No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2009
From 408 to 420 two men dominated the political landscape of southern Gaul: Constantine III and Constantius. They found there a region that was rife with centrifugal forces - fierce city rivalries, a squabbling priesthood, and an opportunistic nobility. But they also found a region whose unique resources made it indispensable to the stability of their regimes; southern Gaul was then both highly urbanised and rich in commerce, a prime source for taxes and educated bureaucratic officers. Not surprisingly, both Constantine and Constantius focused a great deal of energy on ensuring the continued loyalty and stability of the region. Both men were soldiers, and thus occasionally brutal in pursuit of their objectives, but their Gallic policies also reflected intelligent statecraft and an acute awareness of the changing world in which they lived. It was a world in which the border between Christianity and politics was rapidly fading, and the work of these two men both anticipated and epitomized the mixture of religion and realpolitik so characteristic of the medieval world.
1 Numerous studies have dealt with the period from 410 to 420 in southern Gaul. Nearly all of them have admitted evidence suggesting a relationship between Constantine or Constantius and certain elements of the ecclesiastical controversy, but none has fully developed the extent of that relationship. The groundbreaking study was Babut, E., Le Concile de Turin, Paris 1904.Google Scholar Babut's chronology is criticised in Duchesne, L., ‘Le concile de Turin’, Revue Historique 87 (1905), 281–91.Google Scholar See also Duchesne, L., Early History of the Christian Church, 3, trans. C., Jenkins, New York 1924, 159–71.Google Scholar More recent accounts dealing with either secular or ecclesiastical politics include: Matthews, J., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364–425, Oxford 1975, 307–51Google ScholarOost, S. I., Galla Placidia Augusta: a biographical essay, Chicago 1968, 147–56;Google ScholarO'Flynn, J. M., Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire, Edmonton 1983, 63–74;Google ScholarBruguiere, M., Littérature el droit dans la Gaule du V siecle, Paris 1974, 51—60, 122–31;Google ScholarChadwick, H., Priscillian of Avila: the occult and the charismatic in the Early Church, Oxford 1976, 160–5;Google ScholarGriffe, E., La Gaule chrélienne a l'époque romaine, 1. 104–5, 336–40 and 406–10;Google ScholarRivet, A. L. F., Gallia Narbonensis: southern France in Roman times, London 1988, 105–7;Google ScholarRalph, Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul, Washington 1989, 17–68Google Scholar
2 Chastagnol, A., ‘La repli sur Aries des services administratifs gaulois en l’an 407 de notre ère’, Revue Historique 269 (1973), 2340;Google ScholarPalanque, J. R., ‘Du nouveau sur la date du transfert de la Préfecture des Gaules de Trèves à Aries’, in Histoire de la Provence et civilisation médiévale: Provence Historique 23, fasc. 93–4 (1973), 29–38, offers an opposing view.Google Scholar
3 This is evident in the 418 edict of Constantius, re-establishing the assembly. It states that Petronius had already ordered, by reasonable and approved plan, that there be an assembly, but that his plan had been interrupted by tyrants. The edict, Saluberrima magnificentiae, is found in MGH Epp. 3. 1, pp. 13–15, and in E. Carette, Les assemblées provinciates de la Gaule Romain, Paris 1895, 460–2.Google Scholar
4 The problems of the chronology of his elevation have been treated by Thompson, E. A., ‘Britain, A.D. 406–410’, Britannia 8 (1977), 303–18, disputing the arguments ofCrossRefGoogle ScholarStevens, C. E., ‘Marcus, Gratian, Constantine’, Athenaeum 35 (1957), 316–47.Google Scholar See also Bartholemew, P., ‘Fifth-Century facts’, Britannia-xm (1982), 261–70,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Thompson, E. A., ‘Zosimus 6. 10. 2 and the letters of Honorius’, Classical Quarterly 32 (1982), 445–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 On the reception of usurpers in general, see Van Dam, R., Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul, Berkeley 1985, 20–37.Google Scholar
6 Zosimus, (historian), Historia Nova, ed. Mendelssohn, L., Leipzig 1887, 5. 32.Google Scholar
7 Renatus, Frigeridus, Gregorius, Turonensiscit, Historia Francorum 2. 9. ed. W., Arndt, MGH SS rer. Mer. i. 1. Cf. Sidonius, Poems and Letters i, ed.Anderson, W.B., Cambridge 1936, ep. 5. 9. 1,Google Scholar and Zosimus, (historian), Historia Nova 6. 4.Google Scholar
8 Zosimus, (pope), epp. 3, iv, PL 20. 656, 662. On the date of this and the Second Council of Turin, see pp. 355 ff.Google Scholar
9 Greg. Turon., ii. 1. Briccius often vexed Martin with his sarcastic remarks.
10 Sulpicius Severus, Libri qui supersunt, ed. C. Halm, CSEL, 1, Dialogus ii (iii), 15.Google Scholar
11 As note 8. The author of the ‘Chronica Gallica’ as well as Sulpicius Severus was sympathetic to Martin.
12 ‘Chronica Gallica’ a. 452, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH Auct. ant. ix. i. 60 (ah. 408).
13 Zosimus, ep. iii, PL xx.656–7. After stating that Proculus had attended the council that condemned Lazarus, Zosimus writes: ‘Ab eodem Proculo fit post multos annos sacerdos, tyrannicijudicii defensor, civitatis Aquensium: cum contrairet addicta, in ipsum penetrale et sacerdotale solium sanguine innocentis pene respersum irrupit. Stetitque in eo hactenus umbra sacerdotii, donee in tyranno (Constantino) imago staret Imperii: quo loco post internecionem patroni sponte se exuit, et propria cessione damnavit.’
14 Prosperi, Tironis, Epiloma Chronicon, ed. T., Mommsen, MGH Auct. ant. 9. 1. 1247 (an. 412).Google Scholar
16 Zosimus, epp. iii, iv.
16 Zosimus, ep. iii, PL xx. 657: ‘De Herote vero omnia similia, idem tyrannus patronus, caedes, turbae, presbyterorum contradicentium vincula et custodiae, et totius civitatis addictio, similis poenitentia de abdicatione sacerdotii.’
17 Olympiodorus, , Fragmenta, ed. Dindorf, L., Hislorici Graeci Minores, Leipzig 1870, fragment 16.Google Scholar
18 Sidonius definitely harboured a grudge against him. In a letter to the grandson of Decimus Rusticus, Sidonius lists the vices of Constantine, Jovinus and Gerontius, then concludes that Dardanus combined the worst of all three - ep. v. 9. 1. Cf. Rutilius, Namantius, Cl. Rutilius Namantius: édition critique, ed. J., Vessereau, Paris 1904, 1. 307–8. A reference there to the heinous activity of a contemporary member of the Lepidus family is also believed to refer to Dardanus. The association is based on an inscription in which Lepidus is given as one of the names of Dardanus’ brother – see Vessereau’s commentary, 319–20.Google Scholar
19 ‘Chronica Gallica’ a. 452. 69.
20 Hydatius, , Continuatio chronicorum hieronymianorum, ed. Mommsen, T., MGH Auct. ant. 11, pars1, 54 (an. 413).Google Scholar
21 Gregorius Turon. ii. 9.
22 Olympiodorus, fragment 24. On the identification of Rusticus, see David Frye, ‘A mutual friend of Attaulf and Jerome’, Hisloria (forthcoming).
23 Lazarus’ reappearance in Africa is evident in Zosimus, epp. iii, iv. The circumstances of his leaving Gaul – attributed to the loss of his protector Constantine – are described in Zosimus ep. iii, PL xx. 657.
24 Prosp. Tiro., Epitoma, 1247.
25 Ibid..
26 Murdered: ibid. 1292 (at p. 426); Simony: ‘Chronica Gallica a. 452. 74.
27 Proculus had been a signatory of the Council of Aquileia in 381, which meant he had held the see for some thirty-odd years.
28 Cf. E., Demougeot, ‘A propos des interventions du pape Innocent Ier dans la politique séculière’, Revue Historique 212 (1954), 23–38. Demougeot believes that Constantius helped in Zosimus’ election.Google Scholar
29 Zosimus, ep. i, PL xx. 642–5.
30 Zosimus, ep. iv, PL xx. 661–5.
31 Concilium Taurinense, canon 3, in Babut, Le Concile and C. Munier, Concilia Galliae ti.314-a.506, CCSL cxlviii.
32 The manuscripts are discussed in Babut, Le Concile, pp. 215–22.Google Scholar
33 See n. 13 above.
34 In all his letters prior to 30 September, Zosimus grants Aries metropolitan rights over the provinces of Viennensis, Narbonensis Prima and Narbonensis Secunda - cf. Zosimus epp. 1, ix, 5, 6 (the date for vii is universally questioned). In all subsequent letters, beginning on 1 October, he no longer includes Narbonensis Secunda or Viennensis, whose bishops had won compromises at the Council - see Zosimus, epp. 11, xi as well as his letter Revelatum nobis, PL20. 704. The latter wasonce considered a late-eleventh/early-twelfth-century forgery, but Babut convincingly refuted that assertion: Le Concile, 243–65.Google Scholar
35 Babut, , Le Concile, 7–26.Google Scholar Also Babut, , ‘Le date du concile de Turin et le développement de l&autorité pontificale au V siècle’, Revue Hislorique 80 (1905), 57–82.Google Scholar
36 Notably Duchesne (n. 1 above). Beware Chadwick (n. 1 above) who mis-states part of Babut’s argument in order to makeit appear weaker. For Babut’s argument, see Le Concile, 17–23.
37 Ibid.. 104. Not only Babut, but other historians too, have had difficulty placing Zosimus ‘references to having attended a recent council on ordination rights in Gaul., Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism, 51–2, identifies it with a second tribunal for Coelestius held at San Clemente in Rome.Google Scholar He cites Kidd, B. J., A History of the Church to A.D. 461, 3, Oxford 1922, 105–8, but Kidd does not himself combine the two tribunals. In fact, this reading should be regarded as an error because the tribunal for Coelestius (of which we have relatively abundant evidence) dealt only with Pelagianism and was aimed at African, not Gallic, bishops. It had nothing to do with the question of ordination rights in Gaul.Google Scholar
38 Babut, Le Concile, 17.
39 Ibid., canon 2: ‘Illud deinde inter episcopos urbium Arelatensis et Viennensis, qui de primatus apud nos honore certabant a sancta synodo definitum est, ut qui ex his adprobaverit suam civitatem esse metropolim, is totius provinciae honorem primatus obtineat, et ipse iuxta canonum praeceptum ordinationum habeat potestatem./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 alterium longius sibi usurpando quod est alii propius inquietet.’
40 Ibid.. 107, and ‘Le date’, 67. He lamely suggests there must have been some secret negotiation.
41 Concilium Taurinense, intro.
42 Zosimus, ep. v, PL xx. 665: ‘Multa contra veterum formam Proculus usurpasse detectus est in ordinationibus nonnullorum indebite celebrandis, quas proxime numerosa cognitione discussimus; licet ipse diu expectatus, fastidiose ferrens sibi inducias attributas, convenire dissimulet.’
43 Zosimus, ep. iv, PL xx. 663: ‘Haec omnia apud nos gestis testimoniisque discussasunt.‘
44 Zosimus, ep. vi, PL xx. 666–7.
45 Zosimus, ep. v, PL xx. 665–6: ‘Attamen ilia praesumptio nos admodum movit, quod in synodo Taurinensi, cum longe aliud ageretur, in apostolicae sedis injuriam subripiendum putavit, ut sibi concilii illius emendicata praestaret obreptio ordinandorum sacerdotum veluti metropolitano in Narbonensi secunda provincia potestatem. Et ne solus, impudenter indebita postulando, huic sedi videretur intulisse convicium, socium sibi Simplicium Viennensis civitatis ascivit... Indecens ausus, et in ipso vestibulo resecandus, hoc ab episcopis ob certas causas concilium agitantibus extorquere.’
46 Zosimus, Revelatum nobis (see n. 31 above).
47 T. Mommsen, preface to Notitia Galliarum, MGH Auct. ant. ix. i. 582.
48 Concilium Taurinense, canon 1.
49 See Zosimus, epp. x, xi.
50 Translated from Saluberrima magnificentiae (n. 3 above).
51 Ibid..
52 Hincmari Rhemensis Archiepiscopi, Opera omnia, epp. 30, 18, PL cxxvi. 200.
53 Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, ed. Mommsen, T. and Meyer, P., Berlin 1954, C. Sirm 6: ‘Diversos vero episcopos nefarium Pelagiani et Caelestiani dogmatis errorem sequentes per Patroclum sacrosanctae legis antistitem praecipimus conveniri: quos quia confidimus emendari, nisi intra viginti dies ex conventionis tempore, intra quos deliberandi tribuimus facultatem, errata correxerint seseque catholicae fidei reddiderint, Gallicanis regionibus expelli adque in eorum loco sacerdotium fidelius subrogari.’Google Scholar
54 Consentius, , in Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera: Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. Johannes, Divjak, Vindobonae 1981, ep. 11. 23. 1.Google Scholar
55 Ibid. 11. 24. 2–3.
56 J. M. Bláazquez argues for the social origins of Priscillianism: ‘The rejection and assimilation of Roman culture in Hispania during the fourth and fifth centuries’, Classical Folia 30 (1978), 217–42, esp. pp. 233–4,Google Scholar and idem, ‘Die Rolle der Kirche in Hispanien im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert’, Klio 63 (1981), 649–60, esp. pp. 656–7. Raymond Van Dam, ‘“Sheep in wolves‘ clothing”: the letters of Consentius to Augustine’, this JOURNAL 37 (1986), 515–35, argues that there was no Priscillianist heretical conspiracy, but that the charge of Priscillianism was frequently used in local feuds.Google Scholar