Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 87 views

    The Dog That Did Not Bark

    Uploaded by

    Mirjana Jevericic
    a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    The Dog That Did Not Bark

    Uploaded by

    Mirjana Jevericic
    87 views14 pages
    a

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    87 views14 pages

    The Dog That Did Not Bark

    Uploaded by

    Mirjana Jevericic
    a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 14
    CHRISTIAN ORIGINS Theology, Rhetoric and Community Edited by Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones R London and New York 5 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK! Doctrine and patriarchal authority in the conflict between Theophilus of Alexandria and ‘John Chrysostom of Constantinople Susanna El “The subject of the following chaprer is somewhat unusual: ie is about some- thing that is missing. I is abou accusations of docteinal ieregulariy that could have been made by the protagonists buc were not, and argues that this fwas not an oversight, but a deliberate choice. In other words, this chapter ‘makes an argument not so much from silence as about silence, in parcicular about silence as an argumentative cool. Because in this case the silence regards doctrinal questions thae involved cwo patriarchs, this chapeec is also about the relationship between authority, doctrine and the rivalry beeween the sees of Alexandria and Constantinople. The thetoric of orthodoxy and hneesy that we find in the sources should thus be read as par ofa developing language of ecclesiastical power. ‘The confrontation of Theophilus of Alexandria with John Chrysostom, which culminated in the ‘Synod of the Oak’ in 403 and John’s subsequent tile, provides the concext of chis silence. Scholars have usually discussed this episode in terms of the precise unfolding of events and che disentan- ling of che forces at play. My focus is on the way in which the sources fnearese to the events have represented the protagonists, especially "Theophilus, and what arguments chey have used ~ or left out ~ co fashion their presentation. By choosing chis focus I hope to provide a more compre- hensive explanation of Theophilus’ aetieude rowaeds doctrine in his conflict with John than the usual one, according to which Theophilus was Machiavellian opportunist who simply used doctrine as a means to his ends. “Theophilus of Alexandria (ca. 345~112) is one of the more puzzling of the bishops and patriarchs who made history during the fourth and fifth century aD. A contemporary of John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and ‘other leading lights, he never made it to centre stage, despice his position as Dattiach of Alexandria from 385 to 412, Indeed, Theophilus is not a symps- thetic character. A ruthless politician for whom the end justified all means, 68 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK “Theophilus as he appests in both the ancient and modern record isa thug? Regardless of Theophilus’ alleged shortcomings, however, cis record is not entirely compere. What remains largely absent from both the ancient and ‘modern characterizations of Theophilus are discussions of his doctrinal posi- tion, 2 most sugprising omission considering chat he was one of the leading figures during the Origenisc concroversy ‘Leaving modem scholarship aside for che momene, the issue at hand is precisely the anciene sources’ creatment of the doctrinal aspects of the Conflict: the moment Theophilus and John Cheysostom, the two protago- nists, enter the scene, none of che sources closest to the events mentions ddocttinal positions, as if Theophilus and John were operating ina ‘docteine- free zone’. Instead, both Theophilus and John Chrysostom are accused of administrative misconduct. Origenist charges and countercharges are made, bat sey ae rough only aginst cose who wee 'second-n-command’y such as Heracius, bishop of Ephesus, and Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis Furthermore, mre oles veiled alison in our sources lve no doube chat ‘acters of doctrinal ieregularity loomed just beyond ehe surface! Given the obvious presence of Origenise concerns, what caused our ancient authors become suddenly so doctinallyrongue-ved when dealing with che proto: would like to suggest thac one reason for such reluctance on the pare of four sources was the relasionship beeween the sees of Alexandria and Constantinople at the beginning of the fifth century. Since these were the ‘wo most important sees in the Eastern empire, and Theophilus and John Chrysostom the ewo most powerful patriarchs, any conflice between the ewo ‘men would have far reaching consequences. Oucright accusations of docerinal irregulariy could thus not be made easily, unless clearcut heresy could be proven. Te was more effective, and also more appropriate, co resort instead t0 charges of a more limited and personal nacure, namely chose of administea~ tive misconduct, especially if such charges also happened co be true. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND PRIOR TO. THE ‘SYNOD OF THE OAK: ‘The ordination of John Chrysostom in 398 signalled a new phase in che development of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate, during which it slidi- fied and expanded its position vissi-vis Alexandria and Rome.’ The council of Constantinople of 381 had already actempced to further clarify the bound- aries of episcopal adminiseration first established by canons 4 and 5 of Nicuea, by stipulating eae bishops of another diocese (uperdivikasin) must_not confuse the churches. According to the canons, the bishop of Alexandria must 69 SUSANNA ELM ‘occupy himself solely with the affairs of Egypt; those of the Orient ‘administer (disikein) only the Orient... those of Thrace only the affairs of Thrace. Bishops must not ordain or perform any other administrative act outside their diocese without appeal.® “These measures were in part a response to yeas of Arian crisis, uring which frequent collusion between Alexandria and Rome had led to a number of direct incerferences in the internal affairs of Constantinople? Under INectarius, Gregory's successor, Constantinople had progressed to where rela- tions with Alexandria had reached a stable though highly precarious equilibrium. Both patriarchs were now called upon co act as mediarors and judges berween differeat bishops within cheir sphere of influence, whereby the exact dimensions of this sphere were constantly renegotiated.” With John Chrysoscom this equilibrium broke down. “Alceady events surrounding his ordination signalled che impending disruption of che delicate balance of power, The Antiochene John ‘Chrysostom had been ordained by Theophilus, who had been forced to abandon his own candidate, Isidore, under pressure from ehe court in Constantinople in the person of the eunuch Eutropius, at that point the leading power behind Arcadius’chrone.!" With full support of the coure, [John began co expand the radius of his episcopal see well beyond the bound- ‘ties stipulated by the canons of Constantinople. He enlisted imperial fuppore in the fight agains heresies’ and ‘pagans’; he iniviated a neucraliza~ tion of Antioch by mobilizing Theophilus of Alexandria co effect a reconciliation becween Flavian of Ancioch and the pope in Rome through the emissaries Acacius of Beroea and Isidore; he formulated ehe first system atic policy regarding the conversion of che Goths so orthodoxy; and he made fs number of direct interventions in jurisdictions other than his own. In ca, 400-401, John ordained one of his deacons, the Origenist Heraclides, as bishop of Ephesus againse local opposition, deposed several ocher Asian bishops and reorganized che entire diocese in a flagrant transgression of ‘canonical procedure which resuleed in an expansion of his territorial base ‘directly prior co the events culminating in the ‘Synod of the Oak’? THE ‘SYNOD OF THE OAK” ‘Ac the ‘Synod of the Oak’, assembled on the outskirts of Constantinople in the year 403, thircy-six bishops under che leadership of Theophilus of ‘Alexandria ousted John Chrysostom from his see as bishop of Constantinople! Ostensibly this was 2 moment of criumph, but “Theaphils victory proved co be a Pyethic one chat evenly sled his fare." The discord led to a serious rift between Theophilus and Pope Innocent, che first significant upeure in the relationship beeween Rome and 70 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK Alexandria since Theodosius I made the alliance beeween those cwo sees the basis of the Nicene faith.” As a result, Rome's position was ultimately strengehened at che expense of both Alexandria and Constantinopte."6 However, as far as Theophilus is concerned, what proved cruly decisive for posterity was the fact thar John Cheysostom's followers and cheit sympa- thizers wrote che history of these events and thus shaped Theophilus’ reputation. His picture, in addition co deriving from hostile sources, has farther been impaired by the fact chat modern debates about the events surrounding the ‘Synod of the Oak’ often uncritically reflect these ancient sources, and thus centre on John Chrysostom and the concerns of Constantinople. Missing are evaluations of Theophilus beyond his function as che villain and, as a direct consequence, ofthe significance of the patriar- chate of Alexandria during the frst parc of che fifeh ceneury.!7 ‘Theophilus is usually considered the agent of larger forces whose conflu- ence caused John’s dowafall'® These forces have been variously identified as Eudoxia, wife of the emperor Arcadius;!? a disenfranchised Constantinopolitan clergy and monastic elite"? hostile members of the Eastern capital's ariseocracy, disturbed by John’s pro-berbarian leanings;”” his overly zealous recruitmene of wealdhy aristocratic womens”? o& his all- ‘oo-intimate ties to the Western aristocracy at che Theodosian court.?? In all this, the focal poine remains Constantinople, whereas the position of the Alexandrian patriarchate prior co Cyril is’ rarely described, even less explained. ‘By examining che ways in which che sources most significant for the “Synod of the Oak’ shaped che piccure of Theophilus of Alexandria, and how they treated doctrine in che process, this discussion begins a reassessment of ‘Theophilus’ searus and, by implicacion, that of Alexandria. ‘THE SOURCES Palladius ‘The first and most significant source shaping the picture of Theophilus is Palladius of Helenopolis' Dialogue on the Life of Si Jobn Chrysostom.® Ie was ‘written in 408 and purports to be an eye-witness account of the tumultuous ‘events leading to John Chrysostom’ deposition. The Dialogue was conceived ppethaps in response to a pamphlet by Theophilus himself, and under the influence of Palladius’ own mission on behalf of John Chrysostom to Pope Innocent of Rome beeween 404 and 405.25 According to Palladius, Theophilus of Alexandria was the engineer of a ‘conspiracy’ that led to Chrysostom’s spectacular downfall. In his portrayal, ‘Theophilus was particularly suited co the cask because of his character, reflected not only in his anti-Chrysostom machinations, but in his entice n SUSANNA ELM. seyle of episcopal rulership. Thus, when Joha’s enemies, driven by envy, sought co harm John, they chose ‘the reckles’ Theophilus as cheie Fingleader, because “he was very clever at engineering projects like this "Theophilus — according to Palladius — was a ‘weather cock’,®® prone to change from overbearing ‘gentility and sweeeness’ to uncontrolled rage in an inseant, « master of double clk, whose words seldom matched his ehougbts, 1 schemer, driven by hunger for unlimited power and greed for money, who invented endless tricks to get his way.” In Palladius’ rendering, ehe one episode thet most strikingly represents ‘Theophilus’ nefarious character and actions, is that of the Egyptian monks he expelled from Nieria because of their Origenist doctrine, and whose reception by John Chrysostom directly resulted in the ‘Synod of the Oak’ and Joha's subsequent downfall, Consequently, Palladius devotes signifi- cancly more space to these events, which are so revealing of the wolf in sheep's clothing, than co the entice affair ofthe “Synod of the Oak’.®° In Palais’ acount, a se aro uetons of dctrne, bu a of improper comporement and misuse of authority on che part of us. ‘This be secincdy exemplified in Pallaios” descepcion of Theopils: behaviour at a key momene, namely when John received the expelled Egyptian monks in Constentinople. Theophilus flew into uncontrolled rage, defying all customary rules of proper decorum and respect, giving John no ‘opportunity co admie 2 mistake whilst seving face: Would he not have been less obstinace when dealing with pious bishops eo have said ‘Brother John, have you not done this without due consideration?” And chen John in excusing himself could have said thac he was unaware of having done wrong.”! “This lack of decorum reveals Theophilus’ true motives which are domi- raced by lust for power. The crisis ieself was precipitated by Theophilus seleaggrandizing mania, bis itbonania, o conscruct supertiuous churches in the fashion of the Pharaohs as monuments to his ego.”? Because of that he ‘iseppropriaced moneys donated to the Church by a widow and intended for the poor, which were held in crust by his deacon Isidore, who, in sharp contrast t0 his supetio, was a true ‘gentleman’. After disguising his inten- tions for some months, "like a dog that bites you when you least expect it’, "Theophilus suddenly deposed Isidore on grounds of a patently eeumped up charge of sodomy, and forced him to leave Alexandria for the desert. But this was not enough. ‘With a dragon's blood-shot eyes’, ‘glaring like a bull’ “Theophilus proceeded ro dizect his fury against che Nittian monks who had aiven Isidore shelter? "At that point, and only at chat point, doctrine comes into play ~ as che epitome of Theophilus’ deviousness. Attempting to hide his true motives, namely greed, selfaggrandizing buperbie, rage and lust for power, n THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK Theophilus resorts to doctrinal issues as a decoy. According +o Palladius, Theophilus produced on the spur ofthe moment an anathema of Origen as 2 pretext co expel all the monks who supported Isidore on charges of heres. Palladius claims cc this was done in dtect violation of canonical prscripes and on false charges garnered chrough bribery of other clergy, cartied out by the army and some Ethiopian shaves. In shorn his verweening pride, ‘Theophilus nor only spoke asa god, but even imagined he was a god’. This is the leiemocif which dominaces Palladius’ description of ‘Theophilus’ conduce throughout the remainder of the afi: violation of episcopal auchority, falsification of charges with the help of bribery, misap- propriation of funds slander and persecution of upright clergy, breach of the rules of hospiclity and disregard of decorum made manifest through fics of uncontrolled rage, improper display of gluctony, disdain and lack of respect towards the Church and its representatives.» Palladius says not a word of diocttine excepc in the pivoral deseripcion of che expulsion of the Nitrian monks, and here only co underscore Theopbils’ eeprehensible conduct, ** Enter John Chrysostom, whose reception of che refugees ostensibly brought the crisis into the open. Ie will come as litele surprise chat John Chrysostom as Palladius portrays him is che exace opposite of Theophilus. Where Theophilus is double rongued, John shines through ‘che frankness of his speech’ purresia);*” winere Theophilus is an inconsstene changeling at the whim of his passions, John is in perfect mastery of body and mind, 30 much so that asceticism ruined his digestion and forced him to eat alone;®® ‘whete Theophilus’ hunger for power stoops to bribery, false accusetions and sheer cerror, John is concerned only with che Church’ welfice to che poine that his own authority is threatened by those he has thus challenged. Contrary to Theophilus who persecutes those of his clergy who are above corruption and eager to provide for the poor, John introduces stringent reforms and chastises the corrupt. Unlike the profligate Theophilus, John ‘minimizes the expenses of the episcopal household to benefit the sick, the poor and the widows. Where Theophilus interferes with his bishops pastoral care, John reforms che lieurgy: where Theophilus forces his laity into perjury, John calls them to lmsgiving and modesty ‘The list goes on." Pallas establishes here cwo diametrically opposed models of episcopal behaviou, the dark side of Theophilus corresponding precisely to the pacity in Joh Cheysostom. The substance of both sides, the posiive and the nega- tive one, howeres is provided noc by questions of docerine, bu by propee and improper use of authority as reflected by each protagonist's characte. In other words, rather than seeking co give an accurate portrayal of historical events, Palladius constructs here models of authoriy, based on ehe standard typolo- gies of che good and the evil adminiserator."" However, this decidedly thecorical and indeed strongly apologecic nacue of che Dialogue has remained largely overlooked in scholacly debaces, and its relevance for the historical reconstruction of Theophilus has not been taken into consideration a all? B SUSANNA ELM ‘The Acts of the Synod “The ingcedients of Palladius’ carefully constructed picture of Theophilus as the diametcical opposite of John he hero gain additional significance when compared to another contemporary source, namely the Acts of the Synod itself. Asin the case of Palladius’ Dialog, che Act of the Synod, too, are a ‘composite of several levels of intentionality. First, they have reached us mediated through Photius in his Biblitbwa® This adds an imporane component in the form of Photius’ own editorial perspective, influenced both by his personal fate as well as his intellectual leanings. The Biblioteca ‘was most likely completed in Phocius' later years, when he had already been flected and deposed as patriarch of Constantinople at least once, and both his predilection for the Antiochene school and his strong interest in heresies ‘are ‘well documented. ‘The question arises, therefore, whether of not Photius’ interests materially affected the content of the Aas, and if so how. "The Acts were originally composed by John Chrysostom’s opponents under the leadership of Theophilus of Alexandria. Photius introduces them by calling the Synod illegal and ies leaders partial, ‘being at the same time judges, accusers and witnesses’. Photius’ pro-Chrysostom sentiments are thus made abundantly clear® However, his excerpts must be judged histor- ically accurate, first because they are supported by other sources which corroborate the main accusations, and second, because the John portrayed by the Ads fits the negative description given by none other than ‘Theophilus: he was a man ‘filled with a passionace love for power (philarchia pathos spoudases) 7 Indeed, a survey of the Acts yields a significant conclu- sion: chough differing in the specifics, the bishops assembled at ‘che Oaks’ accused John Chrysostom of exactly ehe same types of misdemeanours with ‘which Palladius had charged Theophilus. Like Theophilus, the John emerging from the Acts is accused of inconsis- tency: during the ‘soldiers’ revole, chat is, the Gothic uprising, John had betrayed the whereabouts ofthe camer Johannes, leading to his capeare by ehe Gothic eroops.## Furthermore, he was prone to fits of uncontrolled rage £0 the point of punching a member of his clergy, drawing blood. He consis- tently violated rules of proper decorum by eating alone (and thus without proper restraint) and by having the baths heated for himself only. He even saw women alone, behind closed doors.%° “John’s behaviour cowards members of his clergy, however, eruly defied all ruies of proper comportment. He treated his clergy ‘as if chey were men ‘without honour, corrupt, good-for-nothiggs', and had called “Saint Epiphanius an “tithead” and little demon’ He accused three deacons of having stolen his mapborion, snd had the monk John flogged.*? He engi- neered a conspiracy against Severian of Gabals,®8 and he bribed clerics to bereer suppress chose who might oppose him. ™# ‘More egregiously, according ¢o the Ads, John Cheysoscom frequently "4 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK violated che procedures of ordination and eransgressed the limits of his power. He had ordained clergy against canonical prescriptions and deposed fochers on false charges. He ruled like an autocrat, without seeking consensus among his peers. And he mismanaged Church finances. Not only did he divert moneys budgeted for buildings to unknown use, he sold off an inheri- tance, and generally diverted Church revenues to unknown ends. ‘According to the Adis of the Synod, John's accusers, mainly his deacon John and che monk Isaac, charged him with administrative misconduct. He had flagrantly disregarded che rules of proper decorum, in particular vi-d-vis his clergy, resulting in disrespect, breeches of hospitaliry, and generally bad ‘manners. He had violated canonical prescripes through improper ordinations and incerference in other bishops’ areas of competence; and he had misappeo- priaced Church funds, chough, as in the case of Theophilus, noc necessarily for personal gains. In Photius’ crassmission of the Aat of the Synod, several of Chrysostom's accusers, especially the monk John and bishop Isak, a ‘leader ofthe monks’, charge his confidants, Heracides of Ephesus and Palladius of Helenopolis, with Origenism, snd fault John and his second-in-command Serapion for their failure co addeess che injuries they had personally suffered by the hands of the Origenists. baak also adds a Liellum against Chrysostom, complaining that Origenists have mistreated one of his monks, and chat because of che Origenists, the holy Epiphanius has refused to enter into communion with ‘Isaak. Again: the charge is not thar John is an Origenist, but chat his confi- ddants are and that ae himself does not deal with them in the prope: manner. ‘To conclude, as portrayed by the first two contemporary sources examined, both Theophilus and John respectively failed to govern appropriacely. (Pseudo-) Martyrius’ Life of Jobn Chrysostom ‘A third contemporary source is the so-called Discourse on the Life of Jobn CChrysstom, accributed to Martyrs of Antioch. As demonsteated by F van Ommestaeghe, chis text is in fact an orato funebris composed by an anony- ‘mous supporter of John Chrysostom around the time of the latter’ deach, that is, around 407, and intended for a like-minded audience.>” The anoay- ‘mous author, who had been baptized and ordained by John, also purports to Seis een ee Le ane Indeed, Ps--Marryrius’ intentions are those of Palladius, namely to reba bilicate and defend his mentor with great passion. However, Ps-Marcyrius’ tone is more sober and he adheres far more closely to factual details. Whilst PsMattyrius also faules Theophilus’ conduct in the affair of che Egyprian monks for the ensuing conflict, he mentions che afsi only briefly and in ‘general terms, without implying any long-standing animosity beeween John and Theophilus? 75 SUSANNA ELM. Indeed, as portrayed by Ps-Martyrius, Theophilus was an experienced politician and resourceful strategist, who resorted immediately folowing the ruption of hostilities co classic campaign measures: he sene an advance {troop of Egyptian bishops to Constantinople by sea, while he chose che land- route using his journey co lobby all che bishops on the way for his cause Once strived in Constantinople, according to Ps-Martyris, Theophilus shifllyexploiced log ranking animsiies harboured by the citys powee- brokers to topple his adversary “The ‘Theophilus portrayed by Ps-Martycius is not a likesble character cither, bu rather than the abject villain portrayed by Palladius, we find here 2 man who was a shrewd politician and excellent power-broker, quick to forge and dissolve alliances without being overly impeded by seruples.®* ‘Again, however, the focus is on decorum and modes of governance, not on doctrine. Ps.-Martyrius accuses Theophilus of breaches of hospitality and lack of decorum, as well as transgression of the boundaties of episcopal Perthe same ype of arguments are marshalled in Ps.-Marcyrius’ defence of Chrysostom. Here, too, the issues at hand are procedural iregularcis, © politically imporcune efforts of charty,® John's non-canonical deposition of, ‘Asian bishops, his misappropriation of funds and his disrespectful habit of cating alone ‘Decne appears only onc, and hese, as in Pallas’ case, only in ref ence to Theophilus’ dealings with che monks. Howeves, Ps-Marryrius eference is even more indirect and oblique: Origen himself (rather than ‘Theophilus is portrayed as some obscure figure emerging from the desere to cast the spell of heresy over the unfortunate monks ~ an interesting nocion Given chat Ps--Marcyzius is the only source co defend John Chrysostom against accusations of magic. John Chrysostom’s Letter to Innocent of Rome “The chree contemporary sources discussed so far contain reports of the events and portrayals of the protagonists as fashioned by third parties, either John's ardent supporters, or the formal complaints lodged against him by the ‘Synod of the Oak, as preserved by yet another sympathetic party. All three sources concentrate on charges and countercharges of administrative and personal misconduct, focusing on eansgression of episcopal spheres of influ- ence, misappropriation of Church funds and breaches of hospitality and proper comportment. These complaints are also stressed by yer another Contemporary source, this time by one of the protagonists himself, namely John Cheysostom’s Letter Innocent of Rome ® ‘Tn this lerer John explained the events chat led co his first exile after the “Synod of che Oak’ his recall and the calamicous riots prior co his second and final exile, during which fire deseroyed che Hagia Sophia, the senate house 76 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK sand adjoining buildings in the Easter night of 404.7 Rather chan composing a formal letter of defence, an oratio pro demo, however, John sought here to appeal che sentence of the synod and reverse its decision; in shoet, rather than responding co individual charges he sought co nullify the validity of the synod as such. For thae purpose, he concentrated on identi- fying and denouncing the driving force behind this sham synod — none exh, ofcourse, than Theopie— whi atthe sme cme anempting ceahance his own role and co minimize thac of a third party, che imperial household. a In these endeavours John, coo, circumvented all direct references to ques- tions of doctrine, and highlighted instead issues of decorum, administeative misdemesnours, and especially procedural irregularities. Thus he bitterly ccicized Theophilus’ refusal co lodge with him upon his aerival in Constantinople, even though the rooms in the episcopal residence had already been prepared, 2 violation of old customs that caused a public scandal: ‘Still we kept inviting them, doing the proper thing for them, trying to find out why he should start such a conflict and bring such insult to our city? He then scomed Theophilus for not creating him as an equal, but as an adversary: by citing the example of Theophilus’ summons of his second-in- command, his archdeacon Jobo, ‘in che manner of one having great authority, 3 though che Church were aleeady widowed and did not have a bishop’, he reversed Theophilus’ charges of incerference in another's epis- copal jurisdiction, levelling it against Theophilus himself”! “The principal source of grievance was, however, Theophilus’ acts ‘against the ls nd cans and al esa Procedure Thophils bed called John to judgement prior to having cleated himself of charges brought againse Wi eng hel che mos fe judges who had forest bres ‘and more crucially, ‘nor was it even fitcing co one from Egypt to act as a judge in Thrace’."' Then, to cop this history of unlawfulness, Theophilus ‘even ignoced imperial letters, whilst John, in sharp contrast, continually pressed for ‘proper procedure of interrogation and response. We stood ready toassert our innocence and their disregard for law." Throughout, allusions to questions of doctrine are veiled at best. ‘Theophilus’ cefusal of communion and his avoidance of John implies thac he treated him as a schismatic or heretical bishop.’6 Furthermore, Cheysostom's insistence on Theophilus’ violation of procedure could signify more than ‘meets the modern eye: a contemporary such as Innocent would have known that claims of orthodoxy and heresy were formulated in accordance with the adversarial techniques of forensic Roman law with bishops acting as causidici.”” For contemporary eats, especially chose well versed in the art of fighting heretics according to the rules of law, John’s insistence on procedure ‘might have had a different ring. Yet, the fact remains chat docerine is never ‘openly mentioned. n SUSANNA ELM ‘To summarize, che Theophilus emerging so far from our sources is the iamettical opposite of John Chrysoscom. This Theophilus is furchermore crafced in such a way that che charges levelled againse him are the direct inverse of those with which our one hostile source, che Act, accused! Joba Chrysostom, The substance of chese accusations and counter-accusations are issues of governance and he appropriate conduct of authority figures: correct observance of procedure (either regarding che conduct of a synod, or modes of ordination}; maintenance of proper spheres of influence; appropriare management of funds; and adherence co customary rules of decorum when ineeracting with equals. If ic were not for synods and ordination, one might think that chs was a power-scruggle berween figures of secular auchorcy. Tndeed, all issues of a docteinal navure are subordinated to the authors shetorical’ conscruction of the antagonist. Since Palladius portrays ‘Theophilus as a scrupulous and yrannical rules, his treatment of issues relating co doctrine has to remain ‘in character’. Accordingly, in keeping ‘with his construction of Theophilus a the villain, Palladivs can only phrase ‘Theophilus’ underscanding of doctrine as a means to the end of toppling Chrysostom, never as a genuine concern. Similarly, Ps-Marryrius’ view of ddocerinal concerns fits wich his description of Theophilus asthe Alexandrian politician, enmeshed in his own, nebulous, local doctrinal ‘business. Both Palladius and Ps-Mareyrius were closely aligned with John Chrysostom, Polladius is further known co have been an Origenist.”® Given that hey ‘were writing while John's position was still precarious, their reluctance co engage in doctrinal discussions and eheir method when doing 30 needs hardly to be explored further. Bur this does not explain che reluctance of our fone pro-Theophilus source, the Acts, co associate John Chrysostom with Origenism. AS pointed our above, all charges of that nature in the Acts are ‘exclusively diected againse John’s close associates but never against himself If Theophilus wanced to depose John, why not simply accuse him of doctrinal ircegulatiies? Instead, John Chrysostom is only charged wich the insufficient supervision of his Origenist clergy. John's own letter, not surprisingly, reflecs cis. His ‘defence is based solely on issues of procedure. Doctrine is seemingly not at stake. Yer, we do know from other sources chat questions rsised by the so-called Origenist controversy were at thar moment hotly debated. In fac, one importanc witness for chat is Theophilus himself. How then did he use doctrine in the period leading up to and surrounding his clash with John Chrysostom? THEOPHILUS’ USE OF DOCTRINE: THE ‘SILENCE SPEAKS [Efforts to reconstruct Theophilus’ use of doctrinal issues are determined by the manner in which his weitings have been preserved.”9 The majority of che 78 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK ‘writings relevant co that period have reached us in Jerome's Latin eransia- tion, augmented by a number of Greek feagments. In eases in which original fragments of Jerome's translations exist, they conficm that he reflected ‘Theophilus’ viewpoine faithfully? However, ehe complexity of the trans- ‘mission of Theophilus’ writings, including chose char reflect his doctrinal development mote broadly,*! makes an occasional recourse to other sources necessary when reconstructing Theophilus’ use of doctrinal issues prioc to the ‘Synod of the Oak’.®? Palladius' account of the events leading up co John Chrysostom’s downfall ‘made the affair of che Origenist monks the liemus test of Theophilus’ aei- tude towards matters of doctrine. According to him, Theophilus had no sincere doctrinal concerns, but used doctrine only as a font for extending his power. When recounted from Theophilus’ side, ie becomes evident that Palladius had a point. Theophilus’ dealings wich the affair of the Origenist ‘monks reveals a continuously escalating series of events, atthe culmination of which matters of docerine, crucial chough they had been throughout, took second rank vised-vis macters of authority. Ia the final analysis, what macered most to Theophilus was che fat chat John Chrysostom, regardless of doctrinal issues, had violaced canon 5 of Nicaea chat regulated the bound aes of episcopal authority? By receiving the Origenist monks, Chrysostom aucomatically questioned Theophilus’ competence regarding the doccrinal charges responsible for their expulsion. In so doing, he questioned the legiti- macy of Theophilus’ actions, and hae consticuted interference into che internal aff of the see of Alexandria. What was at stake for Theophilus were three kinds of auchority: his authority wichin che boundaries of his own see; his authority in relation co other sees of equal importance, namely Constantinople and Rome; and his authority with regard co the imperial court. IFany one ofthese three realms of auchoricy was challenged, che other two were automatically affected as well. Issues of a doctrinal nature, raised by readings of Origen’s weitings, were importane in all three spheres, not least since they determined the legitimacy of Theophilus’ actions. But when ‘Theophilus refused co accept what he saw as John Cheysoscom's serious transgression of boundaries, doctrinal concerns were subordinated to issues of authority ~ and John Chrysostom’s letter to Innocent confirms that he was aware of chat. Jerome's Later 92 isa translation of Theophilus’ synodal leter of the year 400 addressed co the bishops of Palestine and Cyprus with Theophilus’ own account of the issue of the Nicrian monks.® According to Theophilus, his own involvement began when he, as befitting the patriarch, was called upon by local fathers and monastic leaders co mediate a dispute threatening ¢o split the entire monastic community of Nitria. This dispute had originated when certain foreign monks®S insisted on propagating a reading of Origen's ‘writings that seriously questioned subordination, rendered the resurrection problematic, posited that the heavenly powers, chat is, the angels, received 9 SUSANNA ELM their orders through a pre-cosmic fll of angels, and a number of other ques- tionable points, including suspicion of magic.®” Theophilus had ascertained these dangerous aspects of Origen's teachings independently and in accor- dance with the ‘ecclesiastical rule’, by convening a synod composed of local ‘monastic leaders and bishops in ca. 399, who examined Origen's writings and duly found them wancing.*® This synod did, however, not convince the offending monks of their error. They not only continued to cisculace through the Nitrian monasteries, bue formed a veritable shock-troop (facto cena) that attempted to bring violence to Theophilus’ see in Alexandria. There, according to Theophilus, they made use of a separate disciplinary suit against Isidore, already before the bishops? as a front ro defend their heresy (ub nomine Isideri baeresem defnderent iste et signifer bereticae facions) © Faced with such blatant insubordination, and seeing that hese monks defended their heresy by sedition, Theophilus was left with no other choice than co expel these monks from the Church. However, as he does not fil to point out, he undertook these measures not because of ill-will rowards these monks, bat because of his readiness co defend che faith. Te is ehis chat compels him now to write. The monks have fled to Palestine, and cherefore ‘Theophilus has co carry che maceer likewise outside che confines of Egypr, in order eo inform his neighbouring brothers of his actions and to warn chem of the heretical threat in their midst. Tn his own presentation, Theophilus has so far merely fulfilled his role as patriarch of Alexandria, He was asked to mediate a doctrinal dispute trou- bling his ascetic constieuency; he proceeded with an independent investigation of the doctrinal issues at stake; a synod of local leaders assem bled by him concluded chat indeed one side proposed teachings chat questioned the resurrection and denied likeness becween Christ and the Facher, and which therefore had to be condemned. The losers did not accept their loc, making disciplinary measures inevitable, as a result of which they fled into neighbouring provinces. Only at that point did Theophilus carry ‘matters outside his own diocese by warning his neighbouring bishops of potential doctrinal and disciplinary problems in cheir midst. The bishops Fesponded by declaring chat no such teachings hed been observed in their dioceses, chus effectively neutralizing the issue 7? "After several months had passed, by the middle of 400, some of the expelled monks stiled to Constantinople? In so doing, chey cattied che dispute onco a much larger stage that included two new players: che patti- farch of Conscantinople and che imperial court. Theophilus took Cortesponding measures. He sent a letcer to Epiphanius of Salamis, whose jcion cowards Origen he knew, and asked him to assemble his local Bishops to compose an official condemnation of Origen's eeachings and to inform the bishop of Constantinople as well as those of Asia Minor of the dangers posed by Origenism. He himself had already sene trusted ascetic Jeaders co Constantinople to inform John Chrysostom, undertaken successful 80 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK seeps to gain the support of Anastasius of Rome for his concerns regu readings of Origen, and enlied Jerome co rally futher supporers™ ‘Theophilus also continued co devote atcention to these matters at home. Fragments of letters to the monks in Scetis as well as to the ‘Origenist monks’ have been preserved in addition co his festal leeter of 401, all acesting «0 his concern with Origen’s teachings on the resurrection and subordination.%% For the following ewo years the chronology is difficule co establish; bu there seeme co have been a cereain period of stasis uncil 402, which could easily be explained by local Constantinopolitan events chat commanded cencre stage.” Ie seems clear that Theophilus’ early atempts co gain John ‘Cheysoscom’s support on che doctrinal issues neither succeeded aor failed. Alehough the expelled monks were allowed to remain in Constantinople ‘without being condemned, chey were apparently denied official rehabiliea- sion.%® Bue by 402, ehe events had acceleraced. In his festa lete of this yeas, Theophilus again chellenged doctrinal issues raised by contemporary readings of Origen, now regarding specifically the Eucharist In addition, hae states that Origenists are now canvassing the rich of the big cities (appar- ently referring co Constantinople) to stir up hatred against him, even though, as he again reiterated, he personally wished chem no harm and ‘would readmie them if they abandoned eheie miseaken eeachings.!® In the same year, Epiphanius went co Constantinople in person in an attempt enue Chyestom fhe danges inherent in Origen’ wings, bt tno "Now matters had reached a crisis point. Apparently the monks had sucteeded in wining over the empetor Arde and his wie Bodora st well as Joba Chrysostom. As a result, Theophilus was summoned 0 Gonsacngpe co defend himself aginst he charge of wlawl epson of “The mere fct chat Theophilus’ judgement in the doctrinal issues of the Nicrian monks was officially questioned and challenged in Constantinople, by the patriarch in co-operation with the court, constituted, at least in ‘Theophilus’ eyes, an unaccepeable breach of canon 5 of Nicaea and canon 2 of Constantinople, which regulated che boundaries of episcopal euthori- ‘ies. Te was a clear incerference in the affairs of his own diocese. Hence his accusation of John: Theophilus never challenged Joha's doctrinal postion, he never accused him of being himself an Origenise, bue he consistency accused John of having ‘accepted Origenists' (Orgenitas in suam rcipiens faniliarzate"°4 This acceptance and toleration of the Origenists under- ‘mined Theophilus’ auchorey at home, -d-vs Rome and in the eyes of the emperor! S Theophilus had to strike back, and did. Throughout doctrine femained importane, fise because the doctrinal concerns raised by ‘Theophilus were seious, and second because they formed che bass for his actions against the Origenist monks! al SUSANNA ELM CONCLUSIONS ‘This discussion attempted not so much a rehabilitation of Theophilus of ‘Alexandria, as reassessment of his role in the confi with John ‘Chrysostom and its portrayal in both the ancient and modern literacure. To begin with modem studies, Theophilus is repeatedly portrayed as having made a failed atcempe at accusing John Chrysostom of Origenism as pare of his overall plot co copple the later !°” When this attempt filed, according to scholarly opinion, Theophilus resorced instead co ‘trivial charges’ of administrative misconduct."®® Analysis of the sources closest co the actual conflict correct this picture. Theophilus did not accuse John Chrysostom of Origenism. He accused him of accepting and receiving Origenists and thereby tolerating theit beliefs and activities. This constituted indeed adminisative misconduct, but chat was by no means a trivial matter. Ie was instead an issue of central importance: interference in the affairs of another patriarchs see violated canon 5 of Nicaea and seriously jeopardized che co- ‘operation of the mose important sees of che Eastern empire, Alexandria and Constantinople. Theophilus’ suit brought against John Chrysostom at che "Synod of the Oak’ succeeded in pare because it was supported by similar charges unrelated to the Origenise question, namely John's aggressive and improper handling of the reorganization of the Asian sees and the ordination of Heraclides as bishop of Ephesus, discussed above. ‘The centrality of administrative charges with regard to this case raises farther questions of a more fundamental nature. Were administrative charges indeed of a lesser mere, less serious than those of doctrinal irregu- larity, and if so according to whom? The manner in which Theophilus’ actions have been porteayed in modern accounts of secular historians and those of doctrine alike suggests an underlying assumption thar whenever authority and doctrine are simultaneously at stake, doctrinal concerns and not matters of governance ought to prevail! ‘A close reading of the sources nearest to the conflict reveals, however, chat the opposite was in face che case. Even chough issues of a doctrinal nacure ‘were fundamental to the conflc, in the final analysis it was the question of a bishop's authority within his see that proved co be decisive. As it happened, the docteinal position of Theophilus carried the day, buc chat was a consequence not a primary cause. The presupposed primacy of doctrine over authority is in face che resue of the way in which sources hostile to ‘Theophilus have depicted che conflict. It was Palladius and sources sympa- thetic co John who have determined this reading of the conflict to the present day. Palladius was himself an Origenist, as were the majotity of che sources relating the events. He belonged ro the doctrinal party that had been seriously impaiced by the result of the conflict between John Chrysoscom and Theophilus, and he wrote from a defensive posicion. It is Palladius who places questions of governance, administration and authority in the centre as 82 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK well — and from a ‘historical’ poine of view accuracely so ~ bue who does so ‘wich a strongly negative slant. To stipulate che moral superiority of doctrine ‘over administration is Palladius’ own defence. ‘The close analysis of the sources makes yet an additional point. Ac the level of patriarchs, questions of authority and appropriate governance cannot be disassociated from issues of docerine. Not only aze both closely linked, but this case study has shed some light on how this functions in practice. When the highest level of ecclesiastical power are involved, ques- tions of authority proved more imporcane as well as more effective, in part because such issues had already been codified and canonized. Theophilus does not accuse John of Origenism because he cannot: Origenism does not yet camry the legal value of a heresy since it has noe yet been officially declared as such. ‘This is a chaprer about Theophilus of Alexandria as portrayed by sources sympathetic to John Chrysostom. As such, it provides an analysis of the shetorical strategies used by these sources, and che ways in which they use and do.not use issuer of a docerinal nature, The results of thie analysis eaice many questions about the relationship becween Alexandria and Constantinople, and about the use of orthodoxy and heresy, mose of which ‘cannot be answered here. Ic becomes clear, however, that issues of orthodoxy and heresy are never static. They must always be seen in their context: che same coctrinal concerns will be described differenely depending on che source, the situation and the starus of the accuser and the accused.!!0 Questions of orthodoxy and heresy thus illuminate precisely ‘the peculise nature of the exercise of power in late antiquity’, shaped by che ‘decisive decrmination of the average beaters of authority’ ~ asec bishop, patriarch or (pagan) coure official — ro remain in control oftheir own world’! NOTES 1 Af 8. Coan Dope, Sein’ Is wes on would be ete to Michael Man, who insights and genroiy were boc equally cearkable 2 Theophilus i fequendyelered coche Church plato (whe) bas tnd ticortian conduct provoked resentment, 'M. Dati Hypatia of ‘Alzanda, te E lye, Reveing Amciguiy 8, Cambirige MA, Haract ‘riversiy Pes, 1995, guar 84 Inde his activi ile even his morern Blegraphes with dismay G. Last, Talo fAleendre, Publican! dela Unreal Calc del Scro Canes 4719, Milan, Vita Pensieo,1935,and A eal, “Teofilo dAlewandcia G52 coA19), Suleman 18. (1956), pp 215-46, 498-535: 19 (1957), pp. 34-9, 215-72 3 Rotowing the ancient sours, esr modern scholars have dismissed any serous dacrsal moc behind Theophile sance on Orgenis questions. The ta igifean ecepion in, 0 my knowledge, EA. Clack Th Ong Coir: Te Cara Contra of Bary Chitin Deu, Psncton, Nj, Panceon Universiy Prey 1992, 9p. 1052. 4 Seethe individual dscuton of he wars Below. 83. SUSANNA ELM In theese of John Chrysostom, scholar ate ely fee essay caves Fn ett Geclemen nto the doce spect of Kis cofice with Feet nen penny sens being eter niet in mates of ettne ef) Chyos Eon 1V 2m Jame. (86 99 48) and, Demougets Sem De Foi oT deen epi rm 395-410, Pa bee ‘Sten Sasonnewe, 195%, pe 299) es fl impor: les conroven, acer encom summarise his ate or a tox beyond question Ribs eho car porentally Origen lenin of John Chysstm ee Bc. Dense Exige le Boose le "Dialoge suave dest Jun Ciccone Ballon Lintutr Ecletarige 3 (1979) pp. 191-206; }~ Teun Chr ge nena} Fein nC Nee SN ean Maange pie ofr’ = Cardin Jen seas Sah Benuckcne, 1972, 9p. 335A, wh cnmises the pon 0 Ben Bone de concn Lae ceca ae fn de s Sovnape at Aug ippone’ in C- Keonengieser ed), Je Clearance Angin: Aces du Colgue de Chantilly, 22-24 sttenbre 1974, Sree ineque 35, Puss Beaten, 1975 pp. 283.305. | have ot TSR cn te publed weson of pape on che subje:even by SEs Omimetaege tte 1903 Oxford Puce Confrence. 6 Tosca Secral ireglecis were still wer debe and ao ex of- a coca igen was nt fxmaly condemned s+ bresy cay i nial cul of 993). Deco, Orga and Myson By Cisne Epler of Copa and be Lage of Og, Paine Siropeph Sees "3, con, CA, Merce Unive Fs, 988, weet, Diam, Di oni Sigh eho, Jerbnde 22s eee alt Co ascent 15, 30-9, Coe eee eee es acuta sanodgenises oe 353, GBathipp:Sis-26: Lim, Pubte Dipatrn, Pr and Swe Onde in Late 3 PBickeey Ca, Univery of CatariaPres, 1995, pp 217-29. Fo ae han pe: Contantnpl itn de 330 3451, SionelSgie Byeantne Reuter 7, Par, 1974, pp. 454-65, C. Pi, Roma aint oe tar Fed Remo genaron, elie, ele Pi ee Itt (SLtH40) Toa, bloc des eaks Pagans Sree? Se nome Bake Rome,’ Bele Fangase de Rome, 1976, ee a july 381; Helle Lclerey, Hii deol, vol 271 pp 21-2 * pees Pant’ ie Oe Habel, Ham ds omy v1, ‘Dagon; Natneme pp 2 eee Peer of Rloandits foam of Maximus agin Bees artes, whe however nim ao vnc the ue canto by Sey etter dines i SiS E37 rate Nate pp 0-65. 11 BUI Bine 5-6 Se HE Su, 62, 12-19, Dag, Nien, 44 scons Theophis fol in he odeatin, 12 RESP HE $31 Pal. Dial 6 13-1 Sox, HE 83.34 and 86 Sc. HE Pa ee eee Goma Kentetnp Untraciange ar, rniaher SS A yabe 400 x. Chr, Soden sar Goch and Kir des CE Reine, Monapaphen 2, Padtbrs, Shoring 1984, Aer Comnsan, Enrique 400, Chin 17 (1987), pp 343-60; Bea elas, pp 03-6; Demougen, De Fe pp 301-3. Bn Nee EP teen wth Acs of Bees, Aavarhas of roles ‘heophs aan Cyn of Chaleton. Pho, Bis. 99.133 seis of 84 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK foreyfive, and Pall. Dil, 3.12 sptks, of thiny-sc bishops. Pall. Dis 8:145-95, Pr-Mareyrus, Vite 5.J-_Chryatomi) Son. HE 817; Soc. HE 615-16; Zon 5.2534 Ch esp F van Ommesiaeghe, “Que aut le ‘Groigmmgs de Palle sur le procs de tine Jun Chrpetone?, Amale Bellendione 95 (1977), pp. 385-414; id, “Jean Chrysscome ex le peuple de Conseacinop', Axel Bellandionz 99 (1981), pp. 329-49. Fo the lcaion ofthe property called the Oaks sce R Jnin, Glgrapbc rlaigue de Pnpie byzantin, 3: Les églises et les monastires des grands centres byzantins, Patis, Institut Frags 'feads Byzantines, 1975, pp. 36-40; and J. Pergoie, “Rafniane, Byzantine Zetscbrf 8 (1859), pp. 429-77, es. pp. 437-49. 14 John Chysosoms exile after the synod wat shor he was recalled, but chen aril again in 404 uot his denh in 407, and his suppor, the so-called SJotnicn suffered reprials for a number of yeu, CTH 1645-6 and 16237. CE ap. TE. Gregory, "Zovimus 5, che People of Gonseaaisope, Byzentin 43 (1975), pp. 63-81; H, W. G. Licbecnuet, ‘Friends and Enemies of John Chrysostom’, in A. Mofatt (ed.), Maistor: Clasea,"Byzanin ond Reninane. Sti for Be Browning, Byeemina ‘asralonia 5, Canbern, Avstlian sociation fr Byzantine Stoic, 1984, Bp. 85-111, bere pp 99-101; idy “The Fall of John Chrysostom’ Neingbert ladeal Sndes 29 0985), pp: 1-31 (i Pom Dinltr othe Aeb Conse Chege inthe Late Roman Baie, Aldshe, Vaio Reprints, 1990, ch Wi 1. Burarions and Bisoe: Army, Circ, and State the Age of Adin al Chrys, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 202-27; Evan Ommesaege ‘ean Chaysstome en conf avec Finpéarice Eudoie’ Le desir els org ines dune legende’ Analat Bllandiana 97 (1979) pp. 131-99 15 CTA 161.2 iasued in Thesaloica on 28 Feb 380" Foran locerpreccion of ‘Theodosius’ approach ch he brillane chaprer ‘by. Dagron, Notion, pp 04-87 16 John’ immediate sucenor, Neca’ brother Arcus, ordained on 27 Jane 404, held office only bre, according co Pall. Die’ 11, 18-30, fueen months according ro Soe, HE 6.20, nel 11 November Atticus, bthep from 406 co 425, was the or ace bishop of reconciliation, at well as an exellent administrator, Soc. HE 7.25; ck. Dagon, Natta, pp. 468-10, 492. Aleady ‘by 407, while Chesosom was sil live, Theophiys seems c have iniited reconciliation with Rome, which appears fo have been successfal by 412. By {123 John wes posthumously reinstated ws bishop inte the apne of Anioeh, by 4i8 inc thoe of Constatnople, and shorty thereafer even «reluctant Gye of Aleandeia consented ro eeognine his pitcopal ares, th efecrvely declasing a truce beeween all he parc fected bythe rele of the Sprod of {he Oak: Soc. HE'.25; Theod. HE 534-5: Asics, Ep. ad Cyr 75 (2G 77 5489; nme ad Aese Ber. 21 (PL 20 543-4). Ch, Baus, Jobe Chysaton dnd bir Time, 2 vol, M. Gonzags, Wescminser, MD, Newnan Pres 1959, wel, 2, pp. 45-54 Liebechuet, Friends p. 100 dates the reheilaion&o 116. For the relationship berwen che che sees cf NH. Bayoes, “Aland ‘and Constantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12 (1926), pp. 145-56 (= id., Byzantine Studies and Other Essays, and, Athlone Press 1955, pp. 97=115, 5 Meyendoc, lapel Unity and Ghritian Division: The Cheb $30-680 A. The Church in Hoy 2, New York, S Vladimir Seminary Pres, 1989, pp. 1-86; Pits, Rena Chriviens, pp. 1152-1212 17 Bose secondary liercore discuss Alexandria during the patachare of ‘Theophilus solely with reference to two episodes: Taeophik role inthe 85 SUSANNA ELM dscruction of the Serpeion, an episode best illuminared by F, Thelaman, Seer Sn au Iie nce Lappe ae Phir eat de Rafa ql, Poi er Ragustiniennes, 1961, pp. 159-27 and his conflict with Jobo Ese rom tcouned om the Conseaninopolan or Wes gine of ew, Pres orugeos De Tanith, pp. 298-337, & Marana, Ste Le ost Se Spe nda. Milan; Rizzoli, 1990, pp. 335-57; Piet, Rema ele ee oLeBt9, 10g5-1130, 1152-1312, This olds even for the orf Lact and fel pins bing, Cla, Oren Corr: 3p. 57-60, 105-21, and MeyeododInperial Uni pp. 113-17. 18 Beamon of the incerpay of thee forces see ow che magisterial chap oc *2 Tberchuces Bararons and Bis, especialy pp. 198-227; fr wer OY eit of he cecumseances surounding John llc: Gregor, Beets 525, pp. 65-81; Leberchuet, The Fall, pp. 1-31; Ommesaeghe, “Joan Cheyne ee peuple pp 329-9. 19 Bi Daye bas- 1: See HEC 18.1-5; Sox. HE 8.20.1-5; and ep, Ma Ba spats Peph 31 hich i according ro he editor H. Grégoire (Mare a Pople ae Gace, Pais, Les Beles Lees, 1930, bono, & Die cer), Bani tation, soppsedly cased by Job's coo pigna ae te Shout commonly held fesponsible for his dowafl, bu ee the rm ot Oammesaeghe, Jean Corysostome en confit pp. 131-59 sc, Bends pr 87. Demougent (De Fait, pp. 305-35) and sed alum (Tbsnan Epes Women and Inpral Doni in Late Sei Mint ettcey CA, Univer of California Pres, 1982, pp. 69-78), who A Ae ccaicc os euing fom Johns tack agin he domestic side APGRE monarchy (p98), give mare weight co Eudora’ role 20 Bie eo Pai, cei regional ienccy and arora suppores se G. Fe goat a ville Le monachisme 8 Constantinople jusqlan Das, pactdaine 431), Trane ot Meni 4 (1970), pp. 229-76, be Ses Go bse-65; Lcbechuct, einds and Enemies pp, 93-4: J. F Peco Wom rivera and the Ingral Cow A.D. 364-425, Oxlod, Clarendon Pres, 1975, pp. 125-43. 21 [eo mS aliens at een inex (PG 32 413-203 J lg (PG 66 1267 By, Theod. HE 5.33; Zor, His, nw. 5.23; Albert, Se ee Cameron, “Eachus 400, pp. 343-60; Demougect, Ds Gat S315. eschate, Barburiam and Bus, pp 167MT0, 188-54 a2 A nation ade mos ctl by Dagron, Nair, pp. 498-506 Farce works repardng the ces becween aristocratic, monastic and eee ticles mentioned above (3.12), caso. Devos, a “servant de Fe crcn apis Palade, ln eediton eopee et Jean Ruf, Analite Be ns 81 (96D), pp. 189-212; id, Silvie la sine plein’ Anal sedis 9) (919) pp, 105-20, BD. Hunt, Se. Silvia of Aquitaine: The Bae porn Pipi in the Sociery of Base and West JTAS ns. 23 a oe BSL id, Palladus of Helenopolis A Party and its Suppor: 197 Bch of tie Lace Fourth Censry TIS 24 (1973, pp. 436-80: a ee sun ‘Arise, pp. 10)-A7, 236-7; Masacino, Silicon, pp. 335-57 24 Raabe cacepeion is Baynes, ‘Alxandi' passim. The vase majoiy of Ae ccd with Bgyp in late sniquity end with Athanasius death and math cen Eyal and aoe monophyste controvesy. Alexandsa during the eh Cpa tends cs onl 2 srinkling of efreners: ct Pa Bagnall, Epp iv Lat Antigty, Princeton, NJ, Pencgton Univeicy Press, 1993, pp. 290-91; A. Martin, Athanase d Alexandrie VE glise d'Egypte au 86 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK Ve sidele (328-373), Collection de I'Ecole Frangaise de Rome 216, Rome, Ecole eile (328313) Collection de Peta acenive bibiogniy Ror Cyals peiod the is Tile eriten aside from the monophyice come, cf Coe Pi et A gular Opssoe ad Vee ise Bale Sonera 9 te Fit Contry AD, Columbus, OH, Obio Sexe Univesity res 1979, pp 163-92; Leiplde Schnate sn Arie und di Entteberg det atonal Aopisien Monin, Tete and Untersuchungen 25, Leipig, Men, 1903, ppt li-6 117; Re ee La rage de Bf (631) Hea) pdr oe ‘i Smtr de Gna, 195, an adr ce bibliog 25 Pall. Dial. on the Life of Jobn Chrysostom 4, 122-4 (SC 341 & 342); ee. RT. Meyer Ancien Chcatsn Wier 4, New York, Newman Press, 1985, quo Tonfom pp. 32-5, cited. in the flowing ‘with tay own occasional Sfalifaion Tae impact ofthe Dielepat on the followax genercions has itn Seoemus We forms che principal source for both tat Lae, thc By Gregory of Aladin (ible Hegingrafie Grae = BHG 873), snd by ‘Treedoe of Temithontas (BHG 8720). both ed. by F.Halkin, Dour te Ijeamin ser ta Jon Chats, Subsidi Hapioeaphica 60, Brac Soc. 2G Bolan, 1977, pp, 69-285, T=4d. Tee smpat is raed only by Sate independene scone in HE’6 2-23 and 7-35 and 45. Even though Sout is on the whole let favourably predisposed towards Joho then Faladas he devors an ence chapee, 65, to John's shorccoings ~ his ‘tera devine nevertheless primarily fom John's Supporters, beginning wich rsMarctts dacused below, Sovomn, HE 82-24, 26,28 agsin a staunch Supporter, but sds litle to Soccer, Theodoces, Bhilstorgiue and Zora ‘eee iene fo addons with he cacepeion of ceran pesages in Zosimus that ne dnwn om Bunapis, Since this chaper flee on the eatiest sir cer wei be darted we eh eon ‘went See Baur Jon Coston ly xi-aiy 8. Elm, “Model Bi eerie Aad wd Tobe Charo Angin becoming Favale, "Teofilo p. 256; Gregory. ‘Zosimus 5, 23', pp. 62-8 and passim; Grimislaghe, Jean Chyporeme en confit, pp, 152-9, 15309; He ‘Le tGmoignnge p. 389. Foran overview of Socrate” and Soromen' eeude feed Sgt 16. Grace itn Hiri, a Secrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, an iat, Macon, GA, Mercee University Press, 15 1286, pp, 15-2 12. ont aM . elie 26 Pallad£e? Rowan audience included Pinus and Melanin che, Younger. Pallaius probably wrote the Dilege from exile in Syene, todays Arar in Egype, Dit 20, 41-2; cf. Malingey and Leclereg, Dialge, 15-21, FR Clean Novion Pala dalega de ite S.Jcnnt Chron, Cambie, Cambridge University Press, 1928, pp. xx aad soo.) suggested chat ic may fave best composed in reopone’ © Theophilus pamphlet againt Joho, frserved in fagment,in whe Re Deveenee (Ch), Repone ad indo Eran Agua Pelagins Disconus, fw denionsriom cpio, Sead ee" Tet 37, Cea Gel Vaticano, Biblicech. Aportlin Vateana,” 1932, ‘pp. 70-71; also with texcual variations in Facundus of Hetmiane, Pro defensone Pram cipiioney 6.5 (PL. GT 677-8). See aso J. Dumottt, ‘Le valeur eg alg Puli chong de wie Jan syrozome’, Naan de Scie Réigiane 10 (1953), pp. 39-62; 30d especially Ommeslaeghe, Le cémoignage’, 85 : : 27 Pall. Dial. 6.20-27.. ae 235 Pall Dial 624, omphalle; cf Malingrey and Leclerc, Diels, p. 128, 0. 2. 87 SUSANNA ELM 29 alk ial 649-107 i 2 Ea Oil Oo Ommelcghe, Le tlgnage’ 403,05. 30 te 6S Me OD Von Hosoda ona Steno, Pa Oi 29 ce dnd Conesgeion 1, Seagu, Kohhumnet Fn Et pp Ss mth eelrence to Meranda 32 eR 5c, au ai of Pehisiam, Ep. 1,152 (PG 78 285, who Pal i ao ey any for woes” For epicopalbuling calls im “ai Bw tac an Soke i Uae Ansa ee i PSone: A Spmpinn, New York, Pinion User Pry 10, pp 10027 be 19-22 43 Pal Bal 6105-6 3h Pal Dal 649-159 a 71-60. all Diet 133-890. Sen ie TaD where Plladias scues Toph of having switched Pal Dit 620 To Raval wacond nef doting apn fo ae Topi shinee sy Pile Mesand 18.191-310 35 Pit Dat 319°09 aod 12.1675, 3 ral bel 2 ll Da 300-1 : Oi Oo el Bishop’ Fora dxcusion of sch ‘Usenpicg Se a mor Pas Asian and Pos he see, Mas edge 190, pe, 132, BS for edie en La ln te Vd Ca Oreo, Ci Day, 2 aac edn, An abr, Mi, Michigan Unive fren 1995¢pp. 81-22 2 ee Re ng the Dida sepa cancer ae B Devon Seep EN se Dag srChtane itn Lantos eh thle fled 107 (989, pe 216 ae De a tt, my (ad cnc) ss fo oe ee levance ef Ba Manrycis" Life of Jebn Chron, P Ub, Seat a ee a Paladin mre ll Re eden “Apne Dilger sh oy Tn, 1506, Pp 217-96, Proves tainly soc rly 45 Phils, Die LG 99 SC 342 101-19), Phx ino he at Fa et cul uggs pa exepig Fee ee jis hs sandad formula. Ommesloeghe, Le cemoigeage’, S50 pep. 40,02 1 a ies Of the Billoo remains debated. According co P, Lemedle Tec OH in ad A Mote, Astalian Asoiion fr Cetin ome Mg heals 9, Caner, Asian, Nate Bren Oe ip pp 219-2) te compostin of he Unie rs the pe bir, pro Pots opened Budi st at Taare of Contain. Howe N Fa Ee oe Londons Dackworh, 1983, TP. 69-119 6. Witon, See Pree, ache ae of eosin conceding atthe eof Jeep andthe High Pesto Byoetn Mas Pa p95, nx oly aus kee coven 3011950 elton, in whch ae Phat own fe wold fe oe ead towed Jobe Chon, ut also 88 THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK ives evidence for the degree to which his own preoccupations inluenced his sp fhutgalnetd K Ziti a Pots, RE F 5 Corrborated by his regard for he bishop in general, Bi. 229, 274; Wilson, Sebalars pp. 89-119. ae 46 Especially Ps-Macerins, Lif of Jobo Chrysuto, see below; and Pall. Dil chit 12, cen 6 20h ecston of hn and chap 1,115 47 Pall, Dial. 13, 129-131; alluding to Theophilus’ pamphlet writen afer the ‘synod in 405, Pel, Dine. br osone 70-7. 48 Accusation of John che Deacon 11. As mentioned sbove, Joho appeats co have Slienated.Aurlianus, Sacrnius and Johannes during the Gains criss. Ps= Mareyrius P-4834—486b seats chat John Chrysostom’ opponents had falsified rumouts of his pro-Gothie stance even prior co Theophilus’ arival on the Scene, implying tht John hid incended 0 sbardon Chtech and Empire ~ an ven peor betrayal. See also Zos. His. nue 3.25.2. Ommesisege, Le emo biage, p. 403, n. 3; id, Jean Cheysostome et le onli’, p. 152, Soe. HE 6.6 sceount of rhe events is"based on Eusebius Scholastcus’ lost work Gainer, “Albers, Gsten, pp. 166-7; Cameron, ‘Earthquake’, pp. 347-50. 49 Ace. of John 27. 50 Acc’ of John 25, 25, 15. Isolating behaviour is Fequenty associated with fynnpicel rulers, ‘The seriouness of this charge ie underlined by ie frequent ‘epetition and by Paladiuseflors eo counter For the association of isolation fel secreiveness with ileal euleship, Albert, Gates, pp. 323, a, 196 snd 198; Serub, lerslerideal pp. 22-3. 51 Acc ofJobn 5, 6 Literally ‘nonsense, sillyclkers LSJ sv 52 Ace ofJohn 9,2 53 Ace of John 9. For Severian of Gabala see Pall, Dial 3.50; and M. Aubineau, Un irate inks de chrseloge de Stérien de Gabale Ta Cenarionen et Contra Manihot et Apalliarinar, Cahiers d'Orienalsme 5, Geneva, P. Creme, 1983, pp. 11-17. The function of the deans employed against Severian remains debated; Dagron, Naiiene, p. 491 suggests thar ‘ls ne sone ni les Cronquesmorts de Constantinople, ni ces supéseaes de monastzes, ni des cleres le Teconomae, comme on fa ext, mais un corps dappariteuts ow d buses & Ia disposition de Varchevéche. 34 Ace. of John 29. 55 For the at times intense building activity of bishops ef, Ambr. De off 2.136; Serms contra Ans. 33: Brown, “Art and Society’, pp. 19-22; N. MeL, Ambre of Miles Chard ond’ Cows in a Chritien Capita, Transformation of the Cassel Hevitage 22, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1994, pp. 226-37, and for accusations and counteraccusacon of improper we of Funds, p33 56 L have aoe been able to locate the edition of the cod. Parsinus gree. 1519, Biblioehéque national de Pars, announced by F. van Ommeslaeghe, Loraiog fusibre de. Jeon Chryatane attribute. 2) Margins Antics,” Sobidia “Hagiographice 73, Brussels, Soc. Bollandistes, 1989, nor have I been able t0 consul id, De lijbrede sor Johannes Chrysstmes tcgecreen aan Martyrs van ‘Amincie: Tebsningate mer” Commontacar, Wookdstukken vie de Historische Keiviek, Louvain, 1974. T have bad access to ehe manuscript on microfilm ares of Ps-Martyrius are also in PG 47, nl ef BHG 871 37 Ommelaeghe, the preeminent auehorty on the text, cals ie “un ardent ployer se’ présentane sous. aspect d'un panéyyrique fanébre™ (Le {émoignage,p- 393). For the dating and signficence ofthis importane source 89 SUSANNA ELM PE a A ee Bec a He OS SEs co Sak, Pere neg, ‘Le f 393-4. Fe a etguar op 352 38 Orn peer ontay to Pll Dial. 3.76-91 32 Na er : 2 Many PATI Aa Ae aus mc wh he Me neat rae a a os 2 Src se ac ge hh NaF ik 3 Er Btn nin Be a te de oe ee oe oa gle le 3 OF Sp 49-1 4 Noes ope One ee EF mag cm eres es ara Mhan es ge iw’ ibe de Se ee rE cael Chmt peas are li ea A Mec, O° OED, ne rope eg a eS a, Se a on ek SE Cy, ode Corea Licbeschuetz, “The Fall’, 15: ‘Ommeslaeghe, ‘John Zea eS ee ao emereaneen S, : tt Re ea of us sme i FP Re Ci eae Topi need ico an en acs Bt han Kee ah aba Se Di Me Na 940 7 Ringe a oe a Na ec Jo ep hoe ih So anaes win tee a Se pee ms ed semi se eee te SCE ae psn of Tce Fs he ens ig a) cae ioe THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK 76 CE. Innocent’ leter to Theophils, Pall. Dial, 3.22~33, refering co the admis- sion 0 communion of excommunicared bishops as regulated in can, 5. of Nicaea, HefelesLeclereq, Hisar des caus, vol. l, pp. 548-9; J. Gaudemer, Légle dans Ponpie rain, Pasis, Beauchesne, 1958, p77, 1.3. 77 For the legal techaiques used by bishops in hecesy procedures see eg. Syn. Ep 105, addressed co Theophilus and the sdulathe in Alexandria, men qualified inal stages of the laws C.Th, 16.10.19, issued by Honorius on 15 November 408; Ruk HE 10.3; Augse. Seman 62 cntra pagene, ed. P. Dolbeau, Recherches ‘Angustinenses 26 (1992), pp. 90-141; id, Ep. 24°, 38% and 29%; i, Serm. 4.7 ‘againse Donatiss. See esp. C. Humes, “Bishops as Focensic Advocates in the Formation of Christian Doctrine, paper given st che workshop on orthodoxy ae the Ecole Frangaise de Rome, March 29-30, 1996 and her forthcoming Cambridge dis. on the same subject. 78 Aleeady in 394 Epiph, fp. ad Jobewmew epic 9 = Jee. Ep. 51 warns against Palladis’ Origenism, 79 For an overview of Theophilus’ considerable (though fragmentary) writings see M, Richaed, ‘Les ecrts de Theophile d'Alexandrie’, Le Mastor 52 (1939), pp. 33-50, and Favale, ‘Teofilo’, pp. 224-7. New fmginenes can now be added, G1, Richard, "Nouveaux feagments de Theophile d' Aléxandtie', Nachrichten dr ‘Abadans der Wasenchafion Goring, Phi-btt. K., Goetingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975, pp. 37-63; and J. Declerck, “theophile «Alexandre conere Origne: ‘Nouvestx fagments de Epitala’ Syradalis Prima (CPG. 2595), Byzantin $4 (1984), pp. 495-507. 80 Jerome trnslared Theophilus’ Fasal Letrs 16 (AD 401) = Jee Ep. 96; 17 (aD 402) = Jer. Ep. 98; 19 (AD 404) = Jer. Ep. 100. In addition, Jerome translaced the secand synadalleeer of AD 400 (chee fragments of the first are preserved by Justinian, Lib, ad Orig. [PG 86 969-71}) = Jor. Ep. 92; one letter to Epiphanius + Jer Bp. 90, and two addressed to Jerome himself, all rom AD 400 = Jer. Epp, 87 and 89. For controversy regarding Jerome’ translation of tome of these leeers cf. §. Rebenich, Hieronymus und sh Kreis: Pasopgraphiiche ‘and weialgccbichiiche Unsersuchangen, Histori-Binzlechrfeen 72, Stattgae, E Sceiner, 1992, pp. 200-201 81 Wenge reflecting Theophilus’ broader development have fared even worse than those more specifically related zo the synod. Accosding to M. Richard (Les écres, p. 33% aujourd'hui, qui veut Gudier cet auteus doie avoir 2 sa slisposition roure une bibliozhéque’. Much of his exegetical weiings have co be called from other collections. CE. in addition to the above mentioned M. Aubineau, ‘Membra disccta d'un codex en majuscule, du [Xe s. (Le Cate, Leipzig, Washington): Théophile d'Alexandtie, la mysicns conan’, Jabrbuch der Onerrchischn Byzentiniatie 33 (1983), pp. 25-35; B. Deioton, “La discussion

    You might also like