“The Council of Turin (398/399) and the Reorganization of Gaul ca. 395/406”

The Council of Turin (398/399) and the Reorganization of Gaulca. 395/406

Ralph W. Mathisen

Journal of Late Antiquity, Volume 6, Number 2, Fall 2013, pp. 264-307(Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/jla.2013.0027

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign Library (18 May 2014 08:37 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jla/summary/v006/6.2.mathisen.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jla/summary/v006/6.2.mathisen.html

264 Journal of Late Antiquity 6.2 (Fall): 264–307 © 2014 Johns Hopkins University Press

Ralph W. Mathisen

The Council of Turin (398/399) and the Reorganization of Gaul ca. 395/4061

The Council of Turin, which quite irregularly met in Italy even though it proposed to deal with the church of Gaul, has been the most studied and least understood of all the councils involving the late antique Gallic church. This study argues for a single council, contrary to past suggestions that there were two or even three Councils of Turin. It pinpoints the date of the meeting in either 398 or 399 CE. It then investigates in detail the back-ground, procedures, and consequences of the council. Because of the lack of authority of Italian bishops to legislate for the church of Gaul, the most the council could do was make suggestions. It is argued that, with the imperial court located in northern Italy and with the bishops of Milan attempting to aggrandize their infl uence, the Council of Turin was but one element of a coherent initiative to reorganize and regularize the secular and ecclesiastical administration of Gaul as of 395 CE. These initiatives were brought to a halt by the Gallic political crises of 406 and later. Contrary to past assump-tions, the Council of Turin had very little direct infl uence on the subsequent history of the Gallic church, and was only very rarely cited as an authority.

In Gaul, Late Antiquity was a great age of church councils.2 These episcopal gatherings attempted to regulate a wide range of aspects of Christian life, rang-ing from dealing with intrachurch confl icts to resolving quarrels between indi-viduals to controlling who married whom. One of the most often cited councils involving Gallic bishops was not held in Gaul at all but at Augusta Taurinorum

1 A preliminary version of this study was presented at the International Medieval Studies Con-gress, Western Michigan University, in May 2006, under the title “The Date of the Council of Turin.” The author also thanks Michael Kulikowski, Noel Lenski, and the anonymous referee for JLA for their very helpful insights into the many thorny issues discussed here. All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.

2 Two volumes of the Corpus christianorum, series latina (CCL) are dedicated to the records of Gallic councils, beginning with the Council of Arles in 314 and concluding with the Council of Clichy in 614. All of these councils were held in Transalpine Gaul except for the Council of Turin; see C. Munier, ed., Concilia Galliae a. 314–a. 506, CCL 148 (Turnhout, 1963); C. de Clercq, ed., Concilia Galliae a. 511–a. 695, CCL 148A (Turnhout, 1963); also J. Sirmond, ed., Concilia anti-qua Galliae, vol.1 (Paris, 1629).

MATHISEN ^ The Council of Turin 265

(Turin), just across the border in the province of Liguria in Italy (see Figure 1),3 at some point around the turn of the fourth century.4 The council was concerned

3 Both the Antonine Itinerary and Peutinger Table (see Fig. 2) place a location “Fines” (“Border Town”) between Segusio (Susa), the capital of the province of Alpes Cottiae, and Augusta Taurino-rum, making it clear that Turin was in the late Roman province of Liguria.

4 See, e.g., Louis Duchesne, “Concile de Turin ou concile de Tours?,” CRAI 35 (1891), 369–373; P. Savin, “Il concilio di Torino,” Atti dell’Acad. Scienz. Torino 27 (1891–1892), 727–738; Theodor Mommsen, “Die Synode von Turin,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschich-tskund 17 (1892), 187–188 = Gesammelte Schriften 3 (Berlin, 1965), 582–584; E.-Ch. Babut, Le concile de Turin: Essai sur l’histoire des églises provençales au Ve siècle et sur les origines de la monarchie ecclésiastique romaine, 417–450 (Paris, 1904); John Chapman, “Pope Zosimus and the Council of Turin” (review of Babut), The Dublin Review (1904), 366–381; M. Pfi ster, “Bul-letin historique du Moyen Age,” RH 87 (1905), 312–316; E.-Ch. Babut, “La date du concile de Turin et le developpement de l’autorité pontifi cale au Ve siècle: Réponse à Mgr. Duchesne et à M.

Fig. 1: The dioceses and provinces of Italy and Gaul in the late fourth century (Ralph Mathisen map fi le).

266 Journal of Late Antiquity

with issues that included not only the usual problems with insolent clergy but also the way in which ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Gaul was to be partitioned among the powerful and ambitious bishops of Arles, Marseille, and Vienne. The council also concerned itself with the fallout from momentous events in the secular world ranging from Magnus Maximus’ execution of Priscillianists to the transfer of the seat of the praetorian prefect of Gaul from Trier to Arles. The Council of Turin thus has much to tell us about the critical crossroads ca. 400 c.e., when the relationships between imperial and ecclesiastical authority in Gaul and Italy were in a state of great fl ux.

The connection of Turin to so many other issues often has colored the perceptions of scholars who have worked with it. Some use the council to prove a late, or early, date for the transfer of the seat of the Gallic prefecture. Others need it to demonstrate papal authority, or the lack of it. There are few problems with so many interlocking issues, so many false leads, so many spurious assumptions, so many tendentious arguments by assertion, and so many red herrings. I fi rst discussed Turin in print in 1989,5 but it remained clear that additional study could yield fruitful results. Here I propose to give further thought to the circumstances under which the council assembled and to attempt to clarify several issues about its historical context.

Source MaterialRoughly contemporary information on the Council of Turin survives in three sources: (1) four letters of bishop Zosimus of Rome from 417–418 c.e.;6 (2)

Pfi ster,” Revue historique 88 (1905), 57–82; A. Wilmart, “Le concile de Turin,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 6 (1905), 931–937; Louis Duchesne, “Le concile de Turin” (review of Babut), Revue historique 87 (1905), 278–302; Jean-Rémy Palanque, “Les dissensions des églises des Gaules à la fi n du IVe siècle et la date du concile de Turin,” Revue d’histoire de l’église de France 21 (1935), 481–501; Adolph Lumpe, “Die Synode von Turin vom Jahre 398,” Annuarium historiae concilio-rum 4 (1972), 7–25; Elie Griff e, “La date du concile de Turin (398 ou 417),” Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 64 (1973), 289–295; Christopher Chaffi n, “The Application of Nicaea Canon 6 and the Date of the Synod of Turin,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 16 (1980), 257–272; André Chastagnol, “In ipso vestibulo resecandus: à propos de la date du concile de Turin,” in De Tertul-lien aux Mozarabes: Mélanges off erts à Jacques Fontaine, I: Antiquité tardive et christianisme ancien: (IIIe–VIe siècles) (Paris, 1992), 305–314; Michael E. Kulikowski, “Two Councils of Turin,” JTS 47 (1996), 159–168; F. Bolgiani, “S. Ambrogio, Massimo di Torini e la Sinodo del 398,” in Idem, Storia di Torino, I: Dalla preistoria al comune medievale storia di Torino (Turin, 1997), 270–277; N. Gauthier, “L’episcopato delle Gallie alla vigilia del concilio di Torino,” in Atti del convegno internazionale di studi su Massimo di Torino nel XVI centenario del Concilio di Torino (398) (Turin, 1999), 167–181; Renzo Savarino, “Il concilio di Torino,” ibid., 203–227.

5 Ralph W. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul (Washington, 1989), 17–18 and passim.

6 Epist. “Cum adversus statuta,” “Quid de Proculi,” “Multum contra veterem,” which spe-cifi cally cite Turin, and “Placuit apostolicae,” “Mirati admodum,” “Non miror Proculum,” and


a few mentions in the canons of the Gallic church councils of Riez (439) and Orange (441);7 and, most signifi cantly, (3) sixth- and seventh-century chron-ologically organized collections of canons of church councils assembled in Gaul that include a letter containing eight canons of a council held at Turin.8 These collections usually locate the acta of Turin between the canons of the council of Valence in 374 and either the letters of Innocent of Rome (401–417) or the Council of Riez (439).9 The placement of the acta would date the coun-cil between 374 and the early fi fth century.

The topics of the eight canons might be summarized as follows:

Canon 1. A proposed solution to the status of bishop Proculus of Mar-seille, who claimed metropolitan status in the province of Narbo-nensis II even though his own see was in Viennensis

Canon 2. A proposed solution to a quarrel between the bishops of Arles and Vienne over metropolitan status and ecclesiastical juris-diction in Viennensis

Canons 3–5. Problems involving four bishops of Narbonensis II:

3. Octavius, Ursio, Remigius, and Triferius, who had usurped a right of ordination in opposition to Proculus of Marseille

4. Triferius, whose resolution of a local quarrel was upheld

5. Condemnation of a priest who had challenged Triferius

Canon 6. An off er to share communion with Gallic bishops who had abandoned communion with Felix of Trier

Canons 7–8. Matters relating to church discipline:

7. No bishop was to accept the expelled cleric of another bishop

8. Those who were ordained illegally or who had children were pro-hibited from entering the “maiores gradus” of the clergy.

The four letters of Zosimus (417–418) discussed three issues relating explicitly or implicitly to Turin: (1) the extraordinary status of the church of Arles, (2) the metropolitan status accorded to Proculus of Marseille, and (3)

“Cum et in praesenti,” which discuss matters related to Turin = Epist.Arel.1–7 in PL 20.642–675; MGH Epist. 3.5–13.

7 Conc.Reien., Can.1 (CCL 148.64); Conc.Araus., Can.23 (CCL 148.84).8 CCL 148.52–60; see R.W. Mathisen, “Between Arles, Rome, and Toledo: Gallic Collections

of Canon Law in Late Antiquity,” in S. Montero, ed., Fronteras Religiosas entre Roma, Bizancio, Damasco y Toledo: El nacimiento de Europa y del Islam (siglos V–VIII) (Madrid, 1999) = ’Ilu. Revista de ciencias de las religiones 2 (1999), 33–46.

9 In particular, in the mid to late sixth-century “Corbie collection,” Par.lat. 12097, and “Lorsch Collection,” Vat.Pal.lat.573, Turin is placed immediately before letters of Innocent.


accusations of calumnia leveled by Proculus against a certain Lazarus. And the Gallic councils of Riez in 439 and Orange in 441 cited Turin canons 3 and 8 respectively.10 These last citations demonstrate that the acta of Turin were considered to be canonical in Gaul as of the late 430s.

Counciliar AnomaliesThe conciliar acta are presented in the form of a letter headed “Sancta syno-dus quae convenit in urbe Taurinatium die decimo Kalendas Octobris fratri-bus dilectissimis per Gallias et Quinque provincias constitutis” (“The holy synod that met in the city of Turin on 22 September to the most esteemed brothers established throughout the Gauls and the Five Provinces”). This for-mat is quite standard; conciliar canons could survive in two general forms, as a “fi le copy” made at the time and place of the actual council, and in a “let-ter” form that was forwarded to bishops who had not been present.11

The acta of Turin also, however, present some anomalies. For one thing, such headings customarily included the consular date that the council met,12 but the acta of Turin fail to do this. Another apparent irregularity is that in some places the acta are curiously vague. When proposing to deal with a jurisdictional dispute between the bishops of Arles and Vienne, the council did not name these bishops. And when evidentiary letters were cited at the council, one author was referred to only as “Romanae ecclesiae sacerdotis” (“the bishop of the church of Rome”). Did the bishops at the council not even know which bishop of Rome authored the letter? The acta also are curiously unhelpful regarding who was present. They preserve no list of subscriptions or list of attendees. The acta specifi cally name only a few Gallic bishops as being present, and no Italians.

The greatest anomaly about the council is its meeting place, in northern Italy. Getting there from Gaul would have involved an arduous alpine trek no matter from what direction one came (Figure 2). In the course of a trip

10 Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 161 n.10, suggests that “these references are not to the exant council of Turin,” but the parallels between the canons seem secure.

11 E.g., for the “letter” format, note the Council of Valence (374): “Statuta synodi apud ecclesiam Valentinam sub die IV Idus Iulias, Gratiano III et Equitio consulibus. Dilectissimis fratribus per Gallias et Quinque provincias constitutis episcopis” (CCL 148.37); the Council of Nîmes (394/6): “Incipit sancta synodus quae convenit in civitatem Nemausensem Kal. Octobris, dominis Archadio et Honorio, Aug(ustis) cons(u)l(ibus). episcopis per Gallias et Septem provincias” (CCL 148.50). The “fi le copy” format is seen, e.g., in the Council of Riez (439): “Canones sanctae synodae quae habita est in civitate Regensi” (CCL 148.63); the Council of Orange (441) “Constitutiones sanctae synodi habitae in territorio Arausico” (CCL 148.78); the Council of Vaison (442) “Constitutio-nes sanctae synodi habitae in civitate Vasensi” (CCL 148.96); and the Council of Arles (ca. 452) “Instititio sanctorum esicoporum” (CCL 148.133).

12 See examples in previous note.


over the Alps to Ravenna in 445, for example, bishop Germanus of Auxerre encountered roads innundated by fl ooded rivers.13 The road west from Turin connected with the Via Domitia at “Summae Alpes,” passed through Embrun and Sisteron, where it branched off south to Riez, and continued directly to Marseille, Aix, and the cities of Narbonensis II. On the other hand, the route from Octodurum (Sion) via “in summo pennino” (the Great St. Bernard pass) and Augusta Praetoria (Aosta) that could have been used by any bishops com-ing from central Gaul did not even go straight to Turin.14

Equally anomalous was that this Italian council involved the aff airs of Gaul. This was completely irregular, and it is diffi cult, nay, impossible, except in the case of imperially sponsored councils, to fi nd parallel examples of councils that proposed to regulate the ecclesiastical aff airs of a number of diff erent provinces and met not only not in one of the aff ected provinces,

13 VGerm.Autiss. 31.14 For the geography, see Talbert, Barrington Atlas, no.39.

Fig. 2: The alpine region of northwestern Italy as shown on the Peutinger Table. One set of roads to Gaul heads directly west from Augusta Taurinorum (Turin), continuing on through the Alps to southern Gaul. Another set, which does not go directly to Turin, heads west from Augusta Praeatoria (Aosta) through the Alps to central Gaul (Source: K. Miller, Weltkarte des Castorius genannt die peutinger’sche Tafel [Ravensburg, 1888]).


but also in a diff erent diocese and even a diff erent prefecture.15 A meeting in Italy would have created a signifi cant legal problem, for there was nothing in canonical precedent that gave bishops in one province the authority to legis-late for churches in another province (or diocese, or prefecture).16 On canoni-cal grounds the synod was quite illegal, and any attempt to place the council in its historical context must create a model that explains why it met in Italy and under what authority it did so.17

Collectively, these anomalies indicate that there was something most unusual about this “council.” With this in mind, one now can embark on a more detailed analysis of the nature of the council by considering several dif-fi culties that inhibit placement of the council in its proper chronological and historical contexts.

The Date of the Council: Fundamental ConsiderationsEven though the calendar date of the council is transmitted as 22 September, there are no indications of a specifi c year. Thus, suggesting dates for these canons has become a popular armchair sport of ecclesiastical historians. In the seventeenth century, it was dated to between 397 and 408.18 Early in the twentieth century, Duchesne proposed a date of ca. 400 that became

15 E.g., Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 496, “Mais n’est-il étonnant de les voir soumis à un Concile cisalpin?” The Italian venue is so unusual that Theodor Mommsen (“Synode von Turin”) suggested that the council met at Tours rather than Turin, a suggestion rightly condemned by Duchesne, “Concile de Turin ou concile de Tours?” One notes a previous involvement of Gallic and Italian bishops in the aff airs of another diocese that had imperial sponsorship, at the Council of Arles sponsored by Constantine I in 314. For the imperial administration of Italy in Late Antiquity, see Frank Ausbüttel, Die Verwaltung der Städte und Provinzen im spätantkien Italien (Frankfurt, 1988).

16 For conciliar procedures, see, e.g., W. Lippert, “Die Verfasserschaft der Canonen gallischer Concilien des V. und VI. Jahrhunderts,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für Ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 14 (1889), 9–58; Hermann J. Schmitz, “Die Tendenz der Provinzialsynoden in Gallien seit dem 5. Jahrhundert und die romischen Büssbucher,” Archiv für katholisches Kirchenge-schichte 71 (1894), 21–33; C.J. Hefele, H. Leclercq, Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux (Paris, 1907); Hermann Josef Sieben, ed., Die Konzilsidee der alten Kirche (Paderborn, 1979), 148–179; Evangelos Chrysos, “Konzilsakten und Konzilsprotokolle vom 4. bis 7. Jahrhun-dert,” Annuarium historiae conciliorum 15 (1983), 30–40; Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism, passim; and Charles Munier, “La pratique conciliaire à la fi n du IVe siècle dans les Gaules et en Italie du Nord,” in Atti del convegno internazionale di studi su Massimo di Torino nel XVI cen-tenario del Concilio di Torino (398) (Turin, 1999), 182–202.

17 In one of the few studies that even acknowledges this as an issue, Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 484–485, observes, “Il s’agit d’un synode italien, réuni pour des aff aires gauloises. Il faut donc considérer quels étaient ces litiges et pourquoi c’est au delà des Alpes qu’ils furent reglés.”

18 C. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici (Paris, 1588/1607) s.a. 397, nn. 52–53 (397); Sirmond, Con-cilia 1.27ff . (ca. 408).


generally accepted.19 Subsequent studies zeroed in on 398 as the most likely date for the meeting.20

A terminus post quem is easily established. In Canon 6, a reference to “lit-teras venerabilis memoriae Ambrosii episcopi” (“letters of bishop Ambrose of venerable memory”) places the council after the death of Ambrose of Milan on 4 April 397.21 In addition, the statement of Zosimus in 417 that bishop Brictius of Tours had been maligned at the council would place the meet-ing after the death of Brictius’ predecessor, Martin of Tours.22 This raises a problem, however, because Martin’s death seems to be dated diff erently by two diverse sources. In his Histories, Gregory of Tours reports, regarding his predecessor Martin, that

in the second year of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius [396/397], Saint Martin, bishop of Tours, departed this life at Candes, a village of his dio-cese, and passed happily to Christ in the eighty-fi rst year of his life and the twenty-sixth of his episcopate. . . . He passed away at midnight of the Lord’s day, in the consulship of Atticus and Caesarius [397].23

This report puts Martin’s death precisely in 397, as does the similar report in Gregory’s On the Virtues of St. Martin: “He died in peace in the middle of the night in the eighty-fi rst year of his age, during the consulship of Caesarius and Atticus.”24

19 Louis Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule (3 vols.) (2nd ed.) (Paris, 1907–1915), 1.91, 3.36 n.3, “peu avant ou peu après l’année 400,” and “Le concile de Turin”; cf. Hefele-Leclerq, Conciles 2.85 (401 c.e).

20 Palanque, “Les dissensions”.; Griff e, “La date”; Lumpe, “Die Synode von Turin”; and, more recently, all in 1999, Gauthier, “L’episcopato,” 170; Munier, “La pratique conciliaire,” 182; Sava-rino, “Concilio di Torino,” 208 (397/398).

21 CCL 148.58. See Lellia Cracco Ruggini, “Il 397: L’anno della morte di Ambrogio,” in L.F. Pizzolato, et al., eds., Nec timeo mori: Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi ambrosiani nel XVI centenario della morte di sant’Ambrogio (Milan, 1998), 39–47.

22 Zos. Epist. 5 (CSEL 35.103–108 ): “Posteaquam a nobis.”23 Greg.Tur. Hist. 1.43: “Arcadii vero et Honorii secundo imperii anno, sanctus Martinus Turo-

norum episcopus . . . octogesimo et primo aetatis suae anno, episcopatus autem vigesimo sexto apud Condatensem dioecesis suae vicum excedens a saeculo feliciter migravit ad Christum. Transiit autem media nocte, quae dominica habebatur, Attico Caesarioque consulibus.”

24 Greg.Tur. Virt.Mart. 1.3: “Octogesimo primo aetatis suae anno, Caesario et Attico consulibus, nocte media quievit in pace.” And in Hist. 10.31 Gregory also notes that Brictius was made bishop “anno Arcadii et Honorii secundo.” Confusion has been introduced into the scholarship about the day of Martin’s death. At Hist. 2.14, Gregory reports, “Depositionem vero ejus tertio idus Novem-bris,” for a burial date of 11 November, the date in the Roman martyrology, and a date repeated by Gregory at Hist. 5.24. Yet many scholars who accept 397 as Martin’s year of death, such as E. Griff e, La Gaule chrétienne à l’époque romaine, 3 vols. (Paris, 1964–1965) 1.296, give, without explanation, a day of death as 8 November. Duchesne, Fastes, 2.303, even bases this date “au calendrier de Perpetuus” in Greg.Tur.Hist. 10.31 (wrongly by Duchesne as 10.32), but this says no


Given Gregory’s exactitude, dating both by regnal years and consular years, the date 397 would seem to be noncontroversial. But a confl ict arises because Sul-picius Severus, in his Dialogues, states that after the execution of the Priscillian-ists in Trier in 385, Martin “lived sixteen years afterward; he attended no synod and removed himself from all meetings of bishops.”25 If Severus were dating from the execution, this would place Martin’s death in the year 400, some three years after Gregory’s date.26 To resolve this inconsistency one might apply Ockham’s razor. To deny Gregory would compel one to suppose that he had used two diff er-ent obsolete dating systems to invent dates for the death of his own predecessor, for which one must suppose that local records and traditions existed, and that these were absolutely consistent with each other. Quite a string of assumptions. For Severus, on the other hand, one need only suppose either that his math was off , or that he was dating from an earlier point of the Priscillianist controversy, perhaps from the Council of Bordeaux in 384, which would be consistent with a date of 397 for Martin’s death. In this case, therefore, it would appear that Gregory’s date is correct, and the deaths of both Ambrose and Martin in 397 thus provide the terminus post quem for the council, as traditionally accepted.

On the other hand, a terminus ante quem that often is cited involves the reference to bishop Felix of Trier. Felix had been made bishop at the very time, in 385, when the emperor Magnus Maximus (383–388) was condemning to death at Trier certain of the Priscillianists, a procedure in which Felix, as the bishop of an imperial capital, was implicated at least by association.27 This created the “Felician schism,” in which some Gallic bishops excommunicated Felix.28 As a consequence, according to the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus, “Among ourselves a perpetual war of discords fl ared up, which already has

such thing, nor does Gregory anywhere give such a date. In fact, the 8 November date was invented simply because in 397, Gregory’s year of Martin’s death, 8 November was on a Sunday, the day of the week on which Gregory reports that Martin died. This calculated 8 November date has been accepted by many ever since; note, e.g., Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 161. For 397, see also Stan-cliff e, Martin, 116–119.

25 Dial.3.13: “Sedecim postea vixit annos; nullam synodum adiit, ab omnibus episcoporum con-ventibus se removit.”

26 See T.D. Barnes, “The Military Career of Martin of Tours,” Analecta Bollandiana 114 (1996), 25–32, who adds a year to Severus’ count and places Martin’s death in 401.

27 For the date, see Prosp. Chron. s.a. 385, “[Priscillianus] Treveris . . . Maximi gladio addictus est”; also PLRE 1.297. Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 162, and others, citing Hydatius, favor a date of 386, but Hydatius, Chron. s.a. 386, is merely a general overview (“hisdem diebus”) that summa-rizes the Chronicon of Sulpicius Severus, which itself does not provide a date. Indeed, Hydatius has 386 as the date of Priscillian’s ordination (“Priscillianus . . . ordinatur”), not his execution, which he does not even mention. The inconsistency in Hydatius’ dating also is seen from Hyd. Chron. s.a. 405, which wrongly dates the writing of Severus’ Chronicle to 405; coupled with Severus’ own statement (Chron. 2.51) that the chronicle was written fi fteen years after the executions, a date of 405 for the chronicle would erroneously put the executions in 391.

28 See Mathisen, Factionalism, 11–17.


been stirred up for fi fteen years, and in no way can be calmed.”29 In this account, therefore, the controversy was still continuing in 399.

The statement in Canon 6 regarding “Gallic bishops who are in commu-nion with Felix” indicates that Felix was still alive at the time of the Coun-cil of Turin.30 In addition, a late Vita Felicis states that he abdicated in the twelfth year of his episcopate, that is, in or around 396,31 and it has been suggested that his abdication was one of the considerations in the attempt at a reconciliation at Turin.32 But lacking a date for Felix’s death, one cannot use this reference to provide a meaningful terminus ante quem for the council.33

Other eff orts to fi nd a terminus ante quem arise from attempts to identify the unnamed bishop of Rome in Canon 6. A section of the acta of the Coun-cil of Toledo of 400 that survives outside the Hispana cites “litteris tamen sanctae memoriae Ambrosii,” followed a few lines later by the words “adde quae sanctae memoriae Siricius papa suasisset.”34 It has been suggested that this statement is a direct parallel with Canon 6 of the Council of Turin, which refers to letters from Ambrose and an unnamed bishop of Rome, that is, “lit-teras venerabilis memoriae Ambrosii episcopi vel Romanae ecclesiae sacer-dotis,” and that the unnamed bishop of Rome cited at Turin must also be Siricius.35 Because it always has been assumed that the unnamed bishop of Rome was alive at the time of Turin, and because Siricius died on 26 Novem-ber 399, this evidence would date the Council of Turin to 397, 398, or 399.36

29 Sulp.Sev. Chron. 2.51: “Ac inter nostros perpetuum discordiarum bellum exarserat quod iam per quindecim annos foedis dissentionibus agitatum, nullo modo sopiri poterat.”

30 Conc.Taur., Can.6: “Episcopi Galliarum qui Felici communicant.”31 VFelicis 9 (AASS March III, 622): “Hic igitur post duodecimum episcopatus sui annum rerum

saecularium aff ectus taedio . . . renuntia vit.” The life has been dated to the tenth century or later (Griff e, Gaule 1.329 n. 85). See also Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 48. His festival was 26 November.

32 Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 483, “On verra que cette demission est probablement en liaison avec le concile de Turin.”

33 In a piece of circular reasoning in support of his date of 398 for the council, Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 483, presumes that Felix resigned in 398 and died, on 26 March, the next year. Sava-rino, “Concilio di Torino,” 216, suggests ca. 400 for the death of Felix because by then the Felician controversy seemed to be dying down.

34 For the text, see Chadwick, Priscillian, 179–183, 235–239; J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence, 1759), 3.1004–1008. This text is largely unknown to stu-dents of Turin. It was once was suspected to be a forgery; see Mansi, Collectio, 1004, “Si confi ctae non sint, ut suspiciatur Quesnellius.” Note also Purifi cación Ubric Rabaneda, La iglesia en la His-pania del siglo V (Granada, 2004), 176–178; J. Massana Vilella, “Priscilianismo galaico y politica antipriscilianista durante el siglo V,” Antiquité tardive 5 (1997), 177–185.

35 Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 208, “Il parallelo con il canone 6 di Torino è calzante,” fol-lowing Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 483

36 Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 208; for the presumption that the unnamed bishop must have been Siricius and that he must have been still alive, see also, e.g., Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 495; Lumpe, “Synode von Turin,” 11.


Even though it is quite possible that Siricius was the unnamed bishop of Rome cited at Turin, there are problems with this hypothesis. First, the phrases from Toledo are not contiguous as at Turin, but there is intervening text; indeed, the mention of Siricius seems to be an afterthought. Secondly, even though the letters of Ambrose and the bishop of Rome cited at Turin and Toledo dealt with similar issues, namely the reception back into com-munion of bishops with heretical or schismatic associations, in their specif-ics they diff ered. The letters cited at Turin related to the reception back into communion of Gallic bishops who were in communion with Felix of Trier (“si quis ab eius [sc. Felicis] communione se voluerit sequestrare in nostrae pacis consortio suscipiatur”), whereas the letters cited at Toledo were related to the reception back into communion of bishops suspected of Priscillianism (“si condemnassent quae perperam egerant et implessent conditiones quas praescriptas litterae continebant, reverterenter ad pacem”). Given that Felix had fallen out of communion with some of his Gallic brethren because of his supposed implication in the execution of Priscillianists, which would make him violently anti-Priscillianist, and that the letters cited at Toledo dealt with pro-Priscillianist bishops, it would be diffi cult to argue that the two councils were referring to the same two letters. It thus would seem that the citation of letters from the bishops of Milan and Rome at both councils was a coincidence, a quite natural and common attempt to appeal to higher authority.37

Furthermore, it is not at all clear from the wording of the canon of Turin that the unnamed bishop of Rome was in fact alive at the time of the council.38 Given that he was unnamed, he hardly could have been described as “venera-bilis memoriae” even if he were dead, for to have done so would have been a clear indication that the authors knew his identity. One therefore can make no assumptions at all about whether this unnamed bishop was alive or dead at the time. And this means that the unnamed bishop could have been Siricius, his successor Anastasius (27 November 399–19 December 401), or someone else altogether.39

37 A more germane parallel between the two councils might be that in two places the bishops at Toledo seem not to know who the current bishop of Rome was, referring merely to “papa qui nunc est” and “per papam” (Chadwick, Priscillian, 238), suggesting that even though they knew that Siricius was dead, they did not know that Anastasius had succeeded him.

38 As simply assumed by Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 208, and all others who consider this issue.

39 E.g., Ambrose’s and Siricius’ predecessor Damasus were appealed to by Priscillian and his Gal-lic associates in the mid-380s: Sulp.Sev Chron. 2.48.5.


Other key texts for determining a terminus ante quem include Zosimus’ reports regarding Lazarus, whom he accused of Pelagianism. In a letter of 21 September 417, Zosimus states,

Lazarus has an old habit of accusing the innocent. At many councils (“per multa concilia”) he was found to be a devilish accuser of Brictius, our fel-low bishop from the city of Tours. He was accused of calumny by Proculus of Marseille at the synod in the town of Turin [and] many years later (“post multos annos”), as the defender of the judgment of a tyrant, he was made bishop of the city of Aix by this same Proculus.40

Here, he merely claims that Lazarus was accused by Proculus at Turin. But in a letter of only one day later, he goes farther, asserting that Lazarus actually had been condemned:

But Lazarus, who was condemned recently (“dudum”) at the synod of Turin as a calumniator in the opinions of the most infl uential bishops after he had attacked the lifestyle of the innocent bishop Brictius with false accusa-tions, subsequently, in fact, having obtained an undeserved bishopric from the same Proculus, who was present among others at the synod where he had been condemned . . . abdicated of his own free will.41

The “tyrant” to whom Zosimus refers was Constantine III, who had usurped the throne in Britain and Gaul in 407 and was overthrown by the forces of the emperor Honorius (395–423) in 411. Constantine placed his own supporters in episcopal sees in southern Gaul, assigning Lazarus to Aix.42

Zosimus’ letters thus provide a rather late terminus ante quem for Turin of 417. But one can do better than that. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 reports that in 408 Proculus of Marseille undertook an investigation into the reported adultery of a certain bishop Remigius.43 This would have been the same

40 Epist. “Posteaquam a nobis” 5 (CSEL 35.103–108) “Vetus Lazaro consuetudo est innocen-tiam criminandi. Per multa concilia in sanctum Brictium coepiscopum nostrum Turonicae civita-tis diabolicus accusator inventus est. A Proculo Massiliensi in synodo Taurini oppidi sententiam calumniatoris excepit. Ab eodem Proculo fi t post multos annos sacerdos, tyrannici iudicii defensor, civitatis Aquensium.”

41 Epist. “Cum adversus” (MGH Epist. 3.7–9): “Sed Lazarus, dudum in Taurinensi concilio gra-vissimorum episcoporum sententiis pro calumniatore damnatus, cum Brictii innocentis episcopi vitam falsis objectionibus appetisset, post vero indebitum ab eodem Proculo, qui inter ceteros in synodo damnationis eius assederat, sacerdotium consecutus ... sponte submovit.”

42 See Mathisen, Factionalism, 28–32.43 Chron.Gall.452 s.a. 408 (MGH AA 9.652): “Proculus Massiliensis episcopus clarus habetur,

quo annuente, magna de suspecto adulterio Remedii [sic] episcopi quaestio agitatur.” For Remigius as bishop of Aix, see Mathisen, Factionalism, 23; for Triferius as bishop of Aix, see Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 217.


Remigius who had challenged Proculus’ authority at Turin and upon whom Proculus now was avenging himself. Given that Lazarus was made bishop of Aix with the support of both Proculus and the recently arrived Constantine III, one might suggest that Remigius was bishop of Aix and that Lazarus replaced him in 408.44 This would place the Council of Turin not only before 408 but also, to the extent that one can believe Zosimus, “multi anni” before 408.45 But how many years remains in question. In general, it is the lack of a better terminus ante quem that has resulted in a wide range of suggested dates for the council.

How Many Councils?Turin studies received a jolt in 1904, when E.-Ch. Babut suggested that there were two councils of Turin, one about 405 and the other in the fall of 417.46 Babut’s argumention, however, had several problems. For example, he made interpolations into the existing text, such as adding “Honorio Augusto XI et Constantio II coss” to the heading and “non” in the sixth canon, which reverses the meaning of the text.”47 He also asserted that Canon 2 shows traces of two successive deliberations by fi rst recognizing Vienne as the met-ropolitan see of all of Viennensis, but then dividing the province between Vienne and Arles.48 No objective reader of this canon, however, would concur that it says any such thing. Nor did his use of the forged letter “Revelatum nos” help his case.49 Babut’s suggestions about multiple councils and a later date were immediately savaged by several cognoscentes,50 and 398 remained

44 Mathisen, Factionalism, 23, 29; Lumpe, “Synode,” 8 n.4, suggests ca. 409; pace Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 162, “between 407 and 411. . . . No evidence exists to establish a more secure date.” Lazarus was expelled after the fall of Constantine III in 411; see Zosimus, Epist. “Post-eaquam a nobis” (CSEL 35.104): “Stetitque in eo hactenus umbra sacerdotii, donec tyranno imago staret imperii, quo loco post internecionem patroni sponte se exuit et propria cessione damnavit”; also Idem, Epist. “Cum adversus” (MGH Epist. 3.7–9): “Sed Lazarus . . . datis litteris in abdica-tionem sui, sponte submovit.”

45 See Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 494: “une aff aire déjà ancienne en 417.”46 Babut, Le concile de Turin.47 Wilmart, “Concile de Turin,” 934, “qui renverse le sens obvie du texte.”48 Babut, “La date,” 67. 49 Babut, “La date,” 69–70; see Wilmart, “Concile de Turin,” 934, where the letters “Revela-

tum” and “Quali pertinacia” “de la collection Viennoise doivent demeurer ‘dans le panier aux apocryphes.’”

50 Wilmart, “Concile de Turin”; Duchesne, “Concile de Turin; Idem, Fastes, 1.86 n.1 (“absolu-ment inacceptable”); Chapman, “Zosimus,” 367 (“completely failed to prove his point”). Response given by Babut, “La date.” A few supporters for two councils: J.B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodo sius to the Death of Justinian, 2 vols. (London, 1923; repr. New York, 1958), 1.363 n.4; Ernst Stein, Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches vom römischen zum byzantinischen Staate (284–476 n. Chr.) (Vienna, 1928), 411; and Trevor G. Jalland, The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great (London/New York, 1941), 163–166.


the consensus date for a single council51 until 1973, when Chastagnol revived the idea of a later date, a suggestion he reiterated in 1992; he was supported by Kulikowski in 1996, who suggested that there may have been three coun-cils of Turin.52

The arguments by Babut and others for a second council are based pri-marily on references made in 417 by Zosimus to a council of Turin that, as just seen, at some point in the past had condemned the Lazarus who subsequently had been made bishop of Aix by Proculus of Marseille. Because this condem-nation of Lazarus was not cited in the extant acta of Turin, the argument went, there must have been another otherwise unattested council of Turin, whose acta do not survive, at which this issue was discussed.53 But the argu-ments for this interpretation have some noteworthy fl aws. Some, such as argu-ments that Zosimus’ emotional state in 417 would have not been appropriate for speaking of an event twenty years in the past, can be easily dismissed.54 After all, Zosimus was not becoming “choleric” about what had happened at the Council of Turin, but about what was happening in his own time.

More substantively, it has been claimed that Zosimus’ assertion that the condemnation of Lazarus at Turin had occurred “dudum” (“recently”) must mean no more than a few years before Zosimus’ letters. But this assumption is vitiated by Zosimus’ own statement that Lazarus was made bishop of Aix “many years after” (“post multos annos”) the Council of Turin. If “dudum” meant no more than a few years, these two assertions would be absolutely inconsistent with each other. But “dudum” does not necessarily denote a short interval. Whereas the reference to “many years” does in fact refer to a period of time, the much more generic term “dudum” can refer to any length of time, based on a writer’s needs.55 For example, in 513 Symmachus of Rome noted that a letter of Leo of Rome of 449 had been sent “dudum”—sixty-four years

51 See Batiff ol, “Les églises,” 158–169; Munier, CCL 148.52–60; Gaudemet, Conciles, 133–134; Griff e, “La date,” 289–295; Idem, Gaule 1.336–340; Langgartner, Gallienpolitik, 21; Lumpe, “Synode,” 7–25; McShane, Romanitas, 277; Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 481–500 and “Pre-miers,” 380 n.5; and Ch. Pietri, Roma Christiana (Rome, 1976), 2.973–975, 1000–1037.

52 Chastagnol, “Le repli” and “Turin”; Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 161–162, one, dealing with Lazarus, “between 397 and 411,” the second, represented by the extant acta, “between 411 and 416,” and “another synod of Turin,” perhaps during the time of Hilary of Arles (ca. 429–439).

53 Babut, “La date,” 74, “le concile ou Lazare . . . attaqua la reputation de Saint Brice.” 54 Babut, “La date,” 63–64, doubted that Zosimus would he be so upset about “l’outrage fait au

siege romain si le concile de Turin s’est tenu en 400,” and suggested “que ce grief nouveau resulte d’un fait nouveau”; and Chastagnol, “Le repli,” 39, presumed that an irrefutable argument in favor of 417 was that Zosimus’ “colère . . . sous le coup de l’émotion” could not have applied to an event twenty years earlier.

55 For the meaning of “dudum” as “a short time ago,” “a little while ago,” “not long ago, i.e. just now,” but also more generically simply as “formerly,” see Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879), 616.


earlier.56 Ill-defi ned chronological terms such as “dudum” could mean what-ever one desired, and could be used rhetorically to make past events seem more immediately relevant than they actually were.

Zosimus’ claim about Lazarus’ condemnation thus is quite in line with a date of the Council of Turin anywhere from the late 390s onward. Indeed, the date of Lazarus’ ordination at Aix would place Zosimus’ Council of Turin in 408 at the very latest, and his additional claim that the ordination had occurred “many years” after Turin, would be very consistent with a date of Turin in the late 390s. A date anywhere near 417 for Zosimus’ Council of Turin therefore would seem to be completely ruled out.

But how, then, is one to deal with the “failure” of the extant acta to men-tion Lazarus and Brictius? This line of reasoning neglects to consider several signifi cant aspects of church councils. It is based on the fallacious presump-tion that everything discussed, as opposed to everything ruled upon, must have appeared in published acta, a presumption that is demonstrably false. In the case of the canons of Turin, the extant acta include only seven canons and could not possibly have included everything that was discussed. The extant canons represent only selected elements of the discussion, upon which all the participants could agree.57 As for Lazarus, one might suppose that as a native of Tours himself, he was complaining about irregularities in Brictius’ recent ordination. But because the council dismissed his complaints and imposed no penalty on him, which Zosimus surely would have mentioned had it hap-pened, the authors of the acta had no reason to mention his accusations in the letter to Gaul: what point would there have been in citing, and thus validat-ing, accusations that were determined to be false?58

This argument also is based on an assumption that there was only one version of the acta. It would appear that Zosimus consulted some version of

56 Symm. Epist. “Sedis apostolicae” (MGH Epist. 3.36); Leo, Epist. “Lectis dilectionis” (MGH Epist. 3.20–21). One might make the same observation about the assumption of Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 161 n. 10, “the word recentem used [at the Council of Riez] in 439 can hardly refer to a council held more than twenty years before,” which leads him to suggest that there was even a third Council of Turin, at some point closer to 439. But this is putting far more weight on vague terms such as “dudum” and “recens” than they can bear.

57 As, e.g., Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 218. For the importance of reaching unanimity, note, e.g., Klaus Oehler, “Der consensus omnium als Kriterium der Wahrheit in der antiken Philosophie und der Patristik,” Antike und Abendland 10 (1961), 103–129.

58 Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 494 n. 69, although concurring that the lack of mention of Bric-tius favors two councils, acknowledges, “mais les preuves a silentio sont fort précaires.” Duchesne (1905), 291 n. 1, more reasonably suggests that Lazarus simply had been advised to leave Brictius alone rather than be stricken with “une pénalité canonique.” There were few canonical punish-ments for liars; e.g., the Council of Orléans of 538, Can.9 (CCL 148A.117) decreed that liars were not excommunicated but were degraded in rank (“Si quis clericus furtum aut falsitatem admiserit, quia capitalia et ipsa sont crimina, communione concessa ab ordine regradetur”).


the extant acta directly, for it is surely signifi cant that the superscription of the Turin acta, “Sancta synodus . . . fratribus dilectissimis per Gallias et Quinque provincias constitutis,” is repeated virtually verbatim in “Placuit apostoli-cae,” Zosimus’ fi rst letter to Gaul: “Zosimus universis episcopis per Gallias et Septem provincias constitutis.”59 But it also is well known that the ipsis-sima verba of many, or perhaps even most, church councils were recorded, as at Aquileia in 381, Carthage in 411, and Chalcedon in 451, not to mention Cologne in 346.60 If complete minutes of the Council of Turin were kept, it is quite possible that Zosimus also consulted these in Rome.

This all assumes, moreever, that one can believe Zosimus at all, for Zosi-mus was citing the Council of Turin in the context of his own agendas: on the one hand, to accord extraordinary metropolitan status to Patroclus of Arles and, on the other, to smear the character of Lazarus in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Zosimus’ citations of Turin cannot be analyzed without reference to his motives and to his use of overblown rhetoric.61 For exam-ple, the tendentious nature of Zosimus’ denunciations is demonstrated by his assertion that Lazarus attacked Brictius not just at the council of Turin but also “per multa concilia.” What councils were these? Between 397, the date of Brictius’ ordination, and 417, the date of Zosimus’ letter, there survives no record, even indirectly, of any Gallic council having met—no surprise, given the political conditions for much of this period. So Zosimus’ veracity also is open to question. If Zosimus’ claim of “many councils” is false, his claims about the Council of Turin also must be treated with caution. Nor does Zosi-mus make any distinction among several councils of Turin; he rather refers to the council simply as the synodus Taurinensis.62 It thus seems that Zosimus

59 A search of law codes and text databases suggests that the only other extant use of this form of address is in the letter “Valentinae nos” of Boniface of Rome of 419: “Bonifacius episcopus Patroclo, Remigio . . . et ceteris episcopis per Gallias et Septem provincias constitutis” (PL 20.756).

60 Cologne: CCL 148.27–29. Aquileia: Gunther Gottlieb, “Das Konzil von Aquileia (381),” Annnarium historiae conciliorum 11 (1979), 287–306, J.M. Hanssens, “Il concilio di Aquileia del 381 alla luce dei documenti contemporanei,” La Scuola Cattolica 103 (1975), 562–644; Michaela Zelzer, ed., Sancti Ambrosi opera 10.3, Epistularum liber decimus: Epistulae extra collectionem. Gesta concili aquileiensis, CSEL 82 (Vienne, 1982). Carthage: Madeleine Moreau, Le dossier Marcellinus dans la correspondance de saint Augustin (Paris, 1973). Chalcedon: Eduard Schwartz, ed., Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum 2 (Berlin, 1962–1965).

61 Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 161, suggests that Zosimus could not have been so “radically inconsistent” as to refer to the same council as a “concilio gravissimorum episcoporum” and an “indebitam synodum.” But one must interpret these terms in their proper contexts. Zosimus quite easily could have accepted the personal authority of the bishops who condemned Lazarus as a liar but not the legislative authority of the council to establish ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Gaul.

62 Note Wilmart, “Concile de Turin,” 933, “l’attestation uniforme, sans trace de distinction, d’un concile de Turin, dans les quatre lettres de Zosime.”


thought there was just one council, which must be the council for which the acta survive.

All these considerations evoke once again the anomalous nature of the council: its meeting outside of its proper province, diocese, and prefecture in and of itself is an argument for a single council. There seems to be no benefi t in proposing a second, let alone a third, trek to Italy by Gallic bishops for an otherwise unknown council when the attested one already fi ts the bill. One illegal council at a particular place, one might think, was quite enough.

The Date of the Council: A Sharper FocusAccepting arguments that there was in fact only a single council of Turin, one can proceed to locate it more precisely in time. Additional, and perhaps more defi nitive, insight into the date of the council can be gained by noting that the conciliar acta were addressed to the bishops of both the northern Gallic diocese of Galliae and the southern Gallic diocese of “Quinque provinciae,” even though the term “Septem provinciae” for the southern diocese had been in use at least since the promulgation of the Notitia Galliarum in the 380s.63 So why did the Council of Turin use the form “Quinque provinciae”?64 Hith-erto, it simply has been assumed that for several decades before and after 400 the terms were interchangeable and that they therefore cannot be used to date the council.65

But it may yet be possible to unravel these overlapping usages by look-ing to secular politics. The designation “Septem provinciae” arose out of the

63 The secular Notitia Galliarum (MGH AA 9.557–600), which came to serve as the basis for Gallic ecclesiastical organization, once was thought to have been drawn up ca. 400 (Duchesne, Fastes, 1.67) but now is dated to the reign of Magnus Maximus (383–388), largely because of the presence of a new province, Maxima Senonia, named after Maximus: see Herbert Nessel-hauf, Die spätrömische Verwaltung der gallisch-germanischen Länder (Berlin, 1938), followed by Jill Harries, “Church and State in the Notitia Galliarum,” Journal of Roman Studies 68 (1978), 26–43. It listed seventeen Gallic provinces—ten in the north (“Galliae”) and seven in the south (“Septem Provinciae”), along with their respective metropolitan sees. See also André Chastagnol, “Le diocèse civil d’Aquitaine au Bas-Empire,” Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France (1970), 272–292. Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 218, taking the term “Quinque provin-ciae” too literally, suggests that the two provinces of Aquitania were excluded from receipt of the canons; he also lists a nonexistent province of “Arelatensis” in Quinque provinciae.

64 Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 359–361, makes much of terminology; Babut, “La date, 83–84, supposes that the offi cial terminology would have changed as soon as additional provinces were created.

65 E.g., Harries, “Notitia,” 34 n. 47, “The diocese of the Five Provinces could also, alas, be known as the Seven Provinces”; also Chastagnol, “Le repli,” 27–28; Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 163 n. 21. Note also the honorary inscription from Rome (CIL 6.1678) of Acilius Glabrio Sibidius signo Spedius, “Vicarius per Gallias Septem provinciarum,” dated by PLRE 1.838–839, to “after 399, since the diocese was still ‘quinque provinciarum’ [sic] then (CTh XVI 10.15).”


administrative reorganization of Magnus Maximus, whose imperial acta suff ered damnatio memoriae after his defeat and execution by Theodosius in 388.66 Offi cially, therefore, outside Gaul, as at Turin, the southern Gal-lic diocese remained Quinque provinciae, and offi cial documents would have refl ected that designation. But in Gaul, “Septem provinciae” continued to be used. Thus, the Council of Nîmes, held in either 394 or 396, had addressed its acta “Episcopis per Gallias et Septem provincias.”67 Only later was the desig-nation Septem provinciae offi cially accepted by the imperial government.68 In fact, the change can be dated rather exactly. A law of 29 January 399 (CTh 16.10.5) is addressed “Macrobio vicario Hispaniarum et Procliano vicario quinque provinciarum.” On the other hand, a law of 18 June 400 (CTh 1.15.15) refers to the “virum spectabilem vicarium Septem provinciarum.” The offi cial change of designation thus apparently occurred between those two dates. This change may have occurred at the same time that the two dioceses of Gaul were placed under a single vicarius.69 The Italians at Turin would have been well

66 CTh 15.14.7 (10 October 388), “Omne iudicium, quod . . . Maximus infandissimus tyranno-rum credidit promulgandum, damnabimus. nullus igitur sibi lege eius, nullus iudicio blandiatur.”

67 CCL 148.49–51, held on 1 October in either 394 or 396 (Arcadius and Honorius were con-suls in both years) and attended by nineteen bishops from throughout Gaul; see Griff e, Gaule 1.345–346; Duchesne, Fastes 1.366; Hefele-Leclerq, Conciles 2.91–97; Gaudemet, Conciles, 124; and Jean-Rémy Palanque, “La date du transfert de la préfecture des Gaules de Trèves à Arles,” Revue des études anciennes 36 (1934), 358–365 at 362; Idem, “Les évêchés provençaux à l’époque romaine,” Provence historique 1 (1951), 105–43 at 118; and Idem, “Dissensions,” 492.

68 Probably at the same time that Magnus Maximus’ province of “Maxima Senonia” was renamed to “Lugdunensis Senonia” (ND Occ.3).

69 It would be at best a tendentious argument to suggest that the chancery itself, which certainly knew the proper terminology, was guilty of either anticipation or anachronism. The citations in the Notitia dignitatum, however, do pose great problems of interpretation because the Notitia survives as a pastische that was updated several times. E.g., under the central administration is mentioned a “Rationalis summarum Quinque provinciarum” (11) and a “Rationalis rei privatae per Quinque provincias” (12); but for the provincial administration the Notitia refers to a “Septem provinciarum” (1), “Septem provinciae . . . Septem provinciarum XVII” (3), and a “Vicarius Sep-tem provinciarum” (22). When the Notitia was updated to refl ect the change to Septem provinciae, it apparently did not occur to the compiler to rummage about in the central administration section looking for references to Quinque provinciae. In addition, by the time of the extant edition of the Notitia, the diocese of Galliae had gone out of use, and all seventeen Gallic provinces were listed under the vicar of the Seven Provinces (3), but anachronisms remained: in some places only “Gal-liae” is cited, without any reference to the southern diocese: e.g. 1, list of consulares and praesides; also 7, 9, 11 (including Arles and Telo [Toulon]), 12, 42 (Novempopulana and “Riparensis”). Else-where the diocese of Septem provinciae includes all of Gaul (2, praetorian prefect of Gaul); and in other places both dioceses are cited (11–12). See D. Van Berchem, “On Some Chapters of the Noti-tia Dignitatum Relating to the Defence of Gaul and Britain,” AJP 76 (1955), 138–147; T.D. Barnes, “Claudian and the Notitia Dignitatum,” Phoenix 32 (1978), 81–82; M. Kulikowski, “The Notitia Dignitatum as a Historical Source,” Historia 49 (2000), 358–377. Harries, “Notitia,” 34–47, sug-gests that Quinque provinciae “may have been united with Galliae by the time of CTh 1.15.15 . . . 18 June 400,” but the letter “Valentinae nos” of Boniface of Rome, addressed “episcopis per Gallias


aware of offi cial protocols. This evidence provides a very specifi c terminus ante quem of June 400, for the assembly of the Council of Turin.70 Given the above terminus post quem of November 397, the assembly of a single Council of Turin therefore can be placed fi rmly in October 398 or 399.

The Council of Turin and Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority in GaulThis date now can off er insight into how the Council of Turin attempted to deal with issues of episcopal authority in southern Gaul, involving the bishops of Arles, Marseille, and Vienne, over who was to have ecclesiastical author-ity in the provinces of Narbonensis Secunda and Viennensis. The fi rst canon begins, “For because, fi rst of all, the blessed bishop Proculus of Marseille claims that he ought to oversee the churches, in the capacity of metropolitan, which are seen to be located in Narbonensis Secunda. . . .”71 The problem was that Proculus’ see of Marseille was not in Narbonensis at all, but in Vien-nensis.72 The council proposed to resolve this issue by permitting Proculus to retain metropolitan status, which after his death would revert to bishop of the secular metropolitan see, Aix.73

This grant of extraordinary metropolitan status to Proculus at Turin was mentioned later in Zosimus’ harangues against Proculus in 417. In a letter addressed to the bishops of Viennensis and the two Narbonenses, for exam-ple, Zosimus complains,

his presumption has angered us in particular because he thought that some-thing against the interest of the Apostolic See ought to be tricked out of the Council of Turin, when something far diff erent was being considered, in order that the deception of this council that he had perpetrated would obtain for him the right to ordain bishops, as if he were a metropolitan, in the prov-ince of Narbonensis Secunda.74

et Septem provincias constitutis” (PL 20.756), suggests that the two dioceses still maintained a separate existence, at least on paper, as of 419.

70 The use of “Quinque provinciae” also suggests that the acta were drawn up by Italians, not by Gauls, who would have used the Gallic “Septem provinciae” designation.

71 Conc.Taur., Can.1: “Nam cum primo omnium vir sanctus Proculus Massiliensis episcopus civita-tis se tamquam metropolitanum ecclesiis quae in secunda provincia Narbonensi positae videbantur diceret praesse debere.”

72 This separation had happened when Narbonensis II was carved out of Viennensis circa the 370s; see Mathisen, Factionalism, 22–25.

73 Conc.Taur., Can.1: “Haec igitur ipsi tantum in die vitae eius forma servabitur.”74 Zos. Epist. “Multa contra veterem” (29 September 417) (MGH Epist. 3.11 = PL 20.665–

666): “Attamen illa praesumptio nos admodum movit, quod in synodo Taurinensi, cum longe aliud ageretur, in apostolicae sedis iniuriam subripiendum putavit, ut sibi concilii illius emendicata


And in another letter addressed at the same time to Patroclus of Arles, Zosi-mus asserts, “Proculus crept into this [metropolitan] rank, furtively usurped at an improper synod.”75 It would appear that Zosimus considered the synod to be “indebita” because it was not held under the aegis of rhe bishop of Rome.76 All of which also confi rms, again, that Zosimus was referring to the council for which the acta survive, not to some other council.

A thornier problem was related to who would have metropolitan status in Viennensis, an issue that, in turn, is directly connected to a scholarly contro-versy relating to secular jurisdiction in Viennensis. During the fourth century, Vienne had been the secular metropolitan city in Viennensis; it certainly was such in the 380s, the date of the Notitia Galliarum.77 But not long afterward, and certainly by the teens of the fi fth century, the seat of the praetorian prefect of Gaul had been withdrawn from Trier to Arles, giving extraordinary status to Arles and making it, perhaps, the new metropolitan city of Viennensis.

The change in the secular status of Arles meant that the bishop of the city could challenge the bishop of Vienne for metropolitan status in Viennensis, giving rise to another of the issues discussed at Turin: Canon 2 claims that the bishops of Arles and Vienne “de primatus apud nos honore certabant” (“con-tended in our presence about the honor of the primacy”). In an attempt to deal with this issue, the Italian bishops fi rst reiterated canon law, stating, “Which-ever of these can prove that his city is the metropolis shall obtain the honor of the primacy of the whole province.”78 But they then went on to propose an absolutely unprecedented, and completely uncanonical, solomonic division of the province:

Indeed, in order to maintain the bond of peace, by this more useful plan it is decreed, if it is pleasing to the bishops of the aforementioned cities, that each

praestaret obreptio ordinandorum sacerdotum, veluti metropolitano, in Narbonensi Secunda pro-vincia potestatem.”

75 Zos. Epist. “Quid de Proculi” (26 September 417) (MGH Epist. 3.10–11 = PL 20.668–669): “Unde metropolitani in te dignitatem atque personam etiam apostolicae sedis auctoritate con-sidera, in quem furtive locum per indebitam synodum Proculus usurpatum irrepserat.”

76 For the suggestion that a second council of Turin in 417 was held in direct opposition to Zosi-mus’ initiatives to increase the status of Arles, see S. Mratschek, “Die abgebrochene Bischofsliste bei Gregor von Tours—ein vergessenes Zeugnis antipäpstlicher Propaganda,” Studia patristica 43 (2006), 441–449.

77 MGH AA 9.557–600; see Duchesne, Fastes 1.67; Harries, “Notitia,” passim; A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964; repr. Baltimore, 1986), 712–715; Nesselhauf, “Verwaltung”; and A. Rivet, “The Notitia Galliarum: Some Questions,” in Roger Goodburn, Philip Bartholomew, eds., Aspects of the Noti-tia Dignitatum (London, 1976), 119–141.

78 Conc.Taur., Can.2 (CCL 148.55–56): “Qui ex his approbaverit suam civitatem esse metropo-lim, is totius provinciae honorem primatus obtineat.”


should appropriate for himself the nearer of the cities within the province, and should visit those churches that he understands to be nearer to his own town, with the result that, mindful of unanimity and concord, one might no longer disturb the other by usurping to himself that which belongs to the other.79

The cities subordinated to each see, however, were left unnamed, as were the two bishops. The reason for this unusual step must have been that at the time when the council met, it was impossible to ascertain which of the two cities was the secular metropolis. This only could have been the case if the seat of the prae-torian prefect already had been moved to Arles and had given Arles de facto, if not indeed de iure, metropolitan status. And this must mean that the transfer of the prefecture, which is not directly dated in the sources, must have preceded the Council of Turin.80

Hitherto, discussion of the transfer date has focused on ca.395 and on 407.81 And because a date of 407 for the transfer would render impossible a date of 398/399 for the council, supporters of a late transfer date are obliged by necessity to support a late date for the council. Arguments for 407 are based primarily on historical probablilty: the transfer must have occurred, the argument goes, as a result of the crossing of the Rhine by barbarians at the end of 406 and the revolt of Constantine III in the next year.82 But aside from this argument from historical hindsight, it is diffi cult to fi nd corroborating evidence for 407.

79 Conc.Taur., Can.2 (CCL 148.55–56): “Certe ad pacis vinculum conservandum hoc consilio utiliore decretum est, ut si placet memoratarum urbium episcopis, unaquaeque de his viciniores sibi intra provinciam vindicet civitates, atque eas ecclesias visitet quas oppidis suis proximas magis esse constiterit, ita ut memores unanimitatis atque concordiae, non alter alterum longius sibi usurpando quod est alii proprium inquietet.” The “pacis vinculum” is a reference to shared communion.

80 For the date of the council as a terminus ante quem for the transfer, see Palanque, “Les dissen-sions,” 488; also Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 163, “That the council must post-date the transfer is now dogma.”

81 For ca. 395, see Palanque, “La date”; Idem, “Du nouveau sur la date du transfert de la pré-fecture des Gaules de Trèves à Arles?” Provence historique 23 (1973), 19–38, followed, e.g., by Griff e, Gaule 1.337; Nesselhauf, “Verwaltung”; Stroheker, Adel,19–20,43; Zeller, “Zeit,” 91–92, Mathisen, Factionalism, 18–19; Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376–568 (Cambridge, 2007), 209. For 407, see André Chastagnol, “Le repli sur Arles des services administratifs gaulois en l’an 407 de notre ère,” Revue historique 249 (1973), 23–40; followed by Matthews, Aristocracies, 333 n. 1, Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 163–164. J.F. Drinkwater, “The Usurpers Constantine III (407–411) and Jovinus (411–413),” Britannia 29 (1998), 269–298 at 274, suggests that Chastagnol’s date “has received wide, but not total, acceptance.”

82 E.g., Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 164, “A response to the collapse of the Rhine frontier” and “forced out . . . by the usurper Constantine”; Matthews, Western Aristocracies, 333 n. 1, “in the wake of the invasions of late 406.”


The most often-cited piece of evidence for a later transfer is the epitaph of the Roman senator Eventius, who died at the age of forty-four in the sum-mer of 407: “Here lies buried one who once, with a distinguished name, pled cases and deserved to be enrolled in the Senate, and not long afterward he spoke law at Vienne and then, a journey to Italy in order to be loaded with great honor.”83 Supporters of a date of 407 for the withdrawal of the prefec-ture have argued not only that Eventius must have been serving as Consularis Viennensis in 407, but even that “he left his post hastily before Constan-tine’s advance and fl ed to Rome.”84 But the inscription in fact says nothing at all either about the date of Eventius’ governorship or about a fl ight to Italy; indeed, it speaks rather of a triumphal return to Rome with expectations of further advancement.85 In addition, the Eventius argument also presumes that the seat of the consular governor at Vienne would have been moved to Arles at the same time as the prefecture was moved there from Trier. But one reason for supposing that this was not the case is that if the seat of the governor had moved too, the claim of the bishop of Vienne to metropolitan status would have been weakened.86 The epitaph of Eventius, therefore, even if it does indicate that at some point before 407 Vienna still was the provincial capital of Viennensis, tells us nothing about the date of the transfer of the prefecture.87

If arguments based on historical probability are put aside, a much stron-ger case can be made for a transfer of the prefecture ca. 395. For one thing, the transfer already would have happened by the time that the distinguished Roman senator Q. Aurelius Symmachus wrote to his friend Protadius at some time before Symmachus’ death in 402, “Perchance you might consider that

83 AE 1953.200, 1958.210: “Hic situs est claro quondam qui nomine causas / oravit meruitque pater conscribtus haberi / nec longo post aevo dixit iura Viennae / inde iter Italiam magno cumu-landus honore . . . bis vicenos vixit quarto recessit in anno . . . Aug(ustis) dd(ominis) nn(ostris) Honorio VII et Theodosio II Augg(ustis) co(n)ss(ulibus)”;. See PLRE 2.413; Henri-Irenée Marrou, “L’épitaphe vaticane du consulaire de Vienne Eventius,” REA 54 (1952), 326–331, repr. in Idem, Melanges d’histoire, d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et de patristique (Rome, 1978), 105–110.

84 Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 164, following Chastagnol, “Le repli.” Caveat expressed, however, by Bruno Bleckmann, “Der Barbareneinfall von 406 und die Erhebung des Usurpators Con-stantinus III,” in L. Ruscu et al., Orbis Antiquus: Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (Cluj-Napoca, 2004), 41–44 at 44, “Möglicherweise, aber nicht zwingend, weil er von Constantinus III aus Vienne vertrieben worden war.” Drinkwater, “Constantine III,” 276, is even more emphatic: “This is hardly satisfactory.” Another Consularis Viennensis around this time was Claudius Postumus Dardanus, who afterward served as praetorian prefect of Gaul at some point shortly before 407, probably just before or after Petronius (PLRE 2.346–347).

85 Some offi cials, however, are known to have fl ed to Italy, including the Gallic prefect Limenius and the master of soldiers Chariobaudes; see PLRE 2.684, 283 respectively, also Zos. 5.32.4, and Soz. 9.4.7.

86 As Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 489. 87 E.g., Matthews, Western Aristocracies, 333, “not sure that the epitaph . . . can be pressed into

service as evidence.”


no one of our party goes to the neighborhood of the Rhine, from which the best ruler and the most powerful magistrate are now absent. Or does anyone, unknown to me, undertake such a journey on private business?”88 On the face of it, this letter would seem to be saying that by 402 at the latest, both the emperor (“optimus princeps”) and the praetorian prefect of Gaul (“mag-istratus potissimus”) no longer visited Trier. This certainly would have been the case with the emperor, who after residing regularly in Trier during much of the fourth century into the 380s now resided in Italy.89 It also would have been true of the praetorian prefect of Gaul if the prefecture already had been transferred to Arles.

In an attempt to vitiate this striking piece of evidence, supporters of 407 as the date for the transfer argue that the “optimus princeps” and “magistra-tus potissimus” refer not to the emperor and praetorian prefect in general, but specifi cally to Honorius and to Stilicho, master of soldiers.90 But this argu-ment provides no justifi cation for what signifi cance there might have been for the absence of Honorius, whose presence never would have been expected in Trier, and of Stilicho from the neighborhood of the Rhine at this or any time. Nor does it engage with Symmachus’ express statement that the only reason now to visit the area of the Rhine would be on private, as opposed to public, business, a comment that is very consistent with the important offi ces of the secular administration already having been withdrawn.

Nor does this argument consider the broader circumstantial context of Sym-machus’ relationship with Protadius, who was himself a native of Trier. Sym-machus elsewhere commented to him, “You do not spend time in the same places, given that you travel between Trier, for reason of civic responsibility, and Quinque provinciae, out of a desire for leisure.”91 In addition, Protadius and his two brothers Minervius and Florentius all had traveled to Rome ca. 395 and obtained high-ranking offi ces, Minervius as magister offi ciorum ca.395, comes rei privatae in 397–398, and comes sacrarum largitionum in 398/399; Florentinus as quaestor sacri palatii ca. 395 and praefectus urbi in 395–397; and Protadius as praefectus urbi in 400/401.92 In light of Symmachus’ obser-vation, and given that all three brothers seem to have left Gaul at the same

88 Symm. Epist. 4.28, “Si contempleris ad viciniam Rheni, a qua nunc et optimus princeps et magistratus potissimus abest, nullum nostrarum partium commeare. fors fuat, an quis tantum viae ob rem privatam mihi ignoratus adripiat”; see PLRE 1.751–752.

89 Thus Palanque, “La date,” 360, and others who support a date for the transfer in the 390s.90 E.g., Chastagnol, “Le repli,” 27–28, followed by Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 163. 91 Symm. Epist. 4.30: “Tu non iisdem sedibus immoraris, dum aut Treviros civica religione aut

Quinque Provincias otii voluntate commutas.” Symmachus uses here the proper Italian reference, “Quinque Provinciae,” that also was used at Turin, indicating that this letter likewise was written before June 400.

92 All in PLRE 1, s.v. For Protadius’ offi ce-holding in Rome, see Chastagnol, “Le Repli,” 27–28.


time, it might not be too much to suggest that their transfer from Trier to Rome ca. 395 was connected to the some kind of generalized withdrawal. It would appear, then, that at some point before 402 the highest level of the Gal-lic administration was withdrawn from Trier, and that ambitious Gauls now found it advantageous to seek their fortunes in Italy.93

Further evidence against a date of 407 comes from the observation that the transfer must have occurred before the establishment at Arles of a dioc-esan council, the Concilium Septem provinciarum, which presupposed the presence there of the praetorian prefect of Gaul.94 In a famous constitution dated 17 April 418 that begins with the words “Saluberrima magnifi centiae,” the council was revived, and Arles was specifi cally named as the metropolitan city of Viennensis.95 The reenabling legislation stated, “Because indeed the vir inlustris prefect Petronius already commanded that this should be observed, we order to be restored that which has been blighted either by carelessness of the times or by the idleness of the tyrants.”96 This makes it clear that a council of this nature already had been established before the occupation of Arles by Constantine III ca. 408.97 Specifi cally, it initially had been created during the prefecture of Petronius, attested as vicarius Hispaniarum 395–397

93 A move that Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, 209, suggests may have been prefi gured as of 388, when the court of Valentinian II was established in Vienne. Note also Valeria Vincentia, age twenty-seven, whose body was removed by her husband Fabius Maianus from Trier to the tomb of her ancestors at Pavia at just about this time, on which see Emilio Gabba, G. Tibiletti, “Una signora di Treviri sepolta a Pavia,” Athenaeum 38 (1960), 253–262.

94 The concept of diocesan councils had been introduced as early as 382; see CTh 12.12.9 (382): “Ad provinciales. Sive integra dioecesis in commune consulerit sive singulae inter se voluerint provin-ciae convenire.”

95 Epist. “Saluberrima magnifi centiae” = Epist.arel. 8 (MGH Epist. 3.13–15; Gustav F. Hänel, ed., Corpus legum ab imperatoribus romanis ante lustinianum latarum, quae extra constitutio-num codices supersunt (Leipzig, 1857–1860; repr. Aalen, 1965), no.1171, p.238): “Honorius et Theodosius Augusti v.i. Agricolae praefecto Galliarum. Saluberrima magnifi centiae tuae sugges-tione . . . observanda provincialibus nostris, id est, per septem provincias . . . decernimus . . . de singulis civitatibus, non solum de provinciis singulis, ad examen magnifi centiae tuae vel honoratos confl uere, vel mitti legatos, aut possessorum utilitas, aut publicarum ratio exigat functionum . . . ut servata posthac quotannis singulis consuetudine, constituto tempore, in metropolitana, id est in Arelatensi urbe, incipiant septem provinciae habere concilium . . . data XV Kal. Maias, accepta Arel. X Kal. Junias. dd.nn. Honorio XII et Theodosio VIII Augg. coss.” The new indiction cycle that began in 417 also might have been a factor in this initiative at normalization.

96 Epist. “Saluberrima magnifi centiae”: “Siquidem hoc . . . iam et vir illustris praefectus Petro-nius observari debere praeceperit: quod interpolatum vel incuria temporum, vel desidia tyranno-rum, reparari solita prudentiae nostrae auctoritate decernimus.”

97 See Mathisen, Factionalism, 28–32; W. Lütkenhaus, Constantius III. Studien zu seiner Tätig-keit und Stellung im Westreich 411–421 (Bonn, 1998), 115, 119, describes Petronius’ initiative as “eine ähnliche Einrichtung.”


and praetorian prefect of Gaul between 402 and 407.98 A date of 407 for the transfer of the prefecture thus would mean that both the transfer and the establishment of the council might just possibly have been squeezed into a very short period, at the end of 407, at a time when Gaul was suff ering both barbarian invasions and a usurpation.99 Given that the council was created in an eff ort to bring a return to normality, not as an emergency response to the invasions and usurpation, there simply seems to be no context for it in 407. Thus, supporters of a late date for the transfer of the prefecture have some diffi culty dealing with this original establishment of the council.100

In addition, even though the context would seem to suggest so, “Salu-berrima” does not specifi cally say that the council established by Petronius was the Concilium Septem provinciarum at Arles. This has given rise to sug-gestions that the council established under Petronius met somewhere else. It always has been understood that the establishment of the council was con-nected with the withdrawal of the prefecture from Trier: no one, it seems, has supposed that Petronius established a council that met in Trier. But primarily on the basis of a statement by Claudian—that after the Visigothic invasion of Italy in 402, Honorius contemplated fl eeing Milan to set up the imperial court on the Sâone or Rhône River in Gaul—it has been suggested that the seat of the prefecture initially was removed not to Arles but to Lyon, and that Petronius’ council was established there.101 This diocesan council would have been a Concilium Galliarum, that is, a council of the northern diocese of

98 PLRE 2.862–863. Vicar: CTh 4.6.5 (397), 4.21.1 (395), 4.22.5 (397), 12.1.151 (396). The offi ce was occupied by Macrobius as of January, 399 (CTh 16.10.15); as praetorian prefect he received CJ 11.74.3 under Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II, that is, between 402 and 408; 408, however, would seem to be eliminated because by that time Gaul was controlled by Constantine III. For the suggestion that Petronius later became bishop of Bologna, see R.W. Mathisen, “Petronius, Hilarius and Valerianus: Prosopographical Notes on the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy,” Historia 30 (1981), 106–112 at 110.

99 As Chastagnol, “Le repli,” 29. 100 Thus, Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 163–164, who sensibly acknowledges that “this recon-

struction . . . ... compresses the time-frame too tightly” and is “not entirely plausible,” minimizes the initial establishment under Petronius, suggesting simply “some attempt at setting up a similar council” and “reforms begun by Petronius.” But “Saluberrima magnifi centiae” is very clear that a council that already had been established was to be restored. Cogently Drinkwater, “Constantine III,” 277: “It is highly unlikely that major changes in the western administrative structure would have been begun during the troubles which Gaul found herself in from early 407.” And Lütken-haus, Constantius III, 115, asks but does not answer the question of what circumstances “zu Stili-chos Zeiten” might have led to the establishment of the council.

101 Claud. Bell.Goth. 296–300: “Quid turpes iam mente fugas, quid Gallica rura / respicitis Latioque libet post terga relicto / longinquum profugis Ararim praecingere castris? / scilicet Arctois concessa gentibus urbe / considet regnum Rhodano capitique superstes / truncus erit?”; see Drink-water, “Constantine III,” 274–276, followed by Lütkenhaus, Constantius III, 119.


Galliae,102 akin, it has been suggested, to the old Concilium Galliarum of the Principate, which met at Lyon and embraced all of Gaul.103

This hypothesis, however, has several problems. One might wonder, fi rst, whether the distant memory of a long-vanished regional council at Lyon would have been enough to justify setting up another one in vastly diff erent political conditions. In addition, there is no direct indication in “Saluberrima” that the council of 418 was in any signifi cant way diff erent from that of ca. 402/407. But the clearest evidence against this hypothesis, and in support of a transfer of the prefecture from Trier directly to Arles in the mid 390s, is the now fi xed date of Turin in 398/399: for the controversy between Arles and Vienne over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in southern Gaul to have any legal basis, the transfer would have had to predate the Council of Turin.104 A date for the transfer of the prefecture in the mid 390s, therefore, must stand.

There remains, however, the question of just why the transfer would have occurred in the mid-390s, as opposed to the more dramatic date of 407. Although administrative changes often are made for rather pedestrian reasons that leave little or no record in the sources, a possible scenario nonetheless can be sug-gested. Ever since the Tetrarchy, Trier had been an imperial capital, decked out with other apparatus of government, including, as of ca. 337, the offi ces of the praetorian prefect of Gaul. Emperors, including Constantine I (306–337), Constantine II (337–340), Valentinian I (364–375), and Gratian (367–383) had held court at Trier. The most recent imperial resident was Magnus Maximus (383–388). After the defeat of Maximus in 388, the imperial court of Valen-tinian II was reestablished not in Trier, but in Vienne, where it remained until Valentinian’s death in 392.105 Nor did the imperial court ever return to Trier. Maintaining Trier as a center of imperial administration had become an anach-ronism, instituted for the diff erent circumstances of a diff erent time.

Any immediate administrative restructuring in Gaul was forestalled by the usurpation of Eugenius (392–394). But soon after his defeat, structural change began with the withdrawal of the capital of the Gallic prefecture from Trier to Arles and the diocesan capital established perhaps at Vienne. Doing so only made good administrative sense. Trier no longer was an imperial court,

102 There was absolutely no tradition of multidiocesan councils, so Septem provinciae would have been left out, just as Galliae was left out of the Concilium Septem provinciarum.

103 Drinkwater, “Constantine III,” 277, a gathering point for “all the northern provinces”; he also suggests that it met a single time, in 407, before falling into desuetude.

104 Given that in discussion above the date of the Council of Turin was established without any reference to the date of the transfer, it can be used here as evidence for the date of the transfer with no whiff of circular argumentation; contra Drinkwater, “Constantine III,” 274, “the Turin-problem has proved too controversial . . . to provide any reliable help in the discussion over the move from Trier.”

105 See Greg.Tur. Hist. 2.9; Zos. 4.53.


which in and of itself signaled a Roman withdrawal from the north. The ces-sation of coinage at Trier at this time also suggests a signifi cant administrative transformation.106 Arles, on the other hand, was more central for administer-ing Gaul and Spain, and had much better communications with the impe-rial capital in Milan. The arguments made by the imperial government for reestablishing the annual meetings of the Concilium Septem provinciarum at Arles in 418 just as well could have been made for the transfer of the prefec-ture in the mid 390s:

Indeed, there is such a great suitability of the site, such an abundance of com-merce, such a great multitude of travelers there, that whatever issue might arise anywhere is more easily untangled there. . . . Now, truly, the downward course of the Rhône and the upfl ow from the Tyrrhenian Sea necessarily make neighboring and nearly coterminous that which the one fl ows by and the other fl ows around.107

None of these claims for the suitability and central location of Arles could be made about Trier. Thus there is no need to attribute any drama to the change, which seems rather to have arisen simply from an understandable desire to consolidate imperial services to suit contemporary administrative require-ments. Other elements of restructuring, as discussed above, soon followed. Quite possibly the transfer of the seat of the prefecture was such a signifi cant administrative realignment that it triggered a cascade of additional reforms.

The preceding analysis permits the tentative recovery of a connected sequence of events involving modifi cations to the secular and ecclesiastical administration in Gaul as of the mid-390s:

(1) Ca. 395: headquarters of the praetorian prefect of Gaul are trans-ferred from Trier to Arles.

(2) October 398 or 399: the Council of Turin attempts to realign eccle-siastical jurisdiction in Viennensis to match the secular realignment.

(3) Between January 399 and June 400: the Gallic administrative struc-ture is revised to acknowledge the provincial reorganization of Magnus

106 A last rare issue of tiny copper coins in the names of Honorius and Arcadius is dated to 395; see J.P.C. Kent, ed., The Roman Imperial Coinage,vol. 10, The Divided Empire and the Fall of the Western Parts A.D. 395–491 (London, 1994), 329. Edith Wightman, Roman Trier and the Trev-eri (London, 1970), 68; Drinkwater, “Constantine III,” 277; Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, 209.

107 Epist. “Saluberrima magnifi centiae”: “Tanta enim loci opportunitas, tanta est copia com-merciorum, tanta illic frequentia commeantium, ut quidquid usquam nascitur, illic commodius distrahatur . . . Iam vero decursus Rhodani et Tirrheni recursus, necesse est ut vicinum faciant ac pene conterminum, vel quod iste praeterfl uit vel ille quod circuit.”


Maximus, and Quinque provinciae becomes Septem provinciae. At the same time, the fi nancial role of the vicarius Septem provinciarium is refi ned in CTh 1.15.15 (18 June 400): “We command the vir spec-tabilis vicar of the Seven Provinces to exact payment of what remains from past time, but recent debts we command the regular provincial governors to expedite, whom it nonetheless is fi tting for the vicar to oversee.”108 This apparent lightening of the burden of the vicar of the Seven Provinces might have resulted from the unifi cation of the two Gallic dioceses under a single vicar;109

(4) 25 June 401: An additional eff ort to regularize the taxation of the Gallic prefecture is made by canceling back taxes from prior to 386 and opening to negotiation outstanding taxes between 386 and 395, perhaps an acknowledgment that the collection of old debts assigned to the vicar of the Seven Provinces was ineff ective.110

(5) Ca. 402/405: the Concilium Septem provinciarum at is established at Arles under the auspices of the praetorian prefect of Gaul, Petro-nius; at the same time, Petronius is ordered to continue eff orts to reg-ularize the taxation system.111

These continuing eff orts to reorganize the administration of Gaul would have been brought to a halt by the disruptions of 406–418 involving both bar-barian settlements and usurpations.

The Council of Turin and Ecclesiastical Authority in ItalyThe establishment of a date of 398 or 399 for a single Council of Turin also per-mits some hypotheses to be made relating to ecclesiastical authority in northern

108 CTh 1.15.15: “Virum spectabilem vicarium septem provinciarum reliqua praeteriti temporis exigere iubemus, recentia vero debita ordinarios iudices maturare decernimus, quibus tamen vicarium convenit imminere.”

109 See n. 69 above.110 CTh 11.28.3, addressed to Andromachus, praetorian prefect of Gaul (see PLRE 1.64–65):

“Omnium titulorum . . . reliqua universa concedimus. atque ut ipsa memoria reliquorum intercidat, chartas omnes, sive quas tabularii civitatum sive offi cia iudicum sive offi cium palatinum sive discus-sores habent, quibus tamen eius temporis et debitorum nomina et debita continentur, undique in medium congregatas palam fl ammis iubemus aboleri. post consulatum vero mansuetudinis nostrae, id est a prima indictione [386], in consulatum Olybrii et Probini [395] omnium reliquorum exactio-nem suspendi oportere censemus.”

111 CJ 11.74.3: “Omnia praedia . . . ab huiusmodi privilegiis et excusationibus submoveantur, ut omnes species annonarias, cursitationes etiam debitas atque integram opinionem sciant esse solvendam. Arcad. et Honor. et Theodos. AAA. Petronio pp.” For a possible connection of the establishment of the council with the beginning of the new indiction cycle in 402, which certainly would have been related to tax collection eff orts, see Stein, Geschichte, 409–410.


Italy, and in particular, the question of why a council dealing with the Gallic church met in Italy and was adjudicated by Italian bishops. Previous attempts to unravel this mystery have been unsatisfactory. For example, the suggestion that Gallic bishops held a council in Italy because of troubled times is counter-intuitive, for periods of unrest involving both usurpations and unpredictable barbarian movements were hardly the appropriate times for undertaking long-distance journeys through alpine passes.112 Nor does this scenario indicate what authority Italians would have had for intervening in Gaul.

Other suggestions more reasonably relate to issues of ecclesiastical author-ity, involving just why Italian bishops might have had or claimed to have any authority over the Gallic church. But there has been no consensus. Babut presumed that northern Italian bishops, including the bishop of Milan, would not have dared to do anything contrary to the will of the bishop of Rome.113 Duchesne went so far as to suggest that “the quarrel of the Provençal bishops scarcely interested northern Italian bishops.”114

But in point of fact, in the years leading up to Turin, Ambrose of Milan, as bishop of an imperial city, had exercised an infl uence that did extend into Gaul. Gallic bishops had attended northern Italian councils in the past. Ambrose himself had assembled a pro-Nicene synod at Aquileia in 381. He began the meeting by stating, “Our deliberations must be authorized by an imperial writ,” and the imperial letter then was duly read: “We order the bish-ops to meet in Aquileia, a city in the diocese entrusted to the merits of Your Excellency.”115 Ambrose in fact rather exceeded his brief, for although the imperial writ indicated that he was granted authority only in the northern Ital-ian diocese of Italia (or Italia Annonaria), in which Milan lay, he also invited bishops from the Gallic dioceses, including Amantius of Nice, Constantius of Orange, Dominus of Grenoble, Proculus of Marseille, and Theodorus of Octodurum in Quinque provinciarum, and Justus of Lyon from Galliae.116 He

112 Suggested by Kulikowski, “Two Councils,” 168, “for safety’s sake”; also Drinkwater, “Con-stantine III,” “emergency discussion . . . on relatively safe and neutral ground.”

113 Babut, “La date,” 76: “c’est ce qui est monstrueux et sans example. Une pareille attitude eut été simplement schismatique.”

114 Duchesne, “Le concile,” 292 n.; cf. 283–285.115 Gest.conc.Aquil. 3 (PL 16.916–917): “Disceptationes nostrae ex re fi rmandae sunt scripto

imperiali . . . convenire in Aquileiensium civitatem ex dioecesi meritis excellentiae tuae creditam, episcopos iusseramus.” Gauthier, “L’episcopato,” 176–177, suggests that Ambrose intervened in northern Italy “senza rispettare i privilegi degli altri metropolitani della regione,” and notes a similar role played by the bishops of Trier when the emperor was resident there.

116 Elsewhere the emperors noted that Ambrose was to summon only “sacerdotes vicinarum ex Italia civitatum”: PL 16.917. For the Gallic bishops, three of whom (Constantius, Proculus, and Justus) were described as “legatus Gallorum,” see PL 16.939; two “legati Afrorum” from Africa also attended. A subsequent letter announcing the results of the council, Amb. Epist. 9, was


even boldly asserted, contrary to the imperial order, that “because in earlier times a council was managed thus, so that the easterners met in the east and westerners in the west, we who are located in the west assembled at the city of Aquileia according to the imperial precept”—when the imperial precept had said no such thing.117 All of which attests not only to Ambrose’s overween-ing desire to extend the infl uence of the see of Milan but also to his tactic of claiming imperial authorization for doing so. It seems that he tactfully refrained, however, from inviting bishops from the southern Italian diocese of Suburbicaria (or Italia Suburbicaria), which was under the hegemony of the bishop of Rome.118

Shortly thereafter, Gallic Priscillianists appealed to the bishops of both Rome and Milan, attesting to the preeminent status of both sees in Italy.119 Soon afterward, in his famous letter of 390 to Theodosius about the massa-cre at Thessalonica, Ambrose noted that the matter had been discussed at a council that had met “on account of the arrival of Gallic bishops.”120 Ambrose conveyed no idea, however, of what the concerns of these Gallic bishops were. A date in the late 390s for the Council of Turin thus puts the council squarely within the context of attempts of the bishop of Milan to extend his authority not just over northern Italy but into Gaul as well.

Even after the death of Ambrose in 397, the emperor continued to reside in Milan. Indeed, between 395 and 401, western legislation was issued almost exclusively at Milan, attesting to the continued role of Milan as the western imperial capital.121 Occasional laws also were issued during this period at other places in northern Italy, as at Pavia, Brescia, Verona, Altino, Ravenna, and Aquileia.122 The presence of the emperor throughout northern Italy

addressed “episcopis Galliarum provinciae Viennensis et Narbonensis primae et secundae”; it is unclear if copies were sent to the bishops of other parts of Gaul.

117 Gest.conc.Aquil.7 (PL 16.918): “Quia superioribus temporibus concilium sic factum est, ut Orientales in Orientis partibus constituti haberent concilium, Occidentales in Occidente, nos in Occidentis partibus constituti convenimus ad Aquileiensium civitatem, iuxta imperatoris praeceptum.”

118 For the dioceses, see Ausbüttel, Verwaltung.119 According to Sulp.Sev. Chron. 2.48.5: “Hi [Priscillian et alii] ubi Romam pervenere, Damaso

se purgare cupientes, ne in conspectum quidem eius admissi sunt. regressi Mediolanum aeque adversantem sibi Ambrosium reppererunt”; reprised at Hyd. Chron. s.a.386.

120 Amb. Epist. 51 (PL 16.1211): “Propter adventum Gallorum episcoporum synodus convenerat.” 121 G. Hänel, Codices Gregorianus, Hermogenianus, Theodosianus (Bonn, 1842–1844),

1685–1714.122 Pavia: CTh 7.13.13 (24 September 397), 16.10.17–18, 16.11.1 (24 October 399). Brescia: CTh

14.10.3 (6 June 399), 16.2.34 (25 June 399), 11.30.61 (19 August 400). Verona: CTh 11.30.59 (12 June 399). Altino: CTh 14.15.5 (4 September 399), 1.12.7 etc. (27 September 399). Ravenna: CTh 2.8.24 etc. (4 February 400), 16.5.37 (24 February 400), 9.38.10 (6 August 400), 11.20.3 (5 Octo-ber 400), 11.1.27 (13 November 400). Aquileia: CTh 6.19.1 (28 September 400).


during this period would have given these bishops a collective sense of self-consciousness and authority that would only have encouraged them to enter-tain appeals from other bishops or to intrude their authority elsewhere.

Given Ambrose’s own eff orts to increase the infl uence of the see of Milan and the continued imperial presence there, it is no surprise that Ambrose’s successor, Simplicianus, an elderly priest in Ambrose’s church who had been chosen bishop with Ambrose’s approval, continued to aggrandize the infl u-ence of the see.123 His eff orts to do so can only tentatively be reconstructed, as their very nature would have put him at odds with the bishop of Rome. For example, a canon from the Council of Carthage of 13 August 397 reported consultations with Siricius of Rome and Simplicianus of Milan regarding infants baptized by Donatists.124 Moreover, at the Council of Toledo in 400 Simplicianus was cited twice as an authority, but the bishop of Rome was left unnamed, as at Turin.125

The assembly at this time of a council at Turin to consider Gallic appeals would have been very consistent with Simplicianus’ eff orts to expand the infl u-ence of the see of Milan outside Italy. If the council is placed in this context, some further insight begins to emerge regarding why the bishops at Turin purported not to know which bishop of Rome had written the letter that they cited in Canon 6.126 Was the failure to name him simply an oversight? That hardly seems possible, not when the letter was being cited as an authority. A diff erent scenario, perhaps, is that the authors of the canons knew very well who the bishop of Rome was but disingenously declined to identify him at the same time that they did name Ambrose, just as the bishops at Toledo would do a year or two later, when they failed to name the bishop of Rome but did name Simplicianus. One might wonder whether this was done in an eff ort to magnify the status of the bishop of Milan.

This cavalier treatment of the bishop of Rome might have been encour-aged by the advanced age, and perhaps failing health, of Siricius of Rome, who indeed died very shortly afterward, on 26 November 399. Siricius’ successor,

123 Paul.Aquil. VAmbrosii 46: “Erat enim Simplicianus aevi maturus”; see, e.g., Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 496: under Simplicianus “l’élan ainsi donné a produit encore ses eff ets.”

124 CCL 149.186: “Consulamus fratres et consacerdotes nostros Siricium et Simplicianum.” Sim-plicianus’ connections to Africa would have gone back to his friendship with Augustine when the latter was in Milan: Aug. Conf. 8.1.1, 8.2.3–4, 8.5.10 (386); Aug. De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum (396); Aug. Epist. 37 (397); also Gennad. Vir.ill. 37: “Simplicianus, episcopus Mediolanensis, multis epistolis hortatus est Augustinum adhuc presbyterum, agitare ingenium, et expositionibus scripturarum vacare, ut etiam novus quidam Ambrosius . . . videretur.”

125 “Expectantes pari exemplo, quid papa nunc est, quid sanctus Simplicianus Mediolanensis episcopus . . . rescribant. . . . Per papam vel per Simplicianum communio redditur”: Chadwick, Priscillian, 238–239; Mansi, Collectio, 3.1006–1007.

126 Conc.Taur., Can.6: “Litteras . . . Romanae ecclesiae sacerdotis.”


Anastasius, was in offi ce barely two years, but fortuitously one of his two surviving letters is addressed to Simplicianus. It not only uncritically accepts Theophilus of Alexandria’s condemnation of Origenism but also, and prob-ably more to the point, attempts to assert the preeminent authority of the bishop of Rome:

I am situated in Rome, which the fi rst of the apostles, glorious Peter, estab-lished and confi rmed by his faith. . . . Truly, if any other things were put forth by Origen you should know that they are to be equally condemned (scias esse damnata) along with their author.127

The peremptory tone of the newly elected Anastasius, undoubtedly meant to mimic the format of imperial constitutions addressed to subordinate offi cials,128 likely is a manifestation of the contemporary struggle for author-ity going on between these two powerful prelates. The pointed failure to name the bishop of Rome at Turin thus would have been well suited to the personal and political context of the times, with the bishop of Milan asserting his own authority in Italy to the extent that he openly disregarded the bishop of Rome.

Thus at the end of the fourth century the authority of the bishop of Milan still competed with or even outshone that of the bishop of Rome. The ambi-tious Simplicianus died in 400/401, to be succeeded by the deacon Venerius (400/401–408), another of Ambrose’s clerics, who likewise was consulted, along with Anastasius of Rome, by the African bishops, this time at the Council of Carthage of 16 June 401.129

Subsequently the infl uence of the see of Milan precipitously declined. After 402 the emperor only rarely visited Milan. Only one later extant law was issued there.130 The preferred cities of imperial residence became Rome and, in particular, Ravenna. As a consequence, during the pontifi cate of Innocent (401–417), the son of Anastasius, the authority of the see of Rome increased.131 After the Council of Turin, there survive no further examples of northern Ital-

127 Anastasius apud Jer. Epist. 95: “Nos in urbe Roma positi, quam princeps apostolorum statuit et fi de sua confi rmavit gloriosus Petrus . . . verum et si qua alia sunt ab Origene exposita, cum suo auctore pariter a nobis scias esse damnata.” On Origenism at this time, see Rowan Williams, “Ori-gen: Between Orthodoxy and Heresy,” in W. Bienert, U. Kuhneweg, eds., Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (Peeters, 1999), 3–14.

128 E.g., CTh 11.2.1 (365), “Scias inhibitam esse”; 1.10.3 (385): “defi nitivam scias promendam esse sententiam”; 8.5.57 (397), “scias a te . . . protinus exigendas.”

129 Paul.Aquil. VAmbrosii 46: “Cui Simpliciano Venerius, quem supra memoravimus, successor fuit”; Reg.eccl.Carth.excerpt.6 (CCL 149.194): “Venerabili sancto fratri Anastasio sedis apostoli-cae episcopo, quam etiam sancto fratri Venerio sacerdoti Mediolanensis ecclesiae.”

130 CTh 9.42.20 (23 September 408).131 See Emilienne Demougeot, “A propos des interventions du pape Innocent Ier dans la politique

séculière,” Revue historique 212 (1954), 23–38.


ian bishops attempting to extend their authority into Gaul.132 There thus is no northern Italian context for such a council in 417, or even after 402, as there was in the late 390s, in the radiance of Milan as an imperial capital and in the afterglow of the episcopate of Ambrose.133

What Was the Council Really About?Against this background, it is profi table to consider what was really going on at the Council of Turin—even if doing so involves taking into account a certain amount of overstatement and tendentious rhetoric in the sources. First come the circumstances under which the council assembled. Turin was located in the province of Liguria, which also included cities such as Ticinum (Pavia), Vercellae (Vercelli), Augusta Praetoria (Aosta), and the metropolitan see of Mediolanum (Milan).134 No hint is given in the canons, however, regarding which Italian bishops were present. Maximus, the bishop of Turin at this time and many of whose sermons survive, surely would have been there.135 One also might suppose that the bishop of Milan, Simplicianus, would have attended, as it would have been most irregular for such a council to have been held without the metropolitan bishop.136 Indeed, in his sermon “De corpore domini,” Maxi-mus refers to a guest sermon delivered on some unspecifi ed occasion by another bishop, commenting, “Nor is it any wonder that he who has the honor of pri-macy in the episcopate also has the eloquence of primacy in preaching,” which would seem to be a reference to the metropolitan bishop of Milan.137

It sometimes is thought that the bishop of Milan would have presided at the council,138 but it also was a common practice at this time to have the bishop of the host church offi ciate, in which case Maximus of Turin would have done

132 E.g., at the Council of Milan of 451, no Gauls are attested in attendance: PL 54.945–950; see Mathisen, Factionalism, 184.

133 For the lack of a northern Italian context in 417, see Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 496; Wilmart, “Concile de Turin,” 933.

134 Lanzoni, Le diocesi, xiii. 135 For Maximus, see Andreas Merkt, Maximus I. von Turin.Die Verkündigung eines Bischofs

der frühen Reichskirche im zeitgeschichtlichen, gesellschaftlichen und liturgischen Kontext (Leiden, 1997); also Christopher Chaffi n, “Civic Values in Maximus of Turin and His Contempo-raries,” Forma futuri: Studi in onore di M. Pellegrino (Padua, 1975) 1041–1053.

136 Simplicianus: Lanzoni, Le diocesi, 1018–1019; Bolgiani, “S. Ambrogio,” 274; Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 205.

137 Max.Taur. Serm. 78.1 (CCL 23.324): “Nec mirum si is, qui in pontifi cio primatus honorem obtinet, obtineat etiam in praedicando primatus eloquium.” All those in attendance of course would have known what bishop had preached the day before.

138 As Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 496; Griff e, Gaule 1.346–347; Lanzoni, Diocesi, 1018; and Pietri, Roma 2.976–977.


so.139 It also has been suggested that Maximus may even have referred to the Council of Turin in his sermon “De hospitalitate,” in which he urges his parishioners to welcome the arrival in Turin of a good number of bishops whom, it seems, they were expected to host: “We ought to meet the arriving sanctifi ed bishops and receive them into our homes with every prayer. . . . Whoever receives a bishop in their home already is made justifi ed. . . . We should meet many bishops. . . . Let us receive the bishops.”140 Although there is no way of knowing the purpose of this gathering, whether it was for a festi-val, a church consecration, or a bona fi de synod, this sermon attests to at least one episcopal gathering at Turin.

The preface to the canons begins by asserting that the initiative for the meeting had come from the Gauls themselves: “we had gathered at the request of the bishops of Gaul.” It goes on to state that “the allegations of these bishops were heard” and that the Gallic bishops “had gathered for our judgment.”141 There is no indication of who “we” were, but the wording makes clear that those who had “gathered” were diff erent from the “bishops of Gaul” who had requested the gathering. The Gauls, therefore, were there less as participants than as appellants, and it is possible that they did nothing at the council except to give testimony.142 In addition, the canons imply that at virtually the same time one or more Italian bishops had received separate, individual appeals from Gallic bishops to intervene in dissension involving (1) metropoli-tan status in Narbonensis II, (2) metropolitan status in Viennensis, (3) intra church quarrels in Narbonensis II, and (4) the communion status of Felician bishops, and all this when they had absolutely no canonical authority to adju-dicate such matters. The thought arises that this all looks a bit too contrived, a bit too much like an attempt to regulate all the aff airs of the Gallic church.

139 See, e.g., Munier, “La pratique conciliare,” 183, for possibilities, including Simplicianus, Maximus, or “quelque autre évêque italien ou gaulois.” In 442, for example, the Council of Vaison met “apud Auspicium episcopum,” and Auspicius was accorded the honor of subscribing fi rst, with the metropolitan Hilary of Arles subscribing second (CCL 148.96, 102).

140 Max.Taur. Serm. 21.2 (CCL 23.80): “Nos debemus advenientibus sanctis occurrere sacerdoti-bus atque eos omni praece in habitacula nostra suscipere . . . quisque episcopum hospitio susceperit iam iustus eff ectus est . . . nos . . . multis sacerdotibus occurramus . . . suscipiamus episcopos.” For the suggestion, see Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 204, who also supposes that the two sermons refer to the same occasion, although it would seem that Serm. 78 refers only to a single guest, who delivered a sermon (“praedicatio”) regarding “res divinas,” and did not hold “la presidenza” of a synod.

141 Conc.Taur., praef.: “Cum ad postulationem provinciarum Galliae sacerdotum convenisse-mus . . . auditis allegationibus episcoporum, eorum qui videlicet qui ad iudicium nostrum fuerant congregati”; note Gauthier, “L’episcopato,” 176, who supposes that the requests came from “tutta la Gallia.”

142 Pace Mathisen, Factionalism, 105, regarding the Gauls’ “own earlier council at Turin.”


To create a model that is consistent with contemporary alignments of authority, some other possibilities might be proposed for the circumstances under which the council met. It may be taken as given that this was not a regu-larly scheduled Gallic provincial council, which of necessity would have taken place in Gaul. An Italian provincial council, on the other hand, simply could not have legislated for the church of Gaul. So if this was not a provincial council, what was it? It has been suggested, for example, that it was an ad hoc council assembled on the occasion of the installation of a new bishop, perhaps Maximus of Turin himself.143 Such was the case, for example, for the six bishops at the Gallic Council of Vannes (461/491), which convened “because the purpose of ordaining a bishop gathered us in the church of Vannes.”144 The problem with applying this scenario to a model for the Council of Turn is that ordinations of new bishops were not planned in advance and usually happened quickly. Nor would have there been any reason for extraprovincial bishops on the other side of the Alps to have attended an ordination, even if there had been suffi cient advance warning.

Another common occasion for an ad hoc church council was the dedication of a new basilica, which did allow for advance warning. The famous Second Council of Orange of 529, for example, was convened with fourteen bishops present for just such an occasion.145 Another opportunity for an inpromptu church council was a church festival, as occurred at Tours in 461, when eight bishops, and representatives of two others, assembled on 11 November for the Feast of Saint Martin.146 For a gathering of bishops in Turin no Italian church festival on 22 September comes to mind that would have drawn the interest of Gallic bishops; but there was a very signifi cant Gallic festival on that date, that of the Theban martyrs, whose place of martyrdom in the see of Octodo-rum in the province of Alpes Graiae was just over the border from the Italian province of Liguria.147 The celebration of this festival at Turin would have provided an attraction for Gallic bishops, all of whom would have known the signifi cance of that day. In addition, Sermon 12 of Maximus of Turin is titled in the manuscripts “De passione vel natale sanctorum, id est Octavi, Adventi,

143 Palanque, “Les dissensions.”144 CCL 148.151: “Quoniam nos in ecclesia Venetica causa ordinandi episcopi congregavit.”145 See R.W. Mathisen, “Caesarius of Arles, Prevenient Grace, and the Second Council of

Orange,” forthcoming in A. Hwang, B. Matz, M. Casiday, eds. Grace for Grace: The Debates after Augustine and Pelagius (Washington, 2014).

146 CCL 148.143: “Cum ad sacratissimam festivitatem qua domni nostri Martini receptio cel-ebratur in civitate Turonorum beatissimi sacerdotes . . . convenissent.”

147 The Passio acaunensium martyrum of Eucherius of Lyon, written ca. 420/450, was dedicated to bishop Salvius of Octodurum (Sion) (MGH SRM 3.20–40); Eucherius identifi es the place as “circa Octodurum” (Pass.mart.Acaun. 4–5); see Luigi Alfonsi, Considerazioni sulla “Passio Acaunen-sium martyrum” di Eucherio di Lione (Paris, 1960).


et Solutoris Taurinis,” and at least at a later date these three martyrs were associated among the martyrs of the Theban Legion.148 If the cult of the The-ban martyrs did in fact make an early appearance at Turin, the signifi cance of a meeting on 22 September would have been even more striking.

Thus one scenario would be that the Narbonese bishops already were in Turin, perhaps for a festival celebration or for dedication of a basilica. An ad hoc council would have avoided any messy issues regarding by what authority Italian bishops could schedule a bona fi de synod to deal with Gallic aff airs and summon Gallic bishops to attend it. For a signifi cant dedication, as of a basilica, the metropolitan bishop of the province, Simplicianus, bishop of Milan, perforce would have been present to oversee the festivities and could have been requested to (the “postulatio”), or have off ered to, arbitrate the quarrels involving the Narbonese bishops.149 This might have seemed like a good idea for several reasons. After all, Proculus of Marseille, who had par-ticipated in at least one Italian council in the past, at Aquileia in 381, could have seen an Italian venue as a good opportunity for a favorable outcome, as in fact happened at Turin. In addition, in 398/399 the question of just who had the authority to adjudicate southern Gallic provincial quarrels was unresolved. Only the metropolitan bishop of Narbonensis II could preside at a provincial council there, but there was no agreement on who that was, with both Proculus of Marseille and the bishop of Aix, perhaps Remigius, claim-ing that status.150 Controversy also likely would have arisen over who was the metropolitan in the neighboring province of Viennensis, where Proculus had his see. In these extraordinary circumstances, the bishop of Milan might have seemed a reasonable candidate as arbitrator.

Next, the issues that were discussed. In the past, as seen above, Turin stud-ies have often focused on issues of wide signifi cance, such as the Felician schism and, in particular, the quarrel between Arles and Vienne over metropolitan sta-tus in Viennensis, which leads to related issues such as the transfer of the Gal-lic prefecture from Trier to Arles, the establishment of the Concilium Septem

148 Max.Taur. Serm. 12.2 (CCL 23.41): “Specialiter hi venerandi sunt a nobis quorum reliquias possidemus.” See the “Passio Adventoris, Octavii, et Solutoris”: Bibliographia hagiographica latina 85, text in L. Ballario, Ottavio, Solutore e Avventore: Monografi a sui santi martiri torinesi (Turin, 1968), 61–63; also Hans Reinhard Seeliger, “Die Ausbreitung der Thebäer-Verehrung nördlich und südlich der Alpen,” in Otto Wermelinger, Philippe Bruggisser, Beat Näf, Jean-Michel Roessli, eds., Mauritius und die thebäische Legion (Freiburg, 2005), 211–225 at 218.

149 For the role of arbitration as opposed to adjudication at this period, see Jill Harries, “Resolv-ing Disputes: The Frontiers of Law in Late Antiquity,” in R.W. Mathisen, ed., Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2001), 68–82.

150 Although Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 486, suggests that Aix did not even have a bishop at this time. That, however, seems unlikely.


provinciarum, and the eff orts of Zosimus to enhance the stature of the see of Arles. But these issues were the topic of only two canons from the Council of Turin.

The question of what issues precipitated the council can be approached at least in part by considering who was actually there. The only Gauls who are named were Proculus of Marseille, who claimed to be metropolitan of Narbonensis II, and the four bishops from Narbonensis II, Octavius, Ursio, Remigius, and Triferius, who had challenged Proculus’ authority.151 In addi-tion, Canon 6 claims that unnamed bishops who were in communion with Felix of Trier sent “legates,” indicating that these bishops did not attend them-selves but rather sent junior clerics in their stead, perhaps out of a justifi able fear that their participation might be problematic.152 Canon 2 states that the bishops of Arles and Vienne “contended in our presence” (“apud nos . . . certa-bant”), but if this was the case, one wonders why they were not even named—Ingenuus would have been bishop of Arles at the time and a Simplicius seems to have been bishop of Vienne.153 On the basis of named attendance, it would seem that interests relating to Narbonensis II were heavily represented.

Furthermore, four of the fi rst fi ve canons (1, 3, and 5) relate to ecclesi-astical authority in Narbonensis Secunda. Indeed, the canons “fi rst of all” concern Proculus’ claims of metropolitan status.154 This positioning in itself would suggest a focus on Narbonensis II.155 It also may be worth noting that the Gallic council of Nîmes, which had met just a few years earlier, in either 394 or 396, was attended by three of Proculus’ opponents, Octavius, Remig-ius, and Triferius.156 It thus is probably no coincidence that Canon 7 of Turin, enjoining bishops not to accept into their churches a cleric of, or anyone

151 Conc.Taur., Can.3: “Qui in usurpatione quadam de ordinatione sacerdotum in invidiam vocabantur.” The word “diceret” (Can.1) indicates that Proculus of Marseille was there; bishops Octavius, Ursio, Remigius, and Triferius “defenderint” themselves and “dicererent” (Can.3), and Triferius “testatus est” (Can.4).

152 Conc.Taur. Can.6: “Legatos episcopi Galliarum qui Felici communicant destinarunt.” With the words “legatis praesentibus,” the acta emphatically emphasize that these legates actually attended.

153 Duchesne, Fastes 1.255, 204–205; not much is known of either one.154 Conc.Taur., Can.1: “Nam cum primo omnium vir sanctus Proculus Massiliensis . . . .”155 The heading in the sixth-century collection of canons in Codex Tolosanus 364, fol.58, “Syno-

dus in urbe Taurinatium. Statuta quoque de Exuperantio presbytero, qui in injuriam episcopi sui Triferi gravia et multa congessserat,” suggests the compiler’s appreciation of the local nature of most of the canons.

156 Noted by Palanque, “Les dissensions,” 493–494. The Ingenuus who subscribed last (CCL 148.51) has been identifi ed as the bishop of Arles, who would have just succeeded Concordius (Duch-esne, Fastes 1.255), suggesting that no move had yet been made to augment the status of Arles. And was the Felix who subscribed fi fth from Trier? One also observes that the order of the names in the Turin canon maintains the order of precedence used at Nîmes, suggesting that the authors of the Turin canons were sensitive to all the niceties of Gallic ecclesiastical protocol.


excommunicated by, another bishop, and Canon 8, rejecting improper ordi-nations, recapitulated the tenor of several canons of Nîmes.157 This, again, suggests that the Council of Turin was primarily concerned with the bishops of Narbonensis II.158

Only one canon is clearly relates to matters outside Narbonensis II. As discussed above, Canon 2 suggests a solution to the question of metropolitan status in Viennensis but declines to name the cities that might fall under the authority of each bishop. But this issue also involved Proculus, whose own see was in Viennensis, and who possibly was the only bishop from Viennensis who actually attended the council. Canon 6, related to communion with Feli-cian bishops, covers a topic that also might have concerned Proculus and/or the bishops in attendance from Narbonensis II, if any of them, as very likely was the case, happened to be anti-Felicians.159 That the council’s dealings so intimately involved issues related to Narbonensis II might suggest that any “postulatio” of Gallic bishops, the pretext under which the Italian bishops had presumed to consider Gallic issues in the fi rst place, came only from one or more bishops of Narbonensis II.

The preceding discussion is based, fi nally, on the assumption that the synod really was initiated by a bona fi de “postulatio” from Gallic bishops. A more cynical scenario that should at least be mentioned is that the supposed “postulatio” was stage-managed so as to give a veneer of legitimacy to an even more blatant power play by northern Italian bishops, orchestrated by the bishop of Milan. In such a case the initiative for the council would have come not from Gallic bishops but from Italy. This scenario also would have required that cooperating Gallic bishops make the trip to Turin and submit themselves to Italian authority.

However that may be, even if they did receive actual Gallic “requests,” the Italian bishops at Turin still did not have any canonical authority to act. This might be one reason why they failed to name any of themselves, for to do so would have made the irregular nature of the council only too clear. It also could help to explain why they seem so insistent about their authority. In no fewer than six places the reader is reminded that “the holy synod decreed,”

157 Especially Canons 1 (receiving extraneous clerics), 3 (receiving excommunicated persons), 4 (judging someone else’s clerics), and 6 (receiving another’s clerics) (CCL 148.50–51). Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 208, however, prefers parallels with the letters of Siricius, bishop of Rome, as a sign of assent to papal authority; cf. 222, “Le norme papali.”

158 Giving the lie to Zosimus’ later claim, relating to accusations made by Proculus, that the council had met “cum longe aliud ageretur” (“concerning something far diff erent”): Epist. “Multa contra veterem” (MGH Epist. 3.11).

159 Savarino, “Concilio di Torino,” 281, for example, assumes that Proculus was an anti-Felician and Triferius a Felician.


“the holy synod judged,” “the authority of the council decreed,” and so on.160 The Council of Turin’s self-conscious assertion of authority strikes one as protesting too much. Other councils tended to be satisfi ed with the simple word “placuit.”161 Were the organizers perhaps feeling somewhat insecure? That this might have been the case is suggested by the canons’ remarkable lack of prescriptiveness. The decision to allow Proculus to have “primacy” for his lifetime was a simple acknowledgment of the status quo. The awkward suggested solution for metropolitan status in Viennensis was to be valid only it the two bishops concurred (“si placet memoratarum urbium episcopis”). Triferius’ troublemakers were to be punished only if Triferius desired to do so, and the off ering of communion to the Felicians was based on the authority not of the Italian bishops but of Ambrose of Milan and the unnamed bishop of Rome. No one was punished, nothing defi nitive was established, and the council really did not “decide” anything. All of which is indicative of a “coun-cil” that not only had no authority but also recognized that.

To adduce just why the Italian bishops believed they had authority even to suggest solutions to Gallic issues, one might look further than canon law. A number of indicators point to the imperial court. As mentioned, at this time the emperor Honorius was not only stationed in Milan but also in the habit of visiting other northern Italian cities. Northern Italian bishops no doubt felt they could draw on imperial support. This also was a period when lines of author-ity relating to church and state had by no means been clearly defi ned. When western bishops could not settle their own aff airs, it was not at all uncommon to fall back upon imperial authority. The predilection of the bishops of Rome to do precisely this as of the middle of the fi fth century is well known, as attested in 445, when Leo of Rome went so far as to impetrate from Valentinian III an imperial novel condemning Hilary of Arles when his own authority was insuf-fi cient for doing so.162 There even was an earlier Gallic precedent for doing the same thing, established by the ambitious bishop Patroclus of Arles. In 421, a certain Consentius reported to bishop Augustine of Hippo regarding accusa-tions of Priscillianism in Spain: “The Spanish bishops by no means will attend the council that your brother Patroclus . . . announced. But this same brother

160 E.g., “Synodus sancta decrevit . . . proinde iudivavit synodus . . .”; “Id concilii decrevit aucto-ritas”; “Statuit quoque”; “Illud praeterea decrevit sancta synodus ut . . . ”; “Quod synodi sententia defi nitum est”; “Synodi decrevit auctoritas” (CCL 148.56–58).

161 E.g., Conc.Nemaus.: “placuit nobis” (Can.1), “placuit” (Can.3), “placuit . . . placuit synodo” (Can.7) (CCL 148.50–51).

162 Mathisen, Factionalism, 164–165; note Nov.Val. 17: “Hilarius Arelatensis, sicut venerabi-lis viri Leonis Romani papae fi deli relatione comperimus, contumaci ausu illicita quaedam prae-sumanda temptavit.”


of yours and the other Gallic bishops perhaps will also take pains to refer this matter to the ears of the renowned prince.”163

It thus is not unlikely that in the late 390s the bishop of Milan gained authority or otherwise had encouragement from the imperial court for regu-larizing the lines of ecclesiastical authority in Gaul, at the very time when the lines of authority in the secular administration likewise were being realigned. If this were the case, the connection between the relocation of the seat of the praetorian prefect of Gaul from Trier to Arles and the Council of Turin was not merely chronological but was part and parcel of an imperial initiative for reorganizing Gallic lines of authority. If the imperial government was lurking in the background, it might explain why the northern Italian bishops were at such great pains to make it appear that the council had been initiated by Gauls and to dwell upon Gallic involvement in the process. Even the word that the Italians used for the Gallic initiative, “postulatio,” has something of an imperial fl avor to it: of the thirty-seven times that variants of this word appear in the Theodo-sian Code, ten date to the chancery of Honorius between 395 and 417.164

All that said, there remains the fundamentally uncanonical nature of the Council of Turin: Italian bishops presuming to establish lines of episcopal authority in Gaul. How could this possibly be justifi ed? The Italians’ eff orts to defend their illicit endeavor may be subtly refl ected in the nature of their adjudication of the question of metropolitan status in Narbonensis II and Vien-nensis. With respect to Proculus of Marseille’s irregular metropolitan status in another province, addressed in Canon 1, the Italians noted that the bishops of Narbonensis II “contend that a bishop of another province ought not to admin-ister them,” a perfectly canonical presumption. But completely contrary to this regulation, the Italians then asserted,

It is decided that deference is made not so much to his city, which is located in another province, as to to him in particular, so that, like a father, he might defend his sons with the honor of the primacy. Indeed, it seemed fi tting that, to whatever extent [the sons] are not at all bound together by the unity of their province that they nevertheless by constrained by the feeling of piety.165

163 Aug. Epist.11*.24.2–3: “Hispanos episcopos ad concilium, quod . . . frater vester Patroclus non potestatis sed pietatis virtute commotus indixit, nequaqaum esse venturos. sed idem . . . frater vester et ceteri episcopi Gallicani . . . fortasse haec etiam ad aures incliti principis referentes elabo-rabunt”; see Mathisen, Factionalism, 64–65: the “princeps” would have been the emperor Con-stantius III. In 514 Symmachus of Rome actually did extend to Caesarius of Arles oversight of Spain (Epist. “Qui veneranda”: MGH Epist.3.41).

164 E.g., CTh 11.17.3 (21 March 401): “Secundum postulationem Gaudenti viri clarissimi comitis Africae”, also CTh 2.28.1, 2.31.1, 3.10.1, 7.13.14, 11.28.7, 11.39.13, 13.11.17, 15.1.41, 15.14.9.

165 Conc.Taur., Can.1: “Sibi alterius provinciae sacerdotem praeesse non debere contenderent . . . iudicatum est . . . ut non tam civitati eius quae in altera provincia sita est . . . quam ipsi potissimum


The concept of paternal and fi lial piety then was further developed: “Let blessed Proculus honor his fellow bishops like a dutiful father and let the bishops of the aforementioned province, like good sons, consider him as a father, and let all exhibit a feeling of charity in turn for each other.”166 The bishops even cited a scriptural tag in their attempt to validate this most uncanonical ascription of authority.167 Using this family-based model, the Italian bishops made the case for assigning provincial authority according to personal privilege rather than by canonical regulations and thus established a precedent for extraprovincial interference.

As discussed above, the following canon, number 2, dealing with metro-politan authority in Viennensis, introduced an equally bizarre exception to canonical regulations. After beginning, as in Canon 1, by stating the canonical regulation, it then introduced a completely uncanonical exception by brazenly dividing the province between two bishops. In both these cases, the Italian bish-ops cagily proposed noncanonical exceptions to the standard methods for estab-lishing ecclesiastical jurisdictions. In doing so, they implicitly validated their own equally uncanonical applications of ecclesiastical authority, in which the bishop of Milan, “like a dutiful father,” oversaw the ecclesiastical aff airs of his sons, the bishops of Gaul.

The Legacy of TurinThe Council of Turin thus can be interpreted in the context of a broad imperial initiative undertaken around the end of the fourth century to restructure and regularize the lines of authority in Italy and Gaul. In this model, the Council of Turin was an attempt of northern Italian bishops led by the bishop of Milan, the imperial capital at that time, to intrude themselves, nominally as arbitrators, into the administrative aff airs of Gaul, in diff erent provinces, a diff erent diocese, and a diff erent prefecture. Because this initiative was consistent with concur-rent attempts to restructure imperial administration in Gaul, with a focus on southern Gaul, the imperial court to a greater or lesser degree supported the eff ort. Doing so would have been consistent with other instances, as at Constan-tinople and Rome, in which the church of an imperial capital city was allocated

deferretur, ut tanquam pater fi liis honore primatus assisteret. dignum enim visum est ut, quamvis unitate provinciae minime tenerentur, constringerentur tamen pietatis aff ectu.” Note also Can.2: “de primatus . . . honore.”

166 Conc.Taur., Can.1: “Ipse sanctus Proculus tamquam pius pater consacerdotes suos honoret ut fi lios et memoratae provinciae sacerdotes tanquam boni fi lii eundem habeant ut parentem et invicem sibi exhibeant caritatis aff ectum.

167 Romans 12:10, 16: “Honore invicem prævenientes . . . . Non alta sapientes, sed humilibus consentientes.”


extraordinary authority.168 But lacking canonical authority, the most the council could do was to issue recommendations. Nevertheless, because the council’s acta were later inserted into Gallic conciliar collections, they became canonical, just as other noncanonical documents, such as the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua, did.169

Soon after the council met, the situation dramatically changed. In the secu-lar world there was political disruption caused by barbarian invasions of Gaul in 406 and Italy in 408, usurpations in Gaul beginning in 407, the murder of Stili-cho in 408, and the brief Visigothic seizure of Rome in 410. In the ecclesiastical world, once the emperor had abandoned Milan and returned, at least on occa-sion, to Rome, the bishop of Rome increasingly laid claim to western supremacy. Indeed, it may well be that Innocent, who became bishop of Rome in 401, expressed his own thoughts about the attempts of the northern Italian bishops to extend their authority into Gaul when, in 404 or shortly before, bishop Victricius of Rouen appealed to him for help after being accused of heresy in Gaul.170 Innocent, like the bishop of Milan, was delighted to attempt to inter-fere in the Gallic church, and in a long letter to Victricius he expressed his own opinion about situations that could have been applied to that at Turin:

If any disagreements or contentions arise among clerics of either a higher or lower rank, it is fi tting that, according to the Council of Nicaea, the quarrel be terminated after all the bishops of the same province have been gathered, nor is it permitted to anyone, without, however, the authorization of the church of Rome, to which reverence ought to be preserved in all cases, to abandon their bishops, who govern the churches of God in the same province by divine will, and fl y off to other provinces.171

168 For the connection of ecclesiastical authority to the location of the imperial residence, see C. Alzati, “Residenza imperiale e preminenza ecclesiastica in Occidente: La prassi tardo antica e i suoi echi alto medioevali,” in Diritto e religione da Roma a Costantinopoli a Mosca: Rendiconti dell’XI Seminario internazionale di studi storici “Da Roma alla Terza Roma,” Campidoglio, 21 aprile 1991 (Rome, 1994), 95–106.

169 See n.4 above; for the Statuta, see Germain Morin, “Les ‘Statuta ecclesiae antiqua’: Sont-ils de s. Césaire d’Arles?” Revue bénédictine 30 (1913), 334–442; Ch. Munier, Les statuta ecclesiae antiqua (Paris, 1960). Given the many irregularities of the canons of Turin, one might at least entertain the possibility that they were apocryphal, an out-and-out forgery, akin to the so-called “Symmachan Forgeries” of ca. 500, on which see W.T. Townsend, “The So-Called Symmachian Forgeries,” Journal of Religion 13 (1933), 165–174. In the case of the Council of Turin, a forger might have consciously omitted a date and declined to name the bishop of Rome, so as to create greater ambiguity and avoid making a fatal error.

170 See Mathisen, Factionalism, 46–47.171 Innocent, Epist. “Etsi tibi” 3.5 (15 February 404) (PL 20.472.3): “Si quae causae vel conten-

tiones inter clericos tam superioris ordinis quam etiam inferioris fuerint exortae, placuit, ut secun-dum synodum Nicenam congregatis eiusdem provinciae episcopis iurgium terminetur; nec alicui liceat (sine praeiudicio tamen romanae ecclesiae, cui in omnibus causis debet reverentia custodiri)


At the time, Innocent’s letter would have had little or no eff ect, but it would later establish a precedent for the expansion of papal authority, as seen above in the case of Innocent’s successor Zosimus.

Subsequently, the Council of Turin was only rarely referenced by the Gauls. The Council of Riez in 439 cites a “recent and most salubrious defi nition of the Synod of Turin” as an authority on noncanonical ordinations of bishops.172 In addition, declaring “the opinion of the Synod of Turin must be followed,” the Council of Orange of 441 issued a canon regarding ordinations of clerics not attached to a bishop’s diocese.173 These very favorable citations demonstrate the high regard in which the canons of Turin were held some forty years after the fact, even at councils sponsored by bishop Hilary of Arles, whose pretensions to extraprovincial metropolitan status were not supported by the Turin canons.174

Indeed, Turin never was cited regarding metropolitan authority in Vien-nensis, either by Gallic bishops or by the bishop of Rome, even though this continued to be a very controversial topic in the fi fth century. When Zosimus of Rome attempted to realign metropolitan status in southern Gaul in 417, he con-demned the ruling of Turin that permitted Proculus of Marseille to retain met-ropolitan status in Narbonensis II, but completely ignored the recommendation dividing Viennensis between Arles and Vienne.175 When the issue of jurisdiction in Viennensis arose again in 449, Leo of Rome tacitly adopted, without citing it, the extraordinary division of the province recommended by the Council of Turin.176 And in the early sixth century, when the quarrel was renewed, Symma-chus of Rome reiterated the solution of Leo, again without reference to Turin.177 Thus, although the bishops of Rome acknowledged the utility of the division suggested at Turin, they declined to recognize the authority of the northern Ital-ian bishops.178

By the time of the secular recovery and restructuring of 416–418, Gaul was a very diff erent place from what it had been at the beginning of the fi fth

relictis his sacerdotibus, qui in eadem provincia dei ecclesias nutu divino gubernant, ad alias pro-vincias convolare.”

172 Conc.Reien., Can.1 (CCL 148.64): “Secundum recentem et saluberrimam Taurinatis synodi defi nitionem,” citing Can.3 of Turin.

173 Conc.Araus., Can.23 (CCL 148.84): “Taurinatis synodi sequendam esse sententiam”; cf. Conc.Taur., Can.7.

174 See Mathisen, Factionalism, 69–172.175 See Mathisen, Factionalism, 48–60.176 Leo, Epist. “Lectis dilectionis” (MGH Epist. 3.20–21).177 E.g., Symmachus, Epist. “Sedis apostolicae” (6 November 513) (MGH Epist. 3.35–36): “Inter

ecclesias Arelatensem atque Viennensem a decessore nostro beatae recordationis Leone papa”; see Mathisen, Factionalism, 274.

178 Contrary to the conventional orthodoxy, e.g. Savarino, “Concilio di Turin,” 220, that “il concilio di Torino codifi cò alcuni principi giuridici che servirono da base all’organizzazione delle Chiese galliche.”


century.179 Nevertheless, even though the original political and ecclesiastical contexts of the Council of Turin were long since passé, and even though the can-ons of the council were subsequently either condemned or relegated to silence, the council’s very uncanonical solution to the problem of metropolitan authority in Viennensis had a long shadow afterlife.

The Council of Turin marked the end of an era of close cooperation between Gaul and Italy in both the secular and ecclesiastical spheres. In the secular realm, after 400, Gauls rarely traveled to Italy, and imperial offi ces in Gaul were held almost only by Gauls.180 In the ecclesiastical world, the connection with Milan was severed, and it was usually only disaff ected Gallic clerics who made the trek to Italy hoping to fi nd support from the bishop of Rome against their brethren. Meanwhile, the example set by the bishops of Milan, of using imperial sponsorship to intrude their authority into other provinces, was not lost on ambitious Gallic bishops, as seen, for example, in 421, when bishop Patroclus of Arles, supported by the new emperor Constantius III, planned to summon Spanish bishops to a council at Béziers to adjudicate accusations of Priscillianism in Spain.181 These initiatives, however, turned out to be dead ends when, increasingly, the prestige of the bishop of Rome came to prevail over that of other ambitious bishops. At the same time, with the exception of imperially sponsored ecumenical councils, diocesan and provincial councils became the norm, limited, for example, to Gaul, Spain, and Italy, without any further overlap between dioceses, much less prefectures.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

179 The reconciliation of Gaul had begun as of 1 March 416 with an amnesty entitled “De infi r-mandis his, quae sub tyrannis aut barbaris gesta sunt” and stating “si qua . . . indigne invidioseque commissa sunt, ad invidiam placatarum legum a callidis litigatorum obiectionibus non vocentur. habeant omnium criminum impunitatem” (CTh 15.14.14).

180 See R.W. Mathisen, “Gallic Visitors to Italy: Business or Pleasure?” in J. Drinkwater, H. Elton, eds., Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (Cambridge, 1992), 228–238.

181 Aug. Epist. 11*.23–24; see Mathisen, Factionalism, 65–66.

“The Council of Turin (398/399) and the Reorganization of Gaul ca. 395/406”

Documents

Transcript of “The Council of Turin (398/399) and the Reorganization of Gaul ca. 395/406”