears rather questionable, as is the number of 4,966 bishops, priests, deacons and other members of the church being sent into exile in the desert.66 Victor also tells us that Huneric contemplated another decree affecting the succession of Nicene sees when he ordered that "throughout all Africa ...the fisc was to claim as its own the possessions of dead bishops, and that the successor could not be ordained until he had paid 500 solidi to the royalfisc"67 This would not only have allowed financial control and suppression of the Nicene episcopate but would also have guaranteed Vandal interference in the election of new bishops. Whereas such a decree would have far-reaching consequences, apparently it was never de facto executed: Huneric's domestici were able to convince 61 Cf.Vict.Vit.HP2,8(27Petsch.). 62 Against the background of the recent purge, this explanation seems rather likely. 63 Cf.Vict.Vit.HP2,9(27Petsch.). 64 Cf Vict. Vit. HP 2,23 (32 Petsch.): Censetprima tyrannus iussone terribili, ut nemo in eius palatio militaret neque publicas ageret actiones, nisi sese Arianum fecisset. Also cf. Vict. Vit. HP 1,43 (18f Petsch.), mentioned above (see note 47). 65 Vict. Vit. HP 2,11(28 Petsch.). 66 Vict. Vit. HP 2,26 (33 Petsch.): Quibus autem prosequar fluminibus kcrimarumn, quando episcopos, presbyteros, diacones et alia ecclesia membra, id est quattuor milia DCCCCLXVI, ad exilium eremi destinavit? This number also includes the families of the clergymen. Also cf. the chronicle of Victor Tunnuna: Vict. Tunn. chron. a. 479,1 (MGH AA 11, 189, Mommsen,), who mentions 4000 people being banished: Hugnericus Wandalorum rex (...) catholicos iam non solum sacerdotes et cuncti ordinis clericos, sed et monachos atque laicos quattuor circiter milia exiliis durioribus relegat.... 67 Vict. Vit. HP 2,23 (32 Petsch.): Quodam tempore statuereper totam Africam festinavit, ut nostrorum episcoporum defunctorum ficus sibi substantiam vindicasset; qui autem defunto succedere poterat, non ante ordinaretur, nisifisco regali quingento solidos obtulisset. Translation by Moorhead, Victor of Vita (see note 8), 32.

492

CarlaNicolaye

him to refrain from doing so, since it would only lead to a situation in which the Arian bishops in the East would suffer far worse restrictions.68 In 483 Huneric's attitude towards the Nicene church shifted into yet another direction. The precise catalyst for such a reaction cannot be extracted from our evidence. Besides the apparent reason mentioned by Victor, that the repeated prohibition 69 to celebrate Nicene liturgy within the Vandal territories {in sortibus Wandalorum) was not obeyed by the Nicene clergy70 who therefore enraged the Vandal king, there are other options to explain Huneric's changed attitude. One of them may have been Huneric's discontent with the popularity enjoyed by bishop Eugenius, but also - once again - intra-Vandal political troubles may have been responsible. Whatever the reason may have been, it was, once again, primarily the Nicene bishops who became the target of Huneric's measures. In May 483 71 Huneric decided to summon the Nicene bishops from all the Vandal territories, including Sardinia and the Balearics,72 to attend a theological debate between Nicene and Arian representatives at Carthage on February 1* AMP The text of this edict is reproduced by Victor/ 4 as 68 69

70

71 72 73 74

Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 1,24 (33 Petsch.). This also might indicate that the treaty between Huneric and Zeno was still respected by the emperor! Huneric seems to be referring to Geiserics restrictions regarding the exercise of the Nicene cult, mentioned by Vict. Vit. HP 1,22 (10 Petsch.): Et ut ad id redeamus unde digressi sumus, terretpraeceptis feralibus ut in medio Wandalorum nostri nullatenus respirarent neque usquam orandi aut immokndi concederetur gementibus locus (...). Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 2,39 (39 Petsch.): Non semel sed saepius constat esse prohibitum ut in sortibus Wandalorum sacerdotes vestri conventus minime celebrant, ne sua seductione animasubverterent Christianas. The exact date of the decree is 20 May 483. Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 2,39 (39 Petsch.): Data sub die tertio decimo Kalendas Iunias anno septimo Hunirici. Although the exact context, as mentioned above, remains unsolved, this most likely were the bishops mentioned in the Notitia Provinciarum et Civitatum. For the date of the debate see Vict. Vit. HP 2,39 (39 Petsch.): ad diem Kalendarum Februariarumproximefiiturarum. Vict. Vit. HP 2,38f. (38f. Petsch.): Nam die ascensionis domini, legato Zenonis imperatoris Regino praesente, legendum media ecclesia episcopo Eugenio dirigh praeceptum, tali tenore conscriptum, quod etiam universae Africae veredis currentibus destinavit. (39) Rex Hunirix Wandalorum et Aknorum universis episcopis homousianis. Non semel, sed saepins constat esse prohibitum, ut in sortibus Wandalorum sacerdotes vestri conventus minime cekbrarent, ne sua seductione animas subverterent Christianas. Quam rem spementes plurimi nunc reperti sunt contra interdictum missas in sortibus Wandalorum egisse, asserentes se integram regulam Christianae fidei tehere. Et quia in provinciis a deo nobis concessis scandalum esse nolumus, ideoque dei providentia cum consensu sanctorum episcoporum nostrorum hoc nos statuisse cognoscite, ut ad diem Kalendarum Februariarum proxime futurarum, amissa omni excusatione formidinis,


493

well as Eugenius' initial response to it: Eugenius requested to have bishops from outside the Vandal territories also present for the upcoming debate, hoping those would be safe from the king's wrath and give the Nicenes an advantage in the debate/ 5 Huneric rejected this request and made his own preparations to insure the Arian representatives would be in advantage by exiling a number of Nicene bishops known for their erudition/ 6 On February 1* 484 representatives from both the Arian and Nicene African church joined in Carthage for the debate. Victor describes the course of the debate and the presentation of a Liber fidei catholicae (Book of the Catholic Faith) on the part of the Nicene bishops. This text seems to have been prepared especially for the debate77 and its contents are reproduced by Victor in its entirety/ 8 However, it could not solve the disagreements over which group was the true catholic* and the conference was not a success. Finally, after the Nicene bishops' refusal to accept the Arian creed as orthodox, Huneric on February 24 th issued a new edict which would have the gravest consequences so far/ 9 According to Victor, Huneric decreed that all African Nicenes had to convert to Arianism before June 1* 484. 80 The Nicene bishops gathered in Carthage for the debate were driven outside the city walls.81 The following passage in Victor's Historia at first glance seems to be out of place: he describes how the Vandal king has the

75 76

77

78 79

80

81

omnes Carthaginem veniatis, ut de ratione fidei cum nostris venerabilibus episcopis possitis inire confiictum, et de fide homousianorum, quam defenditis, de divinis scripturis proprie adprobetis, quo possit agnosci, si integrum fidem teneatis. Huius autem edicti tenorem universis coepiscopis tuisper universam Africam constitutis direximus.' Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 2,41-44 (40f. Petsch.). Victor mentions the bishops Secundianus of Minima, Praesidius of Sufetela as well as Mansuetus, Germanus and Fusculus - whose bishoprics remains unknown - being exiled, a certain Laetus even being executed. Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 2,45. 51 (42. 44 Petsch.). The martyrdom of Laetus is also known by Vict. Tunn. chron. a. 479 (534 Mommsen) and Isidore of Seville, Hist. Vand. 83 (PL 83, 1079). Gennadius (Gen. vir. ill. 97 [J.A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica, Hamburg 1718, Liber Genadii 44]) ascribes the authorship of the Liber Fidei to bishop Eugenius; Vict. Vit. HP 2,101 (71 Petsch.) ascribes it to a group of different bishops. Vict. Vit. HP 2,56-99 (46-70 Petsch.). Probably in preparation for the impending edict, Huneric had all Nicene churches closed and their property confiscated in favour of the Arian church. Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,2 (72 Petsch.). Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,3-14 (72-78 Petsch.). Striking are the literal adaptations of C. Th. 16,5,52 (Codex Theodosianus, vol. 1/2: Theodosiani libri xvi cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, ed. by Th. Mommsen/P. Kriiger, Hildsheim 1990, 872f) against heretics! Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,15fi (79 Petsch.).

494

CarlaNicolaye

Nicene bishops gathered at the former temple of Memoria in order to obtain from them their affirmation for his succession charter, whichagainst the model of succession suggested by his fathers-appointed Huneric's son Hilderic as his successor.83 After this, the bishops were once again banished from the city and condemned to labour on the fields as coloni or else exiled to Corsica.84 Before answering the question why we read of Huneric's succession charter at such an awkward place within the Historia, which seems to be unrelated to the theological debate or the consequences originating from it, let us first continue with Victor's further Historia. The text here continues with an account of what does indeed resemble a persecution. The episodes described by Victor are no longer restricted to the clerical or senatorial elite, and reach beyond the immediate heartland of the Vandal power.85 With regard to the topic of this paper, the banishment of bishop Eugenius,86 and soon after, of the entire Carthaginian clergy, universus clems ecclesiae Carthaginensi, some 500 priests, is of special interest.87 How can we interpret the above? The fact that Victor even mentions Huneric's attempt to assure Hilderic's succession raises the question of its connection to Huneric's religious policy, which is the predominant theme of Victor's account. For a brief moment the reader is given the impression that Huneric, after the theological debate had failed, was willing to give up his religious policy in favour of the affirmation of his son's succession. This impression is undone by the charter's theological component, 88 but the close connection between the two cannot be ignored. Therefore it is tempting to argue that Huneric used the theological dispute to implement _ _ _ 82

83 84 85 86 87 88

Geiseric had determined a succession based on the principle of seniority. This would have meant that the successor of Huneric would not have been necessarily his son Hilderic. More likely, it would have been Huneric's brother Theoderic who was next in line to the throne, but he was eliminated during the purge at the beginning of Huneric's reign. Cf.Vict.Vit.HP3,19(80Petsch.). Cf.Vict.Vit.HP3,20(81Petsch.). Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,21-54 (81-99 Petsch.), which reads as a catalogue of victims of the Vandal persecution following the edict of 484. Eugenius was banished into the desert, probably immediately after the failure of the theological debate. Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,43f. (93 Petsch.) Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,34 (89 Petsch.). Cf. Vict. Vit. HP 3,17 (80 Petsch.). Being confronted with the charter (which was read out to them), the Nicene bishops respond with the typical martyr credo: Semper dicimus et diximus et dicituri sumus: christiani sumus, episcopi sumus, apostolkam fidem unam et veram tenemus. The fact that they were promised the restitution of their churches and sees if they would convert to Arianism underlines the theological aspect of this episode.


495

his charter and not vice versa. If this is indeed true he once again would have followed in the footsteps of his father, using the religious differences as pretence to eliminate political enemies.89 Such an argumentation would also shed a very different light on the persecution' as portrayed by Victor. Indeed, some of the episodes in his account seem to also have a more secular background. The lack of further evidence supporting this thesis however does not allow us to simply discard Victor's account. The measures taken by Huneric, regardless of their underlying reasons, initially must have had a different, and probably deeper, impact on the African episcopate than the regulations issued by Geiseric. However, they soon seem to have been abandoned after the death of Huneric only a few months later.

GunthamundandThrasamund Evidence for the religious policies of Huneric's successor Gunthamund is extremely scarce. It suggests that his attitude towards the Nicene church was more tolerant than that of his predecessor. He allowed Eugenius and the Carthaginian clergy to return to Carthage and permitted them to reopen their churches.90 In the following years the Nicene episcopate seems to have had the opportunity to recover from the former years of repression. Although our sources remain silent regarding episcopal elections during this period, it can be assumed they were conducted without any interference on the part of the Vandal king. In 496 Thrasamund succeeded to the Vandal throne, and during the last years of the 5th century the African Nicenes were confronted with a king whose religious policies were, once again, mainly directed against the Nicene episcopate. According to (Pseudo-)Ferrandus, the biographer of bishop Fulgentius of Ruspe,91 the ordination of bishops was yet again 89

In favour of this argumentation, see H.-J. Diesner, Sklaven und Verbannte, Martyrer und Confessoren bei Victor Vitensis: Philologus 106, 1962, 101-120, esp. 110. Against this, see Howe, Vandalen (see note 16), 277. 90 Cf Laterculus Regum Vandalorum et Alanorum (MGH AA 13, 458-460, here 459, Th. Mommsen): tertio anno regni sui coemeterium sancti martyris Agilei apud Carthaginem cahtolicis dare praecepit Eugenic Cathaginensi episcopo iam de exilic revocato. Decimo autem anno regni sui ecclesias catholicorum aperuit et omnes del sacerdotespetente Eugenia Cartaginense episcopo de exiUo revocavit. Also cf. Vict. Tunn. chron. a. 479.2 (190 Mommsen): cui succedit Guntamundus: regnat annis XII Quis nostrosprotinus de exilio revocavit. 91 On the authorship of the Vita Fulgentii see Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe: Selected Works. Translated by R. Eno, FaCh 95, Washington 1997, 3f.

496

CarlaNicolaye

prohibited. This prohibition was disregarded by the Nicene church, and in 508/09 Thrasamund exiled over sixty bishops to Corsica, among them Eugenius of Carthage and Fulgentius of Ruspe, where they remained until they were recalled by Hilderic in 523. 92 A major difference in comparison to Huneric's religious policies, however, was Thrasamund's attempt to force Nicenes to convert by using "persuasion rather than persecution".93 Between 517 and 519 Fulgentius was recalled from his exile to compete in a theological debate with the king himself. This shows the personal interest Thrasamund took in theological questions.94 At the same time an emancipation of Arian ecclesiastical authors becomes noticeable; the African Arian church appears to have become "a serious rival to Nicene claims that they were the true church of the Romano-African population". 95 In a reaction to this development the Nicene church, mainly represented by Fulgentius, was forced to respond by theological defences.96 The dispute between Arians and Nicenes now was fought with the pen rather than the sword. With the death of Thrasamund and the succession of Hilderic, the Vandal attempt to enforce Arianism as the true orthodox creed came to an end. Hilderic recalled the Nicene bishops from exile, they were granted freedom of worship and episcopal elections were once more allowed.97 The reconquest of the African provinces by Belisarius in 533 ended the Vandal era, and with it Arianism likewise seems to have been eradicated.

Conclusions Looking back on the impact of the Vandal reign on episcopal elections, a number of conclusions can be drawn. Geiseric - unlike certain emperors

92

93 94

95 96 97

Ferrandus, S. Fulgentii Episcopi Ruspensis Vita 17. 20f. (PL 65, Paris 1861, 117-151, here 134f. 138f.). English translation by Eno, Saint Fulgentius (see note 91). On the impact of the exiled bishops in Sardinia see Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 137-139. Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 197. On the debate between Thrasamund and Fulgentius see Ferr. VF 21f. (PL 65, 139 £); Obiectiones Thrasamundi et Responiones Fulgentii (ed. CCL 91, 67-94); Fulgentius adTrasamundum (ed. CCL 91, 95-185). Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 198. On Fulgentius and the Nicene "Fight-Back" see Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 199-201. Cf. Ferr. VF 25 (PL 65, 142).


497

or Germanic rulers e.g. in Gaul98 - did not actively intervene in the elective process. He never enforced the choice of a particular candidate. Furthermore, although Geiseric does seem to have banished numerous Nicene bishops, the African episcopate continued to exist, albeit in exile, and these measures did not immediately interfere with episcopal succession. When Quodvultdeus of Carthage died in exile Geiseric not only allowed the election of a new bishop but also seems to have taken no effort to influence the outcome by putting forward a candidate of his choice or by issuing any constraints. This changed when Geiseric prohibited the election of new bishops. But if we examine the evidence drawn from our historical sources more closely, this prohibition does not seem to have circumscribed the actual number of episcopal elections. There can be more than one explanation for such a limited impact. First of all, Geiseric's actions against the Nicene episcopal elite originated from his wish for loyalty through religious conformity. Influential bishops as well as influential political figures and members of the king's entourage were equally affected; these actions however were politically, not theologically, motivated." In addition to this, Geiseric's actions seem to have been geographically limited and did not extend beyond the borders of the Vandal heartland, often not even beyond the city of Carthage.100 98

In 5 th and 6* century Gaul secular role intervened in episcopal elections on a regular basis. For Constantine Ill's and Constantius' intervention in the episcopal election in Aries and Aix (407/8 respectively 411/12) cf. Ep. Zosimi papae ad Aurelium et universes episcopos per Africam, 21. Sept. 417 (PL 20, 654-616); Prosper chron. 1247; 1292 [AD 412 resp. 426] (466; 471 Mommsen). For queen Clotild's role in the appointment of Theodorus, Proculus and Dinifius of Tours (520/21) cf. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. X, 31 (532 Krusch/Levison). For king Theuderic's role in the appointment of both Quintinian and Apolinnaris of Clermont (525/6) cf. Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. Ill, 2 (98-99 Krusch/Levison).

99

There are numerous examples to be found in which a person's religious disposition was used as pretence to either assure their loyalty to the king or to dispose of political rivals. Geiseric's treatment of Sebastianus (cf. Victor Vitensis, HP 1,19 [9 Petsch.]), who was the son of Geiseric's former military opponent, the Roman comes and register milium, Boniface, certainly has to be interpreted from this perspective. A similar episode, now regarding four Spanish members of Geiseric's entourage is passed down by Prosper chron. 1329 [(AD 437] (475f Mommsen): Per idem tempus quattuor Hispani viri, Arcadius, Paschasius, Probus, et Eutycianus dudum apud Gisericum merito sapientiae et fidelis obsequii can clarique habebantur. quos rex, ut dilectiores sibi faceret, in Arianam perfidiam transire praeceperit. Vict. Vit. HP 1,43 [18f Petsch.] (demanding the conversion to Arianism for those becoming part of the king's court) has to be interpreted in this context as well.

100 Geiseric's restrictions regarding the exercise of the Nicene cult (HP 1,22 [10 Petsch.]) were limited to the territories controlled by the Vandals {in medio Wandalorum). His prohibition of episcopal elections (HP 1,23 [11 Petsch.]) was limited to the proconsu-

498

CarlaNicolaye

In general, the same can be said for the reign of Huneric. 101 Although his changing religious policies were more influenced by theological differences, here again the king's desire for a proof of loyalty seems to have played a major role. A king so obsessed with ensuring his entourage's loyalty must have seen Eugenius and the other Nicene bishops as a serious threat to his authority and possible conspirators against his rule. Whether Huneric's fear of conspiracies was justified or a result of the king's paranoia, it certainly played a role in his religious policies.102 Once he had allowed the election of a new bishop of Carthage other elections most probably became possible as well. Even if his father's prohibition of episcopal elections should have had a serious influence on the number of elections being carried out, the Nicene church certainly would have used this fresh opportunity to elect new bishops for those sees that had become vacant. Under the reigns of Huneric's successors this situation most likely did not change. Although there is no direct evidence supporting it, elections probably were carried out whenever it was tolerated or explicitly allowed. Whereas the influence of the Vandal reign on the general position and strength of the Nicene episcopate undoubtedly had far reaching consequences,103 the election of new bishops as such seems to have suffered far less: in Vandal North Africa episcopal elections were prohibited but not prevented.

lar province. The closing of Nicene churches (mentioned, for example, in HP 1,51 [22 Petsch.]) was limited to the city of Carthage! 101 According to Howe, Vandalen (see note 16), 271, Huneric's banishing of 4966 Nicene Christians comprised the entire clergy of the procunsular province. Notwithstanding its extent, this measure did not transgress the sortes Wandalorum. The disregarded restrictions regarding the exercise of the Nicene cult during the reign of Huneric (HP 2,39 [39 Petsch.]) refer to those of Geiseric (HP 1,22 [10 Petsch.]) and therefore were geographical as well. The edict of 484 and the actions against Nicenes however broadened the geographical parameter, cf. HP 3,21 (81 Petsch.): per universas Africanae terraeprovincias; HP 3,27 (85 Petsch.): Adrumetinae (Hadrumetum, Provincia Byzacena); HP 3,28 (86 Petsch.): Tambaiensum (Thambaia, Provincia Byzacena); HP 3,29 (86 Petsch.): Tipasensi (Tipasa, Mauretania Ceasariensis); HP 3,45 (94 Petsch.): Tamallumensi (Turris Tamalluma, Provincia Byzacena). 102 Cf. Berndt, Konflikt und Anpassung (see note 3), 223: "Wie Geiserich ging es also auch Hunerich zunachst urn die Provinzialromer in seiner Umgebung; ihre Treue wollteersichversichern." 103 On the impact of the Vandal reign on the infrastructure, authority and internal cohesion of the African Nicene church see Merrills/Miles, The Vandals (see note 1), 201f.

Bischofswechsel in Edessa zur Zeit der christologischenAuseinandersetzung Claudia Rammelt Der Aufsatz will sich dem konkreten Bischofswechsel im Jahre 435 von dem kyrillisch gepragten Monchsbischof Rabbula (412-435) zu dem im Gedankengut Theodor von Mopsuestias verwurzelten Ibas von Edessa (gest. 457) widmen, der ganz im Kontext der christologischen Kontroverse steht. Nach einer skizzenhaften Darstellung der Verhaltnisse und Ereignisse in der nordmesopotamischen Metropole sollen den Mittelpunkt der Ausfuhrungen Uberlegungen bilden, die den grundlegenden theologischen Wechsel an der Bischofsspitze moglich machten.

Verhaltnisse in der Stadt. Eine Skizze Das Evangelium Jesu Christi wurde schon fruh in Edessa verkundet und das Christentum existierte in vielfaltigen heterodoxen Schattierungen.1 Im Laufe der Zeit verlor sich allerdings die in der nordmesopotamischen Metropole existente Vielfalt. Sie geriet zunehmend in reichskirchliches Fahrwasser.2 1

Zur Christianisierung Edessas die alteren Arbeiten u.a. von W. Bauer, Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei. Mit einem Nachtrag herausgegeben von G. Strecker, BHTh 10, Tubingen 2 1964, 6-48; F.C. Burkitt, Urchristentum im Orient, Tubingen 1907, 1-24; F. Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte. Nach orientalischen Quellen, Leipzig 1925, 70-93; aus der neueren Literatur sei nur verwiesen auf L.W. Barnard, The Origins and Emergence of the Church in Edessa, VigChr 22, 1968, 161-175; H.J.W. Drijvers, East of Antioch. Forces and Structure in the Development of Early Syria Theology. Main Lecture given at the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Sept. 1983, Studia patristica, Vol. XVII, ed. by E. A. Livingstone, Kalamazoo Mich. 1989f, 1-17; aber auch A.F.J. Klijn, Das Thomasevangelium und das altsyrische Christentum, VigChr 15, 1961, 146-159; J.B. Segal, When Did Christianity Come to Edessa?, in: Middle East Studies and Libraries. FS J. D. Pearson, hrsg. von B.C. Bloomfield, London 1980, 179-191.

2

Die reichskirchliche Linie war zunehmend bestrebt, die heterodoxen Stromungen in das eine Christentum als Ausdruck des wahren Verstandnisses einzugliedern. Neben dem edessenischen Theologen Ephram (gest. 373), begegnet in dem Monchsbischof

500

Claudia Rammelt

Im 5. Jahrhundert bestimmte die reichskirchliche Linie die Diskussion um die Frage der Christologie, eine Polarisation fand nunmehr innerhalb dieserselbststatt. 3

Die Rezeption der christologischen Positionen Die antiochenische Tradition war von der Schule der Perser bereits vor dem Ausbruch der christologischen Kontroverse aufgegriffen worden und hatte sich an ihr zur bestimmenden theologischen Norm entwickelt.4

3

4

Rabbula eine weitere Figur edessenischer Kirchengeschichte, die sich mit Vehemenz fur die grofikirchliche Orthodoxie einsetzte und als Ketzerbekampfer eifrig bemiiht war, Bardaisaniten, Arianer, Marcioniten, Manichaer und Messalianer zur rechtglaubigen Kirche zuriickzufiihren. - Vgl. G.G. Blum, Rabbula von Edessa. Der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe, CSCO 300 Subs. 34, Louvain 1969, 94-106. Literatur zu Rabbula ist zusammengefasst bei K. Pinggera, Rabbula von Edessa, in: Syrische Kirchenvater, hrsg. von W. Klein, Stuttgart 2004, 57-70. Die Frage nach Jesus Christus bestimmte von Anbeginn das christliche Denken. Die christologische Diskussion geriet im funften jahrhundert ins offentliche theologische Fahrwasser. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Nestorius (gest. 451) und Kyrill von Alexandrien (gest. 444) spitzte sich in Briefwechseln und Stellungnahmen zunehmend zu, so dass ein Konzil zur Klarung unausweichlich wurde. Das rief Kaiser Theodosios II. (408-450) nach Ephesus fur das Jahr 431 ein. Die Fiille der Literatur zur christologischen Kontroverse aufzulisten, ist nicht moglich. Es sei hier nur auf einige wenige Gesamtdarstellungen verwiesen. - Vgl. L. Abramowski, Der Streit um Diodor und Theodor zwischen den beiden ephesinischen Konzilien, in: ZKG 67, 1955/56, 2 5 2 287; K. Beyschlag, Grundrifi der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. II Gott und Mensch, Teil 1 Das christologische Dogma, Darmstadt 1991, 77-134; A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Bd. 1, Freiburg u. a. Sonderausgabe der dritten Auflage 1990/2004, 642-775; A. Grillmeier/A. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalcedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3 Bd.-e, Wiirzburg 1951-1954, '1979; C.J. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte. Nach den Quellen bearbeitet, Bd. 2, Freiburg i. Br. 2 1875, Nachdruck Hildesheim/New York 1973, 141-578; A.M. Ritter, Dogma und Lehre in der Alten Kirche, in: Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, Bd. 1, Gottingen 21999, 222-283; F. Winkelmann, Die ostlichen Kirchen in der Epoche der christologischen Auseinandersetzungen (5. bis 7. Jahrhundert), KGE 1/6, Leipzig ^1994, insbsd. 71-93 und die entsprechenden Ausfiihrungen in der neueren Darstellung Die Geschichte des Christentums. Religion, Politik, Kultur, Bd. 2 und 3, hrsg. von J.-M. Mayeur u.a., Freiburg i. Br. u.a. 1996, Nachdruck 2005, Bd. 2, 570-626 und Bd. 3, 3-119. Caspar D.G. Miiller spricht von einer Pflegestatte der antiochenischen Theologie in syrischem Gewande. - Vgl. C.D.G. Miiller, Geschichte der orientalischen Nationalkirchen, KIG Bd. 1, Lieferung D 2, Gottingen 1981, 279. Zur Schule von Edessa: H.J.W. Drijvers, The School of Edessa. Greek Learning and Local Culture, in: ders., Centres of Learning. Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East, Leiden u.a. 1995, 49-59; E.R. Hayes, L'Ecole d'Edesse, Paris 1930; R. Nelz,

Bischofswechsel in Edessa zur Zeit der christologischen Auseinandersetzung

501

Die Etablierung des vordergriindig theodorianischen Gedankenguts lag nicht in besonderen Vorlieben des Schulleiters Qijore, wie glaubhaft gemacht werden konnte. 5 Der Enthusiasmus, der durch das Ubersetzungsprojekt freigesetzt wurde, stent dafur.6 Auch ist die Ubernahme vordergrundig nicht mit in einer theologischen Verschrankung der syrischen und antiochenischen Tradition auszumachen, da sich auf der Grundlage des syrischen Erbes die kontraren christologischen Richtungen entfalteten/ Die Perserschule unter der Leitung des Qijore etablierte griechisches Denken auf syrischem Boden als Ausdruck eines wissenschaftlichen Rezeptionsvorgangs, der Edessa allzeit eigen war.8 Anders als die antiochenische Tradition konnte das alexandrinische Erbe nicht auf einen solchen tiefgrundigen Rezeptionsvorgang bereits vor Ausbruch der Kontroverse blicken. Der Monchsbischof Rabbula wurde

5

6

7

8

Die theologischen Schulen der morgenlandischen Kirchen wahrend der sieben ersten christlichen jahrhunderte in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Ausbildung des Klerus, Bonn 1916 (Diss.), 53-76; A. Voobus, History of the School of Nisibis, CSCO 266 Subs. 26, Louvain 1965, 1-32. Ephrams Schriften und Denken bildeten zusammen mit den anderen friihsyrischen Schriften die normativen Grofien syrischer Theologie auch an der Schule der Perser. Es verwundert daher, wenn der Schulleiter Qijore bedauert, dass die exegetischen Werke des Schrifterklarers, gemeint ist Theodor von Mopsuestia, noch nicht in die syrische Sprache iibertragen worden sind. - Vgl. Barhadbsabba 'Arbaya, Cause de la fondation des ecoles, ed. A. Scher, PO 18, Fasc. 5 (= No. 45), Paris 1932/13, NachdruckTurnhout 1994/83, 382. In den letzten jahrzehnten des 4. jahrhunderts und den ersten jahrzehnten des 5. Jahrhunderts hatte eine rege und weit reichende Ubersetzungstatigkeit an der Schule eingesetzt. Bei der an der Schule der Perser geleisteten Ubersetzungsarbeit traten die Werke Diodor von Tarsus und Theodor von Mopsuestias in den Mittelpunkt. Man hatte bereits im Jahre 428 fast alle Schriften Theodors ins Syrische iibertragen. - Vgl. zuletzt Chr. Lange, „Ich habe ein Streitgesprach gefuhrt", in: Die Suryoye und ihre Umwelt, 4. Deutsches Syrologensymposium in Trier 2004, FS fur Wolfgang Hage, hrsg. von M. Tamcke und A. Heinz, Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 36, Miinster 2005, 404f [387-405]. Vgl. A. Grillmeier/Th. Hainthaler, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Bd. 2/3, Freiburg i. Br. u.a., Sonderausgabe 3 1990/2004, 438-659. Ausgehend vom syrischen Kontext wird aufgezeigt, wie auf diesem Boden miaphysitische Theologen wie Philoxenos (gest. 523) ihr Gedankengeriist entwickeln konnten, aber auch diaphysitischeGeisterwieHabbib. Vgl. S. Brock, From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning, in: East of Byzantium, hrsg. von N. Garsoi'an, Washington 1982, 17-34; H J . W . Drijvers, The School of Edessa (s. Anm. 4), 49-59. Den griechischen Geist im Denken Ephrams macht U. Possekel, Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO 580 Subs. 102, Louvain 1999 aus.

502

Claudia Rammelt

zum Protektor der alexandrinischen Haltung spatestens nach dem Konzil von Ephesus im Jahre 431. 9 Uber die Grunde der Annahme wurde viel gemutmafk 10 Schliefflich sind sie nicht monokausal bestimmbar, sondern so komplex, wie die damaligen gesellschaftlichen Umstande und das Leben selbst. Der Gesinnungswechsel bleibt bei alien versuchten BeweisfUhrungen ein zu beobachtendes Phanomen, das Rabbula mit anderen Bischofen seiner Zeit gemeinsamist. 11

Auseinandersetzungen um die christologische Wahrheit. Schlaglichter In der antiken Metropole Edessa hatten sich die kontraren christologischen Positionen durch renommierte Meinungstrager der Stadt etabliert. Bald nach dem Konzil von Ephesus im Jahre 431 war diese Wirklichkeit nicht mehr nur von der Protektion der eigenen Position gekennzeichnet, sondern eine offene Feindschaft und Auseinandersetzung bestimmte die Situation in der nordmesopotamischen Stadt. Der offensive Kampf richtete sich von autoritativer Seite gegen die antiochenische Lehrtradition. Schon bald nach dem gescheiterten Konzil von Ephesus im Jahre 431 forcierte Rabbula den religiosen Wettbewerb um 9

Der Bericht des Hagiographen spricht nur im Rahmen seiner Schilderung der Mafinahmen gegen die Ketzer fiber die christologische Position Rabbulas und stellt die kyrillische Pragung als Selbstverstandlichkeit dar (J.J. Overbeck, (ed.), S. Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae Episcopi Edesseni, Balaei aliorumque opera selecta, Oxonii 1865, 195), obgleich die theologische Pragung Rabbulas dies nicht zuvorderst nahe legt. Rabbula fiihrte nach seiner Bekehrung ein intensives Glaubensgesprach mit dem Bischof Eusebios von Qennesrin und Akakios von Beroea (gest. zwischen 432 und 437), Geistlichkeiten, die von der antiochenischen Theologie gepragt waren. Nach einer Aussage des Ibas soil Rabbula die Schriften Theodors gelesen und sogar verehrt haben (ACO II.1.3, 33,36-37). Das unterstiitzt auch Barhadbsabba 'Arbaya (Barhadbsabba 'Arbaya, Fondation, 380).

10

Vgl. u.a. Blum, Rabbula (s. Anm. 2), 142-147.167f; H.J.W. Drijvers, Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa. Spiritual Authority and Secular Power, in: Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious Power in Early Christianity, hrsg. von ders. und J. W. Watt, Leiden u.a. 1999, 149; M. Kohlbacher, Rabbula in Edessa. Das Weiterwirken eines Schismas in der armenischen Bekenntnistradition, in: Blicke gen Osten. FS fur Friedrich Heyer, hrsg. von M. Tamcke, Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 30, Miinster 2004, 232-274. Bischofe einstiger antiochenischer Uberzeugung wie Akakios von Melitene (gest. 438) werden zu vehementen Verteidigern der alexandrinischen Christologie. Auch noch in spaterer Zeit begegnete beispielsweise in der Gestalt des Philoxenos ein Theologe, der trotz der Pragung der edessenischen Lehranstalt fur die miaphysitische Gesinnung eintrat.

11


503

die wahre Uberzeugung. Das durch die Quellen provozierte und durch die Forschung vertiefte Bild, dass Rabbula der unterdriickten, aber doch rechtma&gen alexandrinischen Position nur zu ihrem Reck verhelfen wollte, ist der Ausgangspunkt aller seiner Bestrebungen.12 Zur Durchsetzung seiner Ziele scheute er nicht davor zuruck, mit Gewalt vorzugehen und die theodorianischen Edessener direkt anzugreifen.13 Rabbula, der das kirchliche Leben durch den Arius redivivius bedroht sah, anathematisierte Theodor von Mopsuestia als die Wurzel des Ubels vor der gesamten Gemeinde und sprach den Bann liber alle die aus, die Theodors Schriften lasen oder besafien.14 Zieht man den Bericht des Kirchengeschichtsschreibers Barhadbsabba Arbaya heran, dann verbrannte Rabbula als Zeichen der Verabscheuung die Bucher Theodors. 15 Seine administrative Dominanz liefi ihn nicht nur uberzeugt sein, mit seinen MaEnahmen gegen seine theologischen Kontrahenten rechtmafiig zu handeln, sondern bot ihm gleichermaEen das Instrumentarium fur diese Schritte, obgleich sie aufgrund des Konzilsausgangs im Jahre 431 einer wirklichen Grundlage entbehrten. Die Situation in dieser Zeit beschreibt Ibas in seinem Brief an den Perser Mari als eine Zeit des Streits und Zerwurfnisses.16 Der Frage nach der Wahrheit war der edessenische Episkopos mit gewaltsam destruierenden Aktionen mit dem unbedingten Ziel begegnet, die andere Position dadurch zum Schweigen zu bringen, ein Weg, den das administrative Zentrum Antiochia nicht billigte. Der Patriarch von Antiochien sah sich dazu angehalten, diese unlautere Verfolgung zu unterbinden und forderte die Bischofe der Osrhoene in einem Schreiben auf, sich solange der Gemeinschaft mit ihrem Bischof zu enthalten, bis dieser sich gerechtfertigt und fur sein Verhalten gebuEt habe.17 Als Metropolit der Gemeinschaft seiner Bischofe verlustig, hatte Rabbula auch die Verfugungsgewalt uber diese verloren. Dass Rabbula trotzdem zur BuEe nicht wirklich bereit war, zeigen die Entwicklungen in der Stadt und die Briefe an seinen geistigen Vater Kyrill. In diesen bringt er einmal mehr zum Ausdruck, dass er allein in der alexandrinischen

12 Vgl. Blum, Rabbula (s. Anm. 2), 173f. 13 Ibas bezeichnet Rabbula in seinem Brief an den Perser Mari als Tyrannen, eine Beschreibung, die ihn als Herrscher disqualifizierte und Missbrauch seiner Befugnisse vorwarf.-Vgl. ACO 11.1.3,33,26. 14 Vgl. ACO 1.4.2, 86-87. 15 Vgl. Barhadbsabba 'Arbaya, Fondation, 381. 16 Vgl. ACO II.1.3, 34,2-3; dazu E. Schwartz, Uber echte und unechte Schriften des Bischofs Proklus von Konstantinopel, Konzilsstudien, Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strafiburg Heft 20, Strafiburg 1914, 23f 17 Vgl. ACO 1.4, 87,9-18.

504

Claudia Rammelt

Christologie die Wahrheit erblickt und fur diese unerbitterlich kampfen wurde.18 Im Zusammenhang der Unionsbemiihungen kann sich Rabbula dann fur kurze Zeit entschlieEen, die MaEnahmen gegen seine theologischen Gegner zu stoppen, bevor er zu einer erneuten Offensive aufruft.19 Der edessenische Bischof trug die Feindseligkeit gegenuber der antiochenischen Haltung schon bald nach den Bemuhungen um die Union uber die Diozosangrenzen nach Armenien hinaus, ein Schritt, der n i c k nur seine Entschlossenheit, sondern vor allem auch die Bedeutsamkeit des Kampfes um die rechtglaubige christologische Position zeigt.20 Rabblulas Bestrebungen sind vehement und seine Stofoichtung ist klar. Im Jahre 435 verstirbt der Monchsbischof. Ein Bischofswechsel steht in dieser Situation an.

Die Wahl des Ibaszum Bischof Nach den skizzierten Bestrebungen des charakterstarken Monchsbischofs ware im Grunde zu erwarten gewesen, dass dieser zusammen mit seinen Parteigangern, auch von auEerhalb, vorsondiert hat und diese einen geeigneten Kandidaten aus den eigenen Reihe protegieren. Robert Doran konstatiert vor diesem Hintergrund in seiner Darstellung, dass niemand damit gerechnet hatte, dass der theologische Kontrahent Ibas der Nachfolger von Rabbula wird.21 Aber diese Tatsache soil im Jahr 435 Wirklichkeit werden: 18 19

20

21

Vgl. Blum, Rabbula (s. Anm. 2), 174-179. Zumindest musste er seine direkten Angriffe auf die theologischen Kontrahenten einstellen, da sie nunmehr Grund und Anlass verloren hatten. Der Druck zum Einvernehmen kam auch aus den eigenen Reihen. Kyrill brachte in einem Brief an Rabbula seinen Arger fiber einen unzureichenden Friedensvorschlag des Akakios vor und erwartete eine weitere Initiative des Johannes (vgl. A C O 1.4.2, 140). Aufcrdem berichtete Andreas von Samosata (gest. nach 444) in einem Brief, dass die ihm zuvor sehr feindlichen Bischofe Gamallinos und Rabbula Frieden geschlossen hatten und zur Wahrheit zuriickgekehrt waren (vgl. ACO 1.4.2, 136-137). Schliefilich soil nach einer Notiz des Alexander an Theodora von Kyros (gest. um 458/60) die Nachricht fiber Rabbulas Friedensbemiihungen bis zu Nestorius gedrungen sein (vgl. ACO 1.4.2, 187). Zu den Vorgangen in Armenien aufcrten sich bisher vor allem Blum, Rabbula (s. Anm. 2), 182-195, vor allem aber die Aufsatze von V. Inglisian, Die Beziehungen des Patriarchen Proklus von Konstantinopel und des Bischofs Akakios von Melitene zu Armenien, OrChr 41, 1957, 35-50; G. Winkler, Die spatere Uberarbeitung der armenischen Quellen zu den Ereignissen der Jahre vor bis nach dem Ephesinum, OrChr 70, 1986, 143-180; J. Rist, Proklos von Konstantinopel und sein Tomus ad Armenios - Untersuchungen zu Leben und Wirken eines konstantinopolitanischen Bischofs des V. Jahrhunderts, Wiirzburg 1993 (Diss.), 185-248. Vgl. R. Doran, Stewards of the Poor. The Man of God Rabbula, and Hiba in FifthCentury Edessa, Cictercian Studies Series 208, Kalamazoo 2006, 111.


505

der eher aus dem akademischen Bereich stammende Ibas, eine Christologie ganz im Sinne Theodor von Mopsuestias vertretend, wird der neue Amtsinhaber.

IbasalsgeeigneterKandidat Ibas war in die christliche Lebensgemeinschaft hineingeboren und mit dem christlichen Milieu vertraut, wie sein Name nahe legt.22 Uber seine Kindheit und Jugendzeit schweigen die Quellen; auch kann aufgrund der wenigen Notizen uber seinen weiteren Lebensweg nur gemutmaEt werden. So durchlief er vermutlich im Gegensatz zu dem aus dem monastischen Milieu stammenden Rabbula die klerikale Amterlaufcahn, ehe er das Amt des Bischofs ubertragen bekam.23 So konnte Ibas als Presbyter in der Kirche in Edessa tatig gewesen sein, was in der Forschung verschiedentlich begrundungslos angenommen wurde.24 Daneben war Ibas in das Leben und die Arbeit der „Perserschule" integriert. Er war m a % b l i c h an dem Ubersetzungsprojekt der Schule beteiligt. Sein Verdienst bestand vor allem in der Ubersetzung der griechischen Schriften und damit in der Etablierung und Starkung der antiochenischen Christologie als theologisches Proprium in der Frage nach Jesus Chrisms in Edessa.25 Er fungierte aber nicht nur als Ubersetzer, sondern auch als organisatorischer Leiter des Projekts.26 Schenkt man der in ihrer Echtheit umstrittenen Angabe der Chronik von Arbela Glauben, dann unterrichte-

22

23 24

25

26

Zum Namen des edessenischen Bischofs: C. Rammelt, Ibas von Edessa. Rekonstruktion einer Biographie und dogmatischen Position zwischen den Fronten, AKG 106, Berlin/New York 2008, 3 5 ^ 1 . Vgl. L. Pietri, Das Hinweinwachsen des Klerus in die antike Gesellschaft, in: Die Geschichte des Christentums, Bd. 2 (s. Anm. 3), 647. Vgl. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschlufi der christlichpalastinensischen Texte, Bonn 1922, Nachdruck 1968, 101; Ch. Fraisse-Coue, Von Ephesus nach Chalcedon. Der „trugerische Friede" (433-451), in: Die Geschichte des Christentums, Bd. 3 (s. Anm. 3), 4; I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia syriaca, Rom 2 1965, 92. „Der heilige Theodor interpretierte die Schriften in Griechisch, und Mar Hiba, Bischof von Edessa, iibersetzte sie vom Griechischen ins Syrische, zusammen mit anderen Mannern, die in den heiligen Schriften trainiert waren." - Zitiert und iibersetzt nach A. Voobus, History (s. Anm. 4), 17, der auf eine Handschrift aus dem britischen Museum verweist. Das forciert Johannes von Ephesus, der ihn als Promotor fur die Schule von Edessa bezeichnet. - Vgl. E.W. Brooks (ed.), John of Ephesus. Lives of the Eastern Saints 1, PO 17 Fasc. 1 (=No. 82), Paris 1923, Nachdruck Turnhout 1983, 139.

506

Claudia Rammelt

te er auch noch an derselbigen.27 Aus dem Brief an den Perser Mari erfahrt man, dass der bilinguale Ibas ein ausgepragtes historisch-theologisches Interesseverfolgteundvertiefte. 28 Durch genau diesen Brief ist Ibas bekannt geworden.29 Seine theologische Position ist in diesem klar erkennbar: Er offeriert eine Christologie ganz im Sinne Theodor von Mopsuestias. Als grundlegendes Bekenntnis formuliert er: zwei Naturen, eine Person, eine Kraft.30 Auch die noch bei Ibas verhandelten Themen wie beispielsweise die Rede von dem Tempel und dem, der in ihm wohnt, aber auch die heftige Bestreitung der Leidensfahigkeit Jesu Christi, wie auch das Verstandnis Marias weisen ganz klar auf die theodorianische Vorstellungswelt,31 Auch die Unionsformel interpretiert Ibas im Anschluss an Theodor von Mopsuestia,32 Nestorius konnteerbedenkenlosopfern, 33

Die Quellenlage und Gegenstand der Untersuchung Die verschiedenen Quellen konstatieren den Tod Rabbulas und den folgenden Bischofsantritt des Ibas ganz nuchtern: Edessenische Chronik LIX: Am 8. Ab des Jahres 746 schied Rabbula, Bischof von Orhai, aus der Welt. Sein Nachfolger wurde dererhabeneHiba, 34 Elias von Nisibis: Annus 746. Eo Rabbula episcopus Edessae mortuus est etstetit post eumHiba, 35 Barhebraeus: Edessae sedit post Rabulam Ibas Nestorianus,36 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36

Vgl. P. Kawerau (cd.), Die Chronik von Arbela, CSCO 467/468, Syr. 199/200 (textus/versio), Louvain 1985, 18 (70/95 [T./Ubs.]). Vgl. ACO 11.1.3,32,12-14. Vgl. ACO 11.1.3,32,9-34,27. Vgl. ACO 11.1.3,33,1-2. Vgl. ausfiihrlich C. Rammelt, Ibas von Edessa (s. Anm. 22), 90-98. Vgl. ACO 11.1.3,34,23-25. Vgl. ACO 11.1.3,32,18-21. Edess. Chronik LIX, ed. L. Hallier, Untersuchungen fiber die Edessenische Chronik. Mit dem syrischen Text und einer Ubersetzung, Leipzig 1892. Elias von Nisibis, Op. chron. 113/54,26-27 [T./lat. Ubs.], ed. E.W. Brooks, Eliae Metropolitae Nisibeni. Opus Chronologicum I, CSCO 62*/Syr. 21 textus, CSCO 63*/Syr. 23 versio, = Syr. Ser. III/7, Paris 1910. Barhebraeus, Chronicon, Chron. eccl. 156 [T./lat. Ubs.], ed. J.B. Abbeloos, T.J. Lamy, Gregorii Barhebraei. Chronicon Ecclesiasticum 1, Paris/Lovanii 1872. So auch Chron. anonymum ad a. 819 pert., 6/3 [T./lat. Ubs.], ed. J.B. Chabot, in: Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens I. Praemissum est Chronicon anonymum ad A.D.


507

Ansonsten sind keine weiteren Zeugnisse enthalten, die direkt liber den Bischofswechsel im Jahre 435 berichten, ein Uberraschender Blick in die Quellen, da ein solcher Wechsel eigentlich kommentierungswiirdig erscheint. Die Ereignisse und auch der Quellenbefund lassen die Frage diskutieren, welche formalen, aber auch reichskirchlichen und innerstadtischen Gegebenheiten genau diesen Wechsel moglich machten. Die wissenschaftliche Forschung hat sich zu den Hintergriinden des Bischofswechsel bisher eher verhalten geauEert: die Arbeit von Georg Gunther Blum uber das Leben und Denken Rabbulas fragt nicht, wie dieser Wechsel uberhaupt moglich wurde, sondern schreibt fast wehmutig uber die Bischofsbesetzung: „Durch das Episkopat des Ibas und die Wiederbelebung der Schule der Perser musste das tiefste Anliegen Rabbulas einen schweren Ruckschlag erhalten, ja sein Erbe stand in Gefahr, ganz verloren zu gehen."37 Die neuere Arbeit von Robert Doran Stewards of the Poor" stellt das kontrare Profil der aufeinander folgenden Bischofe in der nordmesopotamischen Metropole heraus und vermutet lediglich, dass die Bischofswahl nicht ohne Opposition von statten ging, zumal reichskirchlich die Feindschaft gegen Theodor von Mopsuestia wuchs.38 Die folgenden Uberlegungen verstehen sich als Versuch, Faktoren und Umstande herauszukristallisieren, die den Wechsel begunstigten bzw. ermoglichten. Dafur sollen die verschiedensten Entscheidungstrager und Interessenten befragt werden. Die Ausfuhrungen bewegen sich vor allem im Bereich der Vermutungen. Die hinzugezogenen Ereignisse und Verknupfungen lassen sie als historische Erwagungen in jedem Falle moglich sein.

Faktoren und Umstande des Bischofswechsels - historische Erwagungen a) Uber die Osrhoene erstreckte sich der Arm der Stadt am Orontes. Die reichskirchliche Gemeinde Edessas war administrativ an Antiochia gebunden. Kapitel sechs des Konzils von Nicaa fixierte die Obergewalt

37 38

819 pertinens, curante Barsaum, in: CSCO 81 Syr. 36 (textus), CSCO 109 Syr. % (versio) = Syr. Ser. 111/14, Lovanii 1920/1937; Chron. anonymum ad a. 846, 2 1 4 , 1 2/163,24-25 [T./lat. Ubs.], ed. E.W. Brooks u.a., int. I.-B. Chabot, in: Chronica Minora. CSCO 3 Syr. 3 = Syr. Ser. Ill 4/2 (textus/versio), Parisiis 1904, 1 5 7 238/121-180 [T./t)bs.]; Ps.Dion., Chron. anonymum, 211/157 [T./lat. Ubs.], ed. J.B. Chabot, Chronicum anonymum pseudo-dionysianum vulgo dictum I, in: CSCO 91 Syr. 43 (textus), 121 Syr. 66 (versio), = Syr. Ser. III/l, Lovanii 1927/1949. Blum,Rabbula(s.Anm.2),196f. Vgl. R. Doran, Steward of the Poor (s. Anm. 21), 111.

508

Claudia Rammelt

Antiochias Uber den Orient.39 Formal hieE das unter anderem auch, dass dem Patriarchen das Recht oblag, den Bischof der Provinzen zu weihen. Diese Weihe sollte durch eine Wahl festgelegt werden, die den Anspruchen des Patriarchen und der Provinzialsynode, aber auch denen der lokalenKircheRechnungtrug. Seit dem Jahre 428 war Johannes Patriarch von Antiochien, der gemeinsam mit Nestorius und Theodor von Mopsuestia im EuprepiosKloster in der Nahe von Antiochia seine theologische Ausbildung erfahren hatte.40 Auf dem Konzil von Ephesus im Jahre 431 war er zum Anwalt der Lehre von der wahren Menschheit und wahren Gottheit Christi und auch des Nestorius geworden « Das im Jahre 433 entstandene „Unionspapier" unterschreibt er nach Vermittlungen zwischen ihm und Kyrill. Letztlich ruckt er dadurch aber nicht wirklich von der antiochenischen Uberzeugung ab, seinen Freund Nestorius ist er allerdings bereit zu opfern.42 Dem antiochenischen Patriarchen war sehr daran gelegen, nicht nur das Unionssymbol, sondern vor allem auch die Verdammung des Nestorius zu einer wirklichen Anerkennung zu bringen. Diese Haltung fordert er auch von den Bischofen seiner Provinz ein, aber er vermochte es nicht, alle darauf zu verpflichten. Bischof Rabbula konnte sich - wie bereits erwahnt - nur kurz durchringen, der Haltung des geistigen Oberhauptes zu folgen. Johannes erwirkte deshalb ein Dekret, alle widerspenstigen Bischofe von ihren Bischofssitzen verweisen zu diirfen « Es liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass Johannes Rabbula eher kritisch gegenuberstand und ihm wichtig war, die theodorianischen Edessener zu 39

40

41

42 43

Vgl. J. Wohlmuth (Hg.), Konzilien des ersten Jahrtausends. Vom Konzil von Nicaa (325) bis zum Vierten Konzil von Konstantinopel (869/870), in: Dekrete der okumenischen Konzilien, hrsg. vom Instituto per le Scienze Religiose Bologna, Bd. 1, Paderborn 32002, 7/8 [T./Ubs.]; dazu u.a. W. Hagemann, Die rechtliche Stellung der Patriarchen von Alexandrien und Antiochien. Eine historische Untersuchung, ausgehend von Kanon 6 des Konzils von Nizaa, OstKSt 13, 1964, 180-191. Eine Gesamtdarstellung zu seiner Person fehlt bisher. In den verschiedenen Lexika sind kurze Lebensbilder zu finden. So auch S. Miiller-Abels, Johannes von Antiochien, in: LACL, Freiburg i. Br. u.a. 3 2002, 374f. Die Bestrebungen des Patriarchen innerhalb der christologischen Auseinandersetzung konnen in der einschlagigen Literatur zu den christologischen Streitigkeiten nachvollzogen werden. So beispielsweise auch bei Ch. Fraisse-Coue, Die theologische Diskussion zur Zeit Theodosius' II., in: Geschichte des Christentums, Bd. 2 (s. Anm. 3), 593f. 606-609. Vgl. Fraisse-Coue, Von Ephesus nach Chalcedon (s. Anm. 24), Bd. 3, 5f. Vgl. A C O 1.4, 166,38-167,2. Ausfiihrlich zu dem Vorgehen des Johannes von Antiochien gegen die Widersacher der Union und der Absetzung des Nestorius bei Ch. Fraisse-Coue, Von Ephesus nach Chalcedon, in: Geschichte des Christentums, Bd. 3 (s. Anm. 3), 17-23.


509

unterstiitzen. Das unterstreicht auch sein Verhalten im Jahre 438, als erstmals Beschwerden gegen Ibas laut wurden « Letztlich konnte ihm als Wachter liber den inneren Frieden der Provinz nur daran gelegen sein, einen meinungskonformen Bischof fur die nordmesopotamische Metropole zu bestimmen. Der zukunftige Amtsinhaber Edessas liegt auch ganz auf dieser Linie: fuEend auf einer Christologie theodorianischer Provenienz, erkennt er die Unionsformel an und ist bereit, Nestorius zu opfern. Mit dem Tod Rabbulas hatten die antiochenischen Krafte der Provinz Osrhoene ihren erbitterten Gegner verloren, ein Zustand, der fur Antiochia die Gelegenheit bot, die Lage am Rande der Diozose zu befrieden und sich ihrer zu bemachtigen. Letztlich konnte dem administrativen Oberhaupt als auch der Provinzialsynode nur daran gelegen sein, einen Ordinarius fur die Stadt zu finden, der eine mit dem Patriarchen und der Mehrheit der Bischofe konforme Meinung vertrat. b) Rabbula hatte als radikaler Befurworter kyrillischer Uberzeugungen versucht, sich der Situation in Edessa zu bemachtigen und die alexandrinische Haltung zu unbedingten Anerkennung zu bringen. Seine MaEnahmen in Edessa stehen dafur. Umso mehr verwundert es, dass die alexandrinischen Exponenten aus Edessa selbst, aber auch aus Konstantinopel bzw. Alexandrien den prominenten Bischofsstuhl anscheinend kommentarlos aus der Hand gaben, gait doch ihr Interesse eigentlich der Ausweitung und vor allem der Festigung der alexandrinischen Uberzeugung auch in diesen geographischen Breiten. So war einstmals Rabbula moglicherweise durch monastische Kreise in Konstantinopel angehalten wurde, die alexandrinische Position in Edessa zu starken « Kurze Zeit nach den Unionsbemuhungen weitete er zusammen mit Akakios von Melitene die Aktivitaten auf Armenien aus, urn auch dort die alexandrinische Position zur Anerkennung zu bringen.46 Zur Zeit der Bischofswahl in Edessa scheinen alle verstummt zu sein: Weder Akakios von Melitene noch monastische oder andere Krafte interessierten sich scheinbar fur die Neubesetzung des osrhoenischen Bischofstuhls. Das ist im Jahre 449 ganz anders. Die aufgebrachten Widersacher hatten eine genaue Vorstellung uber den Nachfolger des Ibas und artikulierten ihre Wunsche lautstark. Ein Mann namens Dagalaiphos wird genannt, aber auch zwei andere Kandidaten namens 44

45 46

Die Beschwerde fiber Ibas steht im Komext um den sog. Tomus ad Armenios und wird schliefilich auf der Diozosansynode verhandelt, die eine gemeinsame Haltung formuliert: Sie erkennt den Tomus in einer eigenen Interpretation an, aber weigert sich, die sog. capitula zu verdammen. - Vgl. L. Abramowski, Der Streit um Diodor (s. Anm. 3), 273. So die Meinung des Andreas von Samosata in einem seiner Briefe. - Vgl. ACO 1.4.2, 87,3-5. Vgl. die Ausfiihrungen unter 1.2. c) und vor allem die Literatur in Fufinote 20.

510

Claudia Rammelt

Heliades und Flavian werden innerhalb der Akklamationsprotokolle aufgelistet.47 Auf dem Latrocinium selbst werden alle Verhandlungen dahin gelenkt, Ibas als Bischof zu UberfUhren.48 Eigentlich hatte der Tod Rabbulas auch Kyrills Wachsamkeit erregen mussen. c) Das von den edessenischen Kyrillianern zahlreich vorhandene Quellenmaterial verleitet zu dem Schluss, dass die Anhanger Theodor von Mopsuestias durch die Wirkkraft des Rabbula eigentlich bereits im Jahre 435 zur marginalisierten GroEe in der Stadt geworden waren.49 Zieht man dann auch noch das syrische Aktenmaterial der Ereignisse urn 449 heran, dann stellt sich die Fragen, wie die edessenischen Theodorianer in der Lage gewesen sind, einen Bischof zu stellen.50 Auch wenn von dieser Gruppe weitaus weniger Zeugnisse uberliefert sind, stellen sie eine traditionsreiche GroEe in der Stadt dar, die iiber die Jahre der Wirren hinweg auf der Basis syrischer Frommigkeit und Kultur ein Christentum vertrat, das sich einer Christologie im Sinne Theodor von Mopsuestias verpflichtet wusste. Das sei an ein paar Zahlen aus dem Jahre 449, die sicher mit der Situation 435 vergleichbar sind, verdeutlicht: Wahrend der sich steigernden Auseinandersetzung mit dem monastisch-klerikalen Milieu Rabbulas verfassten sechsundsechzig Kleriker eine Denkschrift zur Unterstutzung des Ibas.51 Damit werden zahlenmaEig die Presbyter, Diakone und Hypodiakone ubertroffen, die sich wahrend der Verhandlungen im April gegen Ibas hervortaten.52 Das lasst die Vermutung zu, dass die Protagonis47

48

49 50

51 52

Vgl. J. Flemming (Hg.), Akten der ephesinischen Synode vom jahre 449. Syrisch. Mit Georg Hoffmanns deutscher Ubersetzung und seinen Anmerkungen, in: Abhandlungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologischhistorische Klasse, Neue Folge 15/1, Berlin 1917, N D Gottingen 1970, 26,20f/27,29-30 [T./Ubs.]. Das unterstreichen die iiberlieferten Akten vom letzten Verhandlungstag, die in einer eine Estrangelo-Handschrift aus dem jahre 535 uberliefert sind und die Georg Hoffmann einstmals iibersetzte und nun in einer Ausgabe von Johannes Flemming vorliegen. - Vgl. Flemming, Akten (s. Anm. 47). Dieses Bild macht Blum in seiner Darstellung stark. - Vgl. Blum, Rabbula (s. Anm. 2), 196-207. Es scheint so, dass die Opponenten die eigentliche Grofc in der Stadt darstellten, da sie es vermochten, Stimme auf dem Konzil zu erlangen und der Fall Ibas eigens verhandelt wird. - Vgl. Flemming, Akten (s. Anm.47), 4,31/5,38-6,14/7,18; 12,6/13,614,25/15,31 [T./Ubs.]. Vgl. ACO 11.1.3,35,1-37,37. Obgleich die Anklager beanspruchten, den gesamten Klerus zu reprasentieren, handelte es sich lediglich urn eine Gruppe von ungefahr sechzehn Presbytern, zwanzig Diakonen und zehn Hypodiakonen, die sich wahrend der Verhandlungen neben drei Monchen und ungefahr vierzehn weiteren Personen zu Wort meldeten. Die Erhebungen entstammen Zahlungen aus dem Aktenmaterial.


511

ten aus dem klerikalen Milieu, die Rabbula unterstutzten, quantitativ den Vertretern einer Christologie im Sinne Theodors unterlegen waren. Zudem fand die Haltung UnterstUtzung in den persischen Gemeinden. Eine Vielzahl von Schulern an der Perserschule stammte aus dem persischen Raum und trug die Gedanken auch in ihre Gemeinden zuruck. Namentlich stent hierfur Mari, der Adressat des Briefes von Ibas.53 In den Akklamationsprotokollen des Jahres 449 werden verschiedene Namen genannt, die Ibas unterstutzt haben. Vermutlich handelt es sich hier urn enge Vertraute des edessenischen Bischofs, die das gleiche Schicksal wie er erleiden sollten. Stadtbewohner namens Euseb, Isaak, Abraham und andere werden beschimpft, verurteilt und vertrieben, Vorreiter, die sich in den Auseinandersetzungen hervorgetan hatten.54 Die Forderung „Die Sippschaft der Nestorianer nimmt keiner an!"55 lasst auf einen groEeren Kreis schlieEen, der in der tendenziosen Darstellung der Akten aus dem Jahre 449 keine Erwahnungfindet. Die Wahl eines Bischofs, der auf der Basis antiochenischer Gedanken agierte, war sicherlich von der Perserschule und ihrer Sympathisanten nach den erlittenen Repressalien begruEt worden. Daneben bzw daruber hinaus fand er Ruckenhalt in weiten Teilen des Klerus und wichtigen Gemeindegliedern. Sie alle favorisierten gewiss die Wahl des Ibas, genauso wie sie diesen wahrend der Wirren der folgenden Jahre stetig unterstutzten. Es muss im Dunkeln bleiben, wie vehement die Anstrengungen gewesen sind. d) Im 5. Jahrhundert dominierte die reichskirchliche Gemeinde das christliche Leben Edessas. Von der Gemeinde erfahrt man aus den Quel53

Mari ist stark mit der Theologie Theodors von Mopsuestias vertraut und sieht diese wie auch Ibas als kirchlichen Konsens an: „wie auch deine Gottesfurcht weifi und von Anfang an gelehrt und bestarkt wurde durch die gottliche Lehre aus den Worten der seligen Vater" (ACO II.1.3, 32,32). Durch die Schiiler der edessenischen Lehranstalt wurden deren Gedanken zunehmend in die Kirche des persischen Reichs hineingetragen und als theologische Grundiiberzeugung angesehen. Im jahre 486 wird auf der Synode des Aqaq (syr., griech. Akakios, lat. Acacius) das antiochenische Bekenntnis von der Kirche des Ostens angenommen. - Vgl. Synodalakten des Synodicon Orientals ed. J.B. Chabot, Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens, Paris 1902, 53-60/299-306 [T./Ubs.]; zum dort verabschiedeten Bekenntnis S. Brock, Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the Fifth to the Early Seventh Centuries: Preliminary Considerations and Materials, in: Aksum-Thyateira: a Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios, London 1985, 125-142; W.F. Macomber, The Christology of the Synod of Seleukia-Ctesiphon, OCP 24, 1958,142-154; W.D. Winkler, Untersuchungen zur Christologie, Ekklesiologie und zu den okumenischen Beziehungen der Assyrischen Kirche des Ostens, Studien zur Ostkirchengeschichte 26, Miinster 2003 (Habil), 66-69.

54 55

Vgl. Flemming, Akten (s. Anm. 47), 26,23-28/27,34-41 [T./Ubs.]. Flemming, Akten (s. Anm. 47), 16,14/17,19 [T./Ubs.].

512

Claudia Rammelt

len nicks Direktes. In seinem Brief an den Perser Mari berichtet Ibas, dass in der Zeit der christologischen Auseinandersetzung n i c k nur Bischofe miteinander in Streit gerieten, sondern auch Volksmengen und „jeder verfolgte seinen Nachbarn wie einen Feind."56 Es scheint so, als ob die theologische Fragestellung ins Zentrum geruckt ware und der Popularisierung des religiosen Wettbewerbs den Weg gebahnt hatte. Inwieweit die theologische Fragestellung wirklich Triebfeder war, kann aufgrund der kurzen Notiz nicht ausgemacht werden, aber die Glaubigen waren uber die Exponenten der Stadt herausgefordert, sich - mit welcher Tiefgrundigkeitauchimmer-zuentscheiden. Doch anders als eine akklamierende Menge aus dem Kirchenvolk wahrend der Wirren im Jahre 449 erkannte die gesamte edessenischreichskirchliche Gemeinde den neuen Bischof scheinbar widerspruchslos an. Wahrend das Profil und der Aktionismus des Monchbischofs durchaus glaubhaft machen, dass er das Kirchenvolk und die Monchsmassen fur seine christologische Position begeistern konnte, hatten sie im Jahre 435 noch nicht eine solche Kraft und Tiefe erreicht, den profilierten Anhanger antiochenischer Provenienz zuruckzudrangen und einen Vertreter aus den eigenen Reihen fur den Bischofsstuhl einzusetzen.57 Anders gestaltete sich hernach die Situation im Fruhjahr 449, wie bereits erwahnt wurde. Dann fordert eine akklamierende Menge die Absetzung des Bischofs. Als die Fuhrungsfigur alexandrinischer Uberzeugung in Gestalt des Bischofs weg gebrochen war, stritten die schwerfalligen Massen noch nicht fur die eine Wahrheit ihres ausgeschiedenen Bischofs. Die Passivitat bei der Bischofsneubesetzung lasst vermuten, dass das Hare theologische Profil beim Kirchenvolk und selbst den Monchen noch nicht die ausschlaggebende Komponentedarstellte.

Die Auswirkungen der Bischofswahl. Fazit und Ausblick Im Jahre 435 hatte sich ein Vertreter antiochenischer Christologie behaupten konnen. Das war sicher durch den Patriarchen von Antiochien und durch die exponierten Vertreter antiochenischer Uberzeugung in 56 ACO 11.1.3,34,2-3. 57 Aufgrund der Ereignisse in den jahre 449 ist Blum davon iiberzeugt, dass die Opposition des Kirchenvolks und des Monchtums gegen Edessa fur die echte Volkstiimlichkeit und die fortdauernde Lebenskraft der Haltung Rabbulas sprechen, eine Hoffnung, die auch nach dem Tode des Ibas nicht ganzlich seine Bestatigung fand und erst recht nicht uneingeschrankte Zustimmung fur das Jahr 435 finden kann. Vgl. Blum, Rabbula (s. Anm. 2), 196, 201.


513

Edessa selbst favorisiert worden. Das Schweigen der Alexandriner und die administrative Dominanz Antiochias begiinstigten gewiss die Wahl. Es kann jedoch kein Ubertriebener Druck seitens der „antiochenischen" Seite ausgemacht werden, um die Wahl fur sich zu entscheiden. Genauso ist nicht wirklich von einem kompletten Stimmungswechsel zu sprechen, da die alexandrinische Haltung dann doch nicht so tief verwurzelt war, wie es auf dem ersten Blick scheint. Die auEeren Umstande machten es zu dieser Zeit moglich, dass sich diesmal die antiochenische Linie durchsetzte. Sicher hatte Antiochia erhofft, der Lage in Edessa dadurch endgultig Herr zu werden. Die kirchengeschichtliche Bedeutung der Besetzung des edessenischen Bischofsstuhls mit einem Vertreter der Perserschule ist nicht zu unterschatzen. Ibas hatte sich im Spiel der Krafte zu beweisen, die durch sein Auftreten und seinen Einsatz weiter aneinander gerieben wurden und sich immer klarer hervortaten. In der Zeit der neu aufbrechenden reichskirchlichen Spannungen entflammten diese erneut in der nordmesopotamischen Metropole und erlangten eine neue Scharfe.58 Ein erster Angriff erfolgte im Jahre 438, der jedoch erfolglos endete. Uber die ganzen Jahre war Ibas Mittel- und Angriffspunkt der Kontroverse. Im Jahre 449 wurde der edessenische Bischof erneut angeklagt und mit aller Entschiedenheit gegen ihn vorgegangen. Das langjahrige Episkopat des Ibas wurde durch die dramatischen Ereignisse in Frage gestellt. Die Anklager hatten im Jahre 447 ein ganzes Programm ausgearbeitet, durch das der Bischof UberfUhrt werden sollte. Unterstutzt durch wechselnde Sympathisanten - auch von auEen - bezichtigten sie ihren Bischof der Haresie und einer inkompetenten Verwaltung. Doch sowohl die Untersuchungen in Tyrus und Beirut und selbst die tumultartigen Ereignisse in Fruhjahr 449 vermochten es nicht, Ibas zu uberfuhren. Letztlich gelang es den Erben Rabbulas erst dann, die wirkliche Vorherrschaft zu gewinnen, als sich die Situation auch auf dem groEkirchlichen Gebiet so stark zugespitzt hatte und eindeutig miaphysitische Kreise die Oberhand gewonnen hatten. Ibas wurde auf dem Latriocinium abgesetzt, aber dann in Chalcedon wieder rehabilitiert und konnte sein Amt in Edessa bis zu seinem Tod im Jahre 457 ohne Zwischenfalleversehen.

58

Zu den Auseinandersetzungen in Edessa ausfiihrlich C. Rammelt, Ibas von Edessa (s. Anm. 22), 146-234.

Zum Beispiel Proklos von Konstantinopel. Uber Chancen und Grenzen des spatantiken Bischofsamtes Josef Rist Der zwischen 385 und 390 geborene Bischof Proklos leitet in den Jahren 434 bis zum seinem Tod 446 die Kirche von Konstantinopel.1 Besonderes Ansehen erwirbt er sich bereits bei den Zeitgenossen als Prediger, der unter anderem die Gottesmutter Maria gegen die Kritik des Nestorius kraftvoll verteidigt.2 In den Jahren zwischen den Konzilien von Ephesus 431 und Chalkedon 451 stammt mit dem dogmatischen Lehrschreiben Tomus adArmenios (CPG 5897) ein wesentlicher Beitrag zur zeitgenossischen christologischen Debatte aus der Feder des Proklos.3 Wurden Person und Werk lange Zeit kaum beachtet, so ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten eine verstarkte Beschaftigung mit dieser bemerkenswerten Gestalt der spatantiken Kirchengeschichte festzustellen.4 Dieser Beitrag beschaftigt sich aber mit einem anderen Bereich der Wirksamkeit des Proklos. Wie in einem Brennglas lassen sich an seinem Beispiel uber den konkreten Einzelfall hinaus wesentliche Koordinaten des Bischofsamtes und seiner Ausubung im spatantiken Konstantinopel darstellen. Drei Aspekte verdienen hier besondere Beachtung. So dokumen1

2

3

4

Zu Leben und Werk ist in deutscher Sprache immer noch lesenwert F. X. Bauer, Proklos von Konstantinopel: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts, VKHSM IV/8, Miinchen 1919. Ausfiihrliche biographische Informationen (7-124) und eine aktuelle Bibliographie (379-422) bietet N . Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity. Homilies 1-5, Texts and Translations, SVigChr 66, Leiden 2003. Zu den Predigten des Proklos vgl. F. J. Leroy, U homiletique de Proclus. Tradition manuscrite, inedits, etudes connexes, StT 248, Citta del Vaticano 1967 ; Constas, Proclus (s. Anm. 1), sowie J. H. Barkhuizen, Proclus: Homilies on the Life of Christ, Early Christian Studies 1, Brisbane 2001. Vgl. J. Rist, Proklos von Konstantinopel und sein Tomus ad Armenios. Untersuchungen zu Leben und Wirken eines konstantinopolitanischen Bischofs des V. Jahrhunderts, Diss. Wiirzburg 1993. Dazu zahlt insbesondere die verdienstvolle englische Ubersetzung von 27 Homilien des Proklos durch Jan Harm Barkhuizen. Vgl. Barkhuizen, Proclus (s. Anm. 2). Eine Zusammenstellung von einschlagiger Literatur speziell zu Proklos siehe ebd. XI-XV.

516

Josef Rist

tiert der erst nach mehreren vergeblichen Anlaufen dank tatkraftiger Unterstiitzung durch die staatliche Automat erfolgreiche Weg des Proklos auf den Bischofsstuhl die enge Verbindung von Kirche und Staat in Konstantinopel am Beginn des 5. Jahrhunderts. Gleichzeitig bleibt unset Bischof auch im Amt aufgrund der gegen ihn erhobenen Vorwurfe des Bistumswechsels stets angreifbar. SchlieElich manifestiert sich in seiner Person aber auch das gestiegene SelbstbewuEtsein des Stuhles von Konstantinopel anlasslich eines am Einspruch Roms gescheiterten Versuches, die eigene Jurisdiktion liber das ostliche Illyrien auszudehnen.

DerlangeWegzumBischofsamt Uber seine eigene Bestellung zum Bischof von Konstantinopel berichtet Proklos in einem kurzen, in lateinischer Ubersetzung erhaltenen Fragment des Synodalschreibens, das er 434 an seine Amtskollegen in Alexandrien und Antiochien verschickt.5 Folgt man dieser Beschreibung, so entwickelten sich unmittelbar nach dem Tod des Bischofs Maximianos am 12. April 434 Unruhen in Konstantinopel. Proklos berichtet, daE die Anhanger des Nestorios lautstark dessen Ruckkehr forderten und im Weigerungsfalle drohten, Kirchen und andere Gebaude in Brand zu stecken.6 Auf diesem Hintergrund ist die schnelle Intervention von Kaiser Theodosios II. und seinem Hof zu sehen. Wahrend zwischen der Absetzung des Nestorios und der Wahl des Maximianos im Jahre 431 noch rund vier Monate lagen, so handelt der Kaiser jetzt wohl noch am selben T a g / Zur Abwehr von weiteren Unruhen und Ausschreitungen ordnet er an, daE die in der Stadt anwesenden Bischofe zusammenkommen und den Proklos als neuen Bischof einsetzen sollen: TOTS TrocpoGaiv ETTIOKOTTOIS EvSpoviaoa xov TTpoKAov E ^ T P E ^ V . 8 Folgerichtig leitet Proklos als erste Amtshandlung zunachst das Begrabnis seines Vorgangers. Kaiser Theodosios II. bzw. die ihn umgebenden Personen bei Hofe sind also eindeutig die treibende Instanz bei der Bischofseinsetzung des Proklos. Dass dieser nun in dieser

5

6

7 8

Zum Vorgang vgl. V. Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. I. Fasc. I, Kadikoy 1932 (Nachdruck: Paris 1972), Nr. 76. Der Text findetsichACOI4,173f. Vgl. ACO I 4, 173,39-174,8: tempestas ... seditiosorum, qui ex corruptificis seminibus doctrinae Nestorii surrexerunt et insistebant. ... Nestonum publico clamore reposcebant et urbipericula ecclesiaeque minabantur incendium. Proklos tritt sein Amt am 12. oder spatestens am folgenden Tag, dem 13. April 434, an. Zum Umfeld vgl. Constas, Proclus (s. Anm. 1), 79-81. Socr. h. e. VII 40,4 (GCS NF 1, 389,24f. Hansen).

Zum Beispiel Proklos von Konstantinopel

517

angespannten Situation Bischof werden kann, erstaunt zunachst, da er in den Augen seiner Zeitgenossen ein zumindest zweifelhafter Kandidat ist. Um diese Wertung zu verstehen, mussen einige den Ereignissen voraus liegende Vorgange kurz ins Gedachtnis gerufen werden. Erstmals in die engere Wahl als Kandidat fur den Bischofsstuhl in Konstantinopel gelangt Proklos nach dem Tod des Bischofs Attikos von Konstantinopel (Bischof 406-425) am 10. Oktober 425. Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates Scholastics berichtet, dass neben dem Presbyter Philipp von Side bereits Proklos zu den potentiellen Kandidaten fur die Nachfolge gezahlt wird.9 Schliefflich wird aber keiner der beiden Genannten, sondern der Presbyter Sisinnios (Bischof 426-427) gewahlt. Fur Proklos ist es der erste von drei vergeblichen Versuchen, auf den Bischofsstuhl von Konstantinopel zu gelangen. Die Konkurrenzsituation zu Sisinnios scheint das Verhaltnis des Proklos zum neuen Oberhirten kaum belastet zu haben. In jedem Fall bestellt der neue Bischof von Konstantinopel Proklos 426 oder 427 - das genaue Datum ist unklar - zum Bischof der bedeutenden Stadt Kyzikos am Hellespont. In unmittelbarem Zusammenhang mit der Bestellung zum Bischof wird Proklos in Konstantinopel zum Bischof geweiht.10 Fine diffizile Situation entsteht, als Proklos sein neues Amt nicht antreten kann. Die Ortsgemeinde in Kyzikos weigert sich, den von Sisinnios kreierten Bischof anzunehmen. Vielmehr wird in Kyzikos der Monch Dalmatios zum Bischof gewahlt und ebenfalls sogleich geweiht. Diesen prekaren Vorgang deutet Sokrates als ausdrucklichen VerstoE gegen geltendes Recht, das dem Bischof von Konstantinopel zumindest ein Vetorecht bei der Bestellung des Bischofs von Kyzikos zugesteht.11 Angesichts der Widerstande in Kyzikos bemuht sich Proklos nicht, sein neues Amt anzutreten. Er verbleibt vielmehr als episcopus vacans (oxoXaios epioKopos) in Konstantinopel. Kennzeichen dieser nicht gerade seltenen Erscheinung in der Alten Kirche ist, dass jene Bischofe ihr Amt aufgrund der Ablehnung durch die Ortsgemeinde nicht antreten konnen. Um Spannungen mit dem residierenden Bischof des Wohnortes 9

Vgl. Socr. h.c. VII 26 (375,12-376,2 Hansen). Zu Philipp und seinem Werk, der Christlichen Geschichte, vgl. K. Heyden, Die Christliche Geschichte des Philippos von Side. Mit einem kommentierten Katalog der Fragmente, in: M. Wallraff (Hrsg.), Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik, T U 157, Berlin/New York 2006, 209-243. 10 Beschreibung bei Socr. h.e. VII 28 (376,26-377,9 Hansen). 11 Vgl. Socr. h.e. VIII 28,2 (376,30f. Hansen): p a r a y v c W xou epioKopou KcovoTaamvoupoAecos xeiro T o V ia v epiOKopou \XT\ yiveTai. Bereits im 4. Tahrhundert interveniert Konstantinopel in Kyzikos anlasslich der Bischofsbestellungen des Eleusios (um 358) und des Eunomios (360). Vgl. Rist, Proklos (s. Anm. 3), 52-57.

518

Josef Rist

zu vermeiden, verfiigte der Kanon 18, der in der Tradition mit der sogenannten Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien 341 verbunden ist, da£ sich ein episcopus vacans nicht in die Angelegenheiten der jeweiligen Ortsgemeinde einmischen darf.12 Die meisten Gelehrten nehmen zu Reck an, dass die genannten Kanones mindestens ein Jahrzehnt vor der Synode, wohl im Herbst327,entstandensind. 13 Proklos unternimmt zwei weitere Versuche, auf den Stuhl des Heiligen Andreas zu gelangen. Sowohl nach dem Tod des Sisinnios 427 als auch nach der Absetzung des Nestorios 431 wird er von Teilen der Bevolkerung und des Klerus favorisiert. In beiden Fallen scheitert er jedoch stets an ortlichen Widerstanden. Sokrates verortet die Gegnerschaft im Jahr 431 bei nicht naher genannten Kraften am kaiserlichen Hof 14 Dem gunstigen Stimmungsbild gegenuber seiner Person verdankt Proklos schliefflich sein Bischofsamt im vierten Anlauf. Der spatmittelalterliche byzantinische Kirchengeschichtsschreiber Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopulos uberliefert die singulare Notiz, dass es der entscheidende EinfluE und die Tatkraft der Augusta Pulcheria gewesen seien, der Proklos sein Bischofsamt verdankt.15 Es mag dahingestellt bleiben, inwieweit Nikephoros eine historische Begebenheit wiedergibt. In jedem Fall ist es die staatliche Autoritat, sprich Kaiser und Hof, der Proklos sein Amt verdankt. Die besondere Gemengelage zwischen Kaiser und Bischof in Konstantinopel bringt es mit sich, dass in der ostlichen Reichshauptstadt das in der Alten Kirche ubliche Prozedere der Bischofswahl entscheidend verandert wird. Kaiserliche Interventionen behindern bereits seit der zweiten Halfte 12

Vgl. L. Ober, Die Translation der Bischofe im Altertum, AkathKR 88, 1908, 637f. Der Text des Kanons: P.-P. Ioannou, Fonti. Fascicolo IX: Discipline generale antique (IVe-IXe s.). Tome I, 2: Les canons des synodes particuliers, Grottaferrata 1962, 118. 13 Zum Datum vgl. T. D. Barnes, Emperor and Bishops, A. D. 324-344. Some Problems, American journal of Ancient History 3, 1978, 53-74, hier 59f. (Nachdruck: ders., Early Christianity and the Roman Empire, London 1984, Nr. XVIII) sowie S. Scholz, Transmigration und Translation: Studien zum Bistumswechsel der Bischofe von der Spatantike bis zum Hohen Mittelalter, KHAb 37, Koln/Weimar/Wien 1992, 25-31. Wahrend Barnes fur Herbst 327 pladiert, spricht sich Scholz fur das Jahr 330 aus (ebd. 25 Anm. 1 und ebd. 30f). Zum Umfeld der Synode siehe W. Schneemelcher, Die Kirchweihsynode von 341, in: A. Lippold (Hrsg.), Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub, BJb Beiheft 39, Bonn 1977, 319-346. Text der Kanones in griechischer und lateinischer Uberlieferung mit franzosischer Ubersetzung: Ioannou, Fonti (s. Anm. 12), 102-121. 14 15

Vgl. Socr. h.e. VII 35 (384,5-16 Hansen) sowie Liberatus brev. VII (ACO II.5, 106,416 Schwartz). Vgl. Nikeph. Kail. h. e. XIV 37 (PG 146,1185 A): EVGTOV.'CE.V TOV FTpoKAov TTpOUTpSTTSTO.


519

des 4. Jahrhunderts die Ubliche freie Kandidatenfindung. So lassen sich seit dem Konzil von 381 nicht weniger als sechs kaiserliche Interventionen bei Bischofswahlen in Konstantinopel nachweisen.16 Damit ragt weniger der Vorgang an sich, als vielmehr die Umstande der Bestellung des Proklos zum Bischof aus der langen Reihe mehr oder minder subtiler Eingriffe der staatlichen Gewalt bei der Bischofsbestellung in Konstantinopel hervor.

Das Problem der TranslationFur die Amtsfuhrung des Proklos und sein Ansehen ist ein Einwand von grower Bedeutung, der gegen seine Bischofsbestellung bereits von den Zeitgenossen mehr oder weniger laut erhoben wird. Es handelt sich urn den vorgeblichen Bistumswechsel des Proklos, seinen Ubergang von Kyzikos auf den Stuhl von Konstantinopel. War die Bestellung des Proklos zum Bischof von Konstantinopel nach den geltenden rechtlichen Vorschriften und Gewohnheiten der ostlichen Kirche uberhaupt moglich und damit rechtens? Vor geraumer Zeit wurde bereits bei der in diesem Zusammenhang verwendeten kirchenrechtlichen Terminologie die Notwendigkeit einer Prazisierung angemahnt. Bei den Bischofswechseln in der Spatantike sollte mit Sebastian Scholz zwischen Translation und Transmigration unterschieden werden. Dabei ist unter Translation der Wechsel eines Bischofs von einem Bistum zu einem anderen mit Genehmigung einer ubergeordneten, dazu berechtigten Instanz zu verstehen, wahrend mit Transmigration ein ebensolcher Vorgang ohne vorliegende Genehmigung zu verstehen ist.18 Diese Unterscheidung gewinnt sparer noch an Bedeutung.

16

Zum Verfahren der Bischofswahl in der Alten Kirche vgl. J. Gaudemet, L'Eglise dans l'Empire Remain ( I V - V siecles), Paris 2 1989, 330-341. Eine Liste der Interventionen bietet F. L. Ganshof, Note sur l'election des eveques dans l'empire romain au IV™ et pendant la premiere moitie du V™ siecle, RIDA 4, 1950, 496. Anm. 80. 17 Die Thematik wird ausfiihrlich in den einschlagigen Monographien zu Proklos (s. Anm. 1) behandelt. Neuere einschlagige Veroffentlichungen zu Aspekten des Themas: G. P. Papanicolaou, La translation des eveques dans la tradition canonique de l'eglise, NOMOKANONIKH BIBAI09HKH 12, Katlini 2003, zu Proklos: 87-91; j . Rist Ut episcopus non transeat: Die Problematik der Translation von Bischofen in der Spatantike dargestellt am Beispiel des Proklos von Konstantinopel, in: Studia Patristica XXIX, Leuven 1997, 119-126. 18 Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), If.

520

Josef Rist

Die Geschichte des Verbotes der Translation ist bekannt. Der Kanon 15 des Konzils von Nikaia 325 verbot den Bistumswechsel.19 Bereits Athanasius hat im arianischen Streit seinem Widersacher Eusebios von Nikomedien dessen Transmigration von Berytos nach Nikomedien vorgehalten.20 Inhaltlich begrundet und theologisch gestutzt wird die enge Verbindung zwischen Gemeinde und Bischof mit der Vorstellung einer geistigen Ehe zwischen beiden. Als biblische Belegstelle wird hier auf 1 Kor 7, 27 zuruckgegriffen, wobei der erste Beleg fur diese Argumentation ebenfalls bei Athanasius im Jahr 338 recht spat erscheint.21 Differenziert wird das Verbot in Kanon 21 der sogenannten Kirchweihsynode vom Jahre 341. Die Kanones sind, wie oben dargelegt, wohl bereits im Herbst 327 entstanden. Im Kanon heifo es: „Da£ sich kein Bischof von einer Gemeinde zu einer anderen begeben soil, weder indem er sich aus eigenem EntschluE auf sie sturzt, noch indem er vom Volk gedrangt oder von Bischofen gezwungen wird. Er soil in der Kirche bleiben, fur die er von Anfang an von Gott erwahlt wurde, und er soil sich nicht zu einer anderen Kirche begeben, gema£ der Vorschrift, die bereits fruher daruber erlassen worden ist."22 Unser Text ruft zunachst in massiver Form das Verbot der Translation, wie es bereits Nikaia vorgegeben hat, in Erinnerung. Im AnschluE werden drei konkrete Falle von Bistumswechseln gesondert verboten. Es sind dies: 1.) das eigenmachtige Verlassen des Bistums, 2.) der durch die Wahl eines bereits als Bischofs amtierenden Amtstragers in einer anderen Gemeinde verursachte Wechsel sowie 3.) ein von anderen Bischofen durch Zwang herbeigefuhrtes Verlassen des Bistums. Es ist naheliegend, dass ein zeitgenossisches Problem im Hintergrund stand. Scholz postuliert als historischen Hintergrund des Kanons die Weigerung des Eusebius von Caesarea, den Bischofsstuhl von

19

Text: J. Alberigo (Hrsg.), Conciliorurn Oecumenicorum Decreta, Basel 1962, 12. Deutsche Ubersetzung (Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 1: „Wegen der vielen entstandenen Zerwiirfnisse und Spaltungen wurde beschlossen, die Gewohnheit, die sich in einigen Gemeinden gegen den Kanon (Kata ton Kanona) findet, vollig abzuschaffen, sodafi kein Bischof, Presbyter oder Diakon von einer Stadt zu einer anderen iibergeht (arro rroAecos eis TToAin \ir\ lietaBainein). Sollte nach der Vorschrift dieses heiligen und grofcn Konzils jemand anderes versuchen oder ein solches Vorgehen ausfiihren, soil der Vorgang vollig ungiiltig gemacht werden, und der Betreffende soil in die Kirche zuriickversetzt werden, fur die er als Bischof, Presbyter oder Diakon geweiht worden ist."

20 21

Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 9f Vgl. Ath. apol. sec. 6 (Athanasius Werke 2.1, 91,32-93,13 Opitz). Dazu: Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 20-24. Text des Kanons: Ioannou, Fonti (s. Anm. 12), 121. Deutsche Ubersetzung nach Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 28.

22


521

Antiochien in der Nachfolge des Eustathius zu besteigen.23 Am Ende des Kanons wird auf die Bestimmungen des 15. Kanons von Nikaia verwiesen. Bestatigt wird diese Position sparer durch die Synode von Serdika 343, die eine Anwendung der allgemeinen Besrimmungen der Kirchweihsynode angesichts der arianischen Auseinandersetzungen und der dadurch hervorgerufenen haufigen Bischofswechsel bildet und Strafsanktionen vorsieht.24 Somit bestand seit dem Konzil von Nikaia am Beginn des 4. Jahrhunderts ein strikes Verbot des Bistumswechsels, das wohl immer wieder durchbrochen wurde, dessen strenge Ablehnung aber nicht in Zweifel stand. Eine Anwendung der einschlagigen Strafbestimmungen lasst sich jedoch nicht nachweisen.25 Nun fanden aber auch nach Serdika in groEerem Umfang Bistumswechsel statt. Scholz versucht dieses Phanomen durch die von ihm verwendete Terminologie besser zu verstehen. Demnach bezogen sich die genannten Verbote lediglich auf einen Typus des Bistumswechsels, die Transmigration.26 Translationen, also der Wechsel nach erfolgter Genehmigung durch eine ubergeordnete Instanz, waren nach Scholz nicht im selben Umfang betroffen, wie er an einer Reihe einschlagiger Falle des 4. Jahrhunderts, der hohen Zeit der arianischen Kontroverse, zeigt.27 Als Beispiel mag der kuriose Fall des antinizanischen Bischofs Eudoxios von Germanikeia (t 370) dienen. Unter Vorspiegelung der Protektion durch Kaiser Constantius II. - zumindest verstanden es die Zeitgenossen so - kann sich dieser 357/358 des Bischofsstuhles von Antiochien bemachtigen. Diesen verliert er allerdings wenig sparer wieder, 23

24

25

26

27

Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 29f. Eusebius ist „der Initiator dieses Kanons" (ebd. 30). Nach Barnes (ders., Emperor 60) wird Eustathius auf der Synode in Antiochien im Herbst 327 abgesetzt. Zur Datierung vgl. auch Anm. 13. Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 32-34. Einschlagig sind hier die Kanones 1, 2 und 9. Text: Ioannou, Fonti (s. Anm. 12), 159f. (can. 1), 161 (can. 2), 171-173 (can. 9). Zur Synode vgl. H. Hess, The Canons of the Council of Serdica A.D. 343, Oxford 1958. Erweiterte und bearbeitete Neuauflage: ders., The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, Oxford 2002. So Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13) 34. Blieb die Nachwirkung der genannten Kanones in der Spatantike gering, so erlangten sie betrachtliche Bedeutung in den mittelalterlichen westlichen Kanonessammlungen. Nachweise: ebd. 34-36. In diese Richtung versteht Scholz auch den Kanon 21 der Kirchweihsynode. Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 46. Er folgt damit einer sich primar auf philologische Argumente stiitzenden Interpretation des Kanons bei Hess. Vgl. ders., Canons 75f und Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 29. Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 46-52. Einen ersten zaghaften Hinweis in diese Richtung will Scholz bereits im 2 1 . Kanon der Kirchweihsynode entdecken, da dort das Element des Zwanges beim Bistumswechsels an prominenter Stelle verboten wird. Vgl. ebd. 29 mit Verweis auf Hess, Canons 75f

522

Josef Rist

als ihn die Synode von Seleukeia 359 absetzt. Im Folgejahr kann Eudoxios sogar den Stuhl von Kostantinopel besteigen, nachdem zuvor der Amtsinhaber Makedonios abgesetzt worden war. Auch in diesem Fall diirfte der Amtsantritt nicht ohne Billigung der staatlichen Autoritaten moglich gewesensein. 28 Ausschlaggebend fur die Beurteilung der RechtmaEigkeit eines Wechsels ist also stets die Zustimmung der Versammlung der Bischofe bzw. haufig auch der staatlichen Autoritaten. Ein Wechsel des Bistums ist grundsatzlich moglich, fur die Beurteilung des Einzelfalls fehlen aber zunachst feste Normen. Ein Ausufern der gerade bei den Sitzen Konstantinopel und Antiochien haufigen Vorgehensweise - kirchenpolitische Grunde im Kontext des arianischen Streites geben hier den Ausschlag - ist die Folge.29 Diese Praxis versuchen die Vorgaben in dem 14. der in den achtziger Jahren des vierten Jahrhunderts verfassten sogenannten Apostolischen Kanones einzudammen. Der Kanon spricht von einem „wohlbegrundeten AnlaE, der dazu zwingt, weil er (der Bischof) in seiner neuen Gemeinde mehr Nutzen fur den Glauben bringt"30 als notwendige Grundlage fur die Zustimmung zum Bistumswechsel. Ob ein solcher Fall vorliegt, entscheidet die Bischofssynode. Dies ist die letzte Stufe der kanonistischen Reflexion in dieser Frage im Osten, zumal mit dem Ende der arianischen Kontroversen die Zahl der Missbrauche deutlich zuruckgeht,31 In dieser kanonistischen Gemengelage ist der Fall des Proklos anzusiedeln und zu beurteilen. Sein Wechsel vom Bischofsstuhl in Kyzikos - den er lediglich nominell innehatte - auf jenen in Konstantinopel ist nach dem Gesagten grundsatzlich moglich. Bei Proklos liegt eine eindeutige kaiserliche Weisung vor, der unser Bischof bereitwillig und zum Nutzen der Ortskirche von Konstantinopel nachkommt. Was im Falle des Proklos fehlt, ist die Zustimmung im Sinne einer Genehmigung von kirchlicher Seite, d. h. durch eine Synode bzw. durch im Rang ihm gleichstehende Bischofe. Die Tatsache, dass Proklos ein episcopus vacans ist, ist fur die Beurteilung unerheblich. Denn auch episcopi vacantes durfen nach den

28 29

30

31

Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 48-50. Zur Person vgl. W. A. Lohr, Art. Eudoxios. In: LThK 3 3 (1995) 978f. Vgl. Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13), 51: „Die Translation wurde zu einem Instrument im Machtkampf sowohl zwischen Orthodoxie und Arianismus als auch zwischen den einzelnen arianischen Splittergruppen." Ubersetzung: Scholz, Transmigration (s. Anm. 13),53. Text: Ioannou, Fonti (s. Anm. 12), 14: euAoyos a m a f| r| TouTo |3ia£oiievr| auTov TToieiV, COS TTAeoV T i KepSos Suvaiaevou auTou ToiS eKeiOe Aoyco euoefieias ouij|3aAAeo8ai. Vgl. Gaudemet, L'Eglisc (s. Anm.'l2), 362 sowie Rist, Proklos (s. Anm. 3), 47-52.


523

Kanones 16 und 18 der Synode von Antiochien nur nach Zustimmung durch die Provinzialsynode unter Leitung des Metropoliten in einer vakanten Ortsgemeinde eingesetzt werden.32 Damit handelt es sich bei der Bischofsbestellung des Proklos um eine durch staatlichen Eingriff sanktionierte Transmigration, die nur sehr schwach mit der offensichtlichen Notlage der Kirche Konstantinopels gerechtfertigt werden konnte. Insbesondere in der ostlichen Reichshauptstadt griff der Kaiser haufig in die ortlichen Bischofswahlen ein. Der Imperator besa£ hier stets das letzte Wort bei der Bischofsbestellung, wobei die Wege der Durchsetzung des kaiserlichen Willens durchaus verschlungen sein konnten und haufig nicht dem simplen Schema von kaiserlicher Nominierung und folgender Einsetzung entsprachen,33 Die Anzahl derartiger Falle erhoht sich mit den christologischen Streitigkeiten in der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts erneut und gleichzeitig ist eine Zunahme staatlicher Eingriffe bei den Bischofsbestellungen nachweisbar, was aber am VerstoE gegen Geist und Buchstaben der Vergangenheit im konkreten Fall nichts zu andern vermag. So sah sich denn auch der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates - gegenuber Bischof und Kaiser stets wohlgesonnen - zur literarischen Verteidigung des Proklos aufgefordert. Er weiE von der Zustimmung des Papstes Colestin (Amtszeit 422-432) zu der umstrittenen Transmigration zu berichten. Inwiefern die Angabe authentisch ist, ist in der Forschung umstritten, 34 Letztlich blieb die Transmigration des Proklos ein seine gesamte Amtsfuhrung belastendes Element.

32 33

34

Text der Kanones: Ioannou, Fonti (s. Anm. 12), 17f. (can. 16. 18). Zu den kaiserlichen Interventionen bei Bischofswahlen vgl. P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007, 8 1 117; insbesondere zu Konstantinopel vgl. ebd. 81-91. Zu den Interventionen in Konstantinopel vgl. auch Anm. 16. Vgl. Socr. h.e. VII 40 (389,17-390,6 Hansen). Zum Vorgang vgl. Rist, Ut episcopus (s. Anm. 17), 125f Constas, Proclus (s. Anm. 1), 79 geht von der Authentizitat des Briefwechsels aus. Anders etwa H. Leppin, Von Constantin dem Grofien zu Theodosius II. Das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Sokrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret, Hyp. 110, Gottingen 1996, 235.

524

Josef Rist

Der Streit um IllyrienDas im Fall des Bischofsstuhls von Konstantinopel haufige enge Zusammenspiel von kirchlichen und staatlichen Interessen lasst sich im Falle des Proklos an einem besonders markanten Beispiel aufzeigen. Es handelt sich um den im Jahre 437 von Proklos unternommenen Versuch, die Jurisdiktion der Kirche von Konstantinopel auch auf das Gebiet des ostlichen Illyrien auszudehnen, woraus eine direkte Konfrontation mit der romischen Kirche entsteht. Um die komplexe Problemlage zu verstehen, die den Ausgangspunkt des Konfliktes bildet, mussen zunachst einige Vorbemerkungen gemacht werden. Seit dem Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts war der ostliche Teil der ehemaligen Reichsdiozese Illyrien unter einem praefectus praetorio Illyrici mit Dienstsitz in Thessaloniki eine eigenstandige Einheit, spater als Illyricum orientale bezeichnet, die durch eine auf der Hohe des heutigen Belgrad in Nord-Sud-Richtung verlaufende Grenze vom westlichen Teil Illyriens abgetrennt wurde. Die so geschaffene praefectura praetorio per Illyricum umfasst - in ihrer Binnengliederung in zwei Reichsdiozesen mit insgesamt 12 Provinzen unterteilt - groEe Teile des Gebietes der heutig en Staaten Albanien, Serbien, Griechenland, Makedonien und Bulgarien* Aus der politischen Aufspaltung des Territoriums ergaben sich zwangslaufig kirchliche Probleme. Politisch und administrativ auf die ostliche Reichshauptstadt Konstantinopel ausgerichtet, untersteht das Territorium in kirchlicher Juridiktion weiterhin dem romischen Bischof. Die bedeutendste Stadt auf dem Gebiet des Illyricum orientale, das nordgriechische Thessaloniki, wird zum kirchlichen Zentrum, dessen Bischofe bald schon Obermetropolitanrechte in Illyrien beanspruchen. Diese Entwicklung nutzen die Papste. Ihren angestammten EinfluE in Illyrien versuchen sie dadurch abzusichern, dass sie den Bischof von Thessaloniki zu 35

36

Einen knappen Uberblick fiber die wechselvolle Geschichte des Vikariats von Thessaloniki bis zu seinem Ende Mine des 8. Jahrhunderts gibt J. Rist, Das apostolische Vikariat von Thessaloniki als Beispiel der Begegnung zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel in der Spatantike, in: R. Harreither, Ph. Pergola, R. Pillinger, A. Piilz (Hrsg.), Congressus internationalis XIV archaeologiae christianae - Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongresses fur christliche Archaologie, SAC 62, Citta del Vaticano 2006, 649-662. Vgl. V. Grumel, LTllyricum de la mort de Valentinien I» (375) a la mort de Stilicon (408), REByz 9, 1952, 5-46 (Chronologische Ubersicht: ebd. 45 f.) sowie E. Demougeot, Le partage des provinces de l'lllyricum entre h pars Occidentis et h pars Orientis de la Tetrarchie au regne de Theodoric, in: La geographie administrative et politique dAlexandre a Mahomet. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 1979, Leiden 1981, 229253. Karte des Gebietes: H. Jedin (Hrsg.), Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte. Aktualisierte Neuausgabe, Freiburg 1987, Karte 20.


525

ihrem Vikar bestimmen und so die auch im Westen des Romischen Reiches gut dokumentierte Vikariatspolitik in den Osten Ubertragen.37 Beziiglich der Anfange des Vikariats von Thessaloniki im spaten 4. Jahrhundert besteht bis heute keine Einigkeit. Voll ausgebildet erscheint das papstliche Institut jedoch nach zaghaften Anfangen bereits unter Papst Innozenz I. (Amtszeit 402-417). 38 Uber die Vorgange im Vikariat erfahren wir wichtige Details aus der sogenannten Collectio Thessalonicensis. Diese Kompilation von Papst- und Kaiserbriefen des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts umfasst 27 Schriftstucke, die als Teil des Protokolls einer romischen Synode uberliefert sind, welche sich unter dem Vorsitz von Papst Bonifatius II. im Dezember 531 mit einer Appellation des Metropoliten von Thessalien, Stephan von Larissa, beim romischen Stuhl beschaftigte. Die langere Zeit umstrittene Authentizitat des Briefcorpus, welches anlasslich der Synode zur Untermauerung papstlicher Anspruche in lllyrien vorgelegt wurde, darf heute als gesichert gelten.39 Nur wenig sparer kommt es im Jahr 421 bereits zu einer ersten groEeren Kontroverse urn die kirchliche Oberhoheit in lllyrien, die als eine Art Vorlauf zur spateren Auseinandersetzung unter Proklos angesehen werden kann. Handelnde Personen des Jahres 421 sind neben dem ostlichen Kaiser Theodosios II. Papst Bonifatius I. (Amtszeit 418-421) und Bischof Attikos von Konstantinopel. Ausgangspunkt der Auseinandersetzung ist die Wahl des Perigenes von Korinth zum Bischof der dortigen Ortsgemeinde.40 Obwohl seine Wahl durch die Mehrheit der Gemeinde unterstutzt wird, steht er einer schlagkraftigen Opposition gegenuber. Bald schon drohen gewaltsame Ubergriffe. In dieser Situation bittet eine in Korinth versam-

37

38

39

40

Zur papstlichen Vikariatspolitik in Gallien vgl. G. Langgartner, Die Gallienpolitik der Papste im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert. Eine Studie fiber die apostolischen Vater im Vikariat von Aries, Theoph. 16, Bonn 1964. Vgl. F. Streichhan, Die Anfange des Vikariates von Thessalonich, ZSRG. K 12, 1922, 330-384. Streichhan ist einer der Vertreter einer Friihdatierung des Vikariats bereits unter Papst Damasus (366-384). Vgl. ebd. 338-341. Siehe auch j . Macdonald, Who Instituted the Papal Vicariate of Thessalonica?, in: Studia Patristica IV, T U 79, Berlin 1961, 478-482. Ausfiihrliche Diskussion und Quellennachweise bei Rist, Vikariat (s. Anm. 35), 651-653. Ausgabe: C. Silva-Tarouca, Epistularum Romanorum Pontificum ad vicarios per Illyricum aliosque episcopos collectio Thessalonicensis, T D . T 23, Rom 1937. Ubersicht der Schriftstucke: ebd. XlVf Zur Echtheit ebd. X: „nemo iam de eo dubitat." Siehe auch U. Reutter, Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366-384), STAC 55, Tubingen 2009, 448. Anm. 77. Zu den diffizilen Vorgangen vgl. ausfiihrlich Rist, Vikariat (s. Anm. 35), 118-125 sowie Ch. Pietri, Roma christiana. Band II, BEFAR 224, Rom 1976, 1106-1112.

526

Josef Rist

melte Synode den Papst um die Bestatigung der Wahl des Perigenes. In der Logik des Vikariates delegiert Bonifatius die Entscheidung an seinen Vikar Rufus von Thessaloniki.41 Gegen diesen Entscheid opponiert nun ihrerseits eine Gruppe illyrischer Bischofe beim ostlichen Kaiser Theodosios II. Die Bischofe fordern eine weitere Synode zum Fall des Perigenes. Dieser antiromischen Fronde schliefo sich, wohl eine fur ihn gunstige kirchenpolitische Situation vermutend, auch Attikos an.42 Die Initiative ergreift zunachst aber Kaiser Theodosius II. Unter dem Datum des 14. Juli 421 ergeht ein sparer in den Codex Theodosianus aufgenommenes Edikt an den praefectus praetorio Illyrici Philippus. Demnach sind in ganz Illyrien die den Bischofssitz Konstantinopel begunstigenden kirchlichen Vorschriften - insbesondere Kanon 3 des zweiten okumenischen Konzils von Konstantinopel 381 - zu beachten. Das Vikariat selbst wird als eine unerlaubte Neuerung dargestellt und die Ruckkehr zum Status quo ante gefordert. Konkret sei deshalb bei jeder Synode der illyrischen Bischofe stets der Bischof von Konstantinopel vorab zu informieren.43 Damit unterstutzt der Kaiser seinen Patriarchen nachdriicklich und gefahrdet die ererbte Vormachtsstellung der romischen Bischofe. Wie reagiert nun Rom? Papst Bonifatius tut es seinen ostlichen Gegnern gleich und schaltet seinerseits die weltliche Macht ein. Umgehend informiert er Honorius, den in Ravenna residierenden Kaiser des Westreiches. Es folgt ein ausfuhrlicher Briefwechsel zwischen den Herrschern, der schliefflich mit dem Einlenken der ostlichen Seite endet.44 Papst Bonifatius kann sich also in alien Punkten durchsetzen.

41 42

43

44

Vgl. Bonifatius, ep. 5 (Coll. Thess. Nr. 27: Silva-Tarouca 64£). Die entsprechenden Belege finden sich in den Briefen 13 und 14 des Bonifatius. Belegstellen bei Pietri, Roma christiana (s. Anm. 40), 1113. Anm. 5. Nach Pietri r a c k sich Attikos fur den Ansehensverlust, den Konstantinopel durch die Absetzung des Johannes Chrysostomus auf der Eichensynode 403 erlitten habe. Vgl. ebd. 1114. Vgl. Cod. Theod. 16,2,45 (Mommsen-Kriiger, Berlin 1905, 852): Omni innovation cessante vetustatem et canones pristinos ecclesiasticos, qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici provincias servari praecipimus. Turn si quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat non absque scientia viri reverentissimi sacrosanctaelegis antisthi urbis Constantinopolitanae, quae Romae veteris praerogativa laetatur, conventui sacerdotali sanctoque iudkio reservari. Die einschlagigen Briefe sind in der Collectio Thessalonicensis unter die Schreiben des Bonifatius aufgenommen. Vgl. Coll. Thess. Nr. 15f (Ausgabe: Silva-Tarouca [s. Anm. 39], 43-45). Der Wortlaut des Rescriptum Theodosii adHonorium findet sich ebd. Nr. 16 (Text: Silva-Tarouca 45,16-22). Zur Echtheit: Ablehnend: E. Chrysos, Zur Echtheit des Rescriptum Theodosii ad Honorium in der Collectio Thessalonicensis, Kleronomia 4, 1972, 240-250. Zustimmend: Pietri, Roma christiana (s. Anm. 40), 1116. Anm. 1; ebenso jiingst: W. Kaiser, Authentizitat und Geltung spatantiker Kai-


527

Im Jahr 437 brick der Konflikt erneut aus. Die Kontrahenten sind wiederum opponierende illyrische Bischofe und Proklos von Konstantinopel auf der einen sowie Papst Sixtus III. (432-440) auf der anderen Seite. Fur eine Einflussnahme des Kaisers gibt es allerdings in diesem Falle keine Hinweise.45 Der Ausgangspunkt der Kontroverse liegt im Dunkeln. Charles Pietri vermutete ihn in einem 436/437 abgehaltenen „synodus orientalis".46 Wahrscheinlich werden auf ihr sowohl ein Glaubenssymbolum erstellt als auch kirchenrechtliche Fragen behandelt. Folgt man der Rekonstruktion von Charles Pietri, so seien beide Teile der Synodalentscheidung, also Glaubensbekenntnis und Kanones, anschlieEend den Bischofen der ostlichen Reichshalfte und damit auch jenen Illyriens durch Proklos zur Bestatigung vorgelegt worden. Der brisanteste Teil des Konvoluts war wohl ein unter die Kanones aufgenommenes Appellationsrecht der illyrischen Bischofe gegenuber Entscheidungen Roms beim Stuhl von Konstantinopel. Damit weitet Proklos die Einflusssphare seines Sprengels vorsatzlich aus.47 Das kaiserliche Vorgehen von 421 findet hier eine frappante episkopale Parallele. Auch in diesem Fall erfolgt die romische Reaktion zeitnah. Der papstliche Vikar informiert Rom. Papst Sixtus III. kundigt daraufhin eine Synode zur Klarung der konkreten Streitfragen an. Parallel dazu schreibt er am 18. Dezember 437 an Proklos.48 In moderatem Ton ermahnt Sixtus seinen Amtskollegen, sich nicht von romfeindlichen illyrischen Bischofen instrumentalisieren zu lassen. Von den Unruhestiftern in Illyrien, deren Ziel nur Streit und Spaltung sei, solle er sich fernhalten.49 Der Papst vergisst nicht, seinem Schreiben eine deutliche Mahnung an die Adresse des Proklos beizufugen. So habe er, Sixtus, jungst die Appellation des Bischofs

45 46

47 48

49

sergesetze. Studien zu den sacra privilegia concilii Vizaceni, MBPF 96, Miinchen 2007, 153. Anm 131. Ausfiihrlich fiber die Vorgange informiert Rist, Vikariat (s. Anm. 35), 656-659. Vgl. Pietri, Roma christiana (s. Anm. 40), 1143. Anm. 1: „En tout cas, il y eut surement un synode orientale." Eine solche suggeriert ein Brief des Papstes Sixtus (ep. 10) vom 18. Dezember 437. Silva-Tarouca lehnt die Annahme einer konstantinopolitanischen Synode allerdings ab. Vgl. Silva-Tarouca (s. Anm. 39), 42. Vgl. Pietri, Roma christiana (s. Anm. 40), 1142f. Zur Einberufung der Synode vgl. Sixtus, ep. 10 (Coll. Thess. Nr. 14: Silva-Tarouca 41,12f): quoniam in commune sanctitatis vestrae datur nobis appelkre concilium. Der Brief an Proklos: Sixtus, ep. 9 (Coll. Thess. Nr. 13: Silva-Tarouca 39f). Vgl. Sixtus, ep. 9 (Coll. Thess. Nr. 13: Silva-Tarouca 39,16-20): ut contra subreptiones aliquorum circumspecta sanctitas tua facultatem non praebeat horum incongruae voluntati, qui ecclesiisper scandalum cupiunt et discordiam generare, volentesper ecclesiarum perturbationem crescere, et loco sibiper dispensationem facere sacerdotum.

528

Josef Rist

Iddua von Smyrna - also in der Einflusssphare des Proklos - nicht angenommen. Von seinem Amtsbruder, so ist zwischen den Zeilen zu lesen, werde nun ein entsprechendes Verhalten erwartet.50 Parallel zum irenischen, aber in der Sache deutlichen Brief an Proklos verlasst ein scharfes Schreiben des Papstes an die illyrischen Bischofe Rom. Sixtus kundigt die baldige Entsendung eines Legaten an und tadelt in scharfen Worten den Ungehorsam der Bischofe. Mit dem Bild vom einen Leib, der aus Haupt und Gliedern besteht, werden Stellung und Rechte des apostolischen Vikars Anastasios von Thessaloniki noch einmal anschaulich und zugleich deutlich ins Bewusstsein gerufen: „Nullum corpus est, quod capite non regatur."51 Den Weisungen des Vikars ist in jedem FalleFolgezuleisten. Das schnelle papstliche Handeln beendet die Kontroverse. Nachrichten uber etwaige Reaktionen auf das eindeutige Vorgehen des Sixtus liegen nicht vor. Proklos zieht sich auf das papstliche Schreiben hin wohl sogleich aus der Angelegenheit zuruck. Spatere haben den Misserfolg der Intervention des Proklos gerne mit der diesem angeblich eigenen Irenik begrundet.52 Entscheidend war aber wohl die fehlende politische Unterstutzung fur unseren Bischof. Auf sich allein gestellt, konnte dieser noch viel weniger als sein Amtsvorganger Attikos seine vorgeblich berechtigten Anspruche gegenuber dem entschiedenen romischen Vorgehen durchsetzen.

Resumee Unsere Heine tour d'horizon beleuchtete am Beispiel des Proklos von Konstantinopel drei Aspekte, die fur das spatantike Verstandnis des Bischofsamtes von grower Bedeutung sind. Zunachst illustriert der Fall des Proklos auf eindrucksvolle Art und Weise die herausragende Bedeutung von Kaiser und Hof bei der Besetzung des Bischofsstuhles in Konstantinopel. Nach mehreren vergeblichen Anlaufen ist es in einem turbulenten Umfeld der kaiserliche Wille, der Proklos zu seinem Amt verhilft. Aus 50

51 52

Zu diesem );recentissimum nuper habitae actionis exemplum" Iddua (Sixtus, en. 9, Coll. Thess. Nr. 13: Silva-Tarouca 40,36) ausfuhrlicher mit Belegen Rist, Vikariat (s. Anm. 35), 657f. Sixtus, ep. 10 (Coll. Thess. Nr. 14: Silva-Tarouca 43,53f.). Beachtung verdient aber, dafi unter dem Pomifikat des ProUos das Edikt von 421 in die Kompilation des Codex Theodosianus aufgenommen wird. Von einem Verzicht auf die erhobenen Anspruche kann also trotz des erneuten Riickschlages keine Rede sein. So bereits Bauer, Proklos (s. Anm. 1) 108.


529

einer Geschichte des Scheiterns wird so ein kaum mehr zu erwartender

Erfolg. Im Falle des Proklos spricht sich die weltliche Gewalt fur einen Kandidaten aus, der nach erfolgter Bischofsweihe und Ablehnung in Kyzikos als episcopus vacans bereits in Konstantinopel lebt. Seine Erhebung zum Bischof der ostlichen Reichshauptstadt gilt nach Geist und Buchstaben des zeitgenossischen kanonischen Rechtes als unerlaubte Transmigration. Dieser Vorgang belastet die fruhe Amtsfuhrung des Proklos und verstarkt zusatzlich die Abhangigkeit des Bischofs vom kaiserlichen Hof. Die singulare Abhangigkeit der Bischofe von Konstantinopel vom Kaiser zeigt schliefflich auch die erfolglose Intervention des Proklos im Fall Illyrien. Ohne politische Ruckendeckung kann der Bischof seine Anspruche nicht durchsetzen. Nur wenige herausragende Bischofsgestalten der ostlichen Reichshauptstadt, unter ihnen insbesondere Johannes Chrysostomus, konnten sich der kaiserlichen Dominanz entziehen, allerdings zu einem meist hohen Preis.53 Die besondere Abhangigkeit bot groEe Handlungsoptionen, burdete dem Inhaber der Bischofswurde aber auch groEe Verpflichtungen auf ProUos zumindest blieb hier keine Wahl.

53

Zum Verortung des Johannes im stadtischen Kosmos Konstantinopels und seiner Institutionen vgl. CI. Tiersch, Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel (398-404): Weltsicht und Wirken eines Bischofs in der Hauptstadt des Ostromischen Reiches, STAC 6, Tubingen 2002.

The Election of Sahak I as Catholicos of the Armenian Church Oleh Shchuryk Evoking the history of the Armenian Church in the break of the 4th and 5th centuries, with events such as the invention of the Armenian alphabet, the translation of the Bible in vernacular Armenian language and the birth of Armenian literature would be almost impossible without mentioning the name of Catholicos1 Sahak (387-428; 437/8-43S/9). 2 Although many aspects of the latter's life and career as a Catholicos are highly remarkable, and often studied in connection with the events mentioned before, Sahak's election as a head of the Armenian Church has seldom received the attention it deserves in the study of the history of Armenian Christianity of the period. This may be due, at least partially, to the fact that the sources which supply us with information about Sahak's life and his ecclesiastical and political activity, namely: The History by Lazar P'arpec'i,3 The History of the Armenians by Moses Khorenatsi4 and The Life ofMashtots by 1

2 3

4

The title of 'catholicos' was not in use to indicate the highest ecclesiastical position of the Armenian church during the 4th century. However, we use it in this paper in accordance with a later tradition of the Armenian Church which intends to call all the followers of St Gregory the Illuminator: 'catholicos'. See on this question our doctoral dissertation Lebes Pagra'. Studies on the Influence of Early Syriac Literature on the Armenian Theology of'Incarnation', Leuven 2010, 48-49. F. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de l'Armenie, depuis les origines des armeniens jusqu'a la mort de leur dernier roi (l'an 1393), Paris 1900, 76-78. Edition of the text by G. Ter-Mkrtc'ean/S. Malxasean (eds.), Lazaray Patmut'iwn Hayoc' ew T'uh' ar Vahan Mamikonean, Tiflis 1904 (repr. by D. Kouymijian, New York, NY 1985). For an English translation and introduction see R.W. Thomson, The History of Lazar P'arpec'i, Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies. Suren D. Fesjian Academic Publications 4, Atlanta, GA 1991. Cf. S.J. Voicu, La patristica nella letteratura armena (V-X sec), in: Complementi interdisciplinari di patrologia, ed. by A. Quacquarelli, Roma 1989, 657-696, 681; R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Turnhout 1995, 146-149. R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats'i "History of the Armenians", London 1978; the Armenian text in: M. Abefean/S. Yarut'iwnean (eds.), Patmut'iwn Hayoc', Tiflis 1913 (repr. Delmar, NY 1981, with Introduction by R.W. Thomson) (a p b T bu,-u, U >

532

OlehShchuryk

Koriwn,5 as a rule say little or nothing about his election. Only the History by Moses Khorenatsi can be considered as an exception, and will be the basis of our further considerations. It should be added that no mention about Sahak is found in the Epic History by the so-called Faustus Buzandatsi6 nor in the History of the Armenians by the anonymous 'Agathangelos? as Sahak's Catholicate lies beyond the chronological limits of both accounts.

Moses' History among the Armenian Sources As it has been said, most of the information about Sahak (and his election) comes from the History of the Armenians by Moses Khorenats'i, although it is chronologically the 'later' source we are to address, belonging no more to the fifth century. It is true that its author, Moses, claims to have belonged to the closest entourage of Mashtots and of Sahak!8 But the hints to that personal acquaintance of Moses with both leaders was met by modern scholarship with certain suspicions as it was proved that Moses' work was unknown to Armenian writers before the 10th century,9 and (u.,h.h.),

5

6

7

8

9

ITnJuhuh

tonpbW.ghn,,

fll„.mJn^phhi.

ûng,

S + l h", 1 9 1 3 ) ; COmp. the

translation by A. Mahe/J.-P. Mahe (eds.), Histoire de l'Armenie par Moi'se de Khorene, Paris 1993. The Armenian text is edited by: N. Akinean (ed.), Koriwn, Patmut'iwn Varuc' Surb Mastoc' Vardapeti. K'nnut'iwn ew Bnagir ew Canot'ut'iwnner, Handes Amsorya 63, 1949 (repr. Vienna, 1950). English translation: B. Norehad, Koriun, The Life of Mashtots, New York, NY 1964; most recently G. Winkler, Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Mastoc'. Ubersetzung und Kommentar, OCA 245, Roma 1994. The St Petersburg edition of 1883 (

Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity

Episcopal elections 250-600: hierarchy and popular will in late antiquity

Philosophy in Late Antiquity

War in Late Antiquity

War in Late Antiquity

Palestine in Late Antiquity

Ravenna in Late Antiquity

Egypt in Late Antiquity

Hellenism in Late Antiquity

Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England

Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity

The Galilee in Late Antiquity

Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity

Heresy & Identity in Late Antiquity

Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity

Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity

Roman Berytus: Beirut in Late Antiquity

Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity

Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity

Law and Empire in Late Antiquity

Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity

God and Gold in Late Antiquity

Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity

Syriac perspectives on late antiquity

Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity

History and Geography in Late Antiquity

Housing in Late Antiquity - Volume 3.2 (Late Antique Archaeology)

Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Anglo-Saxon Studies)

A Companion to Late Antiquity

Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Anglo-Saxon Studies)

Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire

Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity

Episcopal elections 250-600: hierarchy and popular will in late antiquity

Philosophy in Late Antiquity

War in Late Antiquity

War in Late Antiquity

Palestine in Late Antiquity

Ravenna in Late Antiquity

Egypt in Late Antiquity

Hellenism in Late Antiquity

Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England

Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity

The Galilee in Late Antiquity

Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity

Heresy & Identity in Late Antiquity

Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity

Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity

Roman Berytus: Beirut in Late Antiquity

Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity

Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity

Law and Empire in Late Antiquity

Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity

God and Gold in Late Antiquity

Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity

Syriac perspectives on late antiquity

Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity

History and Geography in Late Antiquity

Housing in Late Antiquity - Volume 3.2 (Late Antique Archaeology)

Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Anglo-Saxon Studies)

A Companion to Late Antiquity

Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Anglo-Saxon Studies)

Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire

Recommend Documents