Lizzi Jerusalem

Adamantius Rivista del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su

“Origene e la tradizione alessandrina”

*

Journal of the Italian Research Group on “Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition”

19

(2013)

276

«Inter christianos etiam gentilitatis cultores sed et veteris legis studiosi audientiae sint adhibendi»:

The Impact of Theological Controversies on the Intellectual Life of Late Antiquity

by Rita Lizzi Testa

A section of the Arian scholia to the acts of the Council of Aquileia, and in particular , opens with two passages from the first book of Ambrose’s , followed by two heated

replies. According to the undisputed reconstruction of R. Gryson, both of them are to be attributed to Palladius of Ratiaria, the bishop who, along with Secondianus of Singidunum, was condemned in the Council of Aquileia in 3811. The first reply consists of two sections of the work with which Palladius, already in 379, had begun his refutation of the first two books of Ambrose’s (which appeared in 378). This text is now lost, but it still circulated in the late fifth century, leading Vigilius of Thapsus to write a pamphlet in rebuttal2. The second reply does not belong to the same work, being certainly later than the meeting of 3 September 381, when the bishop of Ratiaria was condemned in Aquileia. It is also to be dated to a period well before the death of Damasus (December 11, 384), whom Palladius mentions as still living3. Further clues to the date of composition of this may come, as we shall see soon, from the last chapters of the text. We shall concentrate in particular on this section because it contains a unique proposal: to nullify the decision taken by the council and to organize a larger public debate between the participants in that meeting who had different christological positions. The terms of the proposal outline a peculiar picture of the impact that religious issues had on life in Late Antiquity: they indirectly offer a profile of the major religious systems, which at that time revived the doctrinal confrontation; they also provide insight into the methods and procedures that some Christian groups regarded as equivalent to synods. This paper is intended to demonstrate the validity of the intellectual scenario presented in the last chapters of the Palladius’ , in part through the analysis of similar events from the end of the fourth and the first decade of the fifth century. This will make possible a diachronic view of how the crisis that threatened the Mediterranean world since the fourth century may have influenced the growth of doctrinal knowledge and affected the possibilities for the spread of information implicit in the use of and other kinds of public discussion.

I. Let us read the final chapters of Palladius’ :

Pall. . 139: «However, in order not to give the impression of undermining your profession of faith with arguments based on so little evidence, yet, certainly your native land is Italy, as it is for Damasus,

1 d’Aquilée, éd. R. GRYSON (SC 267), Paris 1980, 79-97. The passages from

are quoted in I,V,41-42 e I,VI,43-47. 2 Vigilius of Thapsus was involved in the dramatic meeting between Catholics and Arians that the Vandal king Huneric summoned in February 484. He mentions his work against Palladius (now lost) in his

II, 50 (PL 62, 230A): see also N. MCLYNN, , JThS n.s. 42 (1991) 34-58.

3 Pall. . 139,322. GRYSON ( , cit., 96) believes that the was written very soon after 381, but in any case before the Council of Constantinople in 383, when the defeat suffered by non-Catholics would render the possibility of a major public confrontation between Arians and Nicene an unfeasible option.

RITA LIZZI TESTA –

277

and your progenitor is Rome, who deserved to witness the passions of the Apostles and to possess their relics, but also to have men who are all examples of wisdom and nobility to all. So if you have any confidence in your faith, let us reveal our profession of faith before the Senate of that city for thirty or forty days, having written treatises based on all scriptural references that give them authority. And let us make our treatises available to hearers ( ) by announcing them through public recitations both in the same city and also to churches throughout the world, where they will be sent by imperial order with a report of the hearers. You know that, if this should be decided thus, there should be admitted to these hearings, alongside Christians, both the devotees of pagan cults ( ) and experts in Old Testament exegesis ( ), if it is true that the call made by the Gospel and the Apostles did not exclude anyone from hearing religious matters, especially since the authority of the apostolic doctrine proves that Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. But there is no doubt that the sacred Scriptures are known to all, because skilled copyists of both the Jews and Gentiles (

) transcribe them and thus the divine faith flows through the mouths of all. It will happen, in fact, that the truth – which is presently oppressed by you with fierce hostility – will draw breath from the full examination to which it will be submitted and also that those who so far seem to be outsiders, will become members of God’s family. 140. And yet, although in making mention of Auxentius, you did not specify of whom you spoke, whether he was the one who still lives, that is the bishop of Durostorum, or the bishop of Milan, who died without receiving successors, know that both Palladius of Ratiaria and Auxentius, along with other colleagues of Demofilus, the ever faithful teacher who deserves all our respect, wherever it is deemed appropriate to organize the debate, empowered with the aid of Almighty God and his only begotten son Jesus, our God, will not be missing from the glorious fight that ensures salvation»4.

What Palladius suggested, in closing his , was to annul the decisions of a council – that, for him, had not been a real council – and to organize a new debate. People had to be summoned not in the confines of a vestry in Aquileia5, but in a public space where everyone could check the correctness of the scriptural references with which the opposing doctrinal views were supported. The basis of this connection is the belief that the divine Scriptures, transcribed by specialized copyists, Jews and Gentiles (« »), were well known to everybody and the truth would have benefited from further consideration. Procedurally it was

4 Pall. 139-140, pp. 322-324: «

.

» 5 Pall. . 89,274: «

; cf. : ».

ADAMANTIUS 19 (2013)

278

recommended that the treatises drawn up by the contending parties, displayed at the Roman Curia, should be made known through public recitations in that City and sent to all churches of the Empire with a report of the hearers. Only then would it have been possible to organize not a new council, but rather a public debate . In the role of judges they would have lay people: specialists of the sacred, drawn from the ranks of the Christians, but also from among those learned in paganism (« ») and in Old Testament exegesis (« »). It was not the fact of belonging to the church hierarchy, but a deep knowledge of the sacred texts that, in the eyes of Palladius, was a true guarantee of equitable judgment between the parties. There are aspects of the text which have escaped a deeper historical inquiry up to now, whose explication would require a special investigation. One example in this respect is the function of the , whose role in the ancient court system is not well known, and even less studied in relation to theological disputes, where they were used as experts and advisers in those arbitrations or judgments in which bishops and priests were increasingly involved during the fourth century, in the presence of the emperor or other members of the Court6. No less interesting would be to investigate the role of religious disputes – when organized, as Palladius imagined them, in the form of discussions about doctrinal treatises, displayed and read in public – in revitalizing

, that is public recitations, especially of poems, in vogue among the of High Empire as a vehicle to disclose parts of their works in progress (also in prose and historical in nature), about which we hear very little in late antiquity7. However here we will limit ourselves to some parts of the text more directly related to our investigation. In particular, the same alternative posed by Palladius between synodal activity and public debates remains an issue that in my opinion merits further inquiry. I will begin by focusing on Palladius’ request that doctrinal treatises, supposed to have been composed by Catholics and Homoians before the upcoming debate, be displayed in churches throughout the world (« »), with a established by the . But in Rome, they had to be exhibited and expounded at the Roman Curia (« »). Such a presentation was meant to give the event an official aspect, which was then intended to lead to 6 CH. LECRIVAIN, s.v. in , Paris 1877; M.A. BETHMANN HOLLWEG, , Bonn 1864-1866, III vol., 90 and 294ff.; M. KASER – K. HACKL, , X,3,4 (

), München 1997, 613 ff. Palladius’ request could be interpreted as an , that in the trial system of Late Antiquity was regulated as the : R. ORESTANO,

, Genova 19532, 295 and 364; F. PERGAMI, , Milano 2007, 7 and 14.

7 K. QUINN, , in ANRW, II, 30, 1, Berlin-New York 1982, 75-180. During the High Empire, privileged poems, but also historical compositions continued to be read in public. In Pliny ( . 9, 27), for example, a reference to the of historical passages of Tacitus has been detected: PH. FABIA, , RPh 19 (1895) 1-10, part. 8-9. Even in the fifth century, Venantius Fortunatus ( . 7, 8, vv. 25-26) knew that at Trajan’s

in Rome there were held public readings of Virgil, just as in Athens Homer continued to be read in public; even in Augustus’ there were held lectures and public readings: H.I. MARROU,

, MÉFRA 49 (1939) 93-110 (= , Paris 1976, 65-80); R. LIZZI TESTA,

AANL.R IX, 13, 3 (2002) 387-417, in part. 406 ff. In middle and late Byzantine age, reading and commenting on literary texts were opportunities for the educated circles’ meetings: G. CAVALLO, , in , III, a cura di S. SETTIS, Torino 2001, 593-628. On later for teaching purposes: G. MARCONI,

(Testi, studi, strumenti, 27), Spoleto 2013, 68-70.


279

one side conceding defeat and losing the episcopal see. What is more interesting is that by bringing the Roman Senate into the case, Palladius would seem to indicate his trust that in that assembly – one of the official corps of advisers of the emperor alongside the consistory – committees of experts in religious affairs were still operating, such as certainly the ,

and , from whom in particular it seemed possible to choose those and to be used as 8. Within another episode, singularly akin to the one on which we are focusing, functionaries of senatorial rank appear. Having been impeached by the Eastern bishops gathered in council at Sirmium in 351, Photinus had reacted to the decision to depose him, just as Palladius did during the council of Aquileia, by challenging his rivals to a public dispute. On a prearranged day, the bishops gathered to witness the debate between Photinus and Basil of Ancyra: seated next to them there were several senators («!"# $%&'()!*'"# +,' -(.&+*»), whom Constantius II – who was there since Pannonia had just fallen under his rule – had ordered to attend9. Sozomen speaks of senior members of the Court, who excelled in oratory and rank, invested with the role of judges10. Whatever the case it was a matter of lay people, Christian members of the Imperial

, who we should assume were versed in the Scriptures and able to judge the relevance of the doctrinal references invoked in the debate, or in any case able to decide whether to grant imperial approval to that disputant whom the bishops there present had deemed to be the winner of the dispute. Also Valentinian I, in early 364, faced with allegations of that Hilary launched against the bishop of Milan, Auxentius, ordered an arbitration at the presence of his Viventius and his Ursacius11. After conducting the investigation and having listened to the debate, the imperial officials would have to enact their . Even in this arbitration there were bishops in the role of , whose function has been analysed in various ways12. They were sitting (approximately in the same number) next to Hilary and Auxentius and probably had the duty to assist, advise and make statements to help the counterparties13. The way in which these arbitrations were held seems to me to confirm the widespread knowledge of Scripture, which Palladius took as a certainty. From Epiphanius we know that three copies were drawn up of the discussion in Sirmium (where Photinus and Basilius were involved), recorded by a staff of seven stenographers of the imperial bureaucracy: of the three copies, one was delivered to Constantius II, who enforced the sentence

8 SHA, . 22, 5: «

». On ’ activity through the fourth century, F. VAN HAEPEREN, 3 4 , Bruxelles-Roma 2002, 265. Also the continued to operate as a committee of experts on religious issues: R. LIZZI TESTA, Augures et Pontifices

, in , ed. A. CAIN – N. LENSKI, London 2009, 251-278.

9 Socr. 2,30,42. 10 Soz. 4,6,14-15. 11 Hilarius, , PL 10,613-615. On this episode, see T.D. BARNES,

, Hist. 51 (2002) 227-237, in part. 227-231. 12 MCLYNN, , Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1994, 75, n. 61, and D.H. WILLIAMS, Liber contra Auxentium, ChH 61 (1992) 7-22, exp. 19; ID.,

, StPat 29 (1997) 178-194, exp. 192, n. 80. 13 BARNES, , cit., 230.


280

by sending Photinus into exile14. Similarly Valentinian I, after the judgment of his officers, took part in the worship celebrated by Auxentius, while Hilary of Poitiers was given the imperial order to leave Milan («

»). As Photinus and Hilary, therefore, Palladius disagreed with the judgment of a synod issued against him and thought he could appeal to a superior judgment, believing that in his case it could be enacted by the Roman Senate, instead of the imperial Court15. From 381, in fact, Gratian had moved permanently to Milan, and in his own see, Ambrose could manipulate the situation just as, and even more easily than in Aquileia16. Moreover, as Photinus and Hilary, Palladius thought that a different sentence could come after a public debate, in the presence of lay religious experts. In both cases, Palladius remained anchored to an antiquated system of relationships both among the members of the Church and between the Church and the Empire. The innovations introduced by Ambrose, just in Aquileia, reveal the great changes that were looming. Already in the final phase of the council in Aquileia, shortly before the judgment was issued, Palladius had asked to broaden the debate to outsiders, by involving chosen from the local to help both sides17. Ambrose did not raise objections based on the doctrinal preparation of the , but adduced, instead, procedural impediments. In fact, to invalidate Palladius’ request, he answered by citing an edict of Valentinian I he had already mentioned during the Roman synod of 378: « »18. This in itself did not imply a lack of confidence in the doctrinal knowledge of the members of the municipal council of Aquileia, with regard to the of the imperial Court. Ambrose rejected them as for the sole reason that they were lay persons. In this way, Ambrose

14 Epiph. 71,1,4: M. SIMONETTI, , Roma 1975, 202-206. 15 The Late Antique Senate’s competence of appeal is affirmed by F. ARCARIA, Senatus censuit.

, Milano 1992, 127 ff., but denied by F. PERGAMI, , in

(Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana 14), Napoli 2003, 381-390. Palladius’ request seems to me toconfirm that the Senate in late Antiquity maintained a sort of jurisdictional control for similar affairs. 16 After a brief visit to Milan in 379, during the journey from Aquileia to Trier, where he was on 14 September 379, Gratian returned to Milan in March / April 380, moving back to during the summer, and to Trier in October 380 for a campaign against the Goths: O. SEECK,

311 476 , Stuttgart 1919, 250-254. 17 51-52, p. 368: «

» 18 51 ( , 368): «

. Cfr. Ambr. 7,3; Ambr. . 75,2:

».

»; cfr. Ambr. . 75,4 e 5: «» On the Roman synod of 378, R. LIZZI TESTA,

, Bari 2004, 176.


281

gave formal elaboration to that principle of doctrinal autonomy of the Church vis-à-vis the Empire that started to be perceived as vital by the pro-Nicene bishops during the experience of the emperors Constantius II and Julian, but was fully recognized only by Valentinian I (at least according to Ambrose) and variously forgotten by subsequent princes. No bishop in Aquileia, therefore, could afford to oppose Ambrose, assuming the defense of Palladius, because that would mean questioning the validity of the principle of autonomy that Ambrose invoked while condemning Palladius and his proposal to broaden the doctrinal debate to the laity. In the same session of the morning of 3 September 381, Palladius repeatedly challenged the decision taken by Ambrose with the approval by the entire assembly, that clerics who were expert notaries should record the various statements: since those stenographers were members of Valerian’s church, it has been assumed that Palladius was afraid of alterations of verbal testimony19. In 411 at the conference of Carthage on the Donatists, so as to avoid giving rise to such suspicions, it was decided that each side should record the debate20. Nevertheless in Aquileia the problem was avoided with , even disregarding the remonstrances of Secondianus: « »21. It is clear, however, that not so much the potential bias of stenographers, but rather their presence had aroused the concern of the Illyrian bishops. By recording the words spoken in council and later by writing them out in transcriptions, as in Sirmium by order of emperor, the speakers became directly accountable for what they said in the heat of controversy, whereas in contexts of verbal dispute those who used better, though not necessarily more coherent, arguments would win. In the opinion of Palladius and Secondianus, the presence of stenographers like those at Sirmium would dramatically alter the dynamics of a . Along these same lines a decision was taken to restrict the debate to only the few bishops (all Western) who met there22. This, in particular, convinced Palladius that a meeting which he thought of as an unofficial prelude to a wider debate had been transformed into a kind of trial and furthermore had been deprived of those components which should have ensured its fairness. The narrowness of the room ( ) that was used, and the fact that Valerian sat on an elevated platform, standing next to the seat reserved for Ambrose in particular, gave the place the external apparatus of a tribunal23. The absence of for the one and the other part, as well as the presence of only Nicene , made the proceedings completely illegal. Ambrose, a former lawyer and imperial governor, was able to mobilize the same official resources available to a Roman magistrate to secure the victory of the Catholic cause at the council. His background was at the basis of the extensive use of interrogation-like procedures adopted in the council of Aquileia along with the request for speedy by the bishops, each followed by an

of Palladius’ assertions. Even the ways in which the condemnation of Photinus was brought about at Sirmium and that of Palladius and Secondianus at Aquileia make clear how differently the customs of Greek-speaking churches and the synodal tradition of the Latin West had developed: the former 19 34,354; 43,362; 46,364. 20 S. LANCEL, 411 (SC 194), Paris 1972, I,342-346. 21 69,378: 22 For the events that led only the western bishops to convene in Aquileia, as Gratian accepted Ambrose’s proposal, while Theodosius was planning a council of Eastern bishops at Constantinople, see N. MCLYNN,

, cit., 112-124. 23 Pall. 88, p. 274 «

»


282

remained faithful (especially before Constantine and the rise of an imperial conciliar tradition) to the of the public disputes of the schools of rhetoric; the latter, as is evident already from the stenographic records of the early third century African councils, tended to take on procedural norms resembling the reading of finalized by the expression of in the Roman Senate. The same technical terminology used to describe Roman senatorial procedures effortlessly passed into the vocabulary of the synods of Latin-speaking Christians24. There were two models, however, that recalled two different ways of conceptualizing the participation of clergy and laity in ecclesial life and in doctrinal debates. Around 380, however, in the eyes of Palladius – who grew up in the fluid Homoian communities of an Illyricum that straddled East and West25, and was in his eighties when the Council of Aquileia took place – the demise of the old world was not yet completed. For this reason, once the council was concluded, he continued to presume that it was possible to invalidate the results not through the organization of a new council, but of a public , where alongside Christians,

would also be present. The desire to involve the Senate of Rome in the organization of the dispute, however, makes Palladius not a fantastically nostalgic if it is deemed possible that he did not advance his request immediately after September 381, but after at least one year, between 382 and 383. In the course of 382, emperor Gratian had actually ordered the altar of Victory to be removed from the Curia of the Senate and with one or more rescripts had abrogated the fiscal privileges which the Vestal Virgins had hitherto enjoyed26. The Senate was not only struck by the import of those measures, it also suffered an insult to its legates led by Quintus Aurelius Symmachus in 382, who was denied an audience with Gratian27. From the texts of Symmachus and Ambrose we know that some Christian members of the Senate organized a counter-petition as soon as they learned that, unbeknownst to them, a vote had been taken to ask the Court for the repeal of those measures28. The pamphlet was sent by Damasus to Ambrose in order to convince Gratian not to receive the senatorial embassy29. We do not know on the basis of what criteria the ,

24 R. LIM, , Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1995, 218. 25 R. WILLIAMS, London 1987, . 26 R. LIZZI TESTA,

(Seminar “The Late Antique Religion and Politics: from Rome to Berlin” for the opening of the , Oxford 30 september 2007), Antiquité Tardive 15 (2007) 251-262. More

recently, A. CAMERON, , Oxford 2011, 39-51, reproposes the traditional view that not only the Vestal Virgins but all pagan priests and temples in Rome lost their fiscal privileges. About this issue, see P. BROWN,

350-550 Princeton-Oxford 2012, 103-109, and R. LIZZI TESTA,pagani, in , ed. R. LIZZI TESTA, Turnhout 2013, in press. 27 Symm. III,1: «( scl.)

»; cf. Ambr. 72 (M. 17), 10. 28 It is likely that the group favorable to the restoration of the altar had resorted to a lobbying strategy in order to obtain a majority by organizing the vote on a day in which they knew that they would be able to achieve it: see R. LIZZI TESTA,

, in 09 11 2009 , hrsg. J. WIENAND, in press.

29 Ambr. 72 (M. 17),10: «...


283

endowed with the , could have granted or denied an audience to the embassy, nor would it have been permissible to refuse to listen to the representatives of an institution like the Roman Senate. We do know the connections that guaranteed access to audiences, but not the motives one could offer to deny it30. The sources, at any rate, record few instances in which an embassy was refused access and the imperial gesture had to be perceived as a further outrage by Symmachus and his ambassadors31. In this moment of high tension between the emperor and the Senate of Rome, the hope of having substantial support from the pagan party of the Curia against decisions taken by Ambrose in Aquileia must have appeared to Palladius very high. For that reason I am inclined to think that the proposal to have lay , chosen from , was reasonably conceived after the unfortunate conclusion of the first phase of the debates

. In the course of 382, therefore, Palladius concluded his .

II. The which Maximinus32 added to Palladius’ inform us about some subsequent developments: we learn indirectly that the called-for never took place; that the bishops condemned at Aquileia had gone with Ulfilas to Constantinople and obtained from Theodosius I the promise of a new council; however even that promise had remained unfulfilled because of the intervention of the «leaders of the heretics» (namely Ambrose and others in the Aquileian group). Actually, they obtained from the emperor a law prohibiting any discussion in public or in private33. According to R. Gryson, Maximinus was imagining an unlikely scenario because the two laws mentioned in his are not relevant to these events34. However, although Maximinus’ account is particularly succinct – an easily understandable fact, if it is true that he wrote a half century later – the laws which he reports are directly related to the issue. The first he transcribed in his was sent by Theodosius I to Tatian, praetorian prefect of the East in 388. It is not exactly the law with which Theodosius attempted to abrogate what the emperor Valentinian II had promulgated in 386, but it is not foreign to the context. Indeed it captures a significant aspect central to this paper: the prohibition to hold public 35. Furthermore, it is also possible to understand the error of Maximinus, if indeed it can be

». 30 Maen. . 55. 31 On the possibility that the Senate was able to take revenge on Macedonius, the of 382-383, Symm. . XXXVI, with D. VERA, Relationes , Pisa 1981, 277-280. For Symmachus’ hostility towards him, Symm. . XLIV,1, which presents Macedonius in the guise of a minister corrupted by some corporates in Rome: Vera, , 323-330. 32 These were definitely written after the promulgation of the Theodosian Code in 438, since they mention XVI,4,2 and XVI,4,1 and the latter in the abbreviated version, present only in the Theodosian Code: , 76-79 e 98-100. About Maximinus, who went to Africa in 427 with the Gothic

Sigisvult and sustained a public debate with Augustine ( ), , 63, n. 3 and 64-69; see also M. MESLIN, , Paris 1967, 92-95 with P. NAUTIN,

, RHR 89 (1970), 70-89. 33 Max. 141,324-325: «

...». 34 , 162-165 and 325, n. 3. 35 16,4,2 (16 June 388).


284

considered in such a way, because also the law with which Theodosius I intervened to cancel Valentinian II’s constitution of 386 was issued in 38836. In its abbreviated form reported by Maximinus, and occurring only in the Theodosian Code, it is an extract of 16,1,4, addressed in January 386 by Valentinian II to Eusignius, prefect of Italy37. The reason why R. Gryson argued against the scenario described by Maximinus is that he did not establish a connection between the events of 381 in Aquileia and those that took place in Milan during the so-called struggle for the basilicas, in relation to which the law of 386 was issued. Several years ago I suggested a link between those episodes on the base of the fact that Auxentius of Durostorum, quoted in 382/383 in the as one of the colleagues of Palladius ready to engage in a public audience with the Nicene bishops38, is the same bishop that in 386 challenged Ambrose to support a at the Court of Valentinian II and Justina39. It seemed to me particularly significant that Ambrose was afraid that the emperor might choose judges from among Jews and pagans40, a supposition that was later confirmed41. No less significant is the fact that Ambrose refused the confrontation citing the same rescript of Valentinian I he already quoted in 381, in order to refute Palladius’ proposal during the Council of Aquileia. Maximinus’s confirm, in my opinion, that the Illyrian bishops regarded those events as related. Their hope of receiving an imperial acknowledgement at the Council of Constantinople in 383 having been dashed, they went on trying to contest the triumph of the Nicene bishops and the «rising arrogance» of Ambrose, waiting for the proper moment to reaffirm their own theological line. This seemed to have arrived after the death of Gratian, around 385, when the new emperor of the West, the young Valentinian II, and his mother Justina tried to dismiss the ambitions of the bishop of Milan to influence the political and religious decisions of the Court. Intervening with Maximus, the Spanish general who had murdered Gratian at Lyons in 383 and then threatened to invade Italy and take possession of all the West42, Ambrose had obtained from the usurper a reprieve which proved invaluable. Valentinian II’s forces were able to defend the Alpine passes and Theodosius I agreed to act as guardian and protector of the last scion of the Valentinian dynasty43. During those same years, however, Ambrose had even dared to enjoin

36 16,5,15 (14 June 388).37 16,1,4 (23 January 386): 312 438

, éd. R. DELMAIRE, with the conlaboration of F. RICHARD (SC 497) Paris 2005, 119-121. 38 Pall. . 140, 324. 39 The doubts, raised again recently on the identification of Auxentius quoted by Palladius in his with the bishop who worked at the Court of Valentinian II and Justina, are groundless: R. LIZZI TESTA, certatio , in

1 2008 , Studia Ambrosiana 3 (2009) 39-68, part. 62-64. 40 Ambr. 75,13: « »41 Ambr. . 75A,26; «

»; 27: «».

42 Ambr. . 30 (24 Maur.); cf. . 76,23. 43 D. VERA, 383 384, At. n.s. 53 (1975) 267-301. For the date of the second embassy, scholars have different opinions: V. ESCRIBANO, Haeretici iure damnati: , in

). XXII Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana (Roma, 6-8 maggio 1993) (SEA 46), Roma, 1994, 393-416; H. SAVON, Paris 1997, 183, and N. DUVAL,


285

Valentinian II not to yield to the renewed request of the Roman Senate to restore the altar of Victory and the privileges of the Vestal Virgins, on pain of excommunication44. The response forced upon the Court, which (despite the opposition of some its members) refused the request of the Senate again in 384, caused a further diplomatic incident since that request was then contained in an official of the urban prefect. The arrival at Court in 385 of bishop Auxentius and the Emperor’s decision to reserve a church for Homoian worship in Milan45, as well as the order given to Ambrose ( ) in the following months to appear at Court and engage in a about his faith with the Homoian Auxentius, reflect the profound irritation of the imperial government with the bishop of Milan46. Actually, with his intransigence, Ambrose hindered any effective collaboration with forces whose support was so vital: on the one hand, with the more powerful members of the Roman Senate, who had been appointed to high public offices and pressed to counter Christian aggression against the ancient cults47, and, on the other hand, with the new Gothic army corps which had just arrived to protect the emperor. Recruited in the Danube basin, after the defection of more troops to Maximus, they were now a part of the standing army in northern Italy with which it would have been difficult to part: we can assume they were Arians, given the important role played by Ulfilas in the evangelization of the Goths48. The fact that Auxentius had pointed to the emperor a number of pagan and Jewish elements as his (a term used in the law codes and in later sources as a synonym for 49) in the planned («...

») shows that the sort of support on which Palladius had counted in 381 was still possible: in theory these pagans and Jews shared a belief in Christ’s nature as strictly human and would have decided in favour of Auxentius if Ambrose had accepted the challenge of a at Court50. Indeed, the potential agreement between Arians, Jews and pagans was not perceived as a threat by Ambrose alone: also the bishop Filastrius of Brixia decided to write a treatise against pagans, Jews and Arians to help Ambrose on the doctrinal battlefield51. The

Benivolus – the dedicatee of the of Gaudentius of Brescia – had also been trained in his discipline: he preferred to resign from his seat in the imperial rather than to sign the law of January 38652.

383 384, in «Humana sapit».

, édd. J.-M. CARRIÉ – R. LIZZI TESTA, Paris 2002, 239-251. 44 Ambr. . 72 (17 M),9 e 12; cfr. Symm. . III,19. 45 For the first convocation at the consistory, Ambr. . 75A,29: «

,

» 46 Ambr. . 75 (21Maur.),1-2. 47 In the same 384, while Q. Aurelius Symmachus had become urban praefect, Vettius Agorius Praetextatus had been chosen as the praetorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum and Africa and managed to obtain the authorization to open an investigation against the plunderers of temples: Symm. . 21, with VERA, , 153-160; 366-367; 408-410. 48 On Ulfilas, P. HEATHER – J. MATTHEWS, , Liverpool 1991, 133-153. 49 ThesLL s. v. . 50 Ambr. . 75,13. 51 Gaud. Brix. 21 , PL 20,999. 52 Gaud. Brix. , 20, cc. 828-830 = CSEL 68,2,1.


286

That constitution, which according to Ambrose could seriously undermine his legitimate claim to hold the Milanese bishopric53, was an attempt made by the Court to prevent other manifestations of insubordination on the part of the bishop, and to intimidate the whole Nicene community. Granting the right to meet those who confessed the faith established in Ariminum in 359 and in Constantinople in 360, the law considered to be «authors of sedition and disturbers of the peace of the Church» and therefore subject to penalty of high treason, those who «supposed that the right of assembly had been granted to them alone», or who had attempted surreptitious petitions against the ordinance54. The constitution was sent to Flavius Eusignius, former proconsul of Africa in 383 and praetorian praefect of Italy and Illyricum in 386-387. As a recipient of several letters of Symmachus, and owner of lands in Sicily, although his origins, ancestry and descendants are unknown, Eusignius was definitely a member of senatorial ; we should not deny his direct involvement in the law’s request, which is shown by the fact that he was its recipient; indeed he must have been as favorable to its content as other pagan members of the Roman Senate55. We know from the letters of Ambrose of Milan the epilogue to the story of Easter 386, when the bishop was able to prevail by mobilizing the power of the Christians, barricaded against the imperial militias in the basilicas, and – with the miraculous discovery of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius – he managed in an unusual but for him very beneficial way the clash with the Court of Justina and Valentinian II. His victory is confirmed by the content of the two constitutions issued by Theodosius I in 388, both directly related to the events of 386 and, as we have tried to show, with those of 381. With their bans against the to assemble and celebrate the sacred mysteries56, and especially with their injunctions not to dare to discuss religion in public57, these constitutions marked an unbridgeable gap between the old world of Palladius and the new world of Ambrose. In the new world, the agreements established between the Nicene Church and the Emperor operated rigidly, giving the ecclesiatical , which was sufficiently hierarchical, roles and functions from which the faithful were excluded. F. Thélamon has described what she termed a passage «d’une démarche intellectuelle à une experience religieuse, de la discussion à la 53 Ambr. . 75,9. 54 16,1,4 (23 January, 386): «

». 55 PLRE I, s. v. Flavius Eusignius, 309-310; Symm. IV,66-74, with A. MARCONE,

, Pisa 1987, 100-106; 128-130; 153-156. 56 16,5,15: «

». 57 16,4,2: «

».


287

conversion»58. Theological debates remained the prerogative of a small handful of well-educated priests. They should avoid those rhetorical tricks or sophistic dialectic against which Ambrose had directed his sarcasm during his confrontation with Palladius in Aquileia59, and that in 383 Jerome himself –who was oddly in agreement with Ambrose on this point – did not regard as a real defense against the attacks of heretics60. For Rufinus of Aquileia, in fact, even records of discussions between Christians were unedifying for Christian readers. Its cultural hero was no longer the learned, shrewd but faithful Christian presbyter, but rather the inexperienced and hence faithful : a , whose virtutes exhibited , thus manifesting the work of the divine presence in him61. The best answer that a young and inexperienced priest could give to an ’ taunting challenges, according to Ambrose, was an eloquent silence62. Rufinus, however, advised his readers to recite the words of a creed and ask one’s opponent to assent to its truth. « »63: the living voice of public disputes was silenced by that powerful and immutable voice of written authorities64. Gentiles and Jews, therefore, disappeared from the dialectical horizons of Christians: conversion no longer needed the weapons of public persuasion. Some discretion in addressing the more educated individuals would still be exercised by deacons, under the close supervision of the bishop, in order not to alienate culturally sophisticated adepts from courses preparing catechumens for baptism65. Increasingly, also, infant baptism came to prevail and baptism was then imposed by law on all non-Christian peoples of the Empire66. Before this process was completed, however, some hope for establishing alliances between minority religious groups survived.

III. During the siege of Rome by Alaric in 410, pagans and Arians enthusiastically supported the program of the Augustus Attalus. According to Al. Cameron, the minipagan revival of 409-410 is a marginal appendage of the larger “historiographical myth” of the survival of the pagans after the second half of the fourth century67. However, his discussion of the faith of those functionaries, to which Attalus – the rich Roman senator elected Augustus with the support of Alaric at the time of the sack of Rome – entrusted his government, ignores or devalues many

58 F. THELAMON, , Paris 1981, 433. 59 Pallad. 81,264: « “

».60 Hier. 2.61 LIM, , cit., 196-197. 62 Ambr. . I,10-13; R. LIZZI,

, Como 1989, 69. 63 Ruf. , 1, ed. M. SIMONETTI, 133. 64 See now AV. CAMERON, (Dutch Lectures in Patristics, 2), Amsterdam 2012, 1-24. 65 Aug. . 8,12,2: the preparatory course to the baptism was to be organized by Deogratias

; cf. R. LIZZI TESTA, in , ed. L. PROIETTI, Roma

2009, 3-33. 66 R. LIZZI TESTA, domini rustici

in , éds. H. INGLEBERT – B. DUMÉZIL – S. DESTEPHEN, Paris 2010, 77-113, part. 113. 67 CAMERON, , cit., 194.


288

significant pieces of evidence68. Among them, a passage of Sozomen offers an unusual glimpse on religious expectations that a political experiment like that of Attalus aroused in the main religious groups of the capital. There he registers the regret felt by pagans and Arians, when they learned of the deposition of Attalus:

«The pagans had inferred from the known predilections and early education of Attalus that he would openly maintain their superstitions, and restore their ancient temples, their festivals and their altars. The Arians imagined that, as soon as he had found his reign firmly established, Attalus would reinstate them in the supremacy over the churches which they had enjoyed during the reigns of Constantius and of Valens; for he had been baptized by Sigesarius, bishop of the Goths, to the great satisfaction of Alaric and the Arian party»69.

According to Al. Cameron, even granting that Attalus had actually been pagan, his faith must have been very superficial, if he was willing to put his career before religion and immediately accept baptism from an Arian bishop upon his elevation by the Gothic/Arian Alaric. However, within the framework of alliances between Arians and pagans we have attempted to sketch out, the baptism of Attalus might be interpreted differently. Even in the first decade of the fifth century, men like Attalus, Marcianus, and Lampadius himself, who were active in the Senate in the last two decades of the fourth century alongside Q. Aurelius Symmachus, Nicomachus Flavianus senior, and Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, of proven pagan orientation, had in all likelihood not lost their interest in religious knowledge. And the frequent transitions from one system of faith to another – which Christians praised in some of them as conversion and denounced in others as apostasy – were not always the result of pure opportunism. It cannot be excluded that at least some wealthy Roman aristocrats, as well as people of lower classes but educated in the same , out of intellectual curiosity or because they had begun a path of faith, were genuinely interested to know, discuss, and explore the philosophico-cultural depth of different doctrines, and changed over time their religious horizons. Augustine was not a member of the Roman Curia, but at least some of his spiritual endeavors and some of the religious experiments, through which he passed before choosing Nicene Catholicism, may have been shared by some members of the late antique Senate. The passage of Sozomen, which as late as 410 adumbrates a possible scenario of coexistence between pagans and Arians under a different government from that of Honorius, could be deemed unfounded based on the perspective of Theodosian Nicenes, which was, however, not yet prevalent in that moment. Around 410, religious groups were not all in agreement with the notions of exclusivity and ideological intransigence professed by Ambrose. Sozomen recalls, with undisguised contempt, the disappointed hopes of the group of pagans and Arians who had supported Attalus: the former would have witnessed without complaint the restoration of sacrifices and pagan rituals, and the latter expected a takeover of the Christian churches, as had happened in the period of Constantius II and Valens. The chronological reference confirms the reliability of Sozomen’s passage, because it refers to a moment in the development of Christianity which actually represented a crucial prelude to the next stage in imperial policy. The demonization of pagans and heretics thus derived from earlier denunciations of their moral decadence: in the third letter that Ambrose sent to the emperors from Aquileia, Ursinus, the

68 R. LIZZI TESTA, , in

410 . 6 2010 , a c. di A. DI BERARDINO – G. PILARA – L. SPERA (SEA 131), Roma 2012, 81-112. 69 Soz. IX,9,1.


289

former opponent of Damasus, was portrayed as a tireless agitator, who moved about northern Italy, trying to build alliances with Arians, Jews and Gentiles against the Catholic Church70. Further evidence of the reliability of Sozomen’s passage is the absence of the Jews among the supporters of Attalus’ government. Protected even at the end of the reign of Theodosius I from the and from the of Christians, who in some places forbade Jewish meetings ( )71, already in 408 Theodosius II had reacted to incidents that had broken out in certain provinces on the occasion of with a law that ordered the governors to prohibit Jewish ritual pantomimes72. This was only the first sign of a trend in imperial legislation, designed to suppress, in addition to pagan cults, a Jewish worship that had once been considered an intellectual and religious experience worthy of the utmost respect73. If then some educated pagans ( ), favored by the privileges of their lofty rank, continued sporadically during the fifth century to express their conscious religious options, the experts in Jewish knowledge ( ) responded to their religious adversaries with the same eloquent silence that Ambrose had learned from the pages of their Old Testament74.

Rita Lizzi Testa Dipartimento di Scienze Umane e della Formazione

Università di Perugia [email protected]

After the Council of Aquileia in 381, the bishop Palladius of Ratiaria, condemned as an Arian by the Synodal bishops, asked Ambrose to organize a sort of larger arbitration on the doctrinal issues discussed in that council, since he believed that he would get a more equitable judgment than the one emitted by the superb intolerance of Ambrose, in collusion with the ‘arrogance of Damasus’. He was sure that the Holy Scriptures were well known to all and that (= ) and (= ) were able to judge his doctrinal arguments with enough authority. Therefore he proposed their treaties to be sent to the Senate of Rome and to be published by imperial order both in the Urbs, by

, and in the churches of all the other cities, by (Pall. . 139). This paper does intend to verify whether the intellectual life of Late Antiquity was really so dominated by theological disputes, as Palladius of Ratiaria imagined.

70 Ambr., . 5,3-4. 71 16,8,9 (29 Sept. 393); 16,8,11 (24 April 396). 72 16,8,18 (29 May 408): A.M. RABELLO, 8 18

, RHDF 55 (1977) 545-558: the custom was to crucify and burn an effigy of Haman, commemorating the events of the Book of Esther, but the Christians interpreted this as sacrilegious «

» 73 . 37. L. CRACCO RUGGINI,

(SSAM 26), Spoleto 1980 = EAD., (Opuscula collecta 7), Roma 2011, 62-64, n. 85. 74 Ambr. I,15: «

3

; cfr. I, 20: «

»

Lizzi Jerusalem

Documents

Transcript of Lizzi Jerusalem