Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T18:15:25.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palladius and the Johannite Schism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2013

PETER VAN NUFFELEN
PETER VAN NUFFELEN*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraaat 35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ‘Dialogue on the life of John Chrysostom’, published by Palladius of Helenopolis c. 408–9, is a key source for the history of the Church at the beginning of the fifth century. This paper argues that the history of the Johannite schism provides the background against which to understand the scope and nature of this work. It questions the received chronology of Palladius’ later life and shows that he is not so much a hard-core supporter of John who refused all contact with the official Church, as someone who could envisage the followers of John accepting an offer of amnesty in 408/409 and reintegrating into the Church. The dialogue is a strategic work that accepts that after the death of John (407) the Johannites can only bank on the support of Rome to improve their situation. As a consequence its trustworthiness cannot be accepted at face value.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Accounts of John's life are Baur, C., Der heilige Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit, Munich 1929–30Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., Golden mouth: the story of John Chrysostom: ascetic, preacher, bishop, London 1995Google Scholar; Brändle, R., Johannes Chrysostomus: Bischof, Reformer, Märtyrer, Stuttgart 1999Google Scholar; Tiersch, C., Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel (398–404): Weltsicht und Wirken eines Bischofs in der Hauptstadt des oströmischen Reiches, Tübingen 2000Google Scholar.

2 Socrates, HE vi.18.17–18, in Sokrates: Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen, Berlin 1995; Sozomen, HE viii.18, in Sozomenos: Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez and G. C. Hansen, 2nd edn, Berlin 1995; Pseudo-Martyrius, Vita Johannis Chrysostomi 111–13, in Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi: epitaffio attribuito a Martirio di Antiochia (BHG 871, CPG 6517), ed. M. Wallraff and C. Ricci, Spoleto 2007; Palladios, Dialogus x.83–121, 11.7, in Palladios: Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, i, ed. A.-M. Malingrey and P. Leclercq, Paris 1988; Zosimus, Historia v.24.4–8, in Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, ed. F. Paschoud, Paris 1979–2000; Pascal Chronicle a. 404, p. 568.13–19, in Chronicon paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, Bonn 1832; Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon a. 404, in Chronica minora, ii, ed. T. Mommsen, Berlin 1961.

3 Codex Theodosianus xvi.2.37 (29 Aug. 404); xvi.4.6 (18 Nov. 404), in Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, ed. T. Mommsen, P. Meyer and P. Krüger, Berlin 1905.

4 Atticus, in Cyril of Alexandria, ep. lxxv, PG lxxvii.349c; Socrates, HE vii.25. On the role of diptychs see Taft, R., A History of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, IV: The diptychs, Rome 1991Google Scholar; P. Blaudeau, ‘Hors des Diptyques point du salut? Regard sur la genèse, le développement et l'amoindrissement de certaines exigences romaines en Orient (415–604)’, in P.-G. Delage (ed.), Les Pères de l'Eglise et les dissidents: déssiner la communion, La Rochelle 2010, 343–60.

5 F. Van Ommeslaeghe suggests 13 November 407: ‘De lijkrede voor Johannes Chrysostomos toegeschreven aan Martyrius van Antiochie’, unpubl. PhD diss. Louvain 1974, 25, and ‘La Fête de S. Jean Chrysostome dans l'Eglise grecque’, Analecta Bollandiana xcvi (1978), 338; Wallraff and Ricci date the oration between November 407 and early 408 at the latest: Oratio, 13–14.

6 The first edition of this work was Van Ommeslaeghe's ‘Lijkrede’. I refer to Wallraff and Ricci's edition published in 2007. For some corrections to Wallraff and Ricci see Fatti, F., ‘Meglio non far nomi: Isidoro xenodochus e l'Oratio funebris in laudem S. Johannis Chrysostomi’, Augustinianum xlix (2009), 177–90Google Scholar.

7 Van Nuffelen, P., Un Héritage de paix et de piété: étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène, Louvain 2004, 27–30, 73–7Google Scholar. This analysis is independently confirmed by W. Mayer, ‘The making of a saint: John Chrysostom in early historiography’, in M. Wallraff and R. Brändle (eds), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, Berlin 2008, 39–51.

8 See, for example, W. Mayer, ‘Doing violence to the image of an empress: the destruction of Eudoxia's reputation’, in H. Drake (ed.), Violence in late antiquity, Aldershot 2006, 205–13 (it must be noted, however, that the depiction of Eudoxia in Socrates and Sozomen is more nuanced than she suggests), and ‘John Chrysostom: deconstructing the construction of an exile’, Theologische Zeitschrift lxii (2006), 248–58; and Katos, D. S., ‘Socratic dialogue or courtroom debate?’, Vigiliae Christianae lxi (2007), 42–69Google Scholar.

9 Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 27–30.

10 Palladii Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi, ed. P. R. Coleman-Norton, Cambridge 1928, p. lxiii; Schwartz, E., ‘Palladius’, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft xxxvi (1937), 161–204Google Scholar. Questions about Palladius’ trustworthiness have been raised by S. Elm, ‘The dog that did not bark: doctrine and patriarchal authority in the conflict between Theophilus of Antioch and John Chrysostom of Constantinople’, in L. Ayres and G. Jones (eds), Christian origins: theology, rhetoric and community, London 1998, 68–93, and M. Illert, Johannes Chrysostomus und das antiochenisch-syrische Mönchtum, Zürich–Freiburg 2000, 102–5.

11 Palladios (Malingrey-Leclercq), 18.

12 Butler, C. E., The Lausiac history of Palladius, Cambridge 1898, i. 179–84Google Scholar; ii. 245–6, and ‘Palladiana’, JTS xxii (1921), 138–55 at pp. 152–4. He is followed by Palladii Dialogus (Coleman-Norton), pp. xv–xviii, and Wellhausen, A., Die lateinische übersetzung der Historia lausiaca des Palladius, Berlin 2003, 7–12Google Scholar. Katos dates the return of Palladius to 407, at the death of John, and the dialogue immediately afterwards:‘Socratic dialogue’, 45. He does not argue his case.

13 Delmaire, R., ‘Les “Lettres d'exil” de Jean Chrysostome: étude de chronologie et de prosopographie,’ Recherches augustiniennes xxv (1991), 71–180 at p. 91Google Scholar.

14 Palladius, Dialogus iv.1–68. Unless otherwise stated all citations of this text are from the Malingrey-Leclercq edition.

15 A departure in winter seems likely, given that the embassy travelled by road: ibid. iv.6.

16 Cf. Buck, D. F., ‘The structure of the Lausiac history’, Byzantion xlvi (1976), 292–307Google Scholar; Flusin, B., ‘Palladius’, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité xii/1 (1984), 114–21Google Scholar; and C. Rapp, ‘Palladius, Lausus and the Historia lausiaca’, in C. Sode and S. Takács (eds), Novum millenium: studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck, Aldershot 2001, 279–89.

17 Palladius, Dialogus xx.41–2.

18 Idem, Historia lausiaca 58 (Butler edn).

19 ‘Nach dem Tod des Theophilus im Jahre 412 wurde der Streit um Johannes Chrysostomos beigelegt’: Wellhausen, Übersetzung, 10. Flusin states that Palladius was recalled in 413, but his grounds for this are not specified: ‘Palladius’, 114–15.

20 Synesius, ep. lxvii, in Synésios de Cyrène, III: Correspondance: lettres LXIV–CLVI, ed. D. Roques and A. Garzya, Paris 2000.

21 Atticus, in Cyril of Alexandria, ep. lxxv, PG lxxvii.349c; Socrates, HE vii.25.

22 Pietri, C., Roma christiana: recherches sur l'Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440), Rome 1976, ii. 1329–30Google Scholar.

23 Peeters, P., ‘Une Vie copte de S. Jean de Lycopolis’, Analecta bollandiana liv (1936), 359–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Telfer, W., ‘The trustworthiness of Palladius’, JTS xxviii (1937), 379–82Google Scholar.

24 Wellhausen notes that Palladius’ explicit indications add up to seventeen years in Egypt and Palestine. Her n. 10 inventorises the numerous solutions proposed to that problem: Übersetzung, 5–6.

25 Sozomen, HE viii.24. See M. Wallraff, ‘Tod im Exil: Reaktionen auf die Todesnachricht des Johannes und Konstituierung einer “johannitischen” Opposition’, in Wallraff and Brändle, Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren, 23–37.

26 Ps.-Martyrius, Vita 3, 138.

27 Palladius, Dialogus xx.64–7.

28 Synesius, ep. lxvii. See Roques, D., Etudes sur la correspondance de Synesios de Cyrene, Brussels 1989, 47–64Google Scholar, and Synésios de Cyrène, iii. 321. This letter is absent from, or not given its due importance in, almost all discussions of the Johannite schism: Baur, Das Leben, 372–83; Kelly, Golden mouth; Tiersch, Johannes Chrysostomos, 416; Wallraff, ‘Tod’.

29 Synesius, ep. lxvii.28; cf. Roques, Etudes, 47–64.

30 The usual date for Synesius effectively becoming bishop is in the first quarter of 411, having been offered it in 410: Chr. Lacombrade, Synesios de Cyrène: hellène et chrétien, Paris 1951, 210–12; Schmitt, T., Die Bekehrung des Synesios von Kyrene, Leipzig 2001, 54Google Scholar. An alternative chronology was defended by O. Seeck (‘Studien zu Synesius’, Philologus lii [1883], 442–83), and T. Barnes (‘When did Synesius become bishop of Ptolemais?’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies xxvii [1986], 326–9), who situate the election in 406 and would date the amnesty to late 405. This view was criticised by W. Liebeschuetz who argues for the traditional date: ‘Why did Synesius become bishop of Ptolemais?’, Byzantion lvi (1986), 180–95 at pp. 180–2. It can further be argued that the offer of amnesty in 405 does not square with the harsh measures taken by the authorities against the papal embassy of early 406, which is an act of confrontation and not of reconciliation. For criticism of Roques see Cameron, A. and Long, J., Barbarians and politics at the court of Arcadius, Berkeley 1993, 20 n. 34, 409–10Google Scholar. They follow, in some of their arguments, Liebeschuetz, W., ‘Synesius and the municipal politics of Cyrenaica in the fifth century ad’, Byzantion lv (1985), 146–69Google Scholar.

31 Liebeschuetz, ‘Why did Synesius’, 182.

32 Palladius, Dialogus viii.140; Sozomen, HE viii.24.

33 εἰς ἑτέρας μετατεθέντες ἐκκλησίας τῆς θρᾴκης: Palladius, Dialogus. xx.64–7.

34 Codex Theodosianus xvi.4.6 (18 Nov. 404); Sozomen, HE viii.24.6; cf. Palladius, Dialogus viii.141–4.

35 ‘sine controversia recepturum’: Innocent, ep. xxii, PL xx.546–7. See also epp. xx, xxi, PL xx.543–4, 544–5.

36 Palladii Dialogus (Coleman-Norton), pp. lxvii–lxix; Palladios (Malingrey-Leclercq), 19.

37 See, for example, Palladius, Dialogus ix.89.

38 Wallraff, ‘Tod’, 26.

39 Palladius, Dialogus xx.62.

40 Codex Theodosianus 16.4.6.

41 Palladius, Dialogus xx.63–7. Wallraff sees in Dialogus xvi.168–73 a reference to lack of attendance at the Johannite mass, but the reference is rather to the lack of attendance in the official churches: ‘Tod’, 32.

42 Palladios (Malingrey-Leclercq), 24; Wallraff, ‘Tod’, 31.

43 Palladius, Dialogus xx.195–667.

44 Ibid. xx.180–95. On apocalyptic and the Eunomians see B. Bleckmann, ‘Apokalypse und kosmische Katastrophen: das Bild der theodosianischen Dynastie beim Kirchenhistoriker Philostorg’, in W. Brandes and F. Schmieder (eds), Endzeiten: politische und gesellschaftliche Implikationen universaleschatologischer Vorstellungen in den drei monotheistischen Weltreligionen (5.–16. Jahrhundert), Berlin 2008, 13–40, and P. Van Nuffelen, ‘Isolement et apocalypse: Philostorge et les eunomiens sous Théodose ii.’, in D. Meyer and others (eds), Philostorge: et l'historiographie de l'antiquite tardive, Stuttgart 2010, 315–36.

45 Part of this correspondence has been revisited by Dunn, G. D., ‘The date of Innocent i's Epistula 12 and the second exile of John Chrysostom’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies lxv (2005), 155–70Google Scholar.

46 Sozomen, HE viii.3.5.

47 For Theophilus see, for example, Dialogus v.65; xv.42; for Arsacius iii.66; xi.18; xi.31; for Atticus iv.41; xi.31–9; for Porphyry: iii.66; xi.39; xvi.14–31; xvi.95–124.

48 Ibid. ix.89; ix.125–35.

49 Ibid. ix.170–81; Prosopography of the later Roman empire, ed. A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale and J. Morris, Cambridge 1975, ii. 94 (2). Anthemius organised relic transfers in 406 (Paschal Chronicle a. 406). This may have been an attempt to shore up popular support for the official Church.

50 In this sense see Coleman-Norton, P. R., ‘The use of dialogue in the Vitae Sanctorum’, JTS xxvii (1926), 388–95Google Scholar.

51 Katos, ‘Dialogue’, 49.

52 ὡς μεγάλου διωγμοῦ ἐπιγενομένου καὶ σχίσματος ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις αἴσχιστον τέλος ἐπενεγκεῖν τοὺς αἰτίους καὶ οὓτως ἑνωθῆναι τὰς ἐκκλησίας. ὅ δὴ καὶ ἐκ μέρους γεγένηται καὶ γενήσεται: Palladius, Dialogus. xvii.26–9 .

53 The complexity of Palladius’ message may explain an apparent contradiction. In Dialogus xviii.164 he states that he does not wish the enemies of God to perish by the sword, but at the end of work lists the gruesome ends of the persecutors of John.

54 Elm, ‘The dog’.

55 Socrates, HE vii.36–7. For Proclus’ case see Rist, J., ‘Ut episcopus non transeat: die Problematik der Translation von Bischöfen in der Spätantike dargestellt am Beispiel des Proklos von Konstantinopel’, Studia Patristica xxix (1997), 119–26Google Scholar.

56 This should be added to the discussion in Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 30–7. For the disputed elections in Constantinople see Van Nuffelen, P., ‘Episcopal succession in Constantinople (381–450 ce.): the local dynamics of power,’ Journal of Early Christian Studies xviii (2010), 425–51Google Scholar.

57 Palladius, Dialogus xx.52; Socrates, HE vii.36.

58 Palladius, Dialogus xx.64–7.

59 Other Johannites who returned cannot be identified without a great degree of speculation. A possible Johannite is Dositheos of Seleucia, who transferred to Tarsus: Socrates, HE vii.36. Theodorus of Tyana might be another Johannite who later returned: G. Fedalto records two bishops Calliopius and Longinus between two stints of Theodorus: Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis: series episcoporum ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium, II: Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus, Padua 1988, 30.

60 ἴδιον δὲ ἢ μετ' ὀλίγων: Synesius, ep. lxvii.22.

61 Palladius, Dialogus xx.60.

62 Innocent, epp. xix, xx, xxiii, PL xx. 541–2, 543–4, 547. For the chronology see Pietri, Roma Christiana, ii. 1329–30.

63 Atticus, in Cyril of Alexandria, epp. lxxv, lxvii, PG lxxvii, 349–52, 352–7.

64 It happened at the very latest in 430: Baur, Leben, 379.

65 Pietri, Roma Christiana, ii. 1327, 1332–3.

66 The see of Helenopolis fell under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

67 Rapp, ‘Palladius’.

68 Baur, C., ‘Wo wurde der dem Palladius von Helenopolis zugeschrieben Dialog über das Leben des Hl. Johannes Chrysostomus verfasst?’, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie lxxi (1947), 466–8Google Scholar.

69 Sozomen, HE viii.26.

70 A reference in the Lausiac history is tantalising but does not yield very much. In the section on Antinoopolis, where Palladius says he stayed for four years (’Eν Aντινόῳ τῆς Θηβαίδος διατρίψας τέσσαρα ἔτη: Palladius, Historia lausiaca 58) he tells how a dying ascetic ordered that a copy of the Stromateis by Clement of Alexandria be given to ‘the exiled bishop’: Palladius, Historia lausiaca 60. If Palladius is the exiled bishop, then it becomes possible that the four years in Antinoe were part of his exile in Egypt, and that these have to be situated at some point between 406 and 418. Palladius was exiled to Syene, but we do not know how long he stayed there, or if he was forced to remain in one place. If he went to Antinoe fairly soon, and the end of the four years represent the end of his exile, then he may have returned as early as 410.

71 Van Nuffelen, Héritage, 30–7.

72 Schwartz, ‘Palladius’, 185–6; Elm, ‘The dog’.