The Biography of John Chrysostom and the Chronology of his Works
24
The Biography of John Chrysostom and the Chronology of his Works 1. Introduction As we reflect on the status quaestionis of Chrysostom Studies at the beginning of the twenty- first century, this article is critical in its timing. In some respects the course of Chrysostom scholarship over the previous one hundred years has altered little. In others it is in the process of becoming radically different. The latter is true in particular of two interrelated subfields in Chrysostom Studies: the study of John’s life, and the chronological arrangement of his works. Following a flurry of scholarship immediately prior to and in the two decades following Chrysostomika I, 1 for the remainder of the twentieth century little changed. As Robert Carter wrote in the 1960s, by the second half of the twentieth century the study of “the events and chronology” of John’s life had plateaued. 2 Without the discovery of new evidence, he speculated, progress in this domain was likely to constitute little more than “quibbling over the interpretation of details”. And so to a large extent his prediction has proved true. The biographies produced by John Norman Davidson Kelly and Rudolf Brändle, in 1995 and 1999 respectively, 3 differ little in their outline of the facts from that published by Chrysostomus Baur in 1930. 4 In them, it is for the most part the smaller details that have been refined. 5 In a similar way, following the publication by Max von Bonsdorff of his study of the chronology of John’s homiletic series on the New Testament in 1922 little progress was made. 6 The scholarship that followed, up to and including Frans van de Paverd’s revision of the sequence of the Homilies on the Statues in 1991, 7 offered only minor corrections to an overall schema that had since the 1950s been accepted as for the most part complete. 8 As we have crossed over into the twenty-first century new avenues in both fields have opened up. At the close of its first decade we find the field as a whole undergoing revitalization, with study of John’s biography and chronology at the forefront. The intent here is to provide the reader with a broad outline of scholarship in these two fields as well as to inform them of current problems and research directions. The survey begins with a brief overview of the sources that underpin John’s biography. From there it moves to a discussion of the relationship between those sources, their biases, and the implications of this new perspective for John’s biography. It then moves on to a discussion of the status quaestionis with regard to the chronology of John’s works, beginning with a brief outline of the history that underpins current scholarship and concluding with an outline of the methodological challenges that we face today. 2. The sources By the time that Kelly came to write his biography, Florent van Ommeslaeghe had in a number of articles argued for the authenticity and primacy of a text dismissed by Baur as late and derivative, 9 namely the funeral oration of ps-Martyrius (CPG 6517). 10 Since the edition 1 For a summary of this period from the contribution of Gerhard Rauschen to the influential chronological schema proposed for the exegetical homilies by Max von Bonsdorff, see W. Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance. Reshaping the foundations (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 273), Rome 2005, 135- 202. 2 R Carter, “The future of Chrysostom studies”, Studia Patristica 10 (1970) 14-21, at 19. 3 J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London 1995; R. Brändle, Johannes Chrysostomus. Bischof-Reformer-Märtyrer, Stuttgart 1999. 4 C. Baur, Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit, 2 vols, München 1929-1930; published in English translation as John Chrysostom and His Time, 2 vols, Westminster, MD 1959-1960. 5 This is true despite the contributions from the mid 1970s to 1990s of Florent Van Ommeslaeghe. His findings were slow to gain acceptance, in regard to which see the discussion that follows. Both biographies do take a more straightforwardly historical approach to the subject than that of Baur, which tends towards the hagiographical. Brändle, in particular, seeks to situate John within his cultural context. 6 M. von Bonsdorff, Zur Predigttätigkeit des Johannes Chrysostomus, biographisch-chronologische Studien über seine Homilienserien zu neutestamentlichen Büchern, Diss., Helsingfors1922. 7 F. van de Paverd, St. John Chrysostom, The Homilies on the Statues. An Introduction (OCA 239), Roma 1991. 8 For an overview of the 1930s to late 1990s in regard to the homilies, see Mayer, Homilies, 215-252. 9 See Baur, John Chrysostom, I, xxxii-xxxiii.
Transcript of The Biography of John Chrysostom and the Chronology of his Works
The Biography of John Chrysostom and the Chronology of his Works 1. Introduction As we reflect on the status quaestionis of Chrysostom Studies at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this article is critical in its timing. In some respects the course of Chrysostom scholarship over the previous one hundred years has altered little. In others it is in the process of becoming radically different. The latter is true in particular of two interrelated subfields in Chrysostom Studies: the study of John’s life, and the chronological arrangement of his works. Following a flurry of scholarship immediately prior to and in the two decades following Chrysostomika I,1 for the remainder of the twentieth century little changed. As Robert Carter wrote in the 1960s, by the second half of the twentieth century the study of “the events and chronology” of John’s life had plateaued.2 Without the discovery of new evidence, he speculated, progress in this domain was likely to constitute little more than “quibbling over the interpretation of details”. And so to a large extent his prediction has proved true. The biographies produced by John Norman Davidson Kelly and Rudolf Brändle, in 1995 and 1999 respectively,3 differ little in their outline of the facts from that published by Chrysostomus Baur in 1930.4 In them, it is for the most part the smaller details that have been refined.5 In a similar way, following the publication by Max von Bonsdorff of his study of the chronology of John’s homiletic series on the New Testament in 1922 little progress was made.6 The scholarship that followed, up to and including Frans van de Paverd’s revision of the sequence of the Homilies on the Statues in 1991,7 offered only minor corrections to an overall schema that had since the 1950s been accepted as for the most part complete.8 As we have crossed over into the twenty-first century new avenues in both fields have opened up. At the close of its first decade we find the field as a whole undergoing revitalization, with study of John’s biography and chronology at the forefront. The intent here is to provide the reader with a broad outline of scholarship in these two fields as well as to inform them of current problems and research directions. The survey begins with a brief overview of the sources that underpin John’s biography. From there it moves to a discussion of the relationship between those sources, their biases, and the implications of this new perspective for John’s biography. It then moves on to a discussion of the status quaestionis with regard to the chronology of John’s works, beginning with a brief outline of the history that underpins current scholarship and concluding with an outline of the methodological challenges that we face today. 2. The sources By the time that Kelly came to write his biography, Florent van Ommeslaeghe had in a number of articles argued for the authenticity and primacy of a text dismissed by Baur as late and derivative,9 namely the funeral oration of ps-Martyrius (CPG 6517).10 Since the edition 1 For a summary of this period from the contribution of Gerhard Rauschen to the influential chronological schema proposed for the exegetical homilies by Max von Bonsdorff, see W. Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance. Reshaping the foundations (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 273), Rome 2005, 135-202. 2 R Carter, “The future of Chrysostom studies”, Studia Patristica 10 (1970) 14-21, at 19. 3 J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London 1995; R. Brändle, Johannes Chrysostomus. Bischof-Reformer-Märtyrer, Stuttgart 1999. 4 C. Baur, Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit, 2 vols, München 1929-1930; published in English translation as John Chrysostom and His Time, 2 vols, Westminster, MD 1959-1960. 5 This is true despite the contributions from the mid 1970s to 1990s of Florent Van Ommeslaeghe. His findings were slow to gain acceptance, in regard to which see the discussion that follows. Both biographies do take a more straightforwardly historical approach to the subject than that of Baur, which tends towards the hagiographical. Brändle, in particular, seeks to situate John within his cultural context. 6 M. von Bonsdorff, Zur Predigttätigkeit des Johannes Chrysostomus, biographisch-chronologische Studien über seine Homilienserien zu neutestamentlichen Büchern, Diss., Helsingfors1922. 7 F. van de Paverd, St. John Chrysostom, The Homilies on the Statues. An Introduction (OCA 239), Roma 1991. 8 For an overview of the 1930s to late 1990s in regard to the homilies, see Mayer, Homilies, 215-252. 9 See Baur, John Chrysostom, I, xxxii-xxxiii.
2
that van Ommeslaeghe intended to produce failed to appear due to his untimely death and a diplomatic text was accessible only in the form of his doctoral dissertation,11 which to this day remains difficult to obtain, Kelly was reliant in updating Baur’s account upon the evidence highlighted by van Ommeslaeghe in his published articles.12 To be fair, up to the moment that he delivered his completed manuscript to the publishers Kelly expected the promised edition momentarily to appear and so did not pursue obtaining his own copy of Parisinus graecus 1519, the chief manuscript. Like Baur before him, Kelly consequently relied for the most part on the accounts of Palladius, Socrates and Sozomen,13 ensuring that his biography, although more dispassionate and at times more detailed, did not differ substantively. Even Claudia Tiersch, whose work, published in 2002, is less a biography than an exploration of John’s episcopate and the factors that led to his deposition,14 and who for the first time takes ps-Martyrius’ witness substantially into account, did little to alter the accepted “facts” concerning that part of John’s life. Her contribution lies more in the interpretation of them. The full integration of ps-Martyrius’ account into the modern biographical tradition concerning John has yet to occur, and is only now facilitated by the appearance, finally, in May 2007 of a scientific edition of the funeral oration.15
The last systematic review of the broad spectrum of sources concerning John’s life, that assembled by Baur in 1929,16 is thus now dated. Not only did he believe at the time that the funeral oration attributed to Martyrius was a later and derivative work, but his survey ignored a number of key hagiographical sources from the second half of the fifth century. By inserting the funeral oration back into the list of reliable sources for John’s biography and by introducing overlooked peripheral sources, it is now becoming clear that a new perspective on this material can be obtained. Critical to this new perspective is a clearer understanding of the sources’ relationship, context, and interdependence. 2.1 Greek and Latin sources to the 8th century The earliest sources that provide a window on John’s life are, self-evidently, his own treatises, homilies, and letters.17 These date variously from the period prior to his diaconate in Antioch (c. 376) to the year in which he died (407). The sources with which we are concerned here are those that are external to the corpus of John’s own writings, and that date from as early as the Synod of the Oak prior to John’s first exile in 403. The most complete list to date is offered by Chrysostomus Baur in the introduction to the first volume of his two volume biography of John, published in 1929.18 Several developments in scholarship – most notably by Florent van Ommeslaeghe and now Martin Wallraff in regard to ps-Martyrius; and by Sever Voicu in regard to the ps-Chrysostomica – now require us to amend that list in two important ways. Firstly, the Oratio funebris of ps-Martyrius, which Baur had dismissed as late and derivative, is to be reassigned to between November 407 and early 408,19 relocating it as a source independent of and slightly prior to the Dialogus of Palladius, and reversing the relationship that Baur had perceived between ps-Martyrius and Sozomen. That is, as Martin Wallraff 10 See F. van Ommeslaeghe, “La valeur historique de la Vie des S. Jean Chrysostome attribuée à Martyrius d’Antioche (BHG 871)”, Studia Patristica 12 (1975) 478-483; id., “Que vaut le témoignage de Pallade sur le procès de saint Jean Chrysostome”, Analecta Bollandiana 95 (1977) 389-441; id., “Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l’impératrice Eudoxie. Le dossier et les origines d’une légende”, AB 97 (1979) 131-159; id., “Jean Chrysostome et le peuple de Constantinople”, AB 99 (1981) 329-349; and id., “Chrysostomica. La nuit de Pâques 404”, AB 110 (1992) 123-134. 11 F. van Ommeslaeghe, “De lijkrede voor Johannes Chrysostomus toegeschreven aan Martyrius van Antiochie. Textuitgave met Commentaar, Hoofdstukken uit de Historische Kritiek”, PhD diss., Leuven 1974. 12 See Kelly, Golden Mouth, 291. 13 Ibid., 292-293; cf. Baur, Chrysostom and his Time, I, xxii-xix. 14 See C. Tiersch, Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel (398-404). Weltsicht und Wirken eines Bischofs in der Hauptstadt des Oströmischen Reiches (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 6), Tübingen 2002. 15 M. Wallraff (ed.) e trad. C. Ricci, Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi (Ps.-Martyrius Antiochenus, BHG 871, CPG 6517) (Quaderni della Rivista di Bizantinistica), Spoleto 2007. 16 Baur, Chrysostom and his Time, I, xix-xliv. Kelly, Golden Mouth, 291-295, provides an overview of only a select number of (chiefly historiographical) sources (John’s letters from exile; ps-Martyrius, Palladius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius and Zosimus). 17 For the genuine corpus see CPG 4305-4495. 18 See n. 16. 19 Wallraff-Ricci, Oratio funebris, 14.
3
demonstrates, building on the earlier work of van Ommeslaeghe,20 it is Sozomen who displays probable dependence on ps-Martyrius.21 Secondly, Baur either considered as genuine works from the period between John’s first exile and shortly following his death that are now considered not part of the genuine Chrysostomic corpus or ignored as an important cluster within the sources works accepted as pseudonymous that were composed during that period. What is of key importance here, as Sever Voicu argues, is that there exists among the ps-chrysostomica a group of texts that are a product of the climate of hostility between the Johnites and anti-Johnites following John’s deposition from the episcopal throne of Constantinople.22 At least one of the letters falsely attributed to John that were identified as pseudonymous by Panagiotis Nicolopoulos is thought to belong to this period,23 Of the nine homilies that Sever Voicu identifies, he concludes that four (CPG 4396-9) were creatively altered within the Johnite community shortly after John’s death in Sept. 407.24 The other five (CPG 4333.8, 4364, 4528-9, 4536) he attributes to the time of John’s exile while hopes for his rehabilitation remained alive.25 Baur, like the biographers who came after him, either failed to recognise the status of these sources, interpreting them as genuine, 26 and so distorting to some degree the account of John’s life produced, or dismissed them as of little value precisely because they were not genuine. It is my argument that these texts play a significant role in the early manufacture of John’s image on both sides. Rather than being trivial, they provide an important key to reading the sources of the fifth and sixth centuries within the framework of the alliances and hostilities that John’s appointment to the throne of Constantinople and subsequent deposition engendered.27
With these adjustments in place, the chronological spread of the chief external sources in Greek and Latin for the biography of John Chrysostom can now be viewed as follows:
392 Jerome, De viris illustribus 12928 403 two sets of charges from the Synod of the Oak (preserved in the
9th C by Photius)29 404-late 407 letters, homilies and documents attributed to John doctored by
both Johnites and anti-Johnites 405 Jerome, ep. 113 (trans. of letter sent to him by Theophilus of
Alexandria)30 20 Van Ommeslaeghe, “Jean Chrysostome et le peuple de Constantinople”. 21 Wallraff-Ricci, Oratio funebris, 17-18, contra Baur, Chrysostom and His Time, I, xxxii. 22 S. Voicu, “«Furono chiamati giovanniti…»: Un’ipotesi sulla nascita del corpus pseudocrisostomico”, in B. Janssens, B. Roosen, & P. Van Deun (eds), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 137), Leuven 2004, 701-711; and id., “La volontà e il caso: La tipologia dei primi spuri di Crisostomo”, in: Giovanni Crisostomo: Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 93), Roma 2005, 101-118. 23 P. Nicolopoulos, “Les lettres inauthentiques de saint Jean Chrysostome”, in: SYMPOSION. Studies on St. John Chrysostom (Analekta Blatadon 18), Thessalonike 1973, 125-128, esp. p. 126 re the second recension of ep. 125 ad Cyriacum; and id., Hai eis ton Ioannen ton Chrysostom esphalmenos apodidomenai epistolai («Athena» Syngramma periodikon tes en Athenais epistemonikes hetaireias. Seira diatribon kai meletematon 9), Athens 1973. 24 Voicu, “La volontà e il caso”, 106. This view is in the process of being modified by Emilio Bonfiglio (“[CPG 4396-9]: the problem of their authenticity in the light of the ancient Armenian, Syriac and Latin translations”, seminar, Byzantine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Georgetown, 23 March 2010), who argues that CPG 4398 and the first three paragraphs of 4396 are authentic. The full argument appears in id., “John Chrysostom’s discourses on his first exile. Prolegomena to a critical edition of the Sermo antequam iret in exsilium and of the Sermo cum iret in exsilium”, unpub. DPhil dissertation, Pembroke College, University of Oxford, 2011. 25 Voicu, “La volontà e il caso”, 115. 26 See Kelly, Golden Mouth, 229-239; and Tiersch, Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel, 357-363, who both build their argument on the assumption that all four of the homilies CPG 4396-9 are genuine. 27 The fruits of this approach are demonstrated by Peter Van Nuffelen, “Palladius and the johannite schism”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64 (2013) 1-19, who contextualises Palladius’ Dialogue within this climate, adding yet another filter through which Palladus’ story of John’s engagement in the events of 403-404 is to be read. 28 PL 23, 713. 29 Photius, Bibl. 59 (Henry 1959: I.52-6); re-edited in 1988 by Malingrey (SC 342, 100-14). The authenticity of the charges is confirmed by ps-Martyrius and Palladius, each of whom address a number of them in their defence of John. 30 CSEL 55/2, 393-4. Only the first part survives. The letter refers to the judgement against John, in which Theophilus lists among John’s misdeeds his support for the Origenists and his offending of Epiphanius.
4
Sept. 407 ps-Martyrius, Oratio funebris late 408-early 409 or between 408/9 and 418 Palladius, Dialogus31 mid January 412 Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, ep. 6732 c. 410-435 Nilus of Ancyra, epp. I.309, II.265, III.199, III.27933 Isidore of Pelusium, epp. I.152, I.319, and II.42 (citation of an
alleged letter by Libanius praising John’s rhetorical skill)34 425-433 Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica35 c. 430 John Cassian, De incarnatione 7.31.136 438 Proclus, Hom. 20 In s. Iohannem Chrysostomum (in Latin
translation)37 c. 438 Vita Epiphanii (earliest recension)38 438 or later Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 5 encomia on John Chrysostom
(summaries preserved by Photius)39 440-450 Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica40 Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica41 Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica42 Callinicus, Vita Hypatii43 Vita Porphyrii (Greek recension)44 before 444-post 451 Vita Olympiadis45 498-518 Zosimus, Historia nova (based to large extent on early 5th C
source)46 534-550 Marcellinus comes, Chronicon47 544-550 Facundus of Hermiane, Pro defensione trium capitulorum
(containing fragments of Jerome’s translation of a document, allegedly by Theophilus, hostile to John)48
6th-8th C Vita Isaaci49 31 According to its most recent editor, the Dialogue was produced prior to 1 October, 408. See A.-M. Malingrey (ed.), Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome (SC 341), Paris 1988, I, 19. Van Nuffelen, “Palladius”, suggests a date following the amnesty offered to the Johnites by Atticus and Theophilus (late 408/early 409). 32 D. Roques (ed.), Synésios de Cyrène. III. Correspondance. Lettres LXIV-CLVI, Paris, 2000, 321. The letter witnesses to the amnesty offered the Johnites in 408/409 by Atticus and Theophilus. 33 PG 79, 193, 336, 345, 373, 476 and 521. 34 PG 78, 284-285, 288 and 361. 35 HE 11.3-8 (GCS 21, 134-139). In the fragments that survive, Philostorgius does not mention John directly but does provide an important perspective on circumstantial events and on people with whom John interacted. 36 CSEL 17, 389.22-24. Cassian provides the information that he was ordained to the office of deacon by John in Constantinople. 37 CPG 5819: PG 65, 827-34. Regarding its authenticity Baur, Chrysostom and his Time, II, 132, is hesitant, but F. Leroy, L’homilétique de Proclus de Constantinople. Tradition manuscrite, inédits, études connexes (Studi e Testi 247), Vatican City 1967, 135 and 152, considers it genuine. 38 V. Epiph. 60-63 (PG 41,100-108; Dindorf 1859, 66-72). An edition of the Greek recension is currently in preparation by Claudia Rapp. For preliminary work see C. Rapp, “The Vita of Epiphanius of Salamis: a historical and literary study”, D. Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1991. 39 The encomia survive in the form of epitomes produced by Photius, Bibl. 273 (Henry 1977: 8.106-111 = CPG 6225, BHG 878t-x) 40 Socr., HE 6.2-21 (he adds a postscript to events at HE 7.25 and 45). 41 Soz., HE 8.1-28. 42 Theod., HE 5.27-36 (GCS NF 5, 328-339. Theodoret provides a much briefer account than those of Socrates and Sozomen, but cites new documents and focuses a brighter spotlight on John’s mission activities. 43 V. Hypatii 11.1-4 (SC 177, 110). 44 V. Porph. 26 and 37-54 (Grégoire-Kugener 1930: 22-3, 31-44). 45 SC 13bis, 406-48. 46 Zos., Hist. nov. 5.14-24 (ed. Paschoud 1986). Zosimus utilises Eunapius of Sardis for the period prior to 403 CE. 47 Chron. 399 and 403 (MGHAA XI/2, 66-67). 48 Fac. Herm., Pro def. trium cap. 6.5.15-16 (CCSL 90 A, 185-186). See Fac. Herm., Pro def. trium cap. 6.5.23 (CCSL 90 A, 187), where Facundus calls it a “monstrous book”, full of slander and exceedingly awful, and clearly considers Jerome complicit in ensuring that Theophilus’ opinion of John was communicated to the West. 49 The V. Isaaci (Cardono, Acta Sanctorum Maii VII, 1866, 243-254), concerning Isaac, leader of the monks at Constantinople during John’s tenure as bishop, fails to mention John, but can be considered a source in that it refers to individuals with whom he interacted.
5
615-619 John Moschus, Pratum spirituale 12850 c. 680 Theodore of Trimithus, Vita Iohannis51 c. 680-725 ps-George of Alexandria, Vita Iohannis52 Of these sources, some would normally be classified as hagiographical, rather than historiographical, but the new paradigm for approaching the sources requires that we make no distinction. Where a distinction is to be drawn is between the two “biographies” that appear in the late seventh to early eighth centuries. On stylistic grounds, that of Theodore of Trimithus has more in common with the accounts of the ecclesiastical historians of the mid fifth century, while that of ps-George of Alexandria situates itself at the beginning of the rhetorical renaissance of the middle Byzantine period to which all of the Greek encomia and lives of John from the eighth to tenth centuries and beyond belong. From that point onwards the bulk of the lives of John are fully hagiographical in intent and derive their content from the Life by ps-George rather than earlier sources. The “biography” of ps-George of Alexandria thus represents a significant change in direction and it is with the “biography” of Theodore of Trimithus that the study of the earlier development of John’s biography thus properly concludes. 2.2 Their relationship and biases Because of the extensive number of sources, the three-century time span, and the complexity engaged in reading each separate source critically, in order to demonstrate the importance of reading every single source impartially and within the framework of the Johnite and anti-Johnite schism the remainder of this section will focus analysis on the chief sources from the early to the mid fifth century. Furthermore, rather than start at the beginning of this period, we will begin at the end, with the church historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, in order to show how the closer we move back in time towards John’s deposition the more problematic our reading of the sources becomes. The first point to note is that the agenda that drive each of these three historians to produce their histories play a significant role in the episodes from John’s life that they choose to portray and in the picture of John that they construct.53 That this is the case can be seen at a glance in a structural comparison of the three accounts (Table 1).54 Theodoret, for instance, who is the only one of the three likely to have known anything of John’s life in Antioch at first hand makes no mention of it at all, even though the accounts of Socrates and Sozomen are prone to error.55 This is because for Socrates and Sozomen John’s early years are important to his role in the central message they wish to convey. For Socrates the inevitable growth to fruition of the seeds sown in John’s earlier years, particularly John’s disposition as reported to him by a witness who knew John at that period (“he was more hot tempered than circumspect”, and “as a result of his simplicity gullible”), can be traced from the moment of
50 PG 87, 2992-2993. 51 CPG 7989, BHG 872, BHGn 872b, ed. by F. Halkin, Douze récits byzantines sur Saint Jean Chrysostome (Subsidia hagiographica 60), Bruxelles 1977, 7-68 (BHG 872b). 52 CPG 7979, BHG 873, ed. by Halkin, Douze récits byzantines, 70-285 (BHG 873bd). The date and authorship of the text are a matter of some debate. For the view that it postdates the vita by Theodore of Trimithus (and therefore cannot have been authored by George of Alexandria) see C. Baur, “Georgius Alexandrinus”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27 (1927) 1-16. Halkin adopts the view of P.R. Coleman-Norton, “The Vita sancti Chrysostomi by Georgius Alexandrinus”, Classical Philology 20 (1925) 69-72, who sees Theodore’s vita rather as dependant on that of George. The stylistic differences, coupled with the subsequent history of the two texts, argue in favour of Baur’s conclusion. 53 For a more detailed account of the role of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret in the construction of John’s biography see W. Mayer, “ The making of a saint. John Chrysostom in early historiography”, in M. Wallraff, u. R. Brändle (hrsg), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105), Berlin 2008, 39-59. 54 In each of the tables the material that is unique to an individual source is indicated by italics. 55 Socrates, e.g., is apparently mistaken when he identifies John’s friend Basil as Basil of Caesarea (HE 6.3.8; GCS NF 1, 314.13-15); introduces an otherwise unknown bishop Zeno as responsible for John’s appointment as lector (HE 6.3.8; GCS NF 1, 314.15-17); and records that he was ordained presbyter by the bishop Evagrius (HE 6.3.12; GCS NF 1, 315.3-5).
6
his arrival at Constantinople.56 Socrates’ John is no saint in the making, but rather a man whose experiences and disposition inclined him to make poor judgements and to alienate people, contributing to his own deposition and the dissension that arose as a result of it.57 In Sozomen, who is interested in constructing John as a saint, much of the negative characterisation is stripped out and far greater emphasis is placed on his preparedness for the role of bishop of the imperial capital.58 In the one instance where Sozomen feels obliged to mention John’s offensive boldness of speech, this is tempered by locating the blame on the wealthy and powerful, who are said to have taken offense only because of their guilt in the sins against which his bluntness was directed.59 What is a vice in Socrates is in Sozomen turned into a virtue. Theodoret’s overwhelming interest in writing his ecclesiastical history, on the other hand, is to vindicate his own doctrinal stance60 and since the events centred around John play no direct role in the theological disputes on which Theodoret’s interest is focused, he treats them with comparative brevity. In comparison to Socrates and Sozomen, whose accounts each consume an entire book, Theodoret recounts the salient facts about John’s life in just nine brief chapters. His preoccupation with the Arian controversy controls his construction of John as a martyr for the Nicene faith, to which John’s life prior to his episcopate is irrelevant. In all three of these authors the central purpose that leads them to produce their history can be seen to shape significantly the picture of John that emerges. It leads them to omit information in some cases, to each present data in a different order, and to insert unique information relevant to their own particular purpose. Two examples serve to demonstrate this more clearly. The tendency among modern historians to favour Sozomen’s account is due in large part to the persuasiveness of his own claim to provide a critical and objective account,61 which, though nowhere explicitly stated, implies to the reader that his major unattested source, Socrates, fails in both respects.62 This claim to improved historical method and impartiality is reinforced for the reader by his reworking of the order in which Socrates presents his material so that while the overt organising principle is chronological (Table 2), the covert effect is to eliminate much of the detail about the negative side of John’s outspokenness. Where Socrates launches directly into an account of the growing hostility towards John and his own role in its development (6.3-6) Sozomen shifts much of this material towards the middle and opens his account instead with material that presents John not as a schismatic but as a unifying force in the church and as a proponent of Nicene orthodoxy. Thus new material is inserted at 8.3 (John effects reconciliation between the Meletian Nicene faction at Antioch and the West) and 8.5 (John’s miraculous conversion of a woman of Macedonian persuasion) that demonstrates John’s concern both for unity and for orthodoxy. This new material brackets the reworked Gainas account, which is recrafted to include John’s bold defence of the Nicene faith against the Arian barbarian, Gainas. In 8.9 new material is also introduced, which is bracketed between Sarapion’s antagonisation of John’s clergy and the charge that John ate alone. This serves to minimise the role of Sarapion, 56 Having established the character John brought to Constantinople, Socrates spends the next two chapters showing how it aroused hostility from the very beginning (HE 6.4-5; GCS NF 1, 315-17). From this point in his account onwards the momentum that the enmity against John gains is constantly alluded to. 57 On Socrates’ primary preoccupation in his church history with documenting the negative effects upon the church of schism, of which John’s case provides a compelling example, see M. Wallraff, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates. Untersuchungen zu Geschichtsdarstellung, Methode und Person (FKD 68), Göttingen 1997, 74. On Socrates’ motivations more broadly (as also those of Sozomen) see also P. Van Nuffelen, Un heritage de paix et de piété. Etude sur les histories eclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 142), Louvain 2004. 58 Soz., HE 8.2.2-11 (Fontes Christiani 73/4, 954-958). 59 Soz., HE 8.2.11 (FChr 73/4, 958). 60 This is not to say that Theodoret’s theology influences his account explicitly (see G.F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories. Eusebeius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius [Théologie Historique 46], Paris, 1977, 202, who documents only one instance). Rather, his theological position manifests itself in the prominent position he gives to the Arian controversy, which he views as requiring an Antiochene christology, if it is to be effectively countered (Chesnut, 203-4). 61 See, e.g., Baur, Chrysostom and His Time, I, xxix; and Chesnut, First Christian Histories, 197-198 (“a genuinely critical piece of historiography”). Kelly, Golden Mouth, 293, is a rare exception. He considers him “inferior to Socrates in critical method” and finds him “credulous to a degree”. 62 See Soz., HE 1.1.13-17 (FChr 73/4, 104-108) where he asserts that he has scrupulously examined a variety of documents in pursuit of “the truth”.
7
which is reduced to a single sentence.63 Instead greater attention is given to the effect of John’s regulation of the largesse of Olympias, and to disputes between John and the local monks, particularly their leader Isaac.64 Of particular note is the way in which Sozomen frames the charge that John would eat with no one nor accept any invitation to dinner, which concludes the chapter.65 The allegation, he states, is false and goes hand in hand with other allegations brought by disgruntled clergy and monks (charges that Socrates adduced as fact – that John was hard, contentious, uncouth and arrogant).66 Sozomen concludes his dismissal of these charges against John by adducing a reliable witness to the effect that the charge of being inhospitable was a misrepresentation of, it is implied, acceptable and normal behaviour that occasionally resulted from the ill-effects of John’s earlier ascetic rigorism.67 By the time that we reach the end of chapter 8 it is clear that Sozomen’s John is innocent in the developing schism and that the fault lies instead with his enemies. Sozomen’s seemingly objective account in fact presents a picture of John that conforms more closely to that of the Johnite cause (see Table 4). This he achieves in part by adopting a Johnite version of events at certain points and by inserting events preserved, if not in Palladius and ps-Martyrius themselves, in what are clearly Johnite sources. Like ps-Martyrius he inserts John, as mentioned, into the midst of the Gainas episode as a defender, against Arianist forces, of the Nicene faith (8.4),68 he inserts the assassination attempt on John,69 and the persecutions of John’s supporters, Eutropius and Olympias,70 as well as John’s pastoral activity in exile.71 Like Palladius, he expands his account of the sufferings of John’s supporters to include the injuries sustained at the hands of the military,72 and inserts John’s vision of Basiliscus on his deathbed.73 In addition he adds material new to us, but which must have been in circulation, some of it hagiographical in content (8.23-24).74 In fact, accounting for the deliberate insertion of hagiographical elements into his account (the miracle of the Macedonian woman, Nicarete’s life, the death of the monk Nilammon,75 the martyrdom of Eutropius and the stoic resistance of Olympias), which can only be thought to discredit his attempt to present his own history as more trustworthy and critical than that of his model, is instructive. None of the hagiographical material that he injects into Book 8 is of direct relevance to the key events in John’s life. What it does serve to do subconsciously in the mind of the reader, however, is to elevate the account to that of a saint’s life. The miracle of the Macedonian woman underlines John’s saintly capacity to effect unity in the church; the saintliness of his followers (Nicarete, Eutropius, Olympias) silently mirrors his own. That it also enhances their credibility is convenient to his purpose. Thus, while the overt impression for which Sozomen strives is one of impartiality and subjectivity in contrast to Socrates, his major source, the covert image projected is that of John as a saint. If Sozomen preserves material from overwhelmingly Johnite sources, Socrates, our second example, shows that alternative readings of the events associated with John were still at this time in circulation. In Bk 6.11 Socrates inserts an account of a hostile encounter between John’s archdeacon, Sarapion, and Severian of Gabala. Here the manuscript tradition preserves two distinct recensions,76 of which the shorter is clearly that of Socrates.77 Martin
63 Soz., HE 8.9.1 (FChr 73/4, 982). 64 At HE 8.9 Sozomen devotes 3.5 lines to Sarapion, and 16.5 and 13 each, respectively, to Olympias and to the monks and Isaac (FChr 73/4, 982-986). He deletes the reported insult against the clergy (Socr., HE 6.4.3; GCS NF 1, 315,19-23), which Socrates introduces to illustrate and emphasise Sarapion’s character. The aspect of Olympias’ role which he presents is not found in Palladius, ps-Martyrius or Socrates, while the introduction of Isaac and the monks to the list of enemies, which echoes Palladius (Dial. 6; SC 341, 126.16-128.17), highlights their absence in Socrates. 65 HE 8.9.5-6 (FChr 73/4, 984-986). 66 Cf. Soz., HE 8.9.5 (FChr 73/4, 984,26-27) and Socr., HE 6.3.13 (GCS NF 1, 315,8-13). 67 Soz., HE 8.9.6 (FChr 73/4, 986). 68 HE 8.4.6-10 (FChr 73/4, 966-968). Cf. ps-Mart., Or. funeb. 49-51 (Wallraff-Ricci, 100-104). 69 HE 8.21.5-8 (FChr 73/4, 1024-1026). Cf. ps-Mart., Or. funeb. 105-106 (Wallraff-Ricci, 158-162). 70 HE 8.24 (FChr 73/4, 1032-1036). Cf. ps-Mart., Or. funeb. 125-131 (Wallraff-Ricci, 180-186). 71 HE 8.27.8-9 (FChr 73/4, 1048-1050). Cf. ps-Mart., Or. funeb. 134 (Wallraff-Ricci, 190.9-16). 72 HE 8.21.1-2 (FChr 73/4, 1022). Cf. Pall., Dial. 9 (SC 341, 196-200). 73 HE 8.28.3 (FChr 73/4, 1050-1052). Cf. Pall., Dial. 11 (SC 341, 224-230). 74 HE 8.23.4-7 and 24.8-9 (FChr 73/4, 1032-1036). 75 Soz., HE 8.19.4-7 (FChr 73/4, 1018). 76 Socr., GE 6.11.9-20 (GCS NF 1, 329-333)
8
Wallraff has proposed, in my opinion correctly, that the longer recension represents the accidental insertion of a page from Socrates’ source.78 A detailed comparison of the two shows Socrates either adopting or imposing a markedly different slant on the event,79 allowing him to promote Sarapion’s role as that of a schismatic. The accidental survival of this fragment of one of his sources allows us rare insight into how Socrates’ own agenda has shaped the way in which he presents John’s story. His Sarapion is framed as a troublemaker, whose preferential treatment and trust by John serves the latter poorly and is in part responsible for the split in the church that ensues. Whether we posit that Socrates utilised a number of sources of which the longer recension constituted a version of events more sympathetic to the Johnite position, or whether we posit that Socrates took what was in this instance a less hostile source and reshaped it to fit his own agenda, at the very least his insertion of Sarapion into his account and the complete silence of Palladius and ps-Martyrius in this matter indicate that the sources hostile to John considered the relationship between John and Sarapion problematic. Compared to Sozomen, who adheres to Johnite sources and inevitably constructs John in a favourable light, Socrates’ interest is not that of a partisan, but of an historian seeking to demonstrate the importance of the unity of church and empire and the deleterious effects of dissension,80 of which the affair centred around John is a significant example. He is an historian, moreover, who stands outside Nicene circles and therefore observes them from a different perspective. What we ought to expect, then, from someone who stands outside the polarities of bias which attach to the affair and who has carefully sifted the mass of information available to him informed by those same biases is an account of John’s episcopate which is more reasoned in its approach. The picture of John that we end up with, however, while different, and therefore significant, is no less shaped by his particular interests. As a consequence of the presentation of John’s case as an example of schism, in the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates we no longer view a John who is innocent, as in the apologetic sources authored by the Johnites, ps-Martyrius and Palladius, but one who is complicit in his own downfall and whose complex character is responsible, on the one hand, in part for the enmity that he incurs and, on the other, for the profound devotion which he inspires.81 That devotion, while admirable, nonetheless contributes significantly to the divisions that occur.82 What we observe in Socrates is thus less a negative portrayal of John as a person than one which places weight on the fundamental elements of his character, both good and bad, as part of the explanation of how division in the church took place. It is noticeable, on the other hand, that everything that Socrates reports, regardless of whether it reflects well or poorly on John’s character or intent, has negative consequences for the church.83 It is as a result of his emphasis on causal factors and their negative outcomes that the images of John as zealous reformer, yet popular preacher and as outspoken and undiplomatic, even naïve, come to dominate. These are key images that have been absorbed for the most part uncritically into John’s modern biography. 77 That the short recension is Socrates’ own version is suggested by the addition of information concerning John’s interference with Novatian and Quartodeciman churches on his way home from Ephesus, material that is missing from the longer recension. See Socr., HE 6.11.13 (short recension; GCS 1, 330.21-25) and compare Socr., HE 6.11.13 (long recension; GCS NF 1, 330.23-25), which says simply: “not long after, John returned to Constantinople”. Socrates returns to criticism of John’s treatment of the Novatians and Quartodecimans in Asia Minor in HE 6.19.7 (GCS NF 1, 344). 78 Wallraff, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates, 65. Socrates revised certain parts of the history upon discovering fresh sources. See G.C. Hansen, Sokrates. Kirchengeschichte (GCS NF 1), Berlin 1995, LVI-VII; and Wallraff, ibid., 163-172. See, however, Hansen, ibid., LVIII-IX, who finds the two versions difficult to explain, but excludes revision. 79 See Mayer, “The making of a saint”, 43-45. 80 The conclusion of T. Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople. Historian of Church and State. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1997. 81 Socr., HE 6.4-5 and 15 (J’s character provokes hostility); 6.4.8-9 and 6.7.30-1 (J loved and praised for his preaching, introduces new prayers into the liturgy). 82 Socr., HE 6.16 (popular uprising at the announcement of J’s first exile); 6.18.14-18 (J’s supporters split from the church and worship apart; they set fire to the Great Church on John’s second expulsion); 7.25.2 (the Johnites continue to worship separately and Atticus restores them to communion only on restoration of J’s name to the diptychs). 83 The account of John’s institution of night-time anti-Arian processions (Socr., HE 6.8; GCS NF 1, 325) is a case in point. His intentions are good, but the outcome is turmoil (HE 6.8.5; GCS NF 1, 325.15-17).
9
The inclusion of the archdeacon Sarapion as a key figure in the downfall of John Chrysostom in the accounts of Socrates and Sozomen serves to illustrate our next point – that the closer we return in time to the actual historical events, the greater the suspicion that needs to be brought to bear when reading the sources. It is instructive before examining the accounts of both ps-Martyrius and Palladius to assess first what they deliberately omit. Whereas for Socrates Sarapion plays a major role in the developing schism – he is introduced at the very beginning (6.4) as a member of the clergy at Constantinople upon whom John placed considerable reliance, a person of harsh temperament, instrumental in the alienation from John of the rest of the clergy;84 at 6.11 he plays an important role as the main conduit of information to John about events at Constantinople while the latter is at Ephesus, antagonises Severian of Gabala and is then instrumental in driving a wedge between John and Severian;85 and at 6.17 we are told that John ordained him bishop of Heracleia, 86 the role in which he finally makes an appearance in the Dialogus of Palladius – in the accounts of Palladius and ps-Martyrius his involvement is carefully suppressed.87 The exception is two brief mentions by Palladius of Sarapion as a witness required at the Synod of the Oak and as one of the numerous bishops persecuted following the second exile of John.88 Ps-Martyrius mentions him not at all. Likewise missing from their accounts is the bishop of Salamis, Epiphanius, who plays a prominent role at Constantinople in the Origenist dispute centred on the Tall Brothers in the accounts of Sozomen and Socrates (and, of course, in the Vita Epiphanii). The reason for the exclusion of the first of these two figures, Sarapion, is obvious, in that his selection as archdeacon clearly did not reflect well on John and would have been prejudicial, on the one hand, to Palladius’ defence of John, and on the other, to ps-Martyrius’ praise of him. The reason for the exclusion of Epiphanius is more difficult to determine, but it is possible that it was felt that his presence would have distracted the reader from the single-minded vilification by both authors of Theophilus. Of equal interest is the silence of Palladius in contrast to the attribution by ps-Martyrius of equal status to Eudoxia as chief orchestrator of the enmity against John, a role that is perpetuated in the accounts of Socrates and Sozomen and that was clearly a part of the Johnite accounts that circulated in Constantinople in the first half of the fifth century. Either Palladius deliberately suppresses her role in his own account, preferring to lay all of the blame on Theophilus, or questions must be raised about the real nature of her role in John Chrysostom’s downfall. As Roland Delmaire has argued, her opposition to John cannot have been as fierce as the sources portray, since after her death the situation for both John and his followers worsened, rather than improving, as should have been the case, if she was a prime instigator in the hostility towards him.89 Eudoxia died on 6 October 404 CE. Within a month (18 November) an edict had been promulgated (CTh XVI.4.6) enforcing communion with Arsacius, the new bishop of Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Porphyrius, the new bishop of Antioch. Delmaire links the increased activity against John’s supporters at this time to the replacement of the urban prefect of Constantinople, Studius, a moderate Christian, by the more hardline Optatus. Rather than being coincidental this act appears to indicate that John’s enemies felt that with Eudoxia out of the way they had license to manoeuvre more of their own party into key positions. If this is the case, then as Delmaire suggests, Eudoxia was not a powerful force against John, but rather a moderating influence within the palace. In this instance, then, it is ps-Martyrius’ account of events that is to be treated with suspicion and Palladius’ that may well be more reliable. Reliability is relative, however, and each author has his own reason for presenting his account of events in the way that he does. Since both are Johnites and their accounts are clearly biased towards John,90 here it is less a case of where they situate themselves within the schism that matters, but more importantly the genre that they have selected as the vehicle for 84 Socr., HE 6.4.2-3 (GCS NF 1, 315.18-23). 85 Socr., HE 6.11.11-17 (short recension; GCS NF 1, 330-1). 86 Socr., HE 6.17.12 (GCS NF 1, 340.22-3). 87 See Table 3 for Palladius; Table 4 for a different comparative view. 88 Pall., Dial. 8 and 20 (SC 341, 170.158-160 and 396.43-398.47). 89 R. Delmaire, “Les «lettres d’exil» de Jean Chrysostome. Études de chronologie et de prosopographie,” RecAug 25 (1991) 83. 90 See M Wallraff, “Tod im Exil. Reaktionen auf die Todesnachricht des Johannes Chrysostomos und Konstituierung einer ‘johannitischen’ Opposition”, in Wallraff-Brändle, Chrysostomosbilder, 23-37.
10
delivery. Demetrios Katos has recently persuasively shown that the structure of Palladius’ Dialogus is best explained by courtroom or forensic dialogue.91 What Palladius presents, in essence, is the legal case for the defence that would have been presented had John been given a fair trial.92 The document is thus both a plea for how badly John has been treated in this respect (that is, he is at pains to show that it is not John but his enemy, Theophilus, who has contravened the canons of the church), and an attempt to show how worthy John is of the episcopate. John is an innocent victim of events rather than an accomplice. It is for this reason that Palladius concentrates on only two charges and deliberately addresses them only in the second half of his defence,93 after carefully establishing a picture of John as the ideal monk-bishop.94 Part of that construction involves the modesty topos in Chapter 5 that the popular John had no idea of his election to the throne of Constantinople and had to be kidnapped in order to avoid a riot, a topos that I exposed in an article published in 2004 by demonstrating the active interest of the larger Antiochene Nicene faction in episcopal elections at Constantinople throughout the fourth century.95 The central element in that construction, again in Chapter 5 is Palladius’ disproportionately long account of John’s monastic formation.96 As Martin Illert has persuasively argued, this picture of John’s monasticism, which has for so long been a key element in modern biographies, is misleading. It is in reality an anachronistic picture of Egyptian monastic formation based closely on Palladius’ own youthful experiences. More reliable in this respect, as Illert points out, is the account of ps-Martyrius, which matches those of Socrates and Sozomen, and conforms more closely to a Syrian model.97 Whether Palladius’ choice is due to convenience (that is, he draws on his own experience to fill a gap in his knowledge) or wilful manipulation of the facts to suit his apologetic agenda is difficult to resolve, but the facts that his particular version of events is anachronistic and fits neatly into the image of John he wishes to project remain. The separation from the city and the tiered progression of John’s ascetical development from apprenticeship to an old man in the mountains to anachoretic autarchy in a cave find parallels in the Vita Antonii,98 while there are obvious similarities between the motivations and experiences attributed to John and those which Palladius describes for himself and the Egyptian anchorites to whom he is apprenticed.99 The consequence of these observations is that this confidently drawn and persuasive account of John’s life as a monk needs henceforth to be treated as fiction in modern biography, while retaining appreciation of how neatly it serves Palladius’ apologetic purpose. 91 D. Katos, “Socratic dialogue or courtroom debate? Judicial rhetoric and stasis theory in the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom”, Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 42-69; and id., Palladius of Helenopolis: The Origenist Advocate (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 92 Note, however, that there may well have been a second layer to the Dialogue. Van Nuffelen, “Palladius”, argues with equal persuasion that it is a much more complex work, in which Palladius seeks also to defend himself for accepting the amnesty towards the Johnites that was offered in 408/9. This level of the defence explains certain other features of the work – namely, the focus on Rome (Van Nuffelen perceives the work as instructing Rome on how to act) and the detheologising of the conflict (which he sees as reducing its scope to a focus on a single achievable goal – the complete rehabilitation of John). The latter strategy has the secondary objective of exhorting the Johnites to keep faith in their cause. 93 The charge that he ate alone (Dial. 12-13.a) and the charge that he exceeded his jurisdiction in deposing six bishops in Asia Minor (Dial. 13-15). 94 See S. Dagemark, “John Chrysostom the monk-bishop: A comparison between Palladios’ and Possidius’ pictures of a bishop”, in Giovanni Crisostomo: Oriente e Occidente, 933-1031. 95 W. Mayer, “John Chrysostom as bishop: the view from Antioch”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004) 455-466. For a broader perspective on those elections see P. Van Nuffelen, “Episcopal succession in Constantinople (381-450 C.E.): The local dynamics of power”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 18 (2010) 425-451 96 On this point see W. Mayer, “What does it mean to say that John Chrysostom was a monk?”, Studia Patristica 41 (2006) 451-455. 97 M. Illert, Johannes Chrysostomus und das antiochenisch-syrische Mönchtum. Studien zu Theologie, Rhetorik und Kirchenpolitik im antiochenischen Schrifttum des Johannes Chrysostomus, Zürich-Freiburg i. Br. 2000, 95-102. 98 See Illert, Mönchtum, 103, who also notes that the Byzantine sources (ps-George of Alexandria and Cosmas Vestitor) explicitly draw on the Vita Antonii to augment their account. 99 Palladius seeks apprenticeship with an old man (Hist. Laus. 1.5; cf. Dial. 5; SC 341, 110.18-20); he is apprenticed to another anchorite who practices sleeplessness (HL 2.2-3; cf. Dial. 5; SC 341, 110.24); the purpose is to suppress his passions (HL 2.1; cf. Dial. 5; SC 341, 108.16-110.21); illness of the spleen and stomach interrupts this pursuit (HL 2.1, 35.11; cf. Dial. 5; SC 341, 110.27-28); on return to the city Palladius is ordained (HL 35.12; cf. Dial. 5; SC 341, 110.30-34).
11
Another challenge to the reliability of Palladius as an objective source lies in the picture that ps-Martyrius supplies of John’s episcopal activities. In his account Palladius carefully distances the reforms that John initiated at Constantinople, which are all internal to the city, from his involvement in the affairs of other sees. His carefully constructed picture is of a bishop passionate about reform in his own see, who only reluctantly came between Theophilus and his monks, and reluctantly, and only on appeal from the local clergy at Ephesus, disciplined their bishops. The picture that ps-Martyrius supplies is quite otherwise. Ps-Martyrius sees all of John’s episcopal actions as part of a seamless continuum.100 He starts with the normal baseline for a bishop to show that John’s episcopal qualities and personal virtues were so great that they could not be contained in one see and that his governance inevitably spilled over into neighbouring territories and then flowed beyond the empire’s borders. For ps-Martyrius, John never devolved any of the duties normal to a bishop onto anyone else, but insisted upon having his hand in them all. Beyond running his own see, which was demanding in itself, he worked at correcting the churches of bishops some distance away. He is, ps-Martyrius states, like an expert farmer who has abundant seed and farming equipment but only a small plot of land to work. He corrected the poverty of some bishops with money; for others he built churches on estates and in cities that needed them; he provided monks for others; relieved others from proximity to heresies; freed the cities and countryside of others of idols and of yet others corrected their laziness and neglect; while in those who were too strict and too ready to excise sick limbs he engendered mildness. His activities extended into the territory of the Goths and Persia. Support for this picture of the breadth of his episcopal oversight is supplied both by John’s own letters to Olympias and by Theodoret, who asserts that John’s care for the churches extended beyond his see into Thrace, Asia and Pontica, that he destroyed temples in Phoenicia, and cared for the Goths both at Constantinople and in their own territory.101 In chapter 31 Theodorert cites letters of John to Leontius of Ancyra and to the then bishop of Cyrrhus as witness to John’s care for the Goths along the Danube and anxiety about the suppression of the Marcionist heresy in north-west Syria. Both are documents he had personally witnessed. That John did extend his authority into the sees of other bishops would appear to have been a fact. The question of whether the bishops in whose sees John “assisted” had invited that assistance, as the canons required, is a delicate one. What we observe again is an example in which Palladius glossed over key information about John’s episcopal activities, diverting attention to the reforms that he legally instituted within the boundaries of his own see, Constantinople. To have introduced any of that material would have undermined his defence, since he is at pains to construct Theophilus as the guilty party, who overstepped the bounds of his authority, thus demonstrating the invalidity of the decision to depose John. Ps-Martyrius is less constrained in this regard. Since his purpose is praise of John and he is not required to defend him against Theophilus, whom he demonizes, the inconvenient fact of John’s non-canonical behaviour can be lost in glowing praise of the boundless nature of his pastoral care for others. Since the bulk of the sources hostile to John were rapidly suppressed by the Johnite party and survive only at second hand in sources such as Socrates and Zosimus, the view of Theophilus that ps-Martyrius and Palladius present must be read with considerable caution. Our purpose in presenting these arguments is not to devalue Palladius or any other of the documents as a source but to place what they have to contribute to the modern scientific biography of John Chrysostom in perspective. The circumstances that surrounded his deposition, which engendered a massive schism within the church, and polarised individuals into parties both hostile and favourable towards John, had a far-reaching impact on the witnesses to events that circulated in Constantinople and beyond.102 By reading the surviving sources with an eye to the witnesses, both hostile and favourable, that lie behind them and with sensitivity towards the occasional suggestion of a source now long lost to us, we are in a better position to assess the historical reality. Recognition of the literary genre of individual
100 Ps-Mart., Or. funeb. 20-26 (Wallraff-Ricci, 68-76). 101 Theod., HE 5.28-30 (GCS NF 5, 329-330). Allusion to these activities also appears in Photius’ summary of Theodoret’s fifth encomium on John. See Photius, Bibl. 273 (Henry 1977: VIII.109.19-30 and 109.40-110.42). 102 On the early development of a Johnite opposition to John’s deposition and the role of ps-Martyrius and Palladius within that party, see Wallraff, “Tod im Exil”.
12
texts; understanding the author’s agenda; and locating the text within the political climate that surrounded John’s deposition from the throne of Constantinople are all important tools in that endeavour. What also becomes clear as a result of this approach is that the prioritisation of sources – for instance, the favouring of Palladius over all other sources, or of Sozomen over Socrates – a significant element in the approach taken in the twentieth century, is problematic and promotes the neglect of sources that are equally valid. By viewing all of the surviving sources as part of the process by which John Chrysostom came by the sixth century to be constructed as a saint each, whether hostile or favourable, genuine or false, is of equal importance to the historian. Understanding their role in this process, and understanding how the success of the Johnite sources in turn shaped the sources of the sixth to eighth centuries and subsequently modern biographies of John, are likely to play significant roles in the reshaping of John’s biography in the future. 3. Chronology 3.1 Status quaestionis Of influence on developments in the area of his biography have been independent advances in scholarship on the chronology of John’s works. Because of their natural relationship, the path that this field within Chrysostom Studies has taken has been somewhat similar. By the time that Baur produced the second volume of his biography in 1930 it was believed that the chronology of his works had more or less been established. With the exception of the two written in exile, the treatises had more or less long been assigned to the period extending from John’s diaconate into the first half of his presbyterate; the letters had been distributed by Montfaucon throughout John’s exile; and through the services of von Bonsdorff, Pargoire and a number of other scholars, the homilies had been neatly distributed in such a way that they filled the years from the beginning of John’s presbyterate in February 386 up to the autumn of 403, when John was first sent into exile. As Carter predicted, the field plateaued and the second half of the twentieth century was marked for the most part by publications that sought to provide minor corrections to the established schema. Curiously, however, that schema was less well established than the literature of last century conveyed. Even today the most recent investigation of the chronology of the entire corpus of John’s genuine works was published not in the 1900s or 1800s but in 1753.103 Due to issues of availability, that lengthy article by Johannes Stilting was largely ignored in favour of an even earlier and less complete schema put forward by Bernard de Montfaucon in the prefaces to his thirteen-volume edition of John’s works, produced between 1713 and 1738.104 The influence of his schema has been profound, due in large part to the adoption by Migne of Montfaucon’s edition for the bulk of the Chrysostom volumes in the Patrologia Graeca.105 In addition to that issue, it is important to point out that the period from 1897 to 1911 produced intense investigation of the chronology of the first two, in some cases three, years of John’s preaching at Antioch (386-387/8).106 Contrary to the impression given by later scholars, such as von Bonsdorff and Baur, there was never a definitive resolution of the three different schemas that were promoted.
The momentum for change, and indeed for opening up the question of chronology to fresh investigation, began to build in the 1990s. In 1991 Frans van de Paverd published his revision of the sequence of the, at the time, twenty-two homilies on the Statues (CPG 4330).107 While his conclusions did not change the year in which they were delivered (387) they did substantially alter the order and distribution of the homilies within that period and
103 J. Stilting, art. “De S. Joanne Chrysostomo, episcopo Constantinopolitano et ecclesiæ doctore, prope Comana in Ponto, commentarius historicus”, in: Acta Sanctorum Septembris. Tom.IV (Quo dies duodecimus, decimus tertius & decimus quartus continentur), Antverpiae 1753, 401-700. 104 B. de Montfaucon, Sancti Patris Nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera omnia quæ exstant, uel quæ eius nomine circumferentur, Parisiis, 1718-1738 (= PG 47-64) 105 The exception is the 90 homilies on Matthew (see PG 57-58), for which the new edition by Frederick Field, Joannis Chrysostomi homiliae in Matthaeum, 3 vols, Cambridge, 1838-1839, had just been published. 106 For an overview of the conflicting opinions of Rauschen, Schwartz and Usener see Mayer, Homilies, 134-149 and Table 14 (pp. 270-273). 107 Van de Paverd, Homilies on the Statues. For the argument that there are in fact twenty-four homilies in this series, see A. Valevicius, “Les 24 homélies De statuis de Jean Chrysostome. Recherches nouvelles”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 46 (2000) 83-91.
13
therefore the way in which they were to be read in relation to the historical events to which they responded. In that same year a radical revision of the dating of John’s letters was published by Roland Delmaire,108 providing the basis for a substantially different reading of John’s networks, support, and situation in exile. In 1992 and 1994 Neil Adkin published articles re-examining the date of the treatises on the subintroductae (CPG 4311-4312) and De virginitate (CPG 4313).109 In the case of the two treatises on the subintroductae he dismissed as invalid the criteria that Dumortier had used to date them to 382-383 and opened up again the possibility that the treatises were written not in Antioch but in Constantinople, if they did not in fact have a connection to both cities. In the case of the De virginitate, rather than negate previous scholarship, he adduced new evidence that supported a date c. 382. In 1994 Pauline Allen and I began to publish a series of articles challenging the long-held assumption that those of John’s homilies that had been transmitted as series – by far the majority – had originally been delivered in that sequence.110 The questions that we asked were intimately connected to my doctoral research, in which I deconstructed – and regretfully to a large extent demolished – the criteria that had long been used to divide the homiletic corpus between Antioch and Constantinople.111 One of the results of that research was the complete demolition of the chronology for the homiletic series on books of the New Testament that had been developed by von Bonsdorff. An equally significant revision of a linchpin in the homiletic chronology took place in 2001. The rare discovery by Wendy Pradels of a complete text of Adversus Iudaeos hom. 2, the missing section of which was published for the first time in that year, led in 2002 to the publication with Rudolf Brändle of a revised chronology for the first years of John’s preaching at Antioch.112 In 1999 I myself had already demonstrated how insubstantial were the grounds for the belief that the fifteen so-called Novae homiliae (CPG 4441) had been delivered within John’s first two years in Constantinople.113
We could continue to discuss the works of others who have contributed to this momentum,114 but the point to be made here is that the chronology of John’s writings was never definitive in the first instance, and over the past decade and a half has become decidedly less certain. At this same time the situation has been made even more confused by the persistence of new arguments concerning details of chronology built with confidence on the traditional schema.115 In essence, we stand at a point in Chrysostom scholarship where a complete resurveying of the chronology of the Chrysostomic corpus is required, in regard at least to the treatises and homilies, if we are to provide a sound basis for the use of the Chrysostomic corpus by scholars in other fields as well as our own. This is equally essential, if we are to make substantial advances in the field of John’s biography. Monumental as this task is in itself, size is only one of the factors that make this endeavour problematic. What we 108 R. Delmaire, “Les «lettres d’exil» de Jean Chrysostome. études de chronologie et de prosopographie”, Recherches Augustiniennes 25 (1991) 71-180. 109 N. Adkin, “The date of St. John Chrysostom’s treatises on subintroductae”, Revue Bénédictine 102 (1992) 255-266; and id., “The date of John Chrysostom’s De virginitate”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 60 (1994) 611-617. 110 P. Allen and W. Mayer, “Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: A new approach to the twelve homilies In epistulam ad Colossenses (CPG 4433)”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 60 (1994) 21-39; eaed., “Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: A re-examination of the fifteen homilies In epistulam ad Philippenses (CPG 4432)”, Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1995) 270-289; and eaed., “The thirty-four homilies on Hebrews: the last series delivered by Chrysostom in Constantinople?”, Byzantion 65 (1995) 309-348. 111 W. Mayer, “The provenance of the homilies of St John Chrysostom. Towards a new assessment of where he preached what”, unpub. PhD diss., University of Queensland, Brisbane 1996, revised and published in 2005 as Mayer, Homilies. 112 W. Pradels, R. Brändle, and M. Heimgartner, “Das bisher vermisste Textstück in Johannes Chrysostomus, Adversus Judaeos, Oratio 2”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 5 (2001) 23-49; iid., “The sequence and dating of the series of John Chyrsostom’s eight discourses Adversus Judaeos”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 6 (2002) 90-116. 113 W. Mayer, “’Les homélies de s. Jean Chrysostome en juillet 399’. A second look at Pargoire’s sequence and the chronology of the Novae homiliae (CPG 4441)”, Byzantinoslavica 60/2 (1999) 273-303. 114 Martin Illert, Mönchtum, 5-23, for instance, reconsidered the date of Ad Theodorum lapsum I and II (CPG 4305), Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae (CPG 4307) and De sacerdotio (CPG 4316). Noel Lenski, “Valens and the monks: Cudgeling and conscription as a means of social control”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58 (2004) 93-117, at 103-7, in turn modified Illert’s conclusions with regard to Adv. oppugn., arguing that he was correct to locate books 2-3 in 381, but that book 1 dates to Valens’ reign and therefore prior to 378. 115 For an example see A. Cataldo, “La data della Homilia in illud: in faciem ei restiti (Gal. 2, 11) di S. Giovanni Crisostomo”, Rudiae 15 (2003) 53-74.
14
will do for the remainder of this article is to set out some of the methodological issues involved, if this endeavour is to be successful. 3.2 Key methodological issues Of the three main issues that need to be taken into consideration, two – authenticity and transmission – are perennial problems and continue to exercise the minds of Chrysostom scholars. The third – the validity of the criteria used to assign date – has only rarely been questioned. 3.2.1 Authenticity As Sever Voicu continues to remind us, one cannot approach the Chrysostomic corpus without a constant awareness that the limits of the corpus are blurred.116 Navigating our way through this issue is complex indeed and scholars, myself included, continue to treat as entirely genuine homilies and treatises that Voicu would argue are either not part of the authentic corpus or belong only partially to the authentic corpus.117 Transmission history, which we discuss in the next section, is another complicating factor. As a consequence of how the treatises, homilies, and letters were written down, collected, or edited, little is black or white. If we accept Voicu’s latest schema, we can no longer talk comfortably about “genuine” or “authentic”, on the one hand, and “inauthentic” on the other.118 While there are works attributed to John in the manuscript tradition that are clearly inauthentic – for instance, works authored by other presbyters or bishops and passed down under his name – it is difficult to define works that are indisputably authentic (that is, that have undergone no alteration since they were first delivered or penned by him). Rather, if we were strict about the matter, we would have to talk about works that are “more authentic” or “less authentic”, in that everything passed down to us has undergone some degree of reshaping since John first wrote, dictated, or delivered it. In some ways this may be a quibbling over terminology, but it raises an important point since to a large extent, as we will show, date has been assigned on the basis of criteria internal to a text. The validity of using such criteria relies on a fundamental assumption that the text that contains these chronological indicators is both authentic and original. 3.2.2 Transmission and the continuing need for reliable scientific editions The process of transmission ensures that the texts we possess are at varying degrees of remove from an orally delivered, dictated or written original. The number of manuscripts in which a text survives is often large, and in some cases there exist two distinct recensions.119 The quality of the editions that are available to us to analyse for chronological indicators is thus a significant issue. This problem is well known and was raised as a matter of concern at
116 See S. Voicu, “Pseudo-Giovanni Crisostomo: I confini del corpus”, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 39 (1996) 105-115; and most recently, id., “L’immagine di Crisostomo negli spuri”, in Wallraff-Brändle, Chrysostomosbilder, 61-98. 117 So, for instance, Stephen Black in his doctoral dissertation, “Paideia, power and episcopacy: John Chrysostom and the formation of the Late Antique bishop”, unpub. PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 2005, builds a substantial part of his argument on the treatise Comparatio regis et monachi (CPG 4500). In J. Leemans, W. Mayer, P. Allen and B. Dehandschutter, ‘Let us Die That We May Live’. Greek homilies on Christian martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria c. AD 350-AD 450, London 2003, 148-157, and in W. Mayer (with B. Neil), St John Chrysostom. The Cult of the Saints, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2006, 75-87 I treated the homilies De s. Pelagia (CPG 4350) and De s. Phoca (4364) as genuine. 118 In “L’immagine” Voicu divides the corpus into thirteen different categories ranging from 0 (autographs) to 12 (the use of John’s name to preserve works authored by individuals with a less stellar reputation). 119 On the problem of two recensions see, e.g., F. Gignac, “Evidence for deliberate scribal revision in Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles”, in: J. Petruccione (ed.), Nova & Vetera. Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton, Washington, DC 1998, 209-225; B. Goodall, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Letters of St. Paul to Titus and Philemon. Prolegomena to an Edition (University of California Publications in Classical Studies, Vol. 20), Berkeley 1979; and M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Un évangile pré-johannique. I. Jean 1,1-2,12 (Études bibliques n.s. 18) Paris 1993, II, 11-45.
15
the meeting in Thessaloniki in 1972, leading to the Codices Chrysostomici Graeci project.120 As a result we will not dwell on it at any length here, except to provide a quick summary of the current situation. Of the treatises, we have modern published editions of eleven,121 but still lack modern scientific editions of the Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae (CPG 4307), Ad Demetrium (CPG 4308), Ad Stelechium (CPG 4309) and Ad Stagirium (CPG 4310). Of those, Margaret Schatkin is working on the first and an edition has long been promised of the last,122 but appears to have stalled within the last decade. Of John’s correspondence, Panayotis Nicolopoulos published an edition of the inauthentic letters in 1973,123 and he and Anne-Marie Malingrey independently worked on editions of the rest of the epistolographic corpus, of which the latter is due to be published within the next few years by Sources Chrétiennes. In regard to the letters and treatises, then, we will be in a reasonable position by the end of the next decade.
By far the greatest urgency continues to lie with the exegetical commentaries and homiletic corpus. At this current point, of some 820 homilies or biblical commentaries (the distinction is not always clear) we have complete modern published editions of a mere fifty-five.124 The Montfaucon edition reprinted in Migne is in many cases all that we have access to. In the case of the exegetical homilies it is inadequate.125 The Field edition that supercedes it in the case of the homiletic series on the “Pauline” epistles (CPG 4427-4440) remains to this day difficult to access.126 Access to Field’s edition of the homiletic series on the Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, is simpler because it was published in time for Migne to slot it into the Patrologia Graeca in place of Montfaucon’s edition.127 Field’s texts, while an improvement on those of Montfaucon, are not, however, definitive. The situation is slowly improving. Within the next five years editions of the homilies on Acts (CPG 4426) and Adversus Iudaeos (CPG 4327) are due to appear in the series Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca and Sources Chrétiennes, respectively. Preliminary editions of the Commentary on
120 See the proceedings of that meeting, P.C. Christou (ed.), SYMPOSION. Studies on St. John Chrysostom (Analekta Blatadon 18), Thessalonike: Patriarch. Hidruma Paterikon Meleton, 1973. The project has to date produced seven volumes. 121 Ad Theodorum lapsum 1-2 and responio (SC 117); Contra eos qui subintroductas habent virgines and Quod regulares feminae viris cohabitare non debeant (ed. Dumortier 1955); De virginitate (SC 125); Ad viduam iuniorem and De non iterando coniugio (SC 138); De sacerdotio (SC 272); De s. Babyla contra Iulianum et gentiles (SC 362); Quod nemo laeditur nisi a se ipso (SC 103); Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt (SC 79); De inani gloria et de educandis liberis (SC 188). The treatise Contra Iudaeos et gentiles quod Christus sit deus (CPG 4326) was edited in 1967 by N.G. McKendrick in a doctoral dissertation (“Quod Christus sit Deus, Greek text, edition and introduction”, Fordham University, New York), but never published. 122 Announced by D. Ridings in a paper delivered at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, August 1995, titled “A new edition of John Chrysostom’s Ad Stagirium a daemone vexatum”. Ridings had taken over the project from Caius Fabricius. 123 Nikolopoulou, Hai eis ton Ioannen ton Chrysostom esphalmenos apodidomenai epistolai (n. 23). 124 Sermo cum presb. fuit ordinatus (CPG 4317: SC 272, 365-419); De incomp. dei nat. hom. 1-5 (CPG 4318: SC 28bis); De consub., De pet. mat. fil. Zeb., In quatrid. Laz., De Chritis precibus, Contra Anom. hom. 11, De Christi divinitate (CPG 4320-4325: SC 396); De diabolo tentatore hom. 2-3 (CPG 4332; SC 560); De resurrectione mortuorum, De resurrectione (CPG 4340-4341; SC 561); De laudibus s. Pauli hom. 1-7 (CPG 4344: SC 300); Sermones 1-8 in Gen. (CPG 4410: SC 433); De davide et Saule hom. 1-3 (CPG 4412: ed. Barone, CCSG 70); In Isaiam (CPG 4416: SC 304); In illud: Vidi dominum hom. 1-3, 5-6 (CPG 4417: SC 277); De proph. obsc. hom. 1-2 (CPG 4420: ed. Zincone, Verba seniorum N.S. 12); Comm. in Job (CPG 4443: SC 346, 348 and ed. Hagedorn, Patristische Texte und Studien 35, 1990); Ad illum. cat. 1, Cat. de iuramento, Cat. ultima ad bapt. (CPG 4460-4462: SC 366); Cat. ad illum. 1-8 (CPG 4465-4472: SC 50nis). A small number of homilies have been edited in doctoral dissertations with no promise of publication. For De ss. Bernice et Prosdoce and In quat. Laz. (CPG 4355-4356) see W. vander Meiren, “De twee encomia chrysostomica op de martelaressen Bernike, Prosdoke en Domnina (BHG 274-275): tekstuitgave met inleiding en vertaling”, 2 vols, unpub. diss., University of Gand, 1983. Antoine Wenger provides a diplomatic edition of the sole Greek manuscript of De regressu (CPG 4394) in “L’homélie de saint Jean Chrysostome «à son retour d’Asie»”, Revue des Études byzantines 19 (1961) 110-123. 125 And not only in the case of the exegetical homilies. See A. Peleanu, “Deux séries chrysostomiennes: Sur l’impuissance du diable et Sur l’obscurité des prophéties”, Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 57 (2011) 89-108, who points to Montfaucon’s practice of constructing false series on the basis of thematic content. She argues persuasively that the first homily in Montfaucon’s series De diabolo tentatore (CPG 4332) was more likely delivered as the third homily in the series De prophetiarum obscuritate (CPG 4420). 126 F. Field, Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum, 7 vols, Oxford, 1845-1862. 127 See n. 105.
16
Proverbs (CPG 4445),128 of the series on Titus (CPG 4438) and Philemon (CPG 4439)129 have been produced and are in the process of being prepared by their editors for publication. Editions of the homilies on Hannah and a number of other homiletic series are also in preparation.130
The case of the homiletic series on the Gospel of John illustrates why reliable editions of the homiletic corpus is so compelling a desideratum. Homilies 6 and 16-42 from the series were edited in the 1990s by two New Testament scholars whose primary interest was in retrieving a more primitive version of the Gospel text from the scriptural citations.131 In their analysis of the manuscript tradition Boismard and Lamouille pointed out that there is a difference in the tradition for the first 42 of the 88 homilies in the series that distinguishes them from the second half and that manuscripts rarely contain the full series.132 There are essentially two recensions – an ultra short and a longer recension. The longer recension preserves three layers of its own – an unrevised version, a first revision and a second revision. Their edition is based on the ultra-short recension, which differs substantially from the Theobald Fix edition reprinted by Migne (PG 59).133 Fix's edition corresponds to the second revision of the longer recension. Boismard-Lamouille further distinguished a compilator (who combined part of an exegetical commentary with homiletic material) and a reviser, who reinserted into the work of the compilator authentic chrysostomian fragments that the compilator ignored, added a number of glosses (with an anti-Semitic slant), improved the more elliptical style of Chrysostom, and made the johannine citations conform to the current Greek text (rather than the more primitive original). Since they identify the short recension as already that of the compilator, which they date to the fifth century, and since the work of the reviser in the sixth century inserts authentic chrysostomic material back into this already mixed text, it is difficult to know at what layer we ought to analyse the text for chronological indicators or indeed whether at any layer it is valid to do so.134 The priority of the Syriac translation, which predates the Greek text and offers yet another perspective on this homiletic series, further complicates the picture.135 We can see in this example why questions of both authenticity and transmission are problematic. We can also see that the production of a more nuanced way of discussing authenticity and the possibility of preparing editions of a number of layers in the transmission process rather than just the most primitive are issues that ought perhaps to be raised for consideration. 3.2.3 The criteria for determining date These two issues – authenticity and transmission – might be thought to lead to the conclusion that in the case of homilies and commentaries, at least, determining chronology on the basis of internal evidence is so problematic as to be impossible. If we cannot be certain of the
128 G. Bady, “Le Commentaire inédit sur les Proverbes attribué à Jean Chrysostome. Introduction, édition critique et traduction”, 2 vols, doctoral dissertation, Université Lyon, 2003. 129 W. Fick [= Pradels], “Les homélies de Jean Chrysostome sur les Épîtres à Tite et Philémon”, Diss., Strasbourg 1992. 130 An edition of the homilies on Hannah is under preparation by Catherine Broc-Schmezer; Emilio Bonfiglio is currently working on an edition of CPG 4396-4399 (Sermo antequam iret in exsilium, Sermo cum iret in exsilium, and Sermones post reditum a priore exsilio 1-2), which takes the Syriac and Armenian translations into account; Nathalie Rambault has prepared an edition of In ascensionem and In pentecosten hom. 1-2, which will appear shortly; and she and Pauline Allen are currently working on an edition of select martyr homilies. 131 M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Un évangile pré-johannique. I. Jean 1,1-2,12 (Études bibliques n.s. 17-18), 2 vols, Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1993; iid., Un évangile pré-johannique. II. Jean 2,13-4,54 (Études bibliques n.s. 24-25), 2 vols, Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1994; and iid., Un évangile pré-johannique. III. Jean 5,1-47 (Études bibliques n.s. 28-29), 2 vols, Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1996. 132 See n. 119. 133 Fix’s edition is in turn a reprint of Montfaucon. 134 Their reading of the transmission process is open to dispute. See J.W. Childers, “The Syriac evidence for the ‘pre-Johannine text’ of the Gospel: a study in method”, in D.G.K. Taylor (ed.), Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts: the papers of the First Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Text-critical Studies 1), Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999, 49-85. 135 See J.W. Childers (ed., trans.), The Syriac Version of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on John. I. Mêmrê 1-43 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 652, Scriptores Syri 250-251), Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2013. The importance of early translations of Chrysostom’s homilies into Syriac and Armenian for this issue is reinforced by Bonfiglio, “John Chrysostom’s discourses”.
17
complete authenticity and originality of the section of the text in which evidence of this kind is found, how can we rely on it for assigning date? That issue is indeed significant and, at present, insurmountable. On the basis that that situation will continue to improve, what we will do for the rest of this article is to look in brief at the problems associated with the criteria that have been used to date. At the end we will draw some tentative conclusions as to where we stand. How pessimistic or optimistic can we be, once we are fully aware of all of the considerations? As I demonstrated in my book on the provenance of the homiletic corpus, published in 2005, provenance has in the past often been assigned on the basis of perceived chronological evidence.136 Style has also been used as an indicator that a given work is juvenile and therefore to be assigned to Antioch and to an early phase in John’s career.137 As I was able to show, both of these approaches are erroneous and a sound chronology can be built only if we tackle the problem of provenance first, establish secure fixed points in the chronology second, and then, after allowing for the artificiality of all transmitted series, slowly, carefully and methodically navigate our way through the process of establishing in what sequence texts were in fact written, dictated, or performed.138 Once we have built up a delicate web of interrelationships of this kind, it may be possible to fix the date of at least some of the authentic works more closely. Excepting the letters, however, rather than a progression of clear dates, what we are likely to end up with in the majority of cases is a broad chronological range somewhere within the years of John’s career either in Antioch or in Constantinople. The reason for this lies with the kinds of criteria that are available for determining chronology. In the case of treatises, the argument for date usually relies on external evidence of the following kind. Since A refers to x or x refers to A and x was published in the year y, then A dates to before or after the year y. For example in the case of De sacerdotio, the argument is that since Jerome refers to the treatise in his own work De viris illustribus, and since that work was produced in 392, De sacerdotio must have been published prior to 392. Criteria of this kind work if the date of x is secure. This is not always the case, and particularly so when x is another text from the chrysostomic corpus.139 So in ep. 17 to Olympias John explicitly mentions by title the treatise Quod nemo laeditur (CPG 4400),140 which he says that he has recently sent her. If the date that Delmaire assigns the letter, spring 407, is correct, then the treatise was produced during the winter of 406/7.141 If that date were to prove not to be correct, then the date of the treatise would also need to be adjusted. The situation differs if the reference in x to A is not explicit. So in the case of the treatises on the subintroductae Adkin showed that the perceived allusions to those treatises by Jerome in his own Libellus de virginitate (ep. 22), used by Dumortier to argue for a date for the two treatises of 382-383, are false and in fact argue the opposite. The fact that Jerome, who in that libellus shows a habit of appropriating material from other authors, does not borrow from John’s own treatises on the subject, suggests that they date to after the year in which the Libellus appeared.142 That is only one set of problems. Even if the criteria are valid, in the same way that we showed that a criterion for provenance cannot automatically be applied to any other homily in a homiletic series, so the possibility needs to be allowed that a criterion for date does not necessarily apply to other parts of the same treatise. So Noel Lenski has argued that in the case of Adversus oppugnatores of the three criteria that have been adduced to localise the date – that in Book 1 John alludes to the monastic persecutions of Valens (375/6); that when in Book 1 John expresses surprise that such persecutions could occur while our emperors live in piety he cannot be referring to Valens and Valentinian and so must refer to the Nicene emperors
136 See Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom, 253 and 478. 137 Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom, 288. 138 Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom, 489-91 and passim. 139 See, e.g., Allen-Mayer, “The thirty-four homilies on Hebrews”, where we were able to show that Sebastian Haidacher’s suspicion of the authenticity of a letter of Nilus of Ancyra addressed to Gainas because it cited John Chrysostom, In Heb. hom. 2, which supposedly post-dated Gainas’ death was unfounded, since the date of hom. 2 is in fact unknown. With that fixed point dissolved, the argument becomes reversed and, if Nilus’ letter is genuine, then it shows that hom. 2 predates late 400 or early 401, when Gainas was killed. 140 Ep. 17 ad Olymp. (SC 13bis, 384.33-4). 141 Delmaire, “Les «lettres d’exil»”, 148. 142 Adkin, “The date of treatises on subintroductae”.
18
Gratian and Theodosius I (379-383); and that parallels exist between John’s arguments and a series of attacks against monks by Libanius in a speech datable to 380-1 (381) – the third criterion, which applies to Books 2-3, is correct, but so also is the first criterion valid for Book 1. A difference in approach to the topic of the treatise in Book 1 as opposed to Books 2-3 in fact indicates that the first book was written while John was still a practising ascetic and before Valens’ death (prior to 378) and the final two books at a slightly later period (381).143 Again this is just one set of problems. Criteria carry with them varying degrees of reliability. In consequence the conclusions that can be drawn from them vary in degree of certainty.144 Reference to externally datable historical events is the most reliable. So, in the case of the homilies De statuis (CPG 4330) it is clear that the majority were delivered during Lent 387. Similarly, the homily De s. Meletio (CPG 4345) can be dated to 386 because in it John explicitly states that five years have passed since Meletius died in Thrace, an event which is known from other sources to have occurred in 381. Reliable also is explicit reference to a datable event in John’s own life. So Contra Anomoeos hom. 11 (CPG 4324) was delivered in Constantinople in 398 since in it John says that this is only the second occasion on which he has preached at his new location. If a homily without any secure indicator for date of its own can be linked securely to a homily of this kind, then the certainty attaches also to the linked homily.145 The level of certainty decreases, however, as the evidence relied upon becomes less explicit and is confined to a single treatise, letter or homily. Establishing sequence, in the hope that one of the homilies or letters in a sequence contains secure evidence of date, can be a delicate matter. Even relatively explicit evidence can often secure only a probable date and since explicit evidence is rare, more often than not conclusions based on internal criteria range from probable to possible to uncertain. Even without the problems introduced by issues of authenticity and transmission, the kind of chronological schema for John’s works that can be built on the basis of the kinds of evidence that remain in the texts that we have at hand is at best a delicate structure, requiring constant adjustment based on a continuing dialectic between external fixed points, internal fixed points, and a web of possible internal interrelationships. We are, I would argue, in terms of scholarship on the chronology of the chrysostomic corpus at a point where we need to take a major step back, assess the reliability of the criteria that have been used to date, and strip back the chronology to its most secure fixed points. It is only then that we can rebuild the chronology from the ground up, with a greater appreciation of just how fragile will be the bulk of the new schema. To sum up where we stand on this question, there continues to exist uncertainty with regard to the provenance of some of the treatises and the bulk of the homilies and commentaries, with a consequent impact on their chronology. The interrelationship of the internal components of all transmitted series and commentaries is also under suspicion, a suspicion that applies equally to the books that make up some of the treatises. In consequence, evidence of date in one homily or chapter in a commentary or book of a treatise cannot be held to apply to any other homily, chapter or book transmitted together with it. In addition, fixed points, internal and external, that have been used to date texts securely can prove to be less fixed than previously believed. If they hold secure, however, and reference within a text to such a fixed point is explicit, then a date can prove secure. Evidence for the sequence in which texts were produced, on the other hand, ranges for the most part from probable to uncertain. The criteria that are used to determine date are in any case based on a range of assumptions, all of which need to be examined for reliability, before the criteria can be applied successfully in any instance. In sum, for the past two centuries we have been relying on a chronology that is far less secure than it appears and it is doubtful, once the methodology for dating has been thoroughly overhauled, whether we will ever arrive at a secure chronology
143 See n. 114 above. 144 These same conclusions have been drawn by Hubertus Drobner with regard to the dating of the sermons of Augustine. See H. Drobner, “The Chronology of St. Augustine’s Sermones ad populum”, Augustinian Studies 31 (2000) 211-218; id., “The Chronology of St. Augustine’s Sermones ad populum II: Sermons 5 to 8”, Augustinian Studies 34 (2003) 49-66 (esp. 66); and id., “The chronology of Augustine’s Sermones ad populum III: On Christmas Day”, Augustinian Studies 35 (2004) 43-53. 145 The same applies to evidence of provenance. For a discussion of what constitute a secure link and in what cases evidence is less secure see W. Mayer, “The sequence and provenance of John Chrysostom’s homilies In illud: Si esurierit inimicus (CPG 4375), De mutatione nominum (CPG 4372) and In principium Actorum (CPG 4371)”, Augustinianum 46 (2006) 169-186.
19
for more than a small percentage of the corpus. This is an extremely pessimistic point of view, but one that is probably more realistic. Contributing to that pessimism is acknowledgment of the acute problems that attach to the establishment of chronology as a result of issues of authenticity and the quality of the texts handed down to us as a result of the transmission process. 4. Conclusion In regard to chronology, the questions that we pose in conclusion are twofold. Do we continue to attempt to establish a chronology for the corpus, given how fragile the foundations are and the acute problems that attach to authenticity and transmission? Secondly, whatever the answer to that question might prove to be, do we need fundamentally to reconsider the way in which we edit the chrysostomic corpus? Would it be of greater assistance in future to publish parallel texts of distinct layers (that is, revisions that have occurred periodically throughout the centuries as an individual text has been transmitted), rather than providing a single text that is thought to be the earliest or most original? As both questions become a subject of debate, we propose the production of two reference works to assist scholars in the interim. 1. A constantly updated electronic resource organised by CPG number and name of text,
which presents the entire scholarship regarding that text’s date (e.g. list of scholars, the date they assigned to the text, and brief outlines of each scholar’s arguments).
2. A resource defining the limits of the corpus, linked to CPG, in which texts are categorised according to a schema based on the one recently proposed by Sever Voicu. That is, a resource that explains the degree of authenticity of a work, and how the history of that text’s transmission contributes to that categorisation.
In regard to the creation of this second reference work, the simple exercise of debating the identity of the different categories and what text should be slotted into which would do much to pave the way for a fundamental change in the way in which the underpinnings of chronology are viewed. In regard to John’s biography, the questions that arise here are equally fundamental and hint likewise at an emerging radical change in the way that we view the issue. The complexity that attaches to the chronology of the chrysostomic corpus raises one set of problems. Namely, as our understanding of the date of individual texts or portions of texts changes, where that text slots into John’s life changes likewise, subtly altering our picture of the progression of his life and how his own output is to be interpreted in relation to it. The external sources present a second set of problems. Once we acknowledge that the sources for the late fourth to mid fifth century present a heavily biased picture of events, largely consistent with either a Johnite or anti-Johnite agenda, and that the sources from the centuries that followed for the most part inherited these polarised views, adapting them for their own purposes, how valid does it remain for us to search for objective historical reality in regard to John’s life? Is the production of an updated traditional chronologically-oriented biography still a desideratum or does the study of his biography in future hinge on assessing the various images of John that the sources portray? Do the questions of how he is constructed by the various sources and the historical role that those constructions played become a new priority?
If one thing is clear, in regard to the issues of biography and chronology the field of Chrysostom studies is no longer a serene plateau. The new advances outlined here are in the process of producing radically new perceptions of both subfields. As we reflect upon the field as a whole in another hundred years time, it will be of great interest to see to what degree the effects of those advances have flowed over into the rest of the field.
WENDY MAYER Centre for Early Christian Studies
Australian Catholic University Brisbane
20
Appendix: Tables 1-‐4
Table 1
Socrates Sozomen Theodoret
6.2 Death of Nectarius and ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus 6.3 J’s birth, education, early career and character
8.2.1 Death of Nectarius 8.2.2-11 J’s education, character and popularity 8.2.12-19 Ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus
5.27 Death of Nectarius and ordination of J as bishop
6.4.1 J’s alienation of his clergy 8.3.1-2 J’s reform of his clergy 8.3.2-5 J effects reconciliation between Antioch and the West
5.28.1 J admonishes his clergy
6.4.2-4 Sarapion the deacon and J’s alienation of his clergy 6.4.5-7 Charge that J ate alone
8.9.1 Sarapion alienates J’s clergy 8.9.1-3 J’s advice to Olympias a cause for hostility 8.9.4-6 Isaac and the monks hostile; charge that J ate alone
6.4.8-9 J’s preaching and popularity 8.5 J converts pagans and heretics; his preaching and popularity; miracle of the Macedonian woman
5.28 J’s boldness and care for the churches: he pursues moral abuses; addresses the imperial couple; J’s care extends through Thrace, Asia and Pontica 5.29 J destroys temples in Phoenicia 5.30 J assigns a church to the local Goths 5.31 J’s care for the native Goths (against Arianism) and pursuit of Marcionists
6.5 Broadening dissatisfaction – Eutropius episode
8.7 Eutropius episode
6.6 Gainas episode 8.4 Gainas episode 5.32-33 Gainas episode 6.7 Theophilus and the Tall Brothers 8.11 Origenist situation in Egypt 6.8 Arian and Nicene night-time processions
8.8 Arian and Nicene night-time processions
6.9 Tall Brothers and Isidore; their arrival at Constantinople, J’s response
8.12-13 Tall Brothers, Theophilus and Isidore; J’s response
6.10 Theophilus recruits Epiphanius 8.14.1-5 Theophilus recruits Epiphanius
6.11.1-7 Introduction of Severian and Antiochus
8.10.1-2 Introduction of Severian and Antiochus
6.11.8-11 J at Ephesus 8.6 J at Ephesus 6.11.11-21 Sarapion and Severian episode; intervention of Eudoxia
8.10.2-6 Sarapion and Severian episode; intervention of Eudoxia
6.12 Epiphanius at Constantinople 8.14.6-11 Epiphanius at Constantinople
6.13 Defence of Origen 6.14 J confronts Epiphanius; harsh words ensue; Epiphanius leaves
8.15.1-4 Epiphanius ministers to Eudoxia; meets with the Tall Brothers 8.15.5-7 Epiphanius departs Constantinople; harsh words between J and Epiphanius
6.15.1-4 J alienates Eudoxia 6.15.5-21 Synod of the Oak; first exile
8.16.1-3 J alienates Eudoxia 8.17 Synod of the Oak; first exile
5.34.1-4 Emperor banishes J at behest of clergy; first exile
6.16 Popular revolt against J’s expulsion; J recalled
8.18 Popular revolt against J’s expulsion; J recalled
5.34.5-6 Earthquake; empress has J recalled; popular appeal for J’s return
6.17 Theophilus and Heracleides; J ordains Sarapion bishop of Heraclea
8.19.1-3 Theophilus and Heracleides 8.19.4-7 Nilammon elected bishop of Pelusium and dies 8.19.8 J reinstated by council of sixty
21
bishops; J ordains Sarapion bishop of Heraclea
6.18 Eudoxia and the silver statue; J’s sermon; second synod; second exile; burning of the church; persecution of J’s followers passed over in silence
8.20-22 Eudoxia and the silver statue; J’s sermon; J under house arrest; assassination attempt; second synod; second exile; burning of the church; arrest of J’s bishops and clergy
5.34.7-8 Second synod; second exile
6.19.1 Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople
8.23 Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople; harrassment of J’s followers; St Nicarete
5.34.9 Sufferings of J’s followers; J’s enemies eventually punished
6.19. 2-4 Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon, receives his just desserts
8.16.4-6 Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon receives his just desserts
8.24 Persecution of Eutropius, Olympias and Tigrius; Porphyrius becomes bishop of Antioch; edict enforcing communion
8.25 Secular events (nature disturbed)
8.26 Letters of Innocent I from Rome to J and to the clergy of Constantinople
6.19.5-8 Omens at Constantinople 6.20 Death of Arsacius and ordination of Atticus
8.27 Omens at Constantinople; death of Arsacius and ordination of Atticus; J’s celebrity and pastoral acts in exile
5.34.10-12 Schism between western bishops and those of Egypt, Oriens, Bosphorus and Thrace; refusal to commune with Arsacius
6.21 J dies in exile; J’s pastoral laxity re penance
8.28 Embassy from Innocent to Constantinople; hostile reception; J dies in exile; appearance of Basiliscus
5.34.9 J dies in exile; appearance of Basiliscus
6.22 Sisinnius’ character, in contrast to J
8.1.9-15 Sisinnius’ character (no mention of J)
7.25 Atticus restores J’s name to the diptychs
5.34.12 Atticus restores J’s name to the diptychs
7.45 Return of J’s remains to Constantinople under Proclus
5.36.1-2 Return of J’s remains to Constantinople under Theodosius II
Table 2
Sozomen Socrates 8.1.9-15 Sisinnius’ character (no mention of J) 6.22 Sisinnius’ character, in contrast to J 8.2.1 Death of Nectarius 8.2.2-11 J’s education, character and popularity 8.2.12-19 Ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus
6.2 Death of Nectarius and ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus 6.3 J’s birth, education, early career and character
8.3.1-2 J’s reform of his clergy 8.3.2-5 J effects reconciliation between Antioch and the West
6.4.1 J’s alienation of his clergy
8.4 Gainas episode 6.6 Gainas episode 8.5 J converts pagans and heretics; his preaching and popularity; miracle of the Macedonian woman
6.4.8-9 J’s preaching and popularity
8.6 J at Ephesus 6.11.8-11 J at Ephesus 8.7 Eutropius episode 6.5 Broadening dissatisfaction – Eutropius episode 8.8 Arian and Nicene night-time processions 6.8 Arian and Nicene night-time processions 8.9.1 Sarapion alienates J’s clergy 8.9.1-3 J’s advice to Olympias a cause for hostility 8.9.4-6 Isaac and the monks hostile; charge that J ate alone
6.4.2-4 Sarapion the deacon and J’s alienation of his clergy 6.4.5-7 Charge that J ate alone
8.10 Introduction of Severian and Antiochus; Sarapion and Severian episode; intervention of Eudoxia
6.11.1-7 Introduction of Severian and Antiochus 6.11.11-17 Sarapion and Severian episode 6.11.20-1 Intervention of Eudoxia
8.11-13 Tall Brothers, Theophilus and situation in Egypt; J’s response
6.7 Theophilus and the Tall Brothers 6.9 Tall Brothers and Isidore; their arrival at
22
Constantinople, J’s response 8.14 Theophilus recruits Epiphanius; Epiphanius at Constantinople
6.10 Theophilus recruits Epiphanius 6.12 Epiphanius at Constantinople
8.15.1-4 Epiphanius ministers to Eudoxia; meets with the Tall Brothers 8.15.5-7 Epiphanius departs Constantinople; harsh words between J and Epiphanius
6.14 J confronts Epiphanius; harsh words ensue; Epiphanius leaves
8.16-17 J alienates Eudoxia; Synod of the Oak; Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon receives his just desserts; first exile
6.15 J alienates Eudoxia; Synod of the Oak; first exile 6.19. 2-3 Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon, receives his just desserts
8.18 Popular revolt against J’s expulsion; J recalled 6.16 Popular revolt against J’s expulsion; J recalled 8.19.1-3 Theophilus and Heracleides 8.19.4-7 Nilammon elected bishop of Pelusium and dies 8.19.8 J reinstated by council of sixty bishops; J ordains Sarapion bishop of Heraclea
6.17 Theophilus and Heracleides; J ordains Sarapion bishop of Heraclea
8.20-22 Eudoxia and the silver statue; J’s sermon; J under house arrest; assassination attempt; second synod; second exile; burning of the church; arrest of J’s bishops and clergy
6.18 Eudoxia and the silver statue; J’s sermon; second synod; second exile; burning of the church; persecution of J’s followers passed over in silence
8.23 Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople; harrassment of J’s followers; St Nicarete
6.19.1 Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople
8.24 Persecution of Eutropius, Olympias and Tigrius; Porphyrius becomes bishop of Antioch; edict enforcing communion
8.25 Secular events (nature disturbed) 8.26 Letters of Innocent I from Rome to J and to the clergy of Constantinople
8.27 Omens at Constantinople; death of Arsacius and ordination of Atticus; J’s celebrity and pastoral acts in exile
6.19.5-8 Omens at Constantinople 6.20 Death of Arsacius and ordination of Atticus
8.28 Embassy from Innocent to Constantinople; hostile reception; J dies in exile; appearance of Basiliscus
6.21 J dies in exile; J’s pastoral laxity re penance
7.25 Atticus restores J’s name to the diptychs 7.45 Return of J’s remains to Constantinople under
Proclus
Table 3
Palladius Socrates 5.b Death of Nectarius and ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus
6.2 Death of Nectarius and ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus
5..a J’s birth, education, early career 6.3 J’s birth, education, early career and character 5.c J reforms clergy, laity, church finances, widows; attacks the rich and imposes litanies
6.4.1 J’s alienation of his clergy
12.-13.a Charge that J ate alone 6.a J alienates Acacius, bishop of Beroea
6.4.2-4 Sarapion the deacon and J’s alienation of his clergy 6.4.5-7 Charge that J ate alone
6.4.8-9 J’s preaching and popularity 6.5 Broadening dissatisfaction – Eutropius episode 6.6 Gainas episode 7.a Theophilus and the Tall Brothers 6.7 Theophilus and the Tall Brothers 6.8 Arian and Nicene night-time processions 6.b Isidore and the Tall Brothers 7.b Tall Brothers arrive at Constantinople , J’s response
6.9 Tall Brothers and Isidore; their arrival at Constantinople, J’s response
6.10 Theophilus recruits Epiphanius 4.b List of J’s enemies 6.11.1-7 Introduction of Severian and Antiochus 13.b-15. J at Ephesus; defense of J’s actions 6.11.8-11 J at Ephesus 6.11.11-21 Sarapion and Severian episode;
intervention of Eudoxia 6.12 Epiphanius at Constantinople 6.13 Defence of Origen
23
6.14 J confronts Epiphanius; harsh words ensue; Epiphanius leaves
8.a Tall Brothers approach Eudoxia, Theophilus summoned to Constantinople
8.b Synod of the Oak, accusation against J of treason 9.a First exile
6.15.1-4 J alienates Eudoxia 6.15.5-21 Synod of the Oak; first exile
9.a Eudoxia miscarries, J recalled 6.16 Popular revolt against J’s expulsion; J recalled 6.17 Theophilus and Heracleides; J ordains
Sarapion bishop of Heraclea 9.b Theophilus brings charges that J resumed his throne illegally, emperor bans J from the church, Easter Saturday 10. J deposed by the emperor, second exile, burning of the church 11.a, 20.b Persecution of J’s followers
6.18 Eudoxia and the silver statue; J’s sermon; second synod; second exile; burning of the church; persecution of J’s followers passed over in silence
11.a Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople 6.19.1 Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople 6.19. 2-4 Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon, receives his
just desserts 16.a Porphyrius ordained bishop of Antioch, Constantius 16.b-17. Olympius, the Tall Brothers
11.a J in exile 2. Letter of John to Innocent I 3. Response of Innocent: calls new synod, letter to Theophilus; letter to Honorius, Honorius’ letter to Arcadius; various delegations arrive
4.a Failed embassy from the west 6.19.5-8 Omens at Constantinople
6.20 Death of Arsacius and ordination of Atticus 11.b Vision of the martyr Basiliscus, J dies in exile 6.21 J dies in exile; J’s pastoral laxity re penance 6.22 Sisinnius’ character, in contrast to J 7.25 Atticus restores J’s name to the diptychs 7.45 Return of J’s remains to Constantinople under
Proclus
Table 4
Ps-Martyrius Palladius Sozomen 6-12 J’s career at Antioch (ascetic formation, baptism, diaconate, ordination as presbyter)
5.a J’s birth, education, early career 8.2.2-11 J’s education, character and popularity
13-16 J ordained bishop of Constantinople; opposition
5.b Death of Nectarius and ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus
8.2.1 Death of Nectarius 8.2.12-19 Ordination of J as bishop of Constantinople; opposition of Theophilus
17-18 J’s predecessor a poor preacher; J in competition from the beginning with Severian of Gabala; J waits for this to resolve 20 J’s virtues 31 Defence of J’s preaching
8.5 J’s preaching and popularity
19 J brings peace to the church and effects reconciliation between east and west
8.3.2-5 J effects reconciliation between Antioch and the West
23-24, 26 J corrects problems in other sees 70 J at Ephesus; defence of J’s actions 25 J converts Persians and Goths
13.b-15. J at Ephesus; defense of J’s actions 8.6 J at Ephesus 8.5 J converts pagans and heretics; miracle of the Macedonian woman
5.c J reforms clergy, laity, church finances, widows; attacks the rich and imposes litanies
8.3.1-2 J’s reform of his clergy
36 J’s enemies (Theophilus, Eudoxia, Severian) 130 Olympias
4.b List of J’s enemies (Acacius, Antiochus, Severian, Theophilus + 3 widows) 16.b-17. Olympias
8.10 Introduction of Severian and Antiochus; Sarapion and Severian episode; intervention of Eudoxia 8.9.1 Sarapion alienates J’s clergy 8.9.1-3 J’s advice to Olympias a cause for hostility 8.9.4-5 Isaac and the monks hostile
38-46 Theophilus and the Tall Brothers, Theophilus’ machinations against J; additional
7.a Theophilus and the Tall Brothers 6.b Isidore and the Tall Brothers
8.11-13 Tall Brothers, Theophilus and
24
bishops as enemies (Acacius, Severian, Antiochus); first charge brought against J (parrhesia)
7.b Tall Brothers arrive at Constantinople , J’s response 16.b-17 Tall Brothers, Olympias’ assistance 6.a J alienates Acacius, bishop of Beroea
situation in Egypt; J’s response 8.14 Theophilus recruits Epiphanius; Epiphanius at Constantinople
8.a Tall Brothers approach Eudoxia, Theophilus summoned to Constantinople
8.15.1-4 Epiphanius ministers to Eudoxia; meets with the Tall Brothers 8.15.5-7 Epiphanius departs Constantinople; harsh words between J and Epiphanius
47-51 Gainas episode 8.4 Gainas episode 8.7 Eutropius episode 8.8 Arian and Nicene night-time processions 52-55 Synod of the Oak; first exile 8.b Synod of the Oak, accusation against J
of treason 9.a First exile
8.16-17 J alienates Eudoxia; Synod of the Oak; Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon receives his just desserts; first exile
60 Activities of J in exile 61-64 Construction of leprosarium at Constantinople and hostility engendered by it
66-67 Eudoxia miscarries, J recalled 9.a Eudoxia miscarries, J recalled 8.18 Popular revolt against J’s expulsion; J recalled 71-72 Theophilus’ machinations 73 Charge that J ate alone 74-75 Charges of misuse of resources of the church 76 Charges relating to liturgical abuses 77 Charge of magic relating to manufacturing a potion mixed into the wine used in the eucharist
12.-13.a Charge that J ate alone 8.9.6 Charge that J ate alone
68 J refuses to return until a new synod held 78-82 J returns; Theophilus flees
8.19.1-3 Theophilus and Heracleides 8.19.4-7 Nilammon elected bishop of Pelusium and dies 8.19.8 J reinstated by council of sixty bishops; J ordains Sarapion bishop of Heraclea
83-86 Hostility of Leontius of Ancyra and synod 87-97 Lent; Eudoxia has J banned from the church; events of Easter Saturday 101-102 Schism; Johnite and anti-Johnite countermeasures 105-106 Two assassination attempts 108 Appeal to emperor to exile J 110-113 J deposed; burning of the church
9.b Theophilus brings charges that J resumed his throne illegally, emperor bans J from the church, events of Easter Saturday 10. J deposed by the emperor, second exile, burning of the church
8.20-22 Eudoxia and the silver statue; J’s sermon; J under house arrest; assassination attempt; second synod; second exile; burning of the church; arrest of J’s bishops and clergy
115 Ordination of new bishop of Constantinople 11.a Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople 8.23 Arsacius ordained bishop of Constantinople; harrassment of J’s followers; St Nicarete
114, 116, 123-124 Arrests and persecution of J’s followers 125 Persecution of Eutropius 131 Trial and persecution of Olympias
11.a, 20.b Persecution of J’s followers, including Eutropius 16.a Porphyrius ordained bishop of Antioch, Constantius
8.24 Persecution of Eutropius, Olympias and Tigrius; Porphyrius becomes bishop of Antioch; edict enforcing communion
8.25 Secular events (nature disturbed) 8.26 Letters of Innocent I from Rome to J and to the
clergy of Constantinople 117 J in exile 121 Death of Eudoxia 122 Election of new urban prefect 134-135 Ordination of Atticus
11 J in exile; pastoral activity; moved on to Arabissus; moved to Pityus
8.27 Omens at Constantinople; death of Arsacius and ordination of Atticus; J’s celebrity and pastoral acts in exile
2. Letter of John to Innocent I 3. Response of Innocent: calls new synod, letter to Theophilus; letter to Honorius, Honorius’ letter to Arcadius; various delegations arrive 4.a Failed embassy from the west
8.28.1-2 Embassy from Innocent to Constantinople; hostile reception; J moved to Pityus
136 J dies in exile 11.b J dies in exile; vision of Basiliscus 8.28.3 J dies in exile; appearance of Basiliscus
