Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron 9042949120, 9789042949126

Citation preview

STUDIA  PATRISTICA SUPPLEMENT 12

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron by

CHARLES BOBERTZ

PEETERS 2023

CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE: PRIEST AND PATRON

STUDIA  PATRISTICA SUPPLEMENTS

edited by Allen Brent and Markus Vinzent

STUDIA  PATRISTICA SUPPLEMENT 12

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron by CHARLES BOBERTZ

PEETERS

LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2023

© Peeters Publishers — Louvain — Belgium 2023 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. D/2023/0602/75 ISBN: 978-90-429-4912-6 eISBN: 978-90-429-4913-3 A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in Belgium by Peeters, Leuven

Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................1 Chapter One: The Patronage Society..........................................................9 Chapter Two: The Election of Cyprian......................................................31 The Elevation of Bishop Cyprian............................................................41 Chapter Three: The Early Exile..................................................................59 Chapter Four: The Later Exile....................................................................91 Chapter Five: The Return...........................................................................121 Conclusion: The Role of Bishop and the Social Context of the Church in the Third Century....................................................................................133 Bibliography................................................................................................143

Introduction The study presented here is directed toward two ends. The first is to set the description of the early episcopate of Cyprian of Carthage (bishop from 249 to 258 C.E.) firmly within its particular historical and social context. Cyprian’s election as bishop of Carthage, as well as the subsequent rebellion against his episcopal authority during the Decian persecution,1 both took place within a Roman civic environment greatly influenced by the social expectations and obligations of patrons and clients.2 A second purpose of this study, by and large implicit but nonetheless considered on almost every page, is an attempt to understand better the relationship between a social-historical description of the Church in a particular time and place and more general and theoretical descriptions of the development of Christian doctrine.3 The role of bishop as a social patron in later antiquity (4th century and beyond) has been studied extensively by Peter Brown.4 With his usual eloquence Brown details how it came about that social roles formerly occupied by pagan elites were taken over by Christian clerics. Such a transformation is perhaps understandable in a world fast becoming Christian, in a world, in other words, where the boundary between Church and saeculum was becoming ever fuzzier. This study will suggest that the roots of this transformation, at least in the Latin West, actually go back to the middle of the third century, namely, to Cyprian of Carthage.5 Moreover, and quite paradoxically, the transformation described by Brown had its beginning in a time, in a previous century, when the boundaries between church and state were seemingly at their starkest antithesis. In the middle of the third century there was an Imperial persecution the ostensive purpose of which was to draw Christianity into the syncretistic matrix of current GrecoRoman religious practice. Cyprian of Carthage, with all his profundity in matters ecclesial and theological, was also a man of keen political and social ability; a man who quite naturally transformed forever the nature and conception of the 1   The Decian persecution lasted from roughly late in the year 249 C.E. to June of 251 C.E. (the death of the emperor Decius). Bishop Fabian of Rome was apparently martyred on 20 January 250. For full discussion, see Clarke 1984a, 21-39. 2   Stewart-Sikes 2002, 115 describes this facet of the church’s emergence as “contra-cultural”, that is, depending on the norms of the wider society while at the same time inverting the values of that society. 3   See, e.g., the discussion in Meeks 1983, 1-7. Brent 2010, 4, aptly characterizes this relationship between revelation and political and social circumstance: revelation was to be played out in terms of the patron-client relationship that was fundamental to the structure of Roman society. For a review of theologically centered studies of Cyprian’s work, see Greschat 2015. 4   Brown 1982. 5   This transformation has been extensively studied by Rives 1995, 285-307.

2

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

episcopal office by linking its exercise with particular social and political manner. By the fourth century it would be possible to understand and describe the bishop as a social patron because there existed the precedent of the practice and theoretical articulation of Cyprian of Carthage. Yet there is another paradox here. Cyprian’s writings are, above all, profoundly theological and doctrinal in tone and content. In some sixty letters and eleven treatises he never, for example, quotes from anything save the Bible, though a man of his educational attainment must have had a vast repertoire of classical literature at his disposal. My claim, therefore, that as bishop Cyprian was acting within a framework of certain social and political conventions of his day cannot be made solely on the basis of a prima facie reading of the extant corpus. Much of the secular language associated with these social conventions simply is not there. One must read the extant texts with a different eye, one directed at seeing the multivalence of language within a larger social context and the ways in which specific actions would have been understood within that same context. The danger is that such interpretation might well lead to a certain sort of reductionism, as if the social context of ancient patronage is all that matters in our understanding of Cyprian’s writings. I have not the possibility of avoiding that danger entirely. Suffice it to say that what follows is a certain sort of study, one that attempts to gain insight into the complex interplay between theological ideas and their social reality. Yet in the end I have no doubt that some of my readers, especially the ones whom I respect the most, will disagree at times with my largely social interpretation of Cyprian’s theological writings. They should know that I am so genuinely interested in dialogue that I welcome such observations. In the pages that follow I do not intend ever to disparage Cyprian’s pastoral or theological sincerity. No one could have spent the time I have with Cyprian’s writings and come away with less than a deep and abiding respect for the moral courage and decency of the man. But this does not lessen the historian’s, more so the theologian’s, obligation to understand the expression of Christian theological ideas within the social and political context wherein they were heard and acted upon. In Cyprian’s writings we witness one of the most profound moments in the history of Christianity. A moment in which the Church definitively understood its capacity and willingness to thrive within the civic life of the Roman Empire while simultaneously declaring its holiness and subsequent separation from that same Empire.6 This startling paradox, more than any other, lies at the center of Cyprian’s writing about the need for penitential actions under the aegis of the bishop as marking the social boundary of the Church itself. Cyprian’s conviction, perhaps stemming from his own adult conversion, that every sin can 6   The boundary between the Church and the outside world, articulated in Cyprian’s thought, is largely the subject of Patout Burn’s study of Cyprian (Burns 1992).



Introduction 

3

be forgiven by way of proper episcopally governed penitential procedure,7 helped to establish an understanding of the Church from then on as a corpus permixtum, constituted by both rogue and saint alike. Yet Cyprian also argued, in one of his most famous sayings, that there could be no salvation outside the Church (salus extra ecclesiam non est, Ep. 72). From these two positions the path to the Church of Constantine and eventually to Augustine’s two cities was clear: every sort of character was to be recruited and, through the episcopal governance of penitential practice, schooled in the manner of Christian life. On the other hand, there was to be no compromise with the saeculum: all must become Christian or suffer the damning consequences. This momentous combination in Cyprian’s understanding emerged from the Empire-wide and often vicious persecution of the Church at the behest of the emperor Decius. The Decian persecution lasted only a little longer than a full year, from late 249 C.E. until the emperor’s death in battle in June of 251. Probably not for the first time, but the first to be so carefully chronicled, the persecution with the resulting mass apostasy of Christians raised to a new pitch the urgent question of control over the means of salvation. Namely, where and when might the proper pleading for divine forgiveness still be possible for the great numbers of Christians who had sinned so gravely by sacrificing to the Roman gods and denying Christ in front of pagan authorities? To read Cyprian’s letters and treatises carefully is to realize that the answer was not obvious. Apparently, no one had ever convincingly argued that it was only within a particularly episcopal structured church, with only the divine sacrifice and pleading of the bishop before God, that forgiveness and therefore salvation could be granted. In fact, the capacity of the martyrs and confessors to plead before God on behalf of sinners, status (and honor) gained in their suffering, status created by the persecution itself, must have seemed an equally plausible means of gaining the forgiveness of God.8 In the midst of the chaos and destruction of persecution Cyprian claimed that the church’s very survival as the means to access God depended on the episcopal structure of the church. As such his doctrinal and theological positions were inevitably bound to his ecclesiology.9 This connection is worth more study. We do have a number of good studies on Cyprian’s notion of the unity 7   There is, of course, the traditional argument that the statement in chapter twenty-eight of book three of Ad Quirinum, non posse in ecclesia remitti ei qui in Deum deliquerit (“not to be able to forgive within the Church whom God does not forgive”) represents an early (pre-persecution) rigorist position of Cyprian on the question of the possibility of penance and reconciliation after grave sin, a position he apparently moderated in the exigencies of the persecution. Naturally, such an argument assumes the Cyprian’s authorship of Ad Quirinum, an assumption I have disputed in my article on the subject: see Bobertz 1992. For the argument for Cyprian’s authorship of Ad Quirinum, see Murphy 2014, 533-550. See also Weaver 1987, 372. 8   On Cyprian’s understanding of atonement, see Mills 2020, 35-53. 9   Bonner 1989, 325-339, discusses Cyprian’s doctrine of the priesthood of Christ.

4

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

of the Church, especially since Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 in chapter 4 of his treatise De unitate (On the Unity of the Church) has played such an outsized role in subsequent Church history.10 But these studies often get no farther than the obvious: in Cyprian’s conception the bishop was the focus of the Church’s unity. True enough. But in this study I want to describe and interpret the intriguing historical drama that led up to this formulation. Moreover, I want to use this description and analysis to comprehend in a more complete way the nature of the episcopal structure which was so important both to Cyprian and to the subsequent history of Christianity. For example, what were the social realities and political ideas that went into Cyprian’s understanding of the Church? Without such an investigation, I fear that the theological audacity showed by Cyprian, an audacity that helped to create a certain sort of Church, will lose its ability to startle us. Further, Christians today will not be inspired to re-examine, in light of the complex interaction of church and culture in the past, our own equally complex arrangements. Finally, let me attempt in advance to ward off a potential criticism of my work. I do not intend my concentration on the social conventions surrounding the interactions of patrons and clients to be anything like a complete explanation of either the modus operandi or the theological positions of Cyprian and his opponents. I present here merely a close examination of the relevant texts bearing in mind one particularly common feature of the social norms which governed human interactions in early imperial society. I expect, and would welcome, other studies of other features of a complex social life which would help us understand the social world of early Christian groups. With this in mind, however, I must say also that I do think the giving and receiving of patronage, whether in the form of social benefactions or pleadings on behalf of clients, with its consequent obligations and expectations, was a uniquely important social convention of the ancient Roman world. This is obvious from the literally thousands of patron and client inscriptions, the convention’s prominence in ancient literary material, and the results of many important contemporary investigations of ancient Roman society. At the heart of this book is the question of whether, or perhaps better how much, this social convention of patronage helped to create and shape the ideology and practices of the emerging structure of the Christian church in the decades prior to Constantine and the full-blown manifestation of an imperial Church. Here Cyprian is an unusually decisive figure in an unusually decisive time. Indeed, if there is anywhere in the church before Constantine we might be able adequately to address this question, it is in the letters and treatises of Cyprian of Carthage. The general format of the book is this. Of all the early Christian writings prior to the fourth century, the eleven treatises and sixty letters of Cyprian,   For extensive discussion, see Wickert 1971.

10



Introduction 

5

bishop of Carthage from 249-258 C.E., have particular importance. Not only does the corpus represent the largest collection of Christian epistolary activity in Christian literature before Constantine, we see within these writings ideas that have been of fundamental importance to the entire subsequent history of the Christian church. For example, Cyprian’s writings were used by both the Donatists and their nemesis Augustine in the great theological debates of the latter fourth and early fifth century, debates which helped to establish the medieval West’s notion of the relationship between church and state.11 Within the Church these writings also have a central place in the development of penitential doctrine, a part of the history of doctrine that has been carefully described in modern scholarship.12 And not least is the role De unitate played, almost from the moment it was written, in arguments over the legitimacy of Roman papal jurisdiction over the Church in the West.13 These arguments continued throughout the medieval period, but especially were revived during and after the Reformation. Cyprian’s writings especially influenced the self-understanding of the Anglican Church.14 Cyprian’s legacy is indeed of enduring importance.15 In the pages that follow I am almost exclusively concerned with a large group of Cyprian’s letters, numbered 5-43 in the CSEL edition of Hartel, written by Cyprian and his correspondents during Cyprian’s exile in the Decian persecution and culminating in his return to Carthage, a period extending roughly from very early in the year 250 C.E. until sometime shortly after Easter (March) of 251. Carthage was not spared the chaos and resulting schisms that came upon Christian communities all over the Roman world as a result of Roman imperial persecution. During the course of Cyprian’s year-long absence from Carthage (a self-imposed exile) there was a widespread rebellion against his episcopate in Carthage. Because so much was at stake in the struggle of Cyprian against his opponents in Carthage, the letters provide unique glimpses into contemporary ideas concerning the nature of the church, the status of episcopal office and the theological ideas that undergirded them. Of Cyprian’s eleven treatises, I especially take into consideration two which have been singular in implication for both ancient and modern discussions of penance, ecclesiology and church authority: On the Lapsed (De lapsis) and   To my knowledge the use of Cyprian in these debates has not been the object of a scholarly monograph, though see, e.g., the careful study of Bonner 1989. 12   See, e.g., the commentary and citations of Swann 1980, 468-479. 13   The intriguing argument that Cyprian himself (in his dispute with Stephen of Rome over the doctrine of the rebaptism of schismatics) was responsible for the two editions of chapter four of De unitate is carefully laid out by Bévenot 1961. See also Edwards 2018, 7. 14   Perhaps the epitome of this is the often thoroughly romanticized study of bishop Edward White Benson (Benson 1897). 15   I would echo here Bévenot’s complaint (following Père Congar) that no full study has yet been made on the history of Cyprian’s influence on the life and development of the Church through the centuries (Bévenot 1984, 211). Cf. Wiles 1963. 11

6

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

On the Unity of the Church (De ecclesiae unitate).16 I argue that both of these treatises were written for the purpose of overcoming the local opposition to Cyprian as bishop in Carthage. The more particular attention paid to the local social context in Carthage, I think, rewards greatly any attempt to understand the larger implications of Cyprian’s ideas for current historical and systematic theological reflection. The first chapter begins with a general discussion of the phenomenon of patronage in early imperial society and, as much as possible, provides an initial appraisal of the kinds of relationships structured and engendered by its practice. The second chapter has deceptively simple goals: first, to establish that Cyprian was of uncharacteristically high social and financial standing for a Christian prelate of his time and then, on the basis of the expectations of patronage from status superiors, to begin to explore the complex social connections between the laity of Carthage and their newly elected bishop. I suggest that Cyprian’s election was highly unusual in that it apparently defied the usual pattern of Christian office holding (cursus honorum) in order to promote a recent and socially well-located convert to Christianity.17 My purpose in these two chapters is to open the reader to the possibility that Cyprian’s personal social status, as well as the unusual ecclesial context, had a great deal to do with how Cyprian theorized, and practiced, the role of bishop. In effect I will argue that Cyprian, having crossed over from a world of high status patrons governed by certain expectations of social obligation and authority, quite naturally conceived of, and acted out, his role as bishop within the conventions of Roman patronage. The proof, however, is in the pudding. Hence the remaining three chapters are devoted to explicating, by detailed historical description, how bishop Cyprian would have been understood in that social world as having acted in the role of patron. My conclusion is that it was the exercise of the role of patron which was instrumental in his finally achieving a victory over his opponents and establishing his authority over the Church in Carthage. Perhaps more important, Cyprian’s understanding of the bishop as patron was decisive in the way in which he understood the role of bishop within the church in his two most famous treatises, De lapsis and De unitate. Finally, I end the book with some suggestions as to how I think the study has clarified some classic problems in the interpretation of Cyprian’s writings   There is, of course, a great deal of controversy over the latter’s title. Some manuscripts read De Ecclesiae Unitate (On the Unity of the Church) while others offer a fuller title, De ecclesiae catholicae unitate (On the Unity of the catholic Church). I am inclined to the former title for reasons similar to Hugo Koch (Koch 1926, 102-107): the shorter title is a lectio difficilior. For full discussion, see Bévenot 1957, 74-75, n. 6. In the notes to this translation, Bévenot also discusses the role of these treatises in modern Church controversies. 17   For a general description of episcopal elections in North African Christianity, see Burns and Jensen 2014, 342-342. 16



Introduction 

7

and, with less certainty, how such conclusions might help us to begin to reevaluate how we understand early church ecclesiology as we think about what the Church should be in our own time. As a result this book is something of a prolegomenon. It springs from a desire to ground more adequately the historical context in which doctrinal and theological controversy took place and, thereby, to assist us in our own controversies as we continue to appeal, at times quite naively, to the history and theologies of the past.

Chapter One The Patronage Society Contemporary social science (social anthropology, sociology and political science) has for years studied the giving and receiving of various sorts of benefactions from patrons to clients in their descriptions of the workings of social systems: describing the distribution of power, the flow of resources, and the structure of social relations.1 To a lesser, yet noticeable extent, historians have also begun to pay more attention to this social practice in their descriptions, enhancing, it seems to me, our understanding of that which is most often elusive because left unspoken: the ordinary norms and expectations that govern belonging to groups and provide various levels of social cohesion.2 When historians of the Roman Empire write about patronage they are most often describing the fact that there was, in ancient Roman society, a ubiquitous system of social exchange between those of higher social, economic and political status, in Roman texts and inscriptions often called honestiores, and their respective social inferiors, the humiliores.3 In return for the loyalty and support of these humiliores, the honestiores were expected by social convention to provide many of the basics, and especially niceties, of public life. This patronage system, whether or not one defines it as raw exploitation,4 seems to have been one of the primary glues which held ancient Roman society together.5 1   A bibliographic guide to many of these modern studies is available in Roniger 1981; Scott 1977; Wallace-Hadrill 1989, 12-13 and 85-87. See also the review in Eisenstadt 1984, 2ff., and note especially the studies listed by Elliot 1987, 44. On the study of clientelism in political science, see Schmidt 1977; Kaufman 1974; Graziano 1975. For a general overview of sociological approaches to the study of religious communities, see Theissen 1974 and 1982. 2   See especially the studies of Wallace-Hadrill 1989; Roniger 1983; Saller 1982 and Ste. Croix 1954. 3   Personal patron-client relations in the period have been studied extensively by both Rouland 1979, 345-602, and Saller 1982 (curiously, Saller makes no mention of Rouland’s study, though they overlap in a great deal of their content). For patronage relationships of communities (primarily collegia) with individuals, the premier work remains Harmand 1957 (though see also Nicols 1980a and 1980b). In this study I will be utilizing a flexible, less than formal, definition of patronage, patrons and clients, if for no other reason than there are many instances in which we can observe the exercise of patronage and consequent social expectations, but in which the Latin terms beneficium, patronus and cliens do not appear. This is especially true with the term cliens, which, by the Roman period, had developed a negative (i.e., servile) connotation (Saller 1982, 9). J. Nicols, I think, puts the matter nicely when he describes patronage as “any relationship based on mutual obligation and fides in which beneficia and officia are performed by parties of different status” (Nicols 1980b, 365). I use the terms honestiores and inferiores in their general sense, synonyms for both abound (e.g., altiores, pro dignitate personae; constrast plebeii, tenuiores). For a full discussion, see Garnsey 1970, 221-233, and Crook 1967, 173-175. 4   For discussion, see Scott 1977; Rouland 1979, 15. 5   See, e.g., the opening statement of J. Nicols’ study of patronage in the early imperial period, “Few historians would disagree with the statement that patronage is one of the most important,

10

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

This system of benefaction in exchange for loyalty and support within various political and social groups in the empire can be traced throughout the history of Rome and her conquests.6 From the earliest days of the Roman republic when Roman generals would take entire populations to be their clients,7 until the institution of feudalism helped to bring on a new medieval social order,8 there is no time when the social conventions surrounding the giving and receiving of benefactions did not play a significant role in the lives of individuals and groups in the Roman world.9 This society was, as one scholar puts it, “a society permeated by multifarious relationships based on fides (loyalty), and personal connections”.10 As one higher in social and economic status, a patron, granted benefactions of various kinds to persons, cities or voluntary associations (collegia), the patron created what was considered a moral obligation of support and loyalty for the social and political machinations of the patron. It was the necessary means by which one held status and authority in ancient Roman society. In Roman republican sources references to patrons and clients most often refer to legally enforceable obligations between manumitted slaves (freedmen) and their former masters. When a slave was set free the slave was formally bound to continue in deference (obsequium) to his former master (patronus). Such obsequium might include political loyalty as his patron stood for office (as citizens, freed slaves were eligible to vote), attending the atrium of the patron to insure his public social prestige, or even the performance of menial tasks (operae) in the business affairs of the patron. In return the patron was obligated to further the interests of his clients in business, to plead on their behalf in the courts, and offer assistance in other social affairs. In addition, patrons also often provided burial places for the freedman’s family within their own tombs.11 And while such exchange may have been legally enforceable, its and yet elusive bonds of Roman society” (Nicols 1980b, 365). Nicols (p. 380) goes on to cite Gelzer 1969 and Badian 1958 on how “relationships based on fides (and both patronage and benefaction are included) developed; namely that under Roman notions of gratitude there was ‘… a tendency for a benefit conferred to establish a permanent obligation’. This obligation was expressed in the continuing performance of beneficia (by the patron) and officia (by the client).” 6   Saller 1982, 3, nicely suggests that “the importance of patronage extends beyond the realm of politics, just as in many Mediterranean societies today where the institution influences the ways in which people view their world, earn their living, associate with their fellow townsmen, and relate to the state administration”. See also Shelton 1988, 13-17. 7   For a description of this practice in republican conquests, see especially Badian 1958; Brunt 1988. 8   Garnsey and Woolf 1989, 162-167; Drinkwater 1989, 193-201. 9   Badian 1958, 1-13; 154-167, and the works cited therein. See also the critique of SherwinWhite 1966, 1-2. For a discussion of patronage in the later empire (Libanius), see Liebeschuetz 1972, 192-208. 10   Gelzer 1969, 139. 11   Lewis 1955, 256-257.



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

11

character was, above all, conventional and moral. The reciprocal exchange between patron and his freedmen formed part of the ethos, the way of doing things, in ancient Roman society.12 Even so, in the period of the Roman Republic and extending into Empire, a consideration of the social obligations surrounding patronage cannot be limited strictly to the legal obligations between freedman and former masters. The rapid expansion of Rome in the republican period brought the principles of the patronage system to the conquered territories.13 In the new provinces, elite local individuals, entire cities and new Roman foundations became clients of powerful Roman patrons who would represent their interests in the capital. Privileges, immunities and, perhaps most important, freedom from egregious exploitation (taxation) were all interests that provincials placed into the hands of their patrons so that the powerful patron might plead their case in Rome.14 In return the Roman aristocracy relied on particular support within the provinces to enhance their honor and reputation in the social maneuverings that so often characterized the political and social life of Roman republican elites.15 In the internal social and political life of Rome the expectations engendered between patrons and their social and political inferiors played an outsized role.16 Cicero, for example, was very much concerned with the proper stylistic formulation of various patronal letters of recommendation (commendationes) written on behalf of clients for social and political advancement.17 These letters were to pay particular attention to the differences in social and political standing of the parties and maintain a sense of order and decorum in their pleading.18 In the second book of De officiis Cicero gives extended advice on the exercise

12   The relationship of former master to freedman is discussed in the Digests. For references and a clear discussion of these patron-client relationships, see Duff 1928, 36-49 (from whom I have taken my description); Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984, 54-55. 13   Dionysius Halicarnassus II.10 and 11; cf. Gelzer 1969, 63; Badian 1958, 154ff. 14   Badian 1967, 252ff.; Rouland 1979, 348ff.; Nicols 1980b (Pliny). For studies of patron-client relationships in the Roman republic and early empire, see Rouland 1979, 10-18 (especially n. 6). 15   Syme 1939; Gelzer 1969, 87. Chapter CXXX of the text of the Lex Coloniae Genetivae Juliae (the charter for the town of Urso in southern Spain, introduction and translation in Hardy 1912, 7-60) makes it abundantly clear how important support from Roman colonies might be in the internal politics of the Republic. The charter makes it extraordinarily difficult for the colony to adopt Roman senators as patrons other than those appointed as the original patrons in the colony. “It is clear that Caesar was determined to break down senatorial influence in the new colonies” (Hardy 1912, 56). For general discussion see Finley 1983 (bibliography, pp. 142-145). 16   In the Roman Republic candidacy for magistracy was not by organized political party but based upon a system of personal relationships of all kinds reaching both upwards and downwards in society. See Gelzer 1969, 62; Sanford 1930, 453-463. 17   A great number of these, called by Cicero litterae commendaticiae (Ad Fam. V.5), are found in book XIII the Epistulae ad Familiares. Cf., e.g., XIII.4, 5, 7, 8, 36, 66 and IX.13. For more general discussion, see Cotton 1981, 1-7, esp. n. 17; Keyes 1935, 42-44. 18   For an exploration of Cyprian’s use of this literary style, see Bobertz 1997, 252-259.

12

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

of appropriate patronage so that one might gain the support needed to garner and hold social prestige and political office in Rome.19 In the early imperial period the necessity of clients to have great patrons and patrons to be supported by clients declined both in Rome and in the provinces, right along with the lessening of both prestige and real political power in the provincial civic assemblies.20 Yet, and now often described in new terminology, patronage continued to be the primary social means through which social and public prestige was established in both Rome and the provincial cities.21 The practice of patronage affected not only the relationship between rich and poor but all levels of social status in-between. Everywhere on the social and political ladder of status there existed certain expectations for reciprocal social exchange.22 The terms of the exchange were known by all: those with greater political power and material wealth granted various benefactions (effective legal pleading in court, support for political office and, of course, material gifts) to those lower in social and political standing. In return the elites were accorded loyalty on honor in the recognition of social status along with very public recognition of their status as patrons.23 Juvenal’s Satires and Martial’s Epigrams provide a picture of the duties of the poor client to attend the atrium of his patron in the early morning and to join the retinue of his patron as he made his way through the streets in Rome.24 Through the sarcasm of satire the reader gets the sense of a genuine dependence of social inferiors upon a patron for meals and occasional gifts.25 We glimpse  Cicero De Officiis II.16-17; cf. Commentariolum Petitionis (Handbook of Electioneering). For the role of clients’ support of their patrons in the public affairs of Rome, cf. Tacitus Dialogue on Oratory 36-37 and Annales IV.2; IV.34 (Sejanus). So also Plutarch’s description in Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae (Moralia 808B) applied to patronage: “And there are also favors which arouse no ill-will, such as aiding a friend to gain an office, putting into his hands some honorable administrative function or some friendly foreign mission” (trans. Fowler 1936, loc. cit.). See the discussion in Saller 1982, 9-10 and 31 and cf. Lewis 1951, 394-399. 20   Ste. Croix 1954, 35; Gagé 1964, 124-129. If the elections themselves rapidly lost the role they had played in the Roman constitution, the manner and discipline of clientes remained a source of pride and status for Roman nobles (Rouland 1979, 508). 21   Saller 1982, 7-39 (e.g. amicus, officium, beneficium, meritum, gratia), “reciprocity continued in the principate to be a basic element in other types of social relations. Just as in the Republic, the language of exchange of used to conceptualize man-God, family and friendship relations” (p. 23). 22   See, e.g., Gold 1987. 23   The study of patronage has been a part of a number of important studies, in general see Harmand 1957; Nutton 1978; Mattingly 1948; Warmington 1954; Saller 1982; White 1975; Wallace-Hadrill 1989; Rouland 1979, et al. 24   See, e.g., Martial Epigrams XII.26; Juvenal Satires V.18-23; III.249. Gelzer 1969, 160, argues that under the principate the clients described by Juvenal and Martial were simply a luxury. They proved a family’s distinction, but political significance was lacking. For a fuller discussion of the necessary early morning call of the client upon his patron, see Gelzer 1969, 106. 25   Cf. Martial Epigrams X.18; Juvenal Satires I.132-134; V.166ff. For some discussion, see Countryman 1977, 139. For other references to the morning salutationes, see Saller 1982, 128 19



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

13

in this literature how the aristocracy in Roman society was in constant physical and social relationship with those lower in social and economic status: the clients’ early gathering at the atrium of the patron, the daily public retinue of clients with their patron parading in the streets, patronal dinners, private and public, attended by clients. Such social interdependence meant that the relationship between higher and lower status Romans assumed an immediacy virtually absent in modern society. Yet such bonds are often characteristic in social systems where patron-client relationships play a key role.26 On a much broader scale, the Roman political and social aristocracy (emperor, senators, knights and provincial elites) as well as cities, towns and voluntary associations (collegia) were all familiar with and practiced the social conventions and expectations surrounding patronage.27 At the top of this interdependent hierarchy the emperor bestowed honor on senators through nomination to the consulate. Social distinction was also granted by the emperor through advantageous marriages and, quite often, often outright gifts of money.28 The emperor bestowed priesthoods along with military and administrative positions eagerly sought by the Roman elite. It was the Emperor who could offer help in times of natural disaster and war. On a smaller scale he might grant special privileges (e.g. remission of tax obligations) or benefits to individuals, religious groups and even cities.29 In return the emperor expected the loyalty and support of all those, especially the powerful aristocracy, for whom he had acted as patron.30 n. 56. Even taking into account the tendentious purposes of Martial and Juvenal, both authors indicate that many in Rome must have been in the position of relying on the generosity of a patron to supply basic needs (see Martial, Epigrams, III.3, 7 and 30 and Juvenal Satires, I.117). See the very useful discussion of Cloud 1989. 26   MacMullen 1974, 62-65; Countryman 1977, 138-139. For a more general discussion of the personal flavor of patron-client relationships, see Lemarchand and Legg 1972, 155. 27   Indeed, Syme 1939, 380-383, has argued that patronage was the very foundation of the transition from republic to princeps. See the discussion in Saller 1983, 33: the crucial quality that gave the emperor his patronal character was the expectation that he would distribute beneficia in accordance with particularistic rather than universalistic criteria. The emperor was supposed to be generous with family and friends and those who could approach him in person (cf. Gagé 1964, 71-81). The various historians’ positions on the explanation for the rise of the principate are summarized in Rouland 1979, 499-509. Rouland argues that the success of Octavius was predicated on his ability to make himself the patronus par excellence of all Roman citizens and, as military commander, requiring an oath of loyalty to himself. 28   This is obviously part of the social function of the Res Gestae of Augustus: a series of benefactions which he has bestowed on a grateful empire and in return being given the title of ultimate patron: Pater Patriae. Cf. Judge 1960b, 32. 29   See Millar 1977, 133, for many concrete examples. Cf. Dutton 1978, 217. 30   See Harmand 1957, 155-179. On the special relationship of the early Emperors to the Roman people, see Mattingly 1948, 9-10: “The emperor was their patron, the man of influence, might and wealth who extended his protection, his fides, to the mass of small people who were his clients. The clients, the Roman people, gave him their own fides, their loyalty and service in return.” See also MacMullen 1976, 35-37; Meeks 1983, 12.

14

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

The emperor, however, was only the highest point from which all sorts of patronage flowed into the network of social and political connections that were constitutive of the early Empire. Roman senators as well as knights appointed to govern provinces naturally acted as primary patrons in the provinces under their control. For influential provincials, or even cities, becoming a client of the governor who could, as their patron, plead their case in Rome was the natural means of gaining access to the imperial administration in Rome. Even a cursory survey of the letters of Pliny, imperial magistrate of Bithynia in the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE), shows how all sorts of requests and petitions destined for Rome would first cross the desk of a high Roman official. And it follows that the social conventions surrounding patronage often led to the success of any petitions to Rome. Our sources indicate that the pleading of an influential governor or legate would have had extraordinary influence on the outcome of decisions given by the court of the Emperor.31 Wherever official power was exercised in Roman provincial governments, one can document the social conventions of patronage.32 Proconsular governors could intervene in the appointment of local magistrates who were themselves responsible for bearing much of the cost of civic administration.33 Governors could and did provide such benefactions as positions on their staff, both civil and military, as well as to confer high ranking appointments in the army itself.34 A governor might provide an influential recommendation for a provincial to attain high equestrian or senatorial offices in Rome itself.35 Above all, Roman governors acted as judges, and it is here that having the

31   A cursory reading of Book X of Pliny’s letters reveals that on almost every occasion Pliny’s “judgement” is confirmed by Trajan (cf. X.6-7; 24; 40; 42; 48; 50; 76; 84; 93; 95; 105; 107; but cf. X.34). Epp. X.43 and 44 provide an interesting commentary on the importance that the provincial city of Byzantium placed on its ability to gain influence both in Rome and with high officials: the payment of HS12,000 and HS3,000 respectively to pay for envoys to offer “greetings” (salutandum) to the emperor and the governor of Moesia. Since Byzantium was on the frontier and under the immediate military control of the governor of Moesia, one might conclude that the envoys were being employed to insure prompt military assistance. See Radice 1969, 221 n. 2. For epigraphical evidence of personal political patronage in Africa, see the examples in Duncan-Jones 1972, 15 n. 27. 32   Saller 1982, 168. Saller appropriately points out that the system of patronage was not only not suppressed, but advertised, in almost every major city of the empire in public inscriptions (from which most of our evidence comes). 33   Digests 50.4.3. 34   Saller 1982, 155-157. 35   Saller 1982, 158. Epigraphical studies done from African inscriptions bear out the influence of individuals already in positions of prominence. As the number of Africans who could act as patrons increased, a greater number of Africans made their entry into the equestrian and senatorial orders. See the quantifiable study of the inscriptions from Cirta in Duncan-Jones 1957: the increasing number of senators from Cirta depends upon the fact that Cirta was blessed with senators early on. Cf. Duncan-Jones 1972, 15.



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

15

right patron, himself a client of the governor, to plead one’s case before the court was essential.36 In social status ranked behind imperial senators, Roman knights acted as patrons in their position as governors of imperial provinces and as high-ranking procurators in the imperial administration. In the third century, the equestrian order was gaining increasing influence by acting as patrons in all aspects of Roman administration.37 Of the various ways patronage was exercised in ancient Roman society, patronal letters of recommendation, wherein a patron wrote as a client to his patron on behalf of his own client, are of particular importance to this study.38 To get a sense of the social context in which these letters seem to have been so much a part of social organization and advancement, we may look no further than the preserved letters of Pliny and Fronto. These letters give us a good sense of how the conventions of patronage, client to patron and patron as client to patron, functioned in day-to-day life.39 Pliny to Romatius Firmus: You and I both come from the same town, went to the same school and have been friends since we were children. Your father was a close friend of my mother and uncle, and a friend to me too, as far as our difference in age allowed. So there are sound and serious reasons why I ought to try and improve your status (dignitatem). Your worth (censum) of 100,000 sesterces is shown by the fact that you are a decurion (of Comum). Therefore, so we might enjoy you not only in the position of decurion, but also in the position of Roman knight, I am offering you 300,000 sesterces so that you will possess sufficient wealth for the knighthood. The length of our friendship pledges you not to forget this gift. I shall not even remind you to enjoy your new status with becoming discretion because it was received through me (as I ought to). Do I not know that you will do so unprompted? An honor ought to be guarded carefully when it must protect the patronage (beneficium) of a friend.40 36   Cf. CIL VIII 2734, the colony of Lambaesis in African Numidia erected an inscription in honor of the governor: “To M. Aurelius Cominius Cassianus whose judgement and the justice of his court were admired by all”. See Harmand 1957, 394 for text and discussion. 37   Alföldy 1980, 164-168. Rostovtzeff 1927, 395ff. So too (as one might guess) in Africa there appears to be an increasing number of dedications to knights as patrons of curiae, collegia and civitates (Duncan-Jones 1967, 149). See also Harmand 1957, 391-393; Apuleius, Florida 9 and the discussion in Saller 1982, 31-32. 38   Unfortunately, as Duncan-Jones 1972, 15 n. 27, suggests, the evidence for patronage is not usually of a kind to let us identify the results. 39   On this topic in general see Rouland 1979, 521-559. For discussion of documentary letters of recommendation in the imperial period, see Cotton 1981, 6: “The general historical and social context within which these documentary letters of recommendation should be studied … [is] the exercise of patronage at different social and official levels in the Roman Empire…” On Greek letters of recommendation, see Keyes 1935 and Kim 1972. 40  Pliny, Ep. I.19; I have freely adapted the translation of Radice 1969, loc. cit. Cf. Ep. X.4, 5, and 6. For discussion, see Sherwin-White 1966, 129-131; Nicols 1980b. For examples of Pliny’s commendation of clients (his and others’), see, e.g., Epp. X.4, 11, 12, 104 and 106. For discussion

16

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Pliny’s confidence in his ability to act as Romatius’ patron was fully justified. Romatius is mentioned again in Ep. IV.29 and in that letter he has attained the status of Roman knight and is a member of the jury court (iudex selectus) at Rome. Pliny’s request in that letter is that he be more punctual in his duties at the court, that is, a friendly warning to one who was now morally bound to plead Pliny’s interests in the courts at Rome. As Pliny himself states echoing the language of patronage: “the length of our friendship pledges you not to forget this gift”.41 Along with Pliny’s correspondence, the second century letters of Marcus Cornelius Fronto, senator of Rome from North Africa, provide a glimpse of the political and social function of patronage in imperial society. Fronto was a powerful senator from Cirta, the capital of Numidia. He was of consular rank and the tutor to two future emperors: Marcus Aurelius and Verus.42 He addressed a letter, ca. 160 C.E., to the leading magistrates and municipal senate (decurio­nes) of Cirta in which he makes the recommendation (commendatio) that his native city elect his son-in-law, Aufidius Victorinus, along with two others, Servilius Silanus and Postumius Festus, to be the patrons (patroni) who represent the interests of Cirta at the central court in Rome.43 Each of the three is recommended by similar yet distinctive praise meant to elevate their status in the eyes of the leaders of Cirta. Fronto describes these three young men as bright and eloquent in speech and possessing noble manners (moribus tantaque eloquentia; optimum et fecundissimum; morum et eloquentia). It is even possible that Fronto had the assurance that one of these men would attain consular rank in the Senate of Rome, that is, if he had not already done so.44 By his recommendation Fronto was at once creating his own powerful clients in the Roman court, men who could advance the interests of his native city Cirta. In addition, favors granted to Cirta in Rome would have their origin in Front’s patronage: the city of Cirta herself would be his client.45 (and further citations) of such letters of recommendation as acts of patronage, see Cotton 1981, 1-7, esp. n. 19. 41   “The patron was intended to serve as a general mentor. He helped the protégé’s career financially, in necessities, and politically in his capacity as suffragator. Once the protegé reached office, the patron accompanied him and advised him on his duties. For his part the young man was expected to praise his patron and so enhance his reputation” (Saller 1982, 26). Cf. SherwinWhite 1966, 308-309. 42   Haines 1919, xxiii-xlii. 43  Fronto Epistulae ad Amicos ii.11 (Haines 1919, vol. I, 292-294). 44   Ep. ad Amicos ii.11: … virum popularem habeamus et virum consularem ius publicum respondentem (Haines 1919, vol. I, p. 294). Given the corrupt state of the text it is difficult to pinpoint the reference. 45   Cirta of course had already adopted Fronto as its patron (CIL VIII 5350, cf. Haines 1919, xxiv) and he insists here that he had done a good job of representing the interests of his city in Rome: in officiis civilibus non obscure versatus sum. For further examples of letters of recommendation, each an act of patronage for a particular client, see Ad Antoninum Pium 9 (Haines 1919,



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

17

Fronto’s letters also provide an intriguing glimpse of the role of patron as the one who properly pleads for the legal interests of his clients. When Volumnius Serenus was accused of re-entering the municipal senate at Concordia while still legally exiled, Fronto intervened with the judge, Arrius Antoninus, on behalf of Serenus.46 The threat of the court’s judgement was to brand Volumnius with ignominia, the loss of his honor as a citizen.47 As one reads further in Fronto’s letters describing this situation it becomes clear that the judge was a client of Fronto and that Fronto absolutely expected to gain favorable influence in any decision that might affect his other client.48 Perhaps the most important feature of the description of patronage in these letters is the unmistakable moral tone. The relationships and influence which depended on ties of patronage are part of the ordinary expectations of public and social life. There is no sense of outrage, for example, that the judge in Fronto’s letter would be influenced to favor a particular plaintiff in the court. Indeed, because the judge is a client of Fronto, one would expect the relationship to influence his decision. Further, in all cases the strong sense of the boundaries between social statuses was maintained: the way one crossed these rigid status distinctions was through the establishment of patron-client relationships. Moreover, we can surmise that these relationships would have tended to reinforce social bonds across status lines without blurring the status distinctions that were so much a part of Roman society.49 vol. I, 263), Ad M. Caes. V.37 (Haines 1919, vol. I, 238), Ad M. Caes. V.34 (Haines 1919, vol. I, 232). Inscriptions of the second and third centuries which are dedicated to the patrons of municipalities make frequent allusion to the eloquence of the patron (Harmand 1957, 411 for numerous examples). As Fronto shows, a special function of the patron was pleading before the tribunals; Roman senators still had considerable influence before the various courts of Rome. See Harmand 1957, 411-413. 46  Fronto, Ep. ad Amicos ii.7 (Haines 1919, Vol. II, 176-187). Cf. Ep. ad Amicos ii.6. The corrupt state of the text does not allow us to determine for certain what Volumnius had previously done to deserve his exile. “Volumnius Serenus Concordiensis, if in these things which he is relating to me has neither added nor subtracted anything from the truth, has the right and merit to claim me as his patronus and advocate (precatore)”. Indeed, Fronto provides a brief history of this practice of attempting to influence the courts in Ep. ad Amicos I.1 (Haines 1919, vol. I, 282ff.). 47   For discussion and bibliography on ignominia, see Crook 1967, 83ff. 48   Ep. ad Amicos ii.6 and cf. ii.8. (Fronto to the judge Antoninus): “I am looked up to by you as a father (parentem). Consequently very many who desire your favor have recourse to me” (trans. Haines 1919, loc. cit.). See Saller 1982, 174; 181. Cf. Pliny, Epp. III.4 and especially VI.18: Pliny pleads the cause of the city of Firmum in Rome at the behest of his friend Statius Sabinus. 49   The letters of Pliny and Fronto give some literary and narrative flesh to the bones of thousands of ancient inscriptions, chiseled throughout the Empire in almost every city and province, inscriptions that record the social structure and workings of patronage: “Victorinus Iulianus and Germanus Venussianus (dedicate this inscription) to (their patron) the Roman Senator C. Caerellius Pollittanus for his innumerable benefactions”, CIL VI.1366; cited in Saller 1982, 196.

18

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

In the early Empire, Roman African provincial society was, like Rome itself, entirely timocratic.50 All positions of authority within the many cities were based on property qualifications.51 There was a property requirement (census) to be a member of the local senate (ordo decurionum). In addition, the magistrates in all African cities were required to pay a standard amount of money, the summa honoraria, for the privilege of holding office.52 More than simply a social custom, the summa honoraria were a large part of the operating budget for the cities which possessed few other capacities for collecting income.53 We should not, however, think of these customary contributions as a sort of tax always and everywhere resented by the wealthy. Honor was involved. In extant inscriptions offices, both civic and social, are equated with honor (ob honorem) and there is every reason to believe that such honor was often highly prized. Very often in the second century (less often in the troubled economic times of the third) the candidate for civic or social office paid out more than the amount required and received the so-called “double honor”.54 The African inscriptions themselves invariably provide a prideful list of offices which the magistrate had held along with the precise amount paid on behalf of each office (cursus honorum).55 The most logical interpretation of such payments is that they reflected a desire for increased social or civic status.56 50   “The general tendency was towards the concentration of the land in the hands of a few rich proprietors” (Rostovtzeff 1957, 330). Wealth, meanwhile, was the essential prerequisite for all the higher statuses in public life: entry into the Roman senate, knighthood, the local senate (ordo decurionum) and magistracies. Differences in pay (when salary was a part of office) were enormous: a centurion in the legions made approximately sixteen times the amount of a ordinary soldier, higher officers as much as thirty-three times. In the civil offices, procurators enjoyed even larger differentials in relation to those who worked under them (Duncan-Jones 1963, 166). For more discussion, see Rostovtzeff 1957, 326-334. Cf. Seneca the Elder Controversiae 2.1.17. 51   The use of the more general term cities (civitates) in this study will exclude a differentiation of the legal status of municipia and coloniae in relation to Rome. For a clear description of the differences see Abbott 1926, 3-9. 52   Duncan-Jones 1962, 65. Another term found in the inscriptions is summa legitima (no distinction). There appears to have been no invariable correlation between the size of cities and the summa honoraria required for office, though Carthage appears to be on the high end. See the list provided in Duncan-Jones 1974, 107-108 and the discussion on p. 82. 53   Duncan-Jones 1974, 82-88. Abbott 1926, 85-86, sees in the second and third centuries an increasing tendency to move from the popular election of magistrates to election by the ordo decurionum. Fox 1987, 508, contends however that the election of magistrates in third century Africa could still be lively popular occasions. 54   Duncan-Jones 1974, 86. 55   Duncan-Jones 1962, 51: the practice of specifying the amount of money given for office was generally more common in Africa than the other provinces. This tradition of munificence was maintained even far into the third century, when such giving in other provinces had fallen off. 56   Indeed, the tradition of private munificence to public causes is most appropriately explained by the desire for status: benefaction was the easiest (only?) means by which a rich family could achieve importance in a town or city. See the discussion in Duncan-Jones 1963, 162.



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

19

Indeed there exists a remarkable description of a Carthaginian patron from the middle of third century provided by the Christian bishop Cyprian: You see him, illustrious with glorious clothing, to shine, as it seems to him, in purple. With what dirtiness does he purchase this so that he might shine? What disdain of the high and mighty has he first endured? What arrogant porches has he occupied as an early greeter? How many reproaching footsteps of puffed-up men has he preceded, thronged in the crowds of clients, in order that later a procession might go before him, an obsequious group of greeters, subservient not to the man but to his power? Nor is he held in esteem for his character, but for his fasces. Finally, you may see the disgusting end of these men, when the flatterer, the temporary trifler, has departed, when the deserting sycophant has defiled the exposed pride of the (now) private man. Then the mutilating wounds of the house strike the conscience, then the losses of the exhausted estate are recognized, losses by which the favor of the populace was purchased (redemptus) and popularity was sought with fickle and stupid promises.57

Cyprian’s detailed description of the patron (for him the wrong sort of patron) allows us to consider the nature of the social exchange in which such honor and social status was valued above all else. What were the marks of honor and status provided to those who, having the means, craved to purchase the social prestige and authority which naturally followed from these benefactions? Local senators and magistrates had the right to wear special dress and possessed the privilege of special seating at games and entertainments. They were also very often granted a larger and better share of the food at public festivals.58 In addition, the inscription announcing a magistrate’s place in the city’s hierarchy was very public. This proclamation, voted by either the local senate (ordo) or the senate and people together (ordo populusque), was purposely inscribed in the base of a statue of the person or in a building which he had built as a sign that the city as a whole was honoring both the civic status and the generosity of the magistrate.59 Thus the citizens of the city constantly would have been made aware of the precise nature of the social exchange taking place: status and authority were granted to local magistrates and senators in return for their provision on behalf of the general welfare of the city.

57   Ad Donatum 11.232-244, CSEL, ed. Simonetti. The description here is remarkably similar to the description of clients in Juvenal and Martial, a point which has not been discussed in the secondary literature. Cf. Mohler, 1932, 114: “It follows as a natural corollary to the importance of games and epula in the life of ancient communities that social leadership was determined to a considerable extent by the ability of individuals to supply the demand for these forms of entertainment”. For a discussion of the unique role of aristocratic benefaction in Roman society, see MacMullen 1974, 61-62. 58   On seating arrangements and distributions of food at public festivals, see the discussion in Mohler 1932, 113-114. Meeks 1981, 31, provides a remarkable example of how this ancient social convention affects the interpretation of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:17-34. 59   Harmand 1957, 345.

20

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Yet beyond the legal organization of the cities around the patronage system, there were also gifts and services provided to cities by men and women who were, at times, specifically designated as municipal patrons (patroni).60 Again Pliny provides perhaps the best literary description of their place and function in Roman society: Close to my property is the town of Tifernum on Tiber which took me as its patron when I was scarcely more than a child – its enthusiasm outrunning its discretion. The people always celebrate my arrivals, regret my departures, and rejoice in my official titles. And so to express my gratitude (one always feels disgrace in being outdone in love), I defrayed the cost of a temple. Since it is now complete, it would be irreligious to put off its dedication any longer. So we shall be there for the day of dedication which I have decided to celebrate with a public feast (epulo).61

Pliny’s letter confirms and expands our knowledge of what is already known from inscriptions about the nature and function of civic patrons within Roman society. Patrons provided gifts for almost every aspect of public expense: improvements to roads and buildings, construction of all kinds (especially temples), defraying the cost of grain or oil for the citizens, decoration of public places (statues) and the provision of public banquets (cenae or epula). Patrons 60   We should also take special note of the fact that in ancient society the granting of patronage and the consequent reception of public office, status and honour were not limited to men. We have inscriptional evidence of numerous women patrons of towns and collegia, from Menodora of the Psidian city of Sillyon who held a series of magistracies, priesthoods and liturgies in that town, to the less famous Pompeia Agrippinilla, priestess of a small Dionysiac thiasos (association) in Tusculum made up of members largely from her own household. Yet at the same time we should be careful not to account this feature of ancient life as anything like equal opportunity: women as patrons and office holders are a distinct minority in extant inscriptions. For discussion and references, see Harmand 1957, 281-282; Van Bremen 1983, 223. Cf. MacMullen 1980, 214; Meeks 1983, 31. I am not here too much concerned with the legal distinction between patroni officially adopted by towns and unofficial benefactors (those who did not, for some reason, receive an official distinction for their beneficia). Pliny, e.g., was an official patron of Tifernum (see immediately below) and, despite similar benefactions having been made to both towns, an unofficial benefactor of Comum. As Nicols 1980b, 380, points out, “both relationships continued to be based on fides (and not on ius) and benefactors and patroni continued to perform the same services.” So in this study I use the term patron inclusively. The one thing official cooptation does provide to us, however, is precisely the official record of that cooptation, a point which is discussed immediately below. For a discussion of the difference between official patrons and benefactors, see Nicols 1980b, 379-384. 61  Pliny, Ep. IV.1.4-6. I have slightly altered the translation of Radice 1969. Cf. Ep. VI.18; X.8 and especially Pliny’s numerous benefactions of the city of Comum, Epp. I.3, 8; II.8; III.6; IV.13; V.7, 10; VII.11, 18 and CIL 5262; discussion in Duncan-Jones 1965, 185-186; Nicols 1980b, 379. Pliny, Ep. X.116 shows that benefaction among the aristocracy was a common practice on several occasions (marriage, birthdays, the young man’s assumption of toga, entry into office and dedication of buildings) and not limited to those who were formally voted patron status in the cities. Greek inscriptions expressing benefaction are collected by Danker 1982, though his interpretation is largely limited to what pertains directly to the New Testament. In relation to this study, see the important review and caveat of Aune 1983.



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

21

also commonly provided for capital to be invested at interest for the annual provision of banquets and entertainment (often games) celebrating birthdays and anniversaries of various sorts.62 Both men and women, young and old, could be adopted as patrons of a city. Cities could and often did coopt many patrons for itself.63 Indeed, it is the desire for such material patronage which best explains the cities’ desire formally to adopt aristocratic patrons who were in no position to serve the city as legates: youth, women and even those not yet born.64 Yet the capacity to represent the city’s interests to either the provincial governor or Rome herself,65 brings to the fore perhaps the most important duty of an adopted patron.66 A Roman knight could be called “a most eloquent patron and advocate” or “a patron and defender of the public cause”. Such phrases recall the ideal of a patron as the one who could and would plead the interests of his client city, whether in disputes with the fiscus (tax collection) or gaining enhanced political status for a city, perhaps helping the city to acquire the grant of rights to become a colonia or municipium.67 The high

62   Warmington 1954, 47. Duncan-Jones 1963, 160-161: Apuleius was married in a villa rather than in the city because he would have been forced to grant gifts (sportula) to the populus (Apology 87). For games and entertainments, see the list in Harmand 1957, 371-372. For statues, civic constructions and improvements, see Harmand 1957, 358ff. Cf. the lists provided in Duncan-Jones 1974, 90-119. 63   Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. 1, 426; Nicols 1980a, 547. 64   On youth, see the letter of Pliny quoted above. On women as civic patronae, see Harmand 1957, 281-282. On patrons not yet born, cf. the skeletal formula of patronal adoption created by Harmand 1957, 336 (formulas were basically similar but differed in details): “The senate and people of this city … provide hospitality (hospitium) to him and coopt (cooptaverunt) him and his posterity patron for themselves and their posterity and he receives them and their posterity into his loyalty (fides) and clientage (clientiam)”. On formulae in general, see Nicols 1980a, 548-553. See Warmington 1954, 46, and for a translated example of the cooptation of a patron, see Lewis 1955, 276. 65   Cf. Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 426: “Les patrons assumaient, pour eux et pour leurs descendents, l’obligation de défendre en toutes circonstances les droits de la commune, d’agir toujours au mieux de ses intérêts, de prêter leur concours à tous ceux de ses membres qui pourraient avoir à plaider à Rome, et même de favoriser l’accomplissement de leurs souhaits individuels. Sous l’Empire elles comptaient plus encore sur leurs libéralités; des sportules, des festins et surtout des édifices et des trauvaux d’utilité publique: voilà ce qu’on attendait d’eux”. 66   In Africa the inscriptions allow us to identify four groups of patrons: proconsular governors of Proconsularis and governors of Numidia and the other African provinces; Africans of high rank in imperial service; curatores rei publicae (imperial officials who in the third century became increasingly responsible for the financial administration of the cities); the municipal aristocracy, particularly of Carthage, who are not known to have been prominent outside of Africa (Warmington 1954, 49-53). 67   See Warmington 1954, 45-46 for inscriptions quoted. For an ample discussion of the extension of rights to cities in Africa during the second and third centuries, see Broughton 1929, 134-153. See also Duncan-Jones 1972, 15 n. 27. For a series of examples of civic patrons (Roman senators, knights and municipal magistrates) who were able to gain privileges (e.g., promotion in civic status) and benefits from Rome, see Duncan-Jones 1972, 12-15.

22

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

number of African civic patrons who had some relationship to the governor or provincial government speaks for itself.68 In sum the social contract embedded in the actions and status of patrons with respect to their towns and cities is quite clear. There was a certain expectation among ordinary citizens for patronage from their social and status superiors. In J. Nicols terms, “Roman tradition and imperial ideology assigned the patronage of communities to the duties of a good citizen toward his state and society”.69 Yet a quid pro quo also existed. Expressions of status were always involved. In Roman North Africa, for example, when public distributions of money and food (sportulae) offered anything at all to the general populous (plebs), more was offered to the aristocracy by a usual ratio of three to one.70 So also at public entertainments, a patron might enjoy the privilege of a special seat, the bisellium.71 And certain other privileges could be provided to the patron and his posterity.72 For legally adopted patrons, the most usual mark of distinction within the community was the honor of a statue or plaque, appropriately inscribed and placed in a public place.73 This public quality of the patronage system is aptly demonstrated by the city list (album) of the Italian city of Canusium. The third century list of the municipal senate and those honored as patrons of the city is divided into clear hierarchical rank.74 At the top of the album the patrons of the city are listed, with the senatorial patrons preceding the equestrian patrons. 68   Harmand 1957, 285. In Africa in the third century there is an increasing number of imperial officials, the curatores, who are listed as patrons of the cities. The increasing level of imperial control over municipal finances suggests why these men were selected as patroni. See Warmington 1954, 46. 69   Nichols 1980b, 377. 70   Duncan-Jones 1962, 63. Similar patterns of discrimination are common in other parts of the Empire. See the list established by Harmand 1957, 364-365: the ratio of distribution to decurions and plebs runs as high as 5 to 1 (CIL V.5917), but normally is around 3 or 2 to 1 (CIL X.53, 416, 5064). See Hands 1969, 91-92; Mrozek 1966-1968, 156-158 and Duncan-Jones 1962, 74 n. 8. 71   Harmand 1957, 348. 72   Lewis 1951, 428-429 (exemption of patron’s son from military service). Cities sometimes accorded public funerals to patrons (Harmand 1957, 351). 73   The statue could be ordered done from public funds with the dedication declaring it was voted by the ordo et populusque or by the ordo alone (undoubtedly representing the populus in this instance), but often the honored patron would remit the cost to the city (utilizing the formula, honor contentus remisit) thereby ironically attaining even more honor. J. Nicols describes the procedure of cooptation: “Thereafter, in acordance with the decree, a number of legati would be selected from the ordo decurionum who were authorized to approach the future patron, to present him with a copy of the decree and request him to accept the community in his and his descendents’ clientela. When the patronus had done so, and it is by no means clear what form this response took, then a tabula aenea (or patronatus) recording the cooptation would be produced, one copy of which was set in the house of the patron … and another in some public place in the community” (Nicols 1980a, 537; for a reconstruction of the ritual that may have taken place between the patron and his clientela, see pp. 554-555). 74   ILS 6121 (223 C.E.).



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

23

These are followed by the local magistrates and only then are listed the names of members of the local senate (decuriones) and those young men who were apparently destined to become local senators (praetextati). Even within each of the ranks there appears to be an order of precedence, though that is at times hard to divine. Among the patron-senators, however, those of consular rank are listed before those who are not.75 Hence the overall social and political status of each individual listed would have been entirely in the public domain. It is not entirely clear what role such public displays of status would have played in the ordinary career of provincial elites. If a local provincial desired equestrian rank, for example, his first task was to distinguish himself in local affairs (a primary component of which was patronal generosity) and thus to attract the attention from a higher status patron who could help him achieve his goal.76 There is evidence from Carthage and Cirta which shows that local office, having been paid for, was sometimes a steppingstone to imperial rank. Various gift dedications are preserved for men who made the gift on becoming knights, and it is quite possible that such gifts were promised as a prerequisite of promotion.77 Moreover, it cannot be surprising that among those who achieved equestrian status without the benefit of holding regular local office, the most common office held was a local priesthood, flamines perpetui. This office was more usually reserved for local magistrates upon the completion of a successful career (cursus honorum) through all the major municipal offices.78 Yet in one case a knight, perhaps because of his family’s previous distinctions and his overt generosity, was able simply to assume the highest honor in the city.79 Whatever other personal qualities were involved, extant inscriptions most often record promotion accompanied by past and present benefaction. This was the patronal exchange ideology that played such a major role in the entire social matrix of the empire.80 Finally, our extent sources describe in some detail the workings of the patronage system on the social level which perhaps comes nearest to the early Christian communities, voluntary associations referred to   Harmand 1957, 387.   Duncan-Jones 1967, 153. 77   Ibid., 161-163. 78   Ibid., 156. 79   Note too, that in one distribution the highest amount was paid to the flamines perpetui, undoubtedly as an indication of the great distinction of the office (Duncan-Jones 1974, 82). For examples of discrimination in status based on the parents’ previous social distinction, see DuncanJones 1960, 160. 80   The social function of patronage was not entirely mechanistic. Pliny’s descriptions show just how keenly this form of social exchange was on both sides. Pliny speaks of the love (amor) which was shared between himself and the Tifernian townsmen, how they rejoiced at his arrivals and grieved at his departures. In the inscriptions of the third century, one finds many references to love (amor) in describing the patron in dedicatory inscriptions. For discussion see Warmington 1954, 47. 75 76

24

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

as collegia tenuiorum.81 These associations seem to have been organized socially on a model quite similar to provincial cities themselves.82 Like the cities, the extant association inscriptions list patrons (patroni), officers (e.g. sacerdotes, magistri, quinquennales, curatores) and senators (decuriones), all of whom are listed as a separate order (ordo) from the ordinary members, or populous (plebs; populus). The fact that patrons and officers appear to have been elected by the general assembly (conventus) insured the strong link between the two groups: the benefactions of the former staking a claim on the loyalty and status of the latter.83 The role of the designated patrons and officers in the collegia appear generally to have been akin to their namesakes in the cities. There is evidence of a 81   The term collegia tenuiorum is taken over from a reference in Marcian, Digest 47.22. There is evidence of these small private associations from all over the Empire in every period, but the categorization of the myriad of association inscriptions is not quite so easy. Wilken 1984, 34 (rightly setting aside the official colleges of priests which have very little in common with the private voluntary associations) divides them into three main groups: professional corporations (shipowners, fruit-growers, fishermen of the Tiber etc.); funerary societies; and religious associations centered around the worship of a deity. Moreover, Duncan-Jones 1962 and 1974 has shown that for Africa another type of association must be considered: the curia. These curiae (not to be confused with the municipal senate of the same name) seem to have been semi-official organizations of limited size (in a average town there were perhaps 10 or 11 curiae with 50-60 members each) located in many of the cities of Africa. The fact that they were distinguished from the ordo perhaps signals that they were slightly proletarian in their composition (Duncan-Jones 1962, 73; 1963, 171; 1974, 277-280). None of these association types, however, existed in pure form. For example, all of the colleges incorporated the worship of one or more deities and most (if not all) were also funerary societies. Therefore, the discussion which follows will necessarily be eclectic. See also Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 33ff; Kornemann 1900, 385ff.; Dill 1905, 251-282; Ausbüttel 1982; Garnsey 1987, 157; Maier 1991, 22-23. 82   One might include here a discussion of the Jewish synagogues. Yet we simply do not know that much about the characteristic social practices of these groups outside of Palestine during the imperial period. See, e.g., Leon 1960, 167-194. From the list provided by Brooten 1982, 229, it seems clear that social status and wealth and the willingness to exercise patronage played a large role in determining synagogue office and thereby authority. For more discussion see Fox 1987, 496, and Theissen 1982, 192 n. 33 (and note the inscriptions cited by both authors). 83   On the purpose, size and composition of the various collegia, see Kornemann 1900, 385ff.; Ausbüttel 1982, 34-48 and Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 339 and 383. Waltzing rightly cautions that there was a great variety of internal organization and that the associations only resembled each other in the essential parts of their organization. Collegia could vary in size from a handful already associated in a household to several hundred in the larger associations in Rome. It appears to be true, however, that the provision of funerals was a major preoccupation of almost all of these societies. The relation of the early Christian communities to these societies has been the subject of a lengthy debate. Early studies were more concerned with the question of category. Cf. Waltzing 1914, col. 2118: “Non, les communautés chrétiennes n’étaient pas collèges funéraires, mais des sociétés religieuses” (cf. Hatch 1881; Hardy 1906, 129-150). More recent studies, like the present one, have not looked at the issue from the point of view of category, but of a shared social and ideological environment, the study of which can inform our understanding of both. See, e.g., Countryman 1977; Wilken 1970; Meeks 1983, 77-80; Gagé 1964, 307-313; Judge 1960b, 40-48; Sordi 1986, 182-186.



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

25

cursus honorum, an upward movement through various offices, which at times culminated in being named a patron (patronus) of the association. In the more prominent associations, there is evidence of the patron serving as protector of the association’s interests in the context of wider society.84 Not surprisingly, however, the most prominent role for patrons and officers of the associations was that of providing various benefactions.85 In the inscriptions the patrons are credited with providing their adopted associations with meeting places (schola), statues and the decoration of the grounds surrounding the statues, outright distributions of money or gifts (sportulae), grants of money to be put out at interest for annual celebrations (for example, banquets on the birthday of the patron or of the patron deity) and other provisions.86 As in the cities, the officers in the associations were often required to pay a set fee for the status of office (ob honorem; summa honoraria) along with an apparent requirement to provide certain other amenities for the entertainment of the members.87 The reciprocal marks of status offered by the members of the collegia were often carbon copies of those granted by cities to their municipal patrons. Patrons of collegia were sometimes provided with the tessera patronatus, a plaque which designated them as patron and which could be placed in the patron’s home.88 They could also hold the special seat of honor, the bisellium, in association meetings or meals. One patron is termed pater collegi bisellarius, a sort of permanent seat of honor.89 Patrons and officers could be referred to as honored ones (hono­rati) and listed first on the membership rolls (album) of the association.90 When there was a food distribution to the whole association, the patrons and 84   CIL VI.1872 (Fishermen of the Tiber thank a patron for securing rights to river navigation); CIL V.4341 (a priestly college thanks a patron for his help in securing an immunity). See Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 437. 85   The role of the patron as primarily a provider of beneficia is signaled by the adoption of wealthy patrons who would have had little or no influence in the wider society (youth, women and especially freedman), but who might have eagerly sought out the collegia to provide them with the status they could not have in the wider society (Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 441). See CIL IX.1684 for the cooptation as patroni of an entire family (the “Crispini”, patrons of the city and college). So also when the same person is listed as an officer in more than one collegium, it is most probable that he (or she) was selected because of the material capacity to be a patron of more than one association (Kornemann 1900, 420). 86   See Dill 1905, 271-273 for numerous examples. Examples of the formula ob honorem patrocinii or patronalis honor can be found in Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 431. Cf. Kornemann 1900, 424: “Die Ganze (the naming of a patron) war eine Speculation auf die Freigebigkeit reicher Gönner. Ob honorem patronatus wurde tüchtig gezahlt”. 87   Kornemann 1900, 420. 88   Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 429. 89   CIL XI.1355, the album for a collegium of carpenters in Etruria: “Numisius Tacitus Pater Collegi Bisellarius”; so also in the same inscription under the list of decuriones: “Herennius Demetrius Bisell. Dendrophor”. See Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 431, for discussion. 90   CIL XIV.246-256. See the discussion in Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 430-431. Cf. Kornemann 1900, 418.

26

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

officers routinely received the largest share.91 It should be noted, moreover, that honorific decrees thanking the patron for his or her beneficia were most often voted by the entire association: “the whole membership consented” or “it pleased everyone that a statue, plaque etc. be provided for…”.92 The stated vote of the entire membership to honor a benefactor brings us to a discussion of an aspect of the social workings of the collegia which was quite unique in the context of provincial cities in the second and third century empire: the associations seem to have been characteristically more democratic. The associations’ popular assemblies appear to have held much more real social power than their counterparts in the cities where the power of the popular assembly was diminishing.93 It was the member assembly, often termed the conventus, who would approve the initial charter establishing the collegium (though those giving the funds could and did provide stipulations) and vote for the funerary celebrations and the grant of honors to the deceased. The same assembly could vote to honor benefactors with statues and altars. The assembly apparently also witnessed (and approved?) the oath of office taken by officers elected by the assembly.94 The rather abstract discussion of the social dynamics inherent in this hierarchical, patronage-dependent society can be made more concrete by paying particular attention to two representative collegia inscriptions, one from Lanuvium, Italy and the other from Simitthus, North Africa. The lengthy inscription from the collegium of the cult of Diana and Antinoüs from Lanuvium Italy (136 C.E.) represents by far the most detailed description of the social matrix of a collegia tenuiorum from the imperial period. Part of the inscription reads as follows: At Lanuvium in the temple of Antinoüs in which Lucius Caesennius Rufus, patron of the municipality (patronus municipi), had commanded to hold an assembly (conventus) 91   Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 367. When an officer had held all the offices he was listed in an honorific inscription as “having passed through all honors” (CIL XI.2643: omnibus honoribus functo). See CIL VI.1060 for an album clearly listing honorati. In CIL VI.9044, a college of smiths in Rome, honors Narcissus the decurion for a distribution of HS10 and the giving of a cena where he gave double to the priests (sacerdotibus), honorati and decuriones of the college. In CIL VI.3678 Marcus Valerius Felix, an honoratus of a college, gave double gifts (presumably to the honorati and decuriones who authorized the dedicatory inscription). 92   Examples in Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 374-377. As in the cities, a majority of those honored paid for it themselves (Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 432). 93   Rostovtzeff 1928, 432; Crook 1967, 271; Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 368. 94   Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 375-377 (other examples of the votes taken by the conventus are given). On the stipulations a patron could insist on in forming a collegium, see the inscription of the founding of the funerary collegium of Asclepius and Hygiae by Marcellina and Aelius Zeno (ILS 7213). The patrons provided a capital amount, the interest on which was to provide money, bread and wine on seven different occasions in the year. The patrons and magistrates were always to receive the largest share, with Marcellina and Aelius receiving three times as much as their plebeian colleagues. See Dill 1905, 278.



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

27

through Lucius Pompeius … quinquennalis of the worshippers of Diana and Antinoüs, he promised that he would give them … out of his generosity the interest on 15,000 sesterces to be used, 400 sesterces on the birthday of Diana, August 13, and 400 sesterces on the birthday of Antinoüs, November 27. And he prescribed that the law established by them be written under the tetrastyle of Antinoüs’ temple in the inner part, recorded in the words below … Lucius Caesennius Rufus son of Lucius, of the Quirine tribe, for the third time dictator and patron.95

In this preamble one notes immediately that the officer and patron Caesennius possessed both the authority to call the assembly together (through the resident official) and to command that the charter be written and deposited in the temple. He appears to have been voted for the third time dictator and patron and had called the assembly together in order to provide interest on 15,000 sesterces Yet one also notes that it was the full assembly (conventus) that appears to have actually established the regulations which follow in the inscription. The hierarchical tone is thus softened by the reciprocal relationship of the patron and the assembly.96 The Lanuvium inscription goes on to record the decree of the Senate and people of Rome (Senatus consulto populi Romani) concerning the regulation of funerary associations (they may assemble once a month to provide for the burial of members) and commands that the new members read the laws of the association recorded on the inscription itself. The following rules of the association begin with the words “it was pleasing to all” (placuit universis), probably signifying that the entire assembly had voted on the listed regulations. These included fees for entrance and monthly dues and provisions which the society was to make for the burial of its members. Near the top of the second page the inscription reads: “if a member should die intestate, he will be interred by the judgement of the quinquennalis and the people (populi)”. One recognizes in such language, along with aspects such as the initial vote of the entire membership, the close governing relationship expected between the assembly and its highest patron and officer (quinquennalis). This relationship was further spelled out by the requirement that those in leadership positions within the society provide for the society’s entertainment: It was further voted that whoever is master (magister) for the year from the order of the membership list (albi) is to provide the dinner and if he does not observe this and fails to provide the dinner, he shall pay 30 sesterces. The man who follows him is then to give the dinner and he (the delinquent) shall assume his place in the list…97 It was 95   ILS 7212; I have accepted the restorations offered there and freely adapted the translation of Lewis 1955, 273-275. I have also abridged the lengthy inscription where marked. 96   Waltzing 1895-1900, vol. I, 384. 97   Four of these masters were appointed for each year and were required to provide wine, bread, four sardines, water, setting and service on each of several birthdays, including the birthday of the patronus Caesennius.

28

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

further voted that whoever is made quinquennalis of this college will be exempt, for the period he is quinquennalis, from these things.98 And he is to be given a double share in all the distributions. So also it was voted that the secretaries (scribae) and messengers (viatori [sic]) be given one and a half times as much in every distribution and to be exempt from these things (sigillis)…99 It was also voted that whoever moves from one place to another for the sake of creating agitation (seditionis) shall pay four sesterces for punishment (multa). Whoever speaks abusively of another and creates an uproar (tumultutatus) shall pay twelve sesterces for punishment. Anyone who speaks abusively or in insolence to a quinquennalis at the dinners shall pay twenty sesterces for punishment…100

The elements of the social exchange, status for benefactions, are quite obvious. The patrons provided for the basic amenities for the association (in this case dinner with all the trimmings!) while at the same time being granted certain indications of status, the exemption from certain fees, seats of honor and larger distributions. Each part of the social exchange carried symbolic value that allowed for the on-going maintenance of group identity and boundary. On a material level the exchange was not close to reciprocal (officers within the collegium took on financial burden) while at the same time the social status granted to the patron seems to have been enough to attract ample benefactions. The detail of the social exchange recorded in this inscription is extraordinary. The quinquennalis was most likely the officer who had provided the greatest material benefaction in the previous year. He therefore had the privilege of calling for meetings (at the behest of the patron) and sat in a seat of privilege and received the largest portions at the group’s dinners. Even the levy of fines for unruly behavior with respect to the quinquennalis indicates status: twice the usual fine was levied for disobedience to his directions. A much smaller and less detailed description of social function of patronage in ancient associations, but one that is much closer to the size and place of the early Christian communities, comes to us from an inscription left by the curia of Jove from Simitthus in Numidia (185 C.E.):101 The public record of the curia of Jove on the fifth day before the Kalends of December [27 November], Maternus and Atticus consuls [185 C.E.], on the birthday of the city, because that is a happy omen. It was voted by them (inter eis; the members) and it was agreed to observe [the following regulations] by public decree. Whoever desires to be flamen is to give three amphoras of wine in addition to bread and salt and victuals. Whoever desires to be master (magister) is to give two amphoras of wine (two or three 98   The word used here is sigilla, the exact meaning of which remains obscure, though it seems to refer to the obligations for providing dinners which have just been discussed. 99  Each quinquennalis is to also get one and a half times as much in the distributions as a symbol of office (ob honorem); complaints were to be brought up only at business meetings. 100   The inscription concludes with the cultic duties of the quinquennalis and the requirement that he pay for oil used in the public bath before the dinners. 101   ILS 6824: translation mine.



Chapter 1: The Patronage Society 

29

lines are lost here)… If anyone speaks with malice against the flamen or raises a hand against him, he is to pay three sesterces. If the master commands the quaestor and the quaestor does not act, he is to pay an amphora of wine. If he (the quaestor?) is not present in the council, he is to pay an eighth(?)102 of an amphora. If the quaestor fails to announce (the funeral?) to anyone, he is to pay one sesterce. If someone from the ordo dies and he fails to announce it, he is to pay (?). If someone has come to provide wine and then removes it, he is to pay double. If someone gives something (to the quaestor) and the quaestor does not say anything (silentio quaestoris) and then denies it, he is to pay double. If someone dies within six miles and it is told to him and he does not go, he is to pay two sesterces.103

It is clear that this small association, like hundreds of others throughout the Empire, was mainly organized as a burial society: its chief purpose seems to have been the proper burial, with the accompanying feast, of its members. The hierarchy, if one may call it that, was genuinely local. Yet it is also the case that status, authority and patronage are as intertwined here as in any of the other associations within Roman society. The highest office is that of flamen, the occupancy of which also required the highest contribution to the association (three jars of wine and a rather paltry meal). Next comes the magister who, upon his succession to office, is required to contribute two jars of wine to the association. Since the inscription is fragmentary, we do not have recorded here the requirements for the third officer mentioned (the quaestor), but it would not be unreasonable to assume that he, too, was to make a contribution. It is obvious, moreover, that the punishments listed reflect the hierarchy achieved through patronage: the fines for disobedience are strictly proportional to status (only the flamen is protected from verbal abuse or physical attack).104 Important also is the fact that authority within the group is offered to the flamen from the vote of the members and this reciprocity between patronage (and the expectation of patronage) plays a key element in the hierarchical structure of the group. Moreover, the charter of the curia of Jove appears to have been adopted and approved by the entire membership (inter eis). It was they who freely entered into the patron-client relationship within the association described here.

  congium, following ILS loc. cit.   The rest of the inscription becomes fragmentary and less intelligible. For early discussion see Schmidt 1890; updated by Duncan-Jones 1974, 278. See also the discussion in Kotula 1968, 68-69; 112-116. I am indebted to my colleagues, professors Sarah Henrich and G.W. Clarke for their suggestions concerning the translation. 104   Kotula 1969, 68, argues that the flamen holds the highest position in the curia as a result of his religious duties, a quite plausible suggestion. Yet, on the analogy of the Lanuvium collegium, I would argue, contra Kotula, that the notion of punishment for one who attacks the flamen is not due to his religious status so much as it is a result of the general structure of authority inherent in the patronage system. 102 103

30

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

On a small scale the inscriptions from Lanuvium and Simitthus give a clear picture of the ideology of patronal exchange, tangible actions from both patrons and clients filled with symbolic value, actions which so clearly formed social roles and expectations in the Roman imperial period. The primary resources necessary for the activities of associations, and here I would include the early Christian communities, were in the hands of generally wealthier citizens. It was the desire for status that subsequently brought these resources to cities and associations. Yet this quid pro quo does not preclude a visible and active social cohesion between patrons and clients, citizens of cities and collegium members. It is this description of ancient social structure, asymmetrical yet fostering close interpersonal exchange between status elites (patrons) and more ordinary citizens (clients), that I find to be clearly parallel to the dynamic social structure of the Christian community in Carthage. In the chapters that follow we will apply an understanding of this this larger Roman social context to better understand the emerging episcopal office of the Christian community in Carthage.

Chapter Two The Election of Cyprian Most scholars have assumed that Cyprian became bishop of Carthage in 248 C.E. after having spent a number of years, perhaps three or four, as an ordained presbyter in that community. I will argue here, in some detail, for an alternative reading of the sources. I am convinced that Cyprian spent a very short period of time, certainly less than a year, as a Christian (much less an ordained cleric) before he became bishop. Further, I believe that it was the expectations generated by the social conventions of patronage which, at least in part, helps to explain both Cyprian’s elevation to the episcopate and his actions as a newly elected bishop. But to begin, I must carefully place Cyprian within his environment, an aristocrat of some standing in the city of Carthage, one who could be expected to understand and act in the role of patron in ancient Roman society. There is no doubt that Roman provincial society in North Africa in the first three centuries of the common era embodied a strict social hierarchy with enormous differences in the distribution of wealth and power.1 The social, political and economic elite were an increasing number of African born provincials who became senators of Rome: “millionaires” (a minimal property qualification of one million sesterces) who, although they were an extremely small percentage of the general population, controlled a very disproportionate share of the wealth and access to political power. The same is true of the social, political and economic class (ordo) which existed just below the senators: Roman knights.2 In timocratic Roman society both senators and knights enjoyed eligibility for government offices which were reserved exclusively for their respective ordines. They were marked out by special dress and held reserved seats at public dinners (epulae) and at the opular games and entertainments.3 The many public dedications in Africa to the benevolence of knights and senators also indicate that   See especially Duncan-Jones 1963, 160-167: “Nevertheless, the conclusion remains that more than half of the surplus wealth owned by the local aristocracy in Africa in the second and third centuries was in the hands of a very few families” (p. 166). For a discussion of this phenomenon around Carthage, see MacMullen 1974, 38. In general, MacMullen defines the social and economic structure of ancient society as split into a well-defined hierarchy of Roman senators and knights atop a large mass of the indigent (p. 94). For more general discussion, see DuncanJones 1974, 3-5; Finley 1973, 35-61. 2  The census (property) requirement for the knighthood was and income of HS400,000, though two knights we know of from the second century show fortunes much higher than this (Apuleius Apol. 62 and 75, Sicinius Pontianus and Herennius Rufinus). The census was probably more a lower limit rather than indicating an average fortune of a knight. See Duncan-Jones 1963, 162. 3   For discussion, see Gagé 1964, 82-106 (senators); 107-122 (knights). 1

32

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

everyone in that society would have recognized the routine role of this higher social and economic status.4 Even at the level of those possessing enough property to hold local magistracies in the many cities of the provinces (income from property worth fifty to sixty thousand sesterces), only one in fifty males may have qualified.5 This local aristocracy was entitled to wear the toga praetexta and also enjoyed privileged seating at public entertainments.6 The resulting picture is of a world socially, politically and economically top-heavy, with a tiny minority of wealthy elite enjoying most (if not all) political and social distinction, all the while a great majority of the population probably enjoyed nothing more than a subsistence level of existence.7 It was of course this tiny aristocracy which, as we can see from hundreds of inscriptions, was the object of so many appeals to be patrons of both collectives and individuals. It would be important therefore, to know whether we can be more precise in placing Cyprian was a member of this elite, one of those expected, as it were, to act in the manner of a patron. The sources for such an investigation are many and varied. And while they do not locate Cyprian exactly in a particular class, they do provide a picture of one who was of some wealth and status, a persona insignis, as he calls himself (Ep. 8.1).8 Beyond Cyprian’s own writings, our most valuable sources for determining Cyprian’s social location are an early biography, The Life of Cyprian (Vita Cypriani, hereafter the Vita) and an early martyrology, The Acts of Cyprian (Acta Proconsularia Sancti Cypriani, hereafter the Acta). The Vita9 is, despite the common attribution to Pontius, one of Cyprian’s deacons, probably an anonymous text written some time shortly after Cyprian’s martyrdom in 258 C.E.10 And while its historical usefulness has, in the past,   Duncan-Jones 1967, 149-151.   Duncan-Jones 1963, 169. 6  Fronto, Ep. ad Amicos ii.7, writes about a municipal senator from Concordia (a Roman colony on the north Adriatic coast): “Has he enjoyed for five and forty years all the rewards and privileges attached to senators at public banquets (cenis), in the senate-house, at shows? Has he dined, has he sat, has he voted as a senator?” (Trans. Haines 1919, loc. cit.). 7   Income estimated at HS200 per year for an adult in Africa, Duncan-Jones 1963, 171; cf. 1962, 64. 8   See Clarke 1991, 1226. 9   For an overview of issues surrounding the date, authorship, purpose and genre of the Vita, see Mohrmann 1975; Monceaux 1902, 190-197; Harnack 1913, 31-57. Bastiaensen 1975, provides a critical text and commentary, but for purposes of availability I cite the text of Hartel 1868 (CSEL) for both the Acta and the Vita: chapter, page and line. 10   The attribution to the deacon Pontius comes from Jerome writing a century later: “Pontius, a deacon of Cyprian, who was with him in exile until the day of his martyrdom, who has left a remarkable book on the life and martyrdom of Cyprian” (De viris illustribus 68). Our earliest outside reference to the manuscript, the mid-fourth century Cheltenham list of works of Cyprian, lists the work as anonymous (See Sanday 1891, 222-225; 274ff.; Turner 1912, 263-265; Soden 1904, 42-45, provides a table of contents). Harnack 1913, Goetz 1890, 32, and Monceaux 1902, 4 5



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

33

been sharply questioned,11 there is a general consensus among scholars that, provided one takes into account the panygeric and apologetic quality of the work,12 one can glean a great deal of historical information from it.13 According to the Vita, Cyprian appears to have been formally educated (artes bonae, Vita 2.XCI.19)14 and to have had a considerable estate, at least part of which he undertook to sell on behalf of his new community (Vita 2.XCII.13-15). He also appears to have possessed at least one house which was large enough for formal reception (Vita 5.XCV.23). His relationship with the venerable presbyter Caecilius (in the Vita described as his mentor) and his appointment as fiduciary guardian (tutela) of Caecilius’ wife and children probably also indicate that he was of enough means to be a desirable guardian (Vita 4.XCIV.21ff.). Chapter seven of the Vita also indicates that he was a man of enough wealth to have been singled out for proscription, the legal confiscation of Christians’ property, during the Decian persecution.15 more recently joined by Sage 1975 and Clarke 1984a et al., accept the reference in Jerome as a reference to the extant Vita and attribute authorship to Pontius. Montgomery 1996, 195-198, provides a brief history of scholarship on the question. While not disagreeing with this consensus of scholarship, I have chosen not to refer to Pontius as the author in accordance with the earliest manuscript tradition. 11   At the turn of the century, the positive conclusion of Goetz 1891, 32 (“Ob nun freilich die Vita wirklich von Pontius, einem Diakonen Cyprians und Begleiter desselben, verfasst ist, lässt sich aus dem Inhalt nicht sicher erweisen; aber es ist doch kaum zu bezweifeln, dass die uns vorliegende Schrift identisch mit der von Hieronymus gekannten, dass jene Nachricht des Hieronymus glaubwürdig, und die Vita des Pontius also echt ist”) was challenged by Reitzenstein 1913, followed by Martin 1918-1919, arguing that the Vita was a composition dependent on earlier and later Acta literature and therefore not of independent historical value. This negative conclusion, however, has generally not been supported in later scholarship. Corssen 1914-1915 provided an earlier rebuttal to Reitzenstein, while later C. Mohrmann 1975, XXV, concluded that “nessuno dei suoi elementi contrasti con quanto conosciamo della lingua dei cristiani dell’Africa del Nord, verso la metà del terzo secolo”. 12   For a discussion of the didactic and eulogistic qualities of the Vita set within the context of Greco-Roman biographical conventions, see Mühlenberg 1990, 522-523. See also Ritschl 1885 and Goetz 1891, 22-32. Cf. Harnack 1913, 31-57: “Diese Biographie Cyprians ist in ihrer Ausführung ein bei aller Begeisterung für den Helden nüchternes Document, welches auf den Namen einer historischen Urkunde Anspruch zu erheben vermag” (p. 52). See also Monceaux 1902, 191 and Clarke 1984a, 16-18; Sage 1975, 95-143 and 385-394. 13   Pellegrino 1955, 62, I think, provides a great deal of clarity concerning the arguments involved: 1) if the author is writing a fabrication, why does he appeal to “those more ancient” instead of a complete fabrication of his relationship to Cyprian; 2) the first person accounts appear to be sincere and objective; 3) there is a special apologetic character of the work, especially vis-à-vis the election of Cyprian and his flight which indicates an author familiar with these issues. For a negative appraisal of the historical credibility of the text, see Delehaye 1966. For extensive discussion – and a generally positive historical evaluation of the Vita – see Montgomery 1996 (e.g. p. 200: “We are therefore entitled to call this Vita a biography…”); cf. Sage 1975, 385-394. 14   On Cyprian’s education and secular profession, see Clarke 1965, 636. 15   Confirmed by Cyprian’s own report of the public proclamation of proscription in Ep. 66:4.729. 15-16: si quis tenet possidet de bonis caecili cypriani episcopi christianorum. The assumption,

34

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

The Acta, which report the details of Cyprian’s martyrdom in 258 C.E., depict Cyprian to be of enough civic stature to warrant a conference in the private chambers of the proconsul (in secretario, 1.CX.9). Indeed, the very manner in which Cyprian was made to suffer martyrdom provides an important clue to his social status. The Acta report that Cyprian was first subject to deportatio,16 the only capital punishment to which the provincial aristocracy was ordinarily subject.17 In addition to the description of the exile to Curubis, one cannot fail to gain the impression that chapter five of the Acta portrays the death scene of a true aristocrat. He removes the lacernobirrus and lays it upon the ground. Next, he takes off the dalmatica and finally commands his friends to give the speculator twenty five pieces of gold (Acta 5.CXIII.13-18).18 The Vita and Acta, then, both indicate that Cyprian was of particularly high social status, at least of such rank for that to become a central feature in the descriptions of both texts. Yet perhaps more compelling evidence in this regard are the reports concerning Cyprian’s ordinary social company, for in a society so divided by social and political status, ordinary, even affectionate social interaction would have stayed primarily within class lines. Hence this description of Cyprian’s second exile in chapter fourteen of the Vita is particularly revealing: Conveniebant interim plures egregii et clarissimi ordinis et sanguinis, sed et saeculi nobilitate generosi, qui proper amicitiam eius antiquam secessum subinde suaderent: et ne parum esset nuda suadela, etiam loca in quae secederet offerebant. Many knights and senators of rank and ancestry were in his company, but also the eminent in the nobility of the world, who, because of his ancient friendship with them, would repeatedly argue for his withdrawal (14.CV.21-24).19

In the course of such a description, the reference here to specific orders (ordines) within Roman provincial society is quite remarkable.20 The very highest social of course, is that only those of considerable wealth were subject to formal proscription (though the Latin here is ambiguous, it may have been church property that was being sought by the authorities). Cf. Ep. 80:1.839.17-18. 16  1.CX.23-25, Poteris ergo … exul ad urbem Curubitanam proficisci. Note that while Cyprian was subject to exile, his bishop colleagues in Numidia were subject to the mines, opus metalli, an ordinary plebian penalty (Ep. 76:1.828.8-9; cf. Garnsey 1970, 134). Further, it is a possibility that Cyprian is making a cryptic self-reference in describing the edict in Ep. 80:1.839.17-18: senators, men of importance and Roman knights should be deprived of their property and if they would persist it was to be the sword (cf. Vita 13.CV.6-8). Cyprian was to be martyred in just such a manner shortly after the writing of this letter. 17   Ulpian 48.19.9; for discussion, see Garnsey 1970, 79, 124 and Crook 1967, 272f. 18   On the social status of Cyprian reflected in the Acta, see Wischmeyer 1989: “So gehörte Cyprian wohl doch sicher dem sozialen Stratum der karthagischen Oberschichten an” (p. 367). 19   Cf. 15.CVII.1-3: iam Thascium, quem praeter celebrem gloriosa opinione notitiam etiam de commemoratione praeclarissimi operis nemo non noverat. For discussion, see Wischmeyer 1989a, 370. 20   For a general discussion of social status in the Roman aristocracy, see Garnsey and Saller 1987, 112-118.



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

35

and political elite were, of course, the senators of Rome (clarissimi), a status which was also hereditary.21 In the same way, egregii designated the second order of social and political elites, the Roman knights who were at this time taking more and more responsibility for the imperial administration in the Empire.22 If this description is even partly historical, it is not unwarranted to conclude that such friendships most likely portray Cyprian to be of the same social rank.23 Beyond a doubt, the most important source of information which we possess for a determination of Cyprian’s social status within the provincial society of Carthage is the treatise Ad Donatum.24 Yet the text has not been carefully enough studied for the light it can shed on this subject.25 The treatise, probably written shortly after the conversion of Cyprian,26 is peculiar in that it possesses 21   During the second and third century the title clarissimi came to denote the senatorial dignity even to the third generation. On this and other developments within the senatorial class in the second and third centuries, see Harmand 1957, 240-241; Rostovtzeff 1957, 410; Alföldy 1980, 102; 120121. On the heritability of senatorial status, see also Alföldy 1980, 111; on senators in Africa, Pelletier 1964, 523-531 and 529 n. 2. 22  On egregius as a title for knights, see Alföldy 1980, 168; Pflaum 1960, 167; Macmullen 1974, 106 n.53; Bell 1937, 2; Than 1950, 21 n. 2. On knights in the Roman Empire generally, see Alföldy 1980, 122-126; 164-168; Crook 1967, 65; Macmullen 1974, 89; Macmullen 1976, 56; Pflaum 1960; Stein 1927. 23   Pertinent here also is Cyprian’s friendship with Demetrianus, apparently an official of high standing in Carthage and whom Cyprian addressed in Ad Demetrianum (“For when you often used to come to me with an eagerness more to speak against me than a dedication to learning and to prefer to pour out with clanking words your own views, rather than to listen patiently to mine, it seemed to me foolish to meet with you”, 1.13-16). 24   I cite the CCSL edition, ed. Simonetti, chapter and line. 25   Younge 1979, 39 provides some analysis; see also Sage 1975, 57-60; 111-130; Molager 1982, 9-72 for introduction and bibliography. Clarke 1965, 33 is skeptical concerning the value of the work for autobiographical information on Cyprian (“a highly stylized apologia for his conversion”), but his comments are limited to what one might ascertain concerning Cyprian’s secular profession. He does not discuss the question of Cyprian’s social and economic status. Watson 1896, 199-201, is more generally skeptical about the autobiographical information contained in the treatise. He sees it as a general response to pagan devotional literature in its attempt to present the most pleasing aspects of Christianity (Apuleius in particular, though Watson admits that it would be impossible to show any direct influence of Apuleius on Cyprian). While the stylized nature of the work is obvious and even the themes of withdrawal and lack of security in worldly goods and accomplishment are part of the Stoic tradition (e.g. Seneca Dial. I.4.9 and passim and note the strong parallels cited by Koch 1926b, 289-295), it goes too far to say that the work of Cyprian has no Sitz im Leben in his and Donatus’ experience. Rather one might argue that these rhetorical conventions organize the literary expression of that experience. 26   Cf. 2.30-32: Accipe quod sentitur, antequam discitur, nec per moras temporum longa agni­ tione colligitur, sed conpendio gratiae maturantis hauritur. The commentators are unanimous in placing this treatise first among Cyprian’s compositions. There is a lack of references to scripture which are the hallmark of the later Cyprian. For an early date (245-246 C.E.) see Sage 1975, 380; Bayard 1961, X and LIII; Molager 1982, 9-12; Benson 1897, 13. Yet now we have the important study of Gassman 2019. Gassman argues forcibly for a date close to Cyprian’s ordination as bishop in 248-249 C.E. See also Dunn 2004, 722. Watson 1896, 200, argues that no date can be

36

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

many of the elements of a dialogue, yet quickly moves away from the form of a dialogue to become an address by Cyprian to his friend Donatus.27 The purpose of the treatise is ostensibly to reinforce the recent decision of both Cyprian and his friend Donatus to join the Christian community. The prayer is that the old enemy (Satan) not be allowed to place the decision in jeopardy (4.75-80). After a rhetorical flourish sets the stage for the appeal to Donatus (1.1-19), there is a bout of self-deprecation (2.20-32).28 This brings Cyprian to the question of whether Christian conversion was possible: qui possibilis, aiebam, tanta conversio? (3.41). The question was real enough to Cyprian, for from here he begins a description of life under the power of sin, or as Cyprian puts it, life in the material world (situ materiae naturalis). This describes the man qui epularibus cenis et largis dapibus absuavit (3.45); one who was conspicuous in dress and adorned in gold and purple (3.46). By now one is under the distinct impression that life situ materiae naturalis is the life of the aristocrat, and this is certainly confirmed by the description of the worldly man which follows: he who is delighted with authority and honors … this man who is surrounded by crowds of clients, honored by the frequent accompaniment of an attendant multitude (3.48-50).29

Indeed this description of an aristocrat – who, in the tradition of the Roman provincial aristocracy, both provided and attended great feasts; who supported numerous clientes and depended upon them to attend him in his atrium to ensure his social status; who was eligible for civic honors and office as a member of the ordo decurionum – appears to be akin to, albeit by analogy, Cyprian’s determined: “At any moment during his episcopate the need for a rhetorical antidote to rhetorical pagan tracts may have arisen”. 27   Martin 1976, 32, however, concludes that the original form of Ad Donatum was a dialogue. He discusses in some detail the affinities this treatise has to the Octavius of Minucius Felix. For my purposes it is most important to note that the natural audience for both treatises was the high Roman aristocracy. See Sage 1975, 59ff. and Gassman 2017, 256-257 for more discussion of the rhetorical qualities of the treatise. 28   The initial setting of the treatise is highly stylized and therefore any historical clues as to the wealth and status of Cyprian should be used with caution. Nevertheless, the beauty of the garden scene would not have been unfamiliar to one who owned property in the civitas of Carthage (cf. the horti of Vita 15.CVI.14-17 with the res suae of 2.XCII.14). The setting for the treatise reminds one in many ways of the setting for the dialogue of Minucius Felix’s Octavius: the vintage holidays of autumn and the healthful climate are noted. 29   Fascibus ille oblectatus et honoribus… Hic stipatus clientium cuneis, frequentiore comitatu officiosi agminis honestatus. Note the use of rhetorically stylized military imagery here (cuneus, agmen). See Molager 1982, 82. The comparison of this section with Seneca Ep. 22.9 is not appropriate: the motivation for withdrawal from society (to avoid entanglement in business affairs) on the part of Lucilius is a far cry from the general distrust and deprecation found in this treatise of Cyprian. The relationship between Cyprian’s Christian ideology in the third century and Roman Stoicism, however, is an area that warrants further study. See, e.g., Koch 1926b, 286-313; more generally, Spanneut 1957.



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

37

own economic and social situation. One is reminded again of the Vita’s description of Cyprian’s association with numerous friends of this economic and social elite (14.20-24). There is, moreover, further indication that such an analogy is appropriate. Otherwise there would be no referent to the plain meaning of Ad Donatum 4.5559: I often thought of these things. For I myself was held, entangled by the many errors of my former life, from which I did not believe that I could be freed, so I was obedient to those vices which were part of me, and in despairing of better things, I used to countenance my evils as even belonging to me and part of myself (4.55-59).30

This description of error in Cyprian’s past life (cf. tenebar, crederem, eram, effavebam) follows immediately upon the description of life in the aristocracy. Hence I understand that description (3.48-50) to be, perhaps, a rhetorically strong allusion to Cyprian’s own situation as a member of the highest elite of provincial Carthaginian society.31 One should note also that the treatise forms a nice rhetorical circle between 3.36ff. and 4.64-66. The circle begins with the doubt about the possibility of being born again; in this context, the possibility of exchanging one lifestyle for another (“I used to think it a difficult and a hard thing with regard to my character then, that divine mercy for my salvation was promised, that it was possible for someone to be born again”, 3.36-38),32 followed by a description of the old life of the aristocracy, situ materiae naturalis. Cyprian then relates how he was reluctant to leave that life, that he was prone to indulge his vices as if they were part of him (4.55-59). The circle is then drawn to a conclusion with the affirmation that what was impossible is now possible undae genitalis auxilio (4.59). “In what formerly appeared difficult there was the possibility of accomplishing what was thought impossible” (4.64-65). Cyprian, it seems, was convinced that such conversion was possible by the experience of his own life. Cyprian was thus creating a rhetorical picture with which he and Donatus, as members of the elite upper stratum of society, could   Haec egomet saepe mecum. Nam et ipse quam plurimis vitae prioris erroribus inplicatus tenebar, quibus exui me posse non crederem: sic vitiis adhaerentibus obsecundans eram, despera­ tione meliorum malis mei velut iam propriis ac vernaculis effavebam. Cf. 4.67-69, Scis profecto et mecum pariter recognoscis, quid detraxerit nobis quidue contulerit mors ista criminum, vita virtutum, possibly a reference to cessio bonorum which marked Cyprian’s transition from participation in the provincial aristocracy to the Christian community. Again, I understand the rhetoric to have some basis in reality. Cf. Seneca 22.13: quod deliciis permaduimus, a true self referent of the wealthy Seneca (cf. Seneca, Ep. 39.6). See also Koch 1926b, 289, and for further discussion, see Younge 1979, 39. 31   In the fourth century the panegyric description of Cyprian in Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 24 alludes to Cyprian’s high social status (24.6), though it is difficult to discern whether Gregory has information beyond that contained in the known writings and the Vita Cypriani. 32   Cf. Seneca, Ep. 20.13 (Koch 1926b, 289). 30

38

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

reasonably identify. Otherwise the argument for the turn to una solida et firma securitas (14.282) makes absolutely no sense.33 The remainder of the treatise is devoted to outlining those things which are wrong with secular society with a view to justifying Donatus’ recent decision to convert and escape the world (6.117-13.281): “You will soon feel sorry for the world and so warned and all the more thankful to God, you will rejoice with the greater happiness that you have escaped it” (6.115-117). Yet this section, too is helpful in determining Cyprian’s social and economic status (14.282-16.332). This part of the treatise can be divided into two main parts. The first part (6.117-11.220) provides a general survey of the secular world (6.117-122) followed by an examination of the moral evils which plagued urban Roman provincial society: gladiatorial spectacles (7.123-140); theater (8.141-173); private sexual morality (9.174-188); along with the corruption of justice in the forum (10.189-219). The second part turns inward to explore how political power and wealth cannot be the basis of security: the power purchased by the urban magistrate (11.232-247); the wealth of the landed aristocracy (12.248-269); the power of imperial officials (13.270-281).34 At the end of this catalogue, Cyprian returns to praise the only true security in these words: Therefore the one peaceful and faithful tranquility, the one solid and firm security, is if one, having been pulled out from these storms of a violent world (saeculi), should be found on the watch of the port of salvation, eyes raised from earth to heaven, admitted to the obligation (munus35) of the Lord and already near to God in his own mind, whatever 33   It is, in fact, quite easy to read the Ad Donatum as the intellectual justification for the ces­ sio bonorum of Cyprian as recorded by the Vita (cf. Vita 2.13-15 quoted below). Is the reference to ambitionem saeculi here a clue that the author of the Vita was familiar with the discussion of the Ad Donatum 11.232-13.281? Probably not. The connection of property requirements to the eligibility to hold office were universal in ancient society. What the Vita does show is that Cyprian’s wealth was of such an amount that he probably would have been eligible for the album decurio­ num in Carthage, possessing, that is, a not inconsiderable fortune. In the second century, for example, there was a property (census) requirement of HS100,000 to be a decurion of Comum (Pliny, Ep. I.19). A decurion of Carthage would have been of similar financial means. And while we possess no exact information for the census required to be a decurion in Carthage, we do know that Carthage required the highest payment recorded for a provincial magisterial office: HS38,000 for the quinquennalitas. See Duncan-Jones 1974, 82-88; 108-110. 34   One should not fail to notice the striking parallels between the Ad Donatum here and the Octavius of Minucius Felix 37.7ff. It appears that Cyprian has here been influenced by the latter (or a common Vorlage) in his description of the world (e.g. comitatu stipatus, fascibus et purpuris gloriaris). However, the verbal similarities are not strong and the distinct and different purpose of the Ad Donatum must also be noted. Cyprian is writing of his personal conversion and reinforcing Donatus in a similar decision. The Octavius is justifying Christian ideology in more general terms. That they are both the products of high Roman aristocracy and speak to the concerns of that class cannot be doubted. For further discussion and references see Sage 1975, 57-74. 35   Might this be an ironic reference to the patronal obligations imposed upon the decurional class in Carthage? Certainly munera was an ordinary term for such obligations. Cf. De opere et eleemosynis 21 and 22 where Cyprian elaborates on the idea of such obligations (munera) within the Christian community in contradistinction to those who would be patrons in the larger society.



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

39

seems to others sublime or great in human things he should boast that it lies prostrate in his own consciousness (14.282-287).36

Finally, Cyprian brings the issue of security in wealth and power to bear directly upon the personal circumstances of Donatus: Whom he has made rich none will make poor. For there cannot be poverty when once the heart has been filled with the feasting of heaven. Paneled ceilings (laquearia) adorned in gold, houses decorated with mosaics of expensive marble will be ugly when you know that you yourself ought to be the more perfected (15.306-310).

It is evident that the exhortation to Donatus is important to determining the perceived social and economic status of his friend and, mutatis mutandis, Cyprian himself. For it would seem that Cyprian himself was familiar with the allures of such a life as he tells the story in this way to an old friend.37 While these three sources (Vita, Acta and the Ad Donatum) are perhaps the most germane to determining the social and economic status of Cyprian, there remains the possibility of gleaning additional information from occasional remarks in the letters. At the outset of the Decian persecution, Cyprian justified his flight from Carthage by an appeal to the negative effect his presence would have on the pagan populace, “lest our presence provoke the hatred and violence of the pagans” (Ep. 7:1.485.3).38 A similar rationale is offered a little while later in Ep. 20: “so that the disturbance which had begun would not be more provoked by our brazen presence” (Ep. 20:1.527.11-12). What follows from these comments, and others like them, is that Cyprian was a known presence in the city of Carthage.39 What is not clear is whether this notoriety would have come from a recognition of his high social status coupled with the unusual fact of being a Christian leader, or from the mere fact of his position as bishop of a large urban congregation.40 There are at least three reasons for placing more weight on the former rationale for Cyprian’s notoriety among the populace. The first is a letter from the   Cf. Seneca Epp. 104.22; 44.7; 74.6 (Koch 1926b, 294-295).   Cf. 16.324-325: moderari tamen dicenda debemus simul iuncti et saepius locuturi. 38   For the letters of Cyprian I cite the CSEL edition, ed. Hartel, letter, chapter, page and line. 39   See, e.g., Ep. 14:2.510.7-11 and Ep. 59:6.673.13-17. In Ep. 43:4.593.11ff., Cyprian suggests that his enemies would be able to use his return as a means of stirring unrest (pagan or Christian?) and therefore to invite a renewed round of persecution. For a picture of a mob scene of unruly Christians, see Ep. 27:3.542.12-17. 40   As far as I know, the best clue we have for an estimate of the size of the church in Carthage comes in Ep. 20:2.528.5-6: “they were everyday dispensing thousands (milia) of libelli contrary to the law of the gospel”. Even given the polemical context (Cyprian is justifying his policy concerning the lapsed to the clergy in Rome and arguing against the excessive trafficking in these so-called “certificates of peace” issued by certain confessors), the reference to milia indicates a Christian community of quite some size. For the city of Carthage as a whole, Sage 1975, 7, quotes an estimate of 200,000 in the time of Augustine. For more general discussion of population figures for Africa, see Duncan-Jones 1974, 259-277. 36 37

40

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Roman church to Cyprian in which the Roman clergy justified Cyprian’s flight from persecution on account of his social status (propterea cum sit persona insignis, Ep. 8:1.486.1).41 There is no indication here that the Roman clergy is making reference to Cyprian’s status in the church; on the contrary, there might even be here the hint of rebuke. High secular status (insignes personae) is the one explicit reason cited by the Roman clergy for why some had apostatized in Rome and were now under care of penance. Perhaps the Romans were subtly indicating that Cyprian, being a persona insignis, would have been prone to a similar downfall.42 In addition, if the reason for Cyprian’s notoriety in Carthage was strictly a function of his ecclesiastical position, it is hard to explain the fact that other members of the clergy, both presbyters in Carthage and visiting bishops from other communities, were able to conduct themselves openly and quite unhindered in the city. Their presence in the city invited “little scorn and not so much danger” (Ep. 14:2.510.13-14). Indeed, Cyprian appears to have perceived that Roman authority placed him in a wholly different category than the presbyters and deacons.43 And the same can be said concerning other provincial bishops who visited Carthage while he was in exile, those bishops whom he used so effectively to regain his control over the community in Carthage following the persecution.44 If it were merely ecclesiastical position that placed one in danger, these bishops seem not to have known it.45 Finally, it should be noted that Cyprian was proscribed by name and under the title of bishop during the Decian persecution.46 In defending his episcopate to Cornelius of Rome in the year after his return to Carthage (252 C.E.), Cyprian alludes to this proscription as part of his legitimation qua bishop: “proscribed in the storm (of persecution), annexed and attached by the name of bishop  Cf. Ep. 8:2.487.8; see Gülzow 1975, 33-36 for discussion.   Clarke 1984a, 203. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius provides us with several examples of the fact that Christians of more prominent status were likely to draw the attention of the authorities. A letter of Dionysius of Alexandria describing the Valerian persecution in Egypt mentions two presbyters who “were better known in the world” as being forced to wander about Egypt (H.E. 7.11.24). Dionysius also, in a letter concerning the Decian persecution, mentions the constraints placed upon the more prominent members of the church in Alexandria to sacrifice (H.E. 6.41.11). See the discussion in Clarke 1984a, 208-209. 43   Cf., e.g., Epp. 5:2; 59:6; 66:4. Clarke 1984a, 248, notes that Cyprian’s comment at Ep. 12:1.502.10-11 (“I only wish that the circumstances of my position and station allowed me to be with you in person”) “appears to be thinking in part of his ecclesiastical position as bishop and of his civil position as persona insignis”. 44  E.g., Epp. 32, 34 and 41. 45   Clarke 1984b, 202-203, argues (plausibly I think) that these bishops who intervened on behalf of Cyprian in Carthage were probably proconsular bishops from a nearby town; in any event, it seems their effectiveness in controlling the situation in Carthage for Cyprian would depend on their not being total strangers to that city. 46   The formula of proscription is quoted in Ep. 66:4.729.15: si quis tenet possidet de bonis caecili cypriani episcopi christianorum. 41 42



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

41

(episcopatus sui nomine, Ep. 59:6.673.13). Indeed, one gets the impression that he very well could have suffered such action under his own name, that is, to be of sufficient civic stature and wealth to warrant such action by the authorities.47 Thus the four sources, the Vita, the Acta, Ad Donatum and the Epistulae, provide a great deal of information about the social and economic status of Cyprian: he seems to have come from the world of the highest aristocracy of the provincial society of Carthage.48 Such status, I will argue, placed him quite naturally in the position of being one of those sought after for the role of patron. What is more, it seems upon further inspection that the social expectations surrounding such status had everything to do with the rather unorthodox manner in which Cyprian was chosen to be bishop of Carthage: from convert straight into the episcopal chair. The Elevation of Bishop Cyprian Almost every scholar concerned with this subject has accepted a standard description of the career of Cyprian garnered largely, if not exlcusively, from the Vita: namely, that Cyprian spent a number of years, perhaps three or four, as as a presbyter in Carthage before he was elected to the episcopate in 248 or 249 C.E.49 I will attempt to show here, however, that there is another way to 47   It is important to note that Cyprian often writes concerning the suffering caused by exile (e.g. Epp. 10:1; 13:4; 24:1; 38:1; De laps. 2.42) and loss of property during the persecution (19:2.526.11 [spoliati]; 24:1.536.15 [dimittunt]; De laps. 2.43). Yet, so far as I know, he only uses the formal term proscriptio to describe the action taken against him (in tempestate proscriptus, Ep. 59:6.673.12) and other bishops (Ep. 66:7.731.19-20, coepiscopi collegae mei qui vel cum de medio recederent proscripti sunt). Does this imply a means of appropriating the wealth of the church via the bishop? Or perhaps these other bishops, like Cyprian himself, were of sufficient immoveable wealth to warrant the formal action of proscription (on the wealth of bishops, see De laps. 6.107ff.). For a discussion of exile and confiscation see Crook 1967, 273; Garnsey 1970, 116-119. 48   Wischmeyer 1989a, 366-367; see Wischmeyer 1985, 99, n. 3 for references to earlier studies. 49   Commentators place various estimates on the amount of time Cyprian spent in the status of presbyter (for abundant bibliography, see Clarke 1984a, 16 and n. 78). Michael Sage is perhaps typical. He argues for a conversion around 245 C.E. and the election to the cathedra of Carthage three or four years later (Sage 1975, 130-138). Yet the inference on the date for conversion is based on Monceaux 1902, 205, which, as it turns out, is based on nothing more than a guess as to how long Cyprian might have spent in the presbyterate (“ce qui suppose, malgré tout, un intervalle de quelques années”). Gassman 2019, 15-17, now argues that a revised dating of Ad Donatum to 249-49 C.E. allows for the treatise to function as a sort of justification for Cyprian’s immediate elevation to the episcopate. In fact, we have precious little information on the norms of clerical advancement in the church in Carthage at this time. Epp. 29, 38-40 provide some information but are affected by the exigencies of the persecution (discussed below, chapter four). See Vilela 1971, 270-271 and comprehensively Stewart 2014, esp. 299-352 for the different practices of clerical advancement in the churches before Constantine. See also Campenhausen 1953, 267. For a description of the orderly advance of Cornelius up through the ranks of the clergy in Rome, see Ep. 55:8.629.8-11.

42

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

interpret this evidence, one that is perhaps more in harmony with what would have been the ordinary social expectations of the day. The surprising election of a recent convert appears to have been primarily the will of the laity, the same ordinary Christians who much later appear to be one of Cyprian’s strongest bases of support and loyalty in Carthage. Hence it makes good sense, I will argue, to see Cyprian in the role of patron as a way both to understand his election and to begin to unravel the complex social involvements revealed in the letters. But here I am getting ahead of myself. Let me return to my first argument: Cyprian’s surprising election to be bishop of Carthage. The Vita Cypriani is the most important historical source we possess for reconstructing the early episcopal career of Cyprian. Yet an interpeter is forced to pay strict attention to the tendentious thrust of the apology, a justification of Cyprian’s voluntary exile in the Decian persecution, which provides the overarching motif of the work. Still, within the first six chapters one theme becomes more and more clear: the Vita is concerned to explain and justify Cyprian’s extremely rapid growth in the faith culminating in his immediate election as bishop of Carthage.50 The author of the Vita begins his biography of Cyprian with his conversion: “Whence should I begin? Whence would I approach the praise of his goodness, if not from the beginning of his faith and heavenly birth” (Vita 2.XCI.16-17)?51 He thus skips over what must have been a long and perhaps prosperous career in paganism, mentioning only Cyprian’s engagement with the bonae artes (2.XCI.19).52 After a vigorous extolling of the continence of Cyprian in chapter two, there is the description of Cyprian’s grand benefaction, a cessio bonorum, to the community in Carthage: By distributing his goods in order to sustain the relief of many of the poor, selling all his goods for a price, he joined two benefits together; he rejected secular ambition in which there is nothing but evil and he preferred the mercy which God preferred even to his own sacrifices.53 50   For a discussion of the panegyric qualities of the Vita in this section, utilizing the rhetorical principle of amplificatio, see Montgomery 1996, 207-208. 51   Ad Donatum 4.61-62 shows a remarkable similarity in detail (unnoticed by Harnack 1913, 6). One should note here that the theme of Cyprian’s goodness (bonorum) finds expression throughout the treatise, especially in reference to his benefactions (e.g. 2.XCII.13-20; 9.XCIX.19-20; 12.CII.15-16). See Harnack 1913, 6. 52   The estimates of the age of Cyprian when he was converted to Christianity are all hazardous. For a discussion which puts Cyprian in his forties see Clarke 1984, 11 and n. 70; Sage 1975, 102-103. The argument from silence is probably important here: Cyprian was never attacked by his enemies for his youth. For a partial reconstruction of Cyprian’s career as a rhetor (and not a lawyer) in Carthage see Clarke 1965 and 1984, 15. On Cyprian’s rhetorical capabilities as an indication of his education and social status: Watson 1896, 194ff.; Younge 1979. 53   Vita 2.XCII.13-17 (a difficult passage to translate): distractis rebus suis ad indigentium multorum pacem sustinendam tota pro (Hartel: prope) pretia dispensans duo bona simul iunxit,



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

43

The Vita makes it clear that this story of Cyprian’s donation has an apologetic aspect: by his action Cyprian showed himself to be more pious than “the most ancient elders in the faith” (2.XCII.20-21).54 Indeed, while Cyprian was still very early in the faith, it was his glorious and magnificent benefactions (operi­ bus) which promoted him before his time.55 Immediately following in the Vita comes the startling praefatio to chapter three: “The Epistle of the Apostle says that neophytes (neophytos) ought to be passed over”. The scriptural context from which this reference and what immediately follows (3.XCII.7-9) are taken is crucial to the structure and theme of the argument being presented. The Vita is undoubtedly making reference to the office of bishop taken from 1 Tim 3:6: non neophytum ne in superbiam elatus in iudicium incidat diaboli.56 What’s more, it is not too far afield to suggest the ut et ambitionem saeculi sperneret qua perniciosius nihil est et misericordiam quam Deus etiam sacrificiis suis praetulit. See Harnack 1913, 8; cf. Jerome, De viris illustribus 67 (totam substan­ tiam suam). The problems with such an overstatement were obvious, even to the author of the Vita (cf. 15.CVI.12-16). Cyprian seems to possess both gardens and wealth throughout his career as bishop (Ep. 81:1.841.5: de hortis nostris); Acta 2.CXI.19: in hortis suis manebat). The best explanation of this passage is to read it within the panegyric tendency of the treatise as a whole. The author is using hyperbole to describe a very large (and very real) gift to the Christian community which, I argue, would have been perceived by the laity of Carthage as a patronal benefi­ cium. As Dunn 2004, points out, the gift does not answer the question of whether Cyprian himself understood his action as a patronal beneficium. Dunn provides a strong account of Cyprian’s newfound Christian idealism and helpfully concludes, “I think Cyprian always struggled with reconciling the operation of the patron-client system with the Christian imperative to give without expecting return” (p. 740). 54   The conjecture of Monceaux 1902, 207, that Cyprian’s friends provided him with the material means of life does not fit well with the evidence that Cyprian, besides owning property, was able to make numerous cash contributions toward the support of his and other communities (Epp. 7, 13, 41, 62). The suggestion of Countryman 1980, 187, that Cyprian turned over his wealth to the church as a trust lacks a precedent in pre-Constantinian Christianity. Brent 2010, 72-75, helpfully suggests that the distinction between Cyprian’s personal fortune and common funds of the church in Carthage would have been considerably blurred so that the patron bishop would have been able to provide benefactions even after suffering conscriptio. It should also be noted that the author of the Vita would have been influenced by Ad Donatum (which he probably had read, cf. Vita 7.XCVII.11) wherein Cyprian denounces any attachment to wealth. For further discussion see Hays 2011, 267-272. 55   The words used in this passage (adhuc rudis fidei, 2.XCII.23) recall strongly the expression used in chapter five concerning Cyprian’s election to the episcopate: quamvis in primis fidei suae adhuc diebus et rudi vitae spiritalis aetate (5.XCV.11-12). They serve to link this portion of the apologia to the overall theme of the first six chapters of the Vita: an explanation of Cyprian’s surprising elevation to the episcopate. 56   “(The bishop) should not be a recent convert lest he be taken in pride and fall into the judgement of Satan”; see Frede 1975-1982, 494-497. Harnack 1913, 9, notices the reference, but fails to draw any attention to the biblical context which is being consciously used here. The word neophytos is remarkably rare in early Christian literature (Bauer 1979, 536), lending support for the conclusion that the Vita is utilizing the word with conscious reference to 1 Tim 3:6 and Cyprian’s qualifications (or seeming lack thereof) for the episcopate. See also Watson 1896, 263.

44

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

reference is most likely calling to mind the wider context of the quoted biblical passage: “The saying is sure: If anyone aspires to the office of bishop (epis­ copatum) he desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). One cannot but draw the conclusion that the author of the Vita, despite the caution noted in Scripture, is putting forth a direct connection between the act of cessio bonorum on the part of Cyprian and his immediate qualification to be bishop of the Christian community. In the third chapter the Vita provides a comparison of Cyprian to the eunuch of Acts 8 which is followed by a description of Cyprian’s ascendancy to the clerical order. This description deserves careful scrutiny: Thereupon, (denique) according to the grace of God, there was no delay, no deliberation. I have said too little, he immediately received the presbyterate or indeed the priesthhood (prebyterium vel sacerdotium), for who would not entrust every grade of office (omnes honoris gradus) to one who believed with such fervor (3.XCIII.16-19)?

Again, it should be made clear that the description, ostensibly depicting Cyprian’s entry into clerical orders, follows in quite close sequence after the Vita relates the account of Cyprian’s distribution of his estate and the author’s judgement that such an act demonstrated Cyprian’s marvelous maturity in the faith. Yet for my purposes what is even more significant is that the description here seems to imply the extremely close connection of presbyterate (presbyte­ rium) and the priesthood (sacerdotium), even, as I have translated here, that they are coterminous.57 Still, most scholars have in the past argued that what is being described here is Cyprian’s entry in to the presbyterate, i.e., this is the piece of evidence which stands behind the interpretation of most scholars that Cyprian spent a good deal of time, perhaps several years, as a presbyter before he became bishop of Carthage.58 Yet at this point in the Vita, the context of 57   The use of such a weak conjunction, vel, might just as easily imply the equation of the two terms rather than the designation of a chronological sequence (Lewis and Short 1907, 1963-1964). As I will point out below, the third century North African Christian audience of the Vita would most naturally have accepted these terms as two aspects of the same office, and this is the way in which the use of the conjunction must be understood here. Hence a logical way to interpret the conjunction vel here is as an intensive particle: “or even”, “even”, “or indeed”. 58   It should be pointed out that what I am suggesting here goes against the interpretation given to this section of the Vita by most translators and commentators. The more usual assumption is that the reference here is only to Cyprian’s appointment to the council of presbyters in the church at Carthage, i.e., that the words presbyterium vel sacerdotium are to be practically equated as designating different functions of the same clerical office, namely, presbyters who are also priests. See, e.g., Harnack 1913, 9; Sage 1975, 135 and n. 3 (though Sage admits that a rapid clerical advance is what is depicted here); Monceaux 1902, 205; Benson 1897, 19-22 (uncritical); Bayard 1961, 11. The question is, of course, whether at this time these were both names which normally functioned to designate the presybterate. And this, as the ensuing discussion will point out, manifestly was not the case. Already in the nineteenth century scholars pointed out that the usual



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

45

which includes a citation of 1 Tim 3:6 and the statement there about the qualifications necessary for bishop, a reference to Cyprian’s elevation to the epis­ copate would be the most logical! Indeed, I will argue here that this is precisely the manner in which one ought to understand this description, and there are several reasons that support such this understanding. If one grants my reading of the Latin conjunctive particle vel as an intensive particle, then the determination of what is meant here must be assisted by a consideration of the terms conjoined: sacerdotium and presbyterium. What was the normal referent for the term sacerdotium at this time in the Christian community of North Africa? Would it have been understood as an aspect of the order of presbyters or as a description of the episcopate? The answer is surprisingly unequivocal: for both the author of the Vita and the vast majority, if not all, of the usages in Cyprian the word sacerdotium (sacerdos) connotes episcopal office.59 In Cyprian’s own usage this point is easily established. Bévenot has shown convincingly that in all of the letters of Cyprian there is only one instance (in Ep. 61:3), which is in itself ambiguous, where sacerdotes might be equated with presbyters.60 The general rule, then, is that in Cyprian’s writings priests and priesthood (sacerdotes, sacerdotium) are referents to bishops (episcopi).61 equation of the terms sacerdos and presbyter did not take place until the late fourth century (i.e., in Jerome and Augustine, over a century after the time we are considering here). Before that time, and even as late as the Letters of Ambrose, the word sacerdos invariably referred to the episcopate. See Watson 1896, 258 n. 1. 59   See, e.g., the comprehensive study of Seagraves 1993, 40-48, on precisely this point: “it is clear that, except in the cases where he intends the Jewish priests of the Old Testament, Cyprian always means the Christian bishop when he writes sacerdos” (p. 41). 60   Bévenot 1979. Watson 1896, 257-259 and Benson 1897, 33 n. 3, were perhaps the first to make this point clear. This conclusion was reiterated by Bernard 1918, 226. Bévenot 1979 dedicates the whole of this well-considered article to precisely this point and comes to the conclusion on page 423: “We are justified, then, in saying that when Cyprian speaks of Christian ‘sacerdotes’ he always means the bishops (episcopi)”. This conclusion seems to dispute (though it appears indirectly) the earlier and exhaustive study of Vilela 1971, 281-285, who claims there are several instances where presbyteri are equated with sacerdotes. The few examples he provides are quite open to dispute and do not overthrow the general conclusion that in Cyprian’s writings the term sacerdotes generally refers to the bishops (cf. Saxer 1969, 85-86; Daly 1957, 204; Campenhausen 1953, 282 n. 70). As for earlier Latin usage, Bernard 1918, 221-224, claims that the terms sacer­ dos and presbyter were interchangeable for Tertullian (his evidence is neither complete nor convincing, see also Vilela 1971, 242-242); whether or not this is so, Tertullian does normally refer to the bishop as high priest (Bernard 1918, 223; Vilela 1971, 233). Contra Brightman 1918, 395 n. 8, there is absolutely no indication in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus that presbyters normally would have been referred to as priests. See Apostolic Tradition 3:2 where the reference to sacerdotes is not to presbyters but bishops and 3:4 where it is the bishop who is called the high priest (primatus sacerdotii). 61   Brent 2013, 165-170 develops the argument that in the first two Christian centuries the episcopate in the West was primarily a teaching office whereas in the East its function was mainly sacerdotal. Cyprian’s episcopate, therefore, would represent a merging of these two main functions.

46

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

This alone would provide us with a plausible argument that the audience of the Vita, so close in place and time to Cyprian’s writings, would also have understood the term sacerdotium to refer to the episcopate. Yet the even stronger argument is the usage of the terms priesthood and priests, sacerdotium vel sacerdotes, provided by the Vita itself. For throughout the Vita (leaving aside our passage for the moment) every occurrence of the terms in question refers to the office of bishop. This is made extremely clear, for example, in the description of Cyprian’s election as bishop in chapter five: With this the impassioned people (plebs) were inflamed with desire, aspiring with a spiritual desire, as the outcome showed, not only a bishop (episcopum) … they were seeking not only a priest (sacerdotem), but a future martyr (5.XCV.19-22).62

So also at the beginning of chapter fourteen, Cyprian receives word from “a messenger from the city with news of the blessed martyr, Xystus, a good and peaceful priest (sacerdote)” (14.CV.17-18). Xystus, of course, was the bishop of Rome and thus the author of the Vita was exactly equating his episcopal office with the priesthood. Again, in chapter nineteen the Vita’s author makes an important apologetic point of the fact that, after his martyrdom, it was Cyprian who was an example of all good men, who first (primus) imbued [i.e. with martyrdom] the priestly crowns (sacerdotales coronas) in Africa because he was first to be such after the apostles. For from the time the episcopal order of Carthage has been recorded, never is anyone remembered to have come to their passion, even among good men and priests (bonis et sacerdotibus) (19.CIX.18-23).

There can be no doubt that these priestly crowns (sacerdotales coronas) are a reference to the martyrdom of bishops, perhaps even an oblique reference to other episcopal martyrdoms in the Valerian persecution.63 Here again the general office of the episcopate is equated with the priesthood, with the reference not necessarily being specific to Cyprian.64 It is hard to imagine the author of the Vita relating such a high sense of the priesthood, the dignity and majesty of which was so increased by the hero of the story, to mere presbyters.65 It is clear that both of these understandings of office are present in Cyprian’s episcopate: see Brent 2013, 184. 62   On the plebs involvement in the election of Cyprian to the episcopate, see Evers 2020, 172. 63   Brent 2010, 276, provides the interesting example of the tomb of the Roman bishop Cornelius in which the designation of martyr (MR) appears to have been added. 64   Such references are generally less helpful to my argument, for it is usually Cyprian himself, already a bishop, who is referred to as priest. Cf. Vita 1.XC.16 (Cypriani tanti sacerdotis et tanti martyris); 5.XCV.14 (imminentis sacerdotii totam fiduciam polliceretur); 10.C.18-19 (per quam placeret et Deo patri et iudici Christo et interim sacerdoti?); 11.CI.6 (et quid sacerdos Dei pro­ consule interrogante responderit); 11.CII.11 (quo Cyprianus sacerdos Dei venerat). 65   I am of course aware that the foregoing analysis is hindered by the lack of comparative material in the Vita which refers to presbyters. It should be noted however, that in the two usages



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

47

As for the second reference in the above passage, there is a sense in which the reading “good men and priests” (bonis et sacerdotibus) is ambiguous. It does not necessarily equate sacerdotes with the episcopal order. Even so, the need for an alternate term here (the author has already used the term episcopa­ tus ordo) in the comparison leads one to the conclusion that bishop is meant here also. Indeed, the reference to bishops in Africa outside of Carthage is the most plausible possibility.66 In sum, if one considers all of the evidence presented here, from the use of the conjunction vel to the more ordinary referents for the terms for priest (sacerdotium, sacerdos) it is unmistakable that the most plausible reading of the description here is that Cyprian “immediately received the presbyterate and indeed the episcopate”. Now if one further postulates that the author of the Vita was not entirely confused (for he seems to be equating two distinct offices), we are left with attempting to divine the first half of the conjunction here in a way that makes sense. That is, we should ask how it is that the Vita could in fact be equating the presbyterate and the episcopate in this description. Here, of course, it is not hard to discover that that this term, in as much as it refers to a specific order of “presbyters” within the Christian communities, could also refer to the “presbyterial aspect” of the episcopate.67 For the bishop in the Christian communities in the West had emerged (more or less gradually) from the order of elders (presbyteroi) within those communites. As such he was invariably thought of as a “presbyter” as well as bishop.68 Such an assumption cannot be surprising given the history of the terms presbyter (presbyteros) and bishop (episkopos) in early Christian literature. In the New Testament the two terms are twice equated. In Acts 20 Luke’s portrayal of the address of Paul to the presbyters (presbyteroi) of Ephesus provides the alternate title of these same elders as bishop (episkopoi): “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops” (Acts 20:28). The same equation of the terms presbyter and bishop also occurs in Titus 1:5: This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective and appoint presbyters (presbyterous) in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. For the bishop (episkopos) as God’s steward must be blameless. of the term presbyter outside of the passage under consideration, the term sacerdos is not used: multa quae iam presbyter fecit (3.XCIII.20, see below); and the description of Caecilius at the beginning of chapter four: Caeciliani et aetate tunc et honore presbyteri (4.XCIV.22). 66   Harnack 1913, 30, along with Pellegrino 1955, 184, reads et bonus ex sacerdotibus for Hartel’s text, ex bonis et sacerdotibus. That would, in my opinion, put the interpretation of sacer­ dotibus squarely with the meaning of “bishops”. Moreover, Harnack does interpret sacerdotales coronas to refer to episcopal crowns. 67   Cf. Pellegrino 1955, 105. 68   For a full discussion, see Bobertz 1992, 183-211.

48

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

So also in literature outside the New Testament, but roughly contemporaneous, there exists a fundamental symmetry between the terms denoting presbyters and bishops. In 1 Clement, for example, the author rebukes those in Corinth who are in rebellion against the elders (presbyteroi) sometimes termed by the name of bishop (episkopos): Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the name of bishop (episkopos)… For our sin is not small, if we cast out from the episcopate those who have offered the gifts without blame and in holiness. Blessed are the presbyters (presbyteroi) who have finished the course, who have had their release fruitful and complete, for they do not have to fear that someone might move them from the place established for them.69

In the second century there is evidence for community governance both by presbyters and presbyters who are also identified as bishops.70 Irenaeus, in his letter to the Roman bishop Victor concerning the Quartodeciman controversy, refers to the presbyters before Soter in Rome (hoi pro Soteros presbyteroi, HE V.24.14). Whether or not this is a reference to the monarchical episcopate in Rome, Irenaeus undoubtedly understood these “presbyters” (Anicetus, Pius, Telesphorus, and Xystus) to be the equivalent of the bishops in his own day.71 In fact, he surely understood their function as presbyters as part and parcel of their function as bishop. This conclusion is supported further by another of Irenaeus’ references to presbyters in Adversus haereses: When therefore we refer them to the tradition which is from the apostles and which is preserved through the successions of presbyters (presbyterorum) in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they are not only wiser than the presbyters (presbyteris), but even the apostles, and that they have found the real truth… Therefore the tradition of the apostles is manifest in the whole world and in every church and is to be seen by all those who desire to see the truth. And we are able to number those who were instituted from the apostles who were bishops (episcopi) in the churches and their successors even unto our own time.72 69  1 Clement 44:1, 4-5, ed. Lake 1912. Cf. 42:4; 54:2. For a concise comparison of the equation of bishops and presbyters in Acts and 1 Clement, see Grant 1972, 11. 70   The latter is made extremely clear throughout the letters of Ignatius where the bishop is closely allied with but firmly differentiated from the presbyters (see Luttenberger 1976, 17-24 for discussion and numerous citations). So also Polycarp is closely allied with his presbyters (Polycarp, Phil. praef.). Government by presbyters also appears to be characteristic of the Roman community. Hermas indicates three separate classes of church officers (presbyters, bishops and deacons (perhaps also the philoksenoi of Sim. IX.27), but the presbyters appear to have the primary role (cf. Hermas, Vis. III.5; Sim. IX.27; Vis. II.4). Consider also the case of Philippi, where Polycarp certainly would have mentioned the bishop of that city in his letter if one existed there. For extended discussion, see Alistair-Sykes 2002 and especially Stewart 2014, 213-218. 71   A review of Irenaeus’ doctrine of the “apostolic succession” of bishops leaves no doubt about this conclusion. Cf. Adv. haer. 3.3-4 and cf. also Molland 1950. 72   Adv. haer. 3.2.2-3.3.1, ed. Sagnard 1952. For discussion, see Luttenberger 1976, 30.



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

49

It seems clear, then, that for Irenaeus bishops were simultaneously understood to be presbyters. At the turn of the second to third century in Rome, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus provides another description of the bishop as a presbyter.73 In the passage on the ordination of a presbyter, the Apostolic Tradition instructs that the bishop is to lay hands on the candidate with the other presbyters touching him. The ordaining bishop then prays to God to “impart the spirit of grace and counsel of a presbyter (presbyteris), so that he (the presbyter) may aid and govern your people with a pure heart”.74 Indeed, the well-known resilience of liturgical language would place this prayer, with its direct equation of bishop and presbyter, far back into the second century, if not earlier. Moreover, in the same prayer the bishop intones, “And now Lord, grant that we preserve unceasingly the spirit of your grace and make us worthy that we might minister (ministremus) to you faithfully in simplicity of heart”.75 Hence the text provides every indication that the bishop’s function in the community differed from that of the presbyters in degree, not in essence. This conclusion is corroborated by another section of the Apostolic Tradition which depicts the presbyter participating with the bishop at the altar and in the government of the church.76 For the Church in Rome at least, the description of presbyters and bishops leaves little doubt that the bishop was also a presbyter, retaining membership in the more ancient order from which he emerged. Such a conclusion, moreover, is congruent with a range of earlier authors, 1 Clement, Hermas and Irenaeus. Put simply, in our earliest sources a bishop is always a presbyter but a presbyter is not always a bishop.77 At the beginning of the third century in North Africa, it is of course Tertullian who is the source of the bulk of the evidence. While providing for a clear distinction between clergy and laity,78 within the clerical hierarchy Tertullian also provides a close equation of presbyters and bishop. In Apologeticus 39, as Tertullian describes the religious gatherings of the Christians, he comes to a discussion of penance within the assembly: For judgement is passed with great weight as among those certain that God is watching. And it is a higher precedent of the future judgement that if a man sins much, he is banished from the communication of prayer and assembly and of all holy intercourse. 73   For a discussion of the disputed date and provenance of the Apostolic Tradition, see Bobertz 1993, 170-184; for the relationship between presbyters and bishops in Rome, see Stewart 2014, 172-177. 74   Apostolic Tradition 7, ed. Botte 1963. 75   Apostolic Tradition 4, cum omni presbyterio, ed. Botte 1963. 76   For discussion, see Stamm 1969, 86. 77   For a comprehensive treatment of the evidence of the relationship between presbyters and the emergence of a monepiscopate in larger cities prior to Cyprian, see Stewart 2014, 187-298. 78  E.g., De baptismo 17; De fuga 11; De exhortatione castitatis 7. Cf. Luttenberger 1976, 34 and see Janssen 1938 for other references and discussion.

50

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Proven elders (seniores) preside, having obtained that honor not for a price but through testimony.79

It is probable that by using the term seniores here, Tertullian is offering the Latin translation of presbyteroi for his ostensibly non-Christian Roman audience. If that is the case, then he is referring here to the bishop as one of the pres­ byters, perhaps even repeating a generality that Christian churches are governed by such “elders”.80 What emerges from a survey such as the present one is the inescapable conclusion that the office of bishop both emerged from, and continued to be equated with, the office of presbyter. When one includes the abundant evidence of Cyprian’s own usage in the matter,81 it becomes more than probable that what the Vita is referring to in this instance, “he immediately received the presbyterate and indeed the priesthhood”, is the fact that Cyprian became presbyter and bishop, for in becoming bishop he automatically, by ancient pedigree, took on the office of presbyter as well. Hence there is a sound argument from both the immediate narrative context of the Vita (referring the reader to 1 Tim 3:6 and the discussion of the necessary qualification of bishop), and the history and use of language describing bishops as presbyters, to advance the argument being made here. It remains to explore the rest of the narrative, especially the first six chapters of the Vita, to substantiate further my reading of the text. Certainly this interpretation fits well with what immediately follows in the text: “for who would not entrust every grade of honor (omnes honoris gradus) to one who believed so ardently”?82 This, as we have seen in the inscriptions from North Africa, is a claim of a particular cursus honorum, the proud listing   Apologeticus 39.4, ed. Glover 1977.   Another treatise by Tertullian, De paenitentia, might also be interpreted as a allusion to the bishop being thought of as one of the presbyters. Tertullian describes the process of penance (exomologesis) wherein the penitent prostrates himself before the presbyters and kneels before the dear ones (cari) of God. It is possible that the language is once again inclusive, that the bishop is being described along with the presbyters as a matter of course. 81   Cyprian makes constant reference to himself and other bishops as co-presbyters (compres­ byteri); a clear indication that bishops were thought of as being elders as well as bishops. E.g., Epp. 1:1.465.5 (“compresbyteri who sat with us”); 7:1.485.11-12 (Rogatianus is termed com­ presbyter); 44:2.598.17 (Cyprian refers to Primitivus as his compresbyter); 45:2.601.21 (Cyprian terms Novatian a compresbyter of bishop Cornelius of Rome); 55:2.624.15 (Quintus [presumably a bishop] is referred to as the compresbyter of the bishops Cyprian and Antoninus). For other references, see Saxer 1969, 78 n. 22. Cf. also Eusebius H.E. VII.5.6 (Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria refers to the Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon as sympresbyteroi, cf. VII.11.3). These examples provide us with the inescapable conclusion that the bishops of the third century were normally thought of as presbyters as well as bishops, i.e., that the episcopate was in essence as aspect of the presbyterate from which it had emerged. For more discussion, see Vilela 1971, 279281; and cf. Watson 1896, 260; Campenhausen 1953, 119 n. 304. 82   Vita 3.XCIII.18-19. 79 80



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

51

of offices held, which is the subject of so many of them. Such public claims, moreover, were as inclusive as they could be, every achievement of office (honor) being duly noted. In such an environment it is highly improbable that only an inferior rank would be listed when a higher one had, in fact, been obtained. By analogy, it seems obvious that the refence here to “every grade of honor” is a Christian version of the cursus honorum, a public proclamation (in the form of a text) of Cyprian’s great achievement, his astounding advance to the highest office of bishop.83 Conversely, it makes little or no sense to see omnes gradus as a reference merely to the office of presbyter with attendant “lower” orders.84 Such a conclusion flies in the face of everything we know about public praise in the ancient world.85 Finally, Cyprian himself, in his defense of Cornelius in Ep. 55, makes a reference to the cursus honorum of Cornelius within the Christian community at Rome: He did not arrive suddenly at the episcopate. Rather, having been promoted through every ecclesiastical office and having served the Lord well in the divine administrations, he ascended to the sublime summit of the episcopate (sacerdotii) though all the grades (gradibus) of piety (Ep. 55:8.629.8-11).

It could not be clearer that the episcopate would have been considered as the most public and significant status (gradus) in the Christian cursus. Thus in a cursus quite similar to this one, the author of the Vita refers to every grade (omnes gradus), certainly stating the way in which Cyprian, too, had achieved the honor of bishop. In sum, both the language itself and its context, both internal and external to the Christian community, supports the conclusion argued here: this important reference in chapter three of the Vita Cypriani is to Cyprian’s elevation to the episcopate.

83   The evidence which Cyprian’s letters provide on orderly clerical advancement is not at all clear. In Ep. 38 Aurelius is appointed reader (the lowest office?), but one gets the distinct impression that had he been older, his gradus would have been higher (merebatur talis clericae ordina­ tionis ulteriores gradus et incrementa maiora, 38:2.580.20-21). In Ep. 39 Celerinus is also appointed to the gradus of reader, but again the rationalization for the immediate appointment not being to a higher office is the extreme youth of the candidate. Nevertheless, both Aurelius and Celerinus were to receive an equal salary to the presbyters and were clearly marked for the presbyterate when they became older (39:5.584.25ff.). 84   Cyprian’s letters indicate that these included acolytes (Epp. 7; 45; 52; 59), exorcists (Epp. 22; 69), readers (Epp. 23; 38; 39), subdeacons (Epp. 8; 20; 36; 45; 77; 79) and deacons (Epp. 3; 5; 18; 52 etc.) For a discussion of clerical terminology and references see Watson 1896, 257-261; Clarke 1984a, 39-44; Vilela 1971, 261-273 and Saxer 1969, 77 n. 22. 85   In addition, we know that elsewhere the author of the Vita refers to the episcopate as a gradus: “by the judgement of God and favor of the people he (i.e., Cyprian) was elected to the office of priest (ad officium sacerdoti) and the grade of bishop (episcopatus gradum)” (5.XCV.910).

52

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Yet there are still more interpretive clues in this section of the Vita that should be considered. For example, the text of chapter five provides still another description of Cyprian’s accomplishment: that by the judgement of God and the favor of the people he was elected to the office of priest and the grade of bishop while yet a neophyte (neophytus) and, as it was thought, a novice (novellus), still very much (quamvis) in the first days of his faith (in primis fidei suae adhuc diebus) and in the beginning stage of his spiritual life (5.XCV.7-12).86

In this passage one notes immediately the second use of the otherwise rare term neophytus, and hence a link between this passage and the previous description at 3.XCIII.7ff (“The Apostle’s epistle states that the neophyte (neophytos) ought to be passed over”). As has been discussed above concerning Vita chapter three, the scriptural context for the use of this term is the selection of a bishop (1 Tim 3:1-6). And since this description in chapter five is obviously a reference to Cyprian’s election as bishop, it makes sense for it to be used here as well. Yet this still leaves one asking the question of the purpose of the double reference to such a rarely used word in the Vita’s description of Cyprian. The word, or more likely the whole teaching of 1 Timothy, must have been the basis for a particular charge levelled against Cyprian by his opponents, namely, that Cyprian was a neophyte, he had not yet been a Christian long enough to be given the episcopal chair (non neophytum ne in superbiam latus in iudiciam incidat diaboli).87 Moreover the charge must have found some resonance even in the years following Cyprian’s martyrdom, else it becomes difficult to explain the extent of this defense in the Vita. Indeed, the author’s small phrase, ut putabatur novellus, confirms this apologetic thrust of the description. For the author includes it only to be able to show why it was perfectly reasonable that these unusual circumstances ultimately could not forestall the selection of this bishop.88 86   The language of this passage is exceptional. A term such as quamvis (“very great” or “exceedingly”) adds a sense of urgency. In addition the author highlights the fact that Cyprian was in primis fidei suae adhuc diebus rudi vitae spiritalis aetate, hardly an appropriate description for a man who had been a presbyter for a number of years! 87   1 Tim 3:6, Frede 1975-1982, 495-497. 88   The clue that Cyprian was considered a neophytus and a novellus when he was elected bishop is curiously passed over by most commentators (Benson 1897, 25; Monceaux 1902, 208; Sage 1975, 142; Clarke 1984, 16-17; though Fox 1987, 509-510 takes notice of it). While this appellation of the Vita may refer obliquely to the charges of the presbyters who stood against his election, i.e., that he had not been long enough in the presbyterate (see Ep. 43), it is more convincing to interpret the Vita making an argument once again in the context of 1 Tim 3:6. In fact, the very next line in the Vita supports this interpretation: “Still very much in the first days of his faith and in the beginning stage of his spiritual life” (5.XCV.7-12). Further, if Cyprian was generally too young in the faith to assume the office of bishop, how could he have been a presbyter? Cf. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 17, where the time specified for entry into the church is three years, but which can be shortened in cases of special merit. Indeed, neither Cyprian nor Tertullian are very precise about the length and depth of training for those who would join the Christian



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

53

One is forced to ask whether it is reasonable to assume that the accusation reflected in the Vita’s admission, that Cyprian was both a neophytus and a novellus at the time of his election,89 and which was apparently still relevant in the years following his death, would have had such force if, as many scholars have argued, Cyprian had spent a great deal of time – perhaps three years or more – as a presbyter in Carthage? While one would be hard pressed to find a place in the Vita where a period of time in the presbyterate was being defended,90 there is abundant evidence that the unusual speed of Cyprian’s ascendancy to the episcopate was the primary raison d’être of the first six chapters of the Vita. The signals which indicate this interpretation of the text are numerous: who has ever remembered such a miracle, the second birth had not yet illuminated the new man with all the splendor of the divine light, and he was conquering the ancient and pristine darkness by a single opening of light (2.XCII.8-10).

If one reads the text as I do, the description of Cyprian’s election in chapter five being the focal point of the first six chapters, then references such as these, a miracle, a man who had not even been baptized, are attempting to explain what must have been perceived as highly irregular, the elevation of a new convert to the office of bishop: who among the most ancient elders in the faith, whose minds and ears had pulsated for many years with the divine words, has tried such a thing, while still of rudimentary faith (adhuc rudis fidei), and in whom perhaps there was not yet any trust, surpassing the age of the ancients, granted benefactions (operibus) so glorious and wonderful … with him everything happened in an incredible manner (2.XCII.20ff.).91 community. See Saxer 1969, 106-116 and Janssen 1938, 39-43, for a competent discussion of the issue. 89   See Watson 1896, 195. The term neophytus does not appear in the writings of Cyprian (novellus is not commented on by Watson). It is therefore difficult to provide a great deal of precision to the terms as they are used by the Vita. 90   It also should be noted that Cyprian himself, in all of his writings, never speaks of a time when he was presbyter in Carthage, even amidst confrontations in which such a defense would have been extremely helpful. For example, in Ep. 59:6.673.7-11 he mentions only the period he has been bishop – “when the bishop is placed into the position of a deceased bishop, when he is chosen (deligitur) by all the people in peace, joined faithfully to all of his colleagues, esteemed by his people for four years now in the episcopate” – though it certainly would have helped his argument to mention a substantial, indeed any, period as a presbyter. So also in 66:5.730.9-12, in the context of a virtual tirade defending his right to be bishop in Carthage, he mentions only the fact that he had been bishop for six years: no previous qualifications are offered. Yet on the other hand, we know that such an argument was valuable, for in Ep. 55:7 Cyprian defends Cornelius’ right to be bishop of Rome by pointing to his ecclesiastical career comprising all the grades within the clergy (cunctis religionis gradibus). Hence it is difficult not to place a great deal of weight on this argument ex silentio. 91  Cf. Vita 3.XCIII.16-17: “Thereupon (denique), according to the grace of God, there was no delay, no deliberation”.

54

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Certainly the text is here, as elsewhere, dramatically pointing forward to that event which “happened in an incredible manner” while at the same time verbosely justifying the election of an outsider, “in whom perhaps there was not yet any trust”. Nor should one look past the role of benefactions in all of this, for the Vita mentions that aspect of Cyprian’s qualification not once but twice: apparently the Christian community had found itself a patron-bishop following the established social conventions of the Roman imperial period. Finally, a little further on in chapter five of the Vita there is the report that “he was not yet glorious with the gleam of office but only of hope”.92 If Cyprian were a presbyter at the time of his election as bishop, is it possible to conceive that the author of the Vita did not consider the presbyterate and office (officium)? Or is it, as I would argue, much more reasonable to understand this statement to imply that Cyprian had indeed never held any clerical office? Indeed, the conclusion of this part of the Vita, from which place the text takes a definitive turn in order to defend Cyprian’s decision to go into exile during the Decian persecution, nicely summarizes the interpretive points I have been making: But what did he (Cyprian) do as bishop on behalf of the poor whom he loved as a catechumen? Let the priests (antistites) of piety see whether the teaching of their very rank has instructed them in the duty of good works or if the common piety of the sacrament has obligated them to the duty of showing love: the cathedra took in Cyprian as he was, it did not make him so (6.XCVI.18-24).

Here one gets no sense of a lapse of time between the period of Cyprian’s conversion (catechumenate) and his popular election as bishop of Carthage. As in the other sections of the Vita examined here, the description here provides for only two distinct periods, layperson and bishop, in the career of Cyprian. In sum, we have every reason to believe that the author of the Vita was, in these first six chapters, developing an apology to explain a situation very much out of the ordinary: the election of new convert as bishop of Carthage. The scriptural text in chapter three concerns the selection of a bishop. The use of the terms sacerdotium and presbyterium support this, as their ordinary connotation at the time would have been to the episcopate. Moreover, the description of the election in chapter five is more difficult to interpret under the assumption that Cyprian had spent time as a presbyter in the community at Carthage. Finally, the conclusion to this first section of the Vita seems to describe quite plainly a direct path from catechumen to episcopate. It appears that the very presence of the argument, so carefully crafted in the Vita, presents an event which needed careful explanation, an explanation which, at least in part, attributes this extraordinary event to his character and generosity, or, to put it in a way that would have been universally understood at the 92

  Vita 5.XCV.12-13: nondum officii spei tamen fulgore resplendens.



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

55

time, the proper deportment and role of the patron. Indeed, all of the arguments I have mustered point to what the Vita perceives as the link between this aspect of Cyprian’s character and his extraordinary election as bishop of Carthage. It was, it seems, only such a person who could have overcome the initial disqualification, to have passed over what many may have felt to be the ordinary cursus of the Christian community.93 The only section out of these six chapters of the Vita which has not been considered here is the latter portion of chapter three and all of chapter four, a description which, at first glance, appears to provide for a time when Cyprian was indeed a presbyter in Carthage. Yet it must be emphasized that the only real indication of such a period is one passage from chapter three: There are many things he did while yet a lay person (plebeius), many things which he did while already a presbyter, many things which, according to the examples of the just men of old and in close imitation following their righteousness in God, he surpassed in the obedience of all piety (3.XCIII.19ff).94

The reference to presbyter is, as I have discussed above, at the very least ambiguous.95 Indeed, it is even possible that, given the Vita’s penchant for comparing 93   That the ordinary cursus was the election of one of the clergy (presbyter or deacon) cannot be doubted. In contemporary Rome, for example, both Cornelius and his rival Novatian were presbyters when they stood for election following the Decian persecution. And, as I have already discussed, Cyprian defends Cornelius with reference to such a cursus (Ep. 55:8.629.8-11, an argument which would have little effect if it were not the customary pattern of promotion). Further, it appears very early on in Cyprian’s first exile that a group of presbyters, perhaps slighted in the extraordinary election of Cyprian, actively opposed his episcopate. 94   Here it is worth noting the variant of manuscript T, presbiterio, in Hartel’s edition at line 20. This would allow the text to read, “many things he did soon in the presbyterium”. Hence the variant might be an indication that this passage did not necessarily refer to Cyprian the presbyter, but Cyprian the bishop who is also a presbyter. 95   Such ambiguity, moreover, extends to much of the later, yet still ancient, evidence concerning the career of Cyprian. Even without determining the question of whether Jerome’s account of Cyprian in De viris illustribus 67 is of independent historical value (which I doubt), we should note that what is said there – Cyprianus Afer, primum gloriose rhetoricam docuit; exinde suadente presbytero Caecilio, a quo et cognomentum sortitus est, Christianus factus omnem substantium suam pauperibus erogavit, ac non post multum temporis allectus in presbyterium etiam episcopus Carthaginensis constitutus est – is not of much assistance to the present inquiry. The interpretation rests upon the connotation of etiam, and one could argue that it is here conjunctive, something on the order of “indeed”. The translation would then read: “and after a short while he was nominated to the presbyterium, indeed, he was made bishop of Carthage”. Ambrosiaster’s commentary on 1 Tim 3:10 shows that even in Jerome’s time the bishop was also considered a presbyter: “After the bishop he treats the ordination of the diaconate. Why, if not that the ordination of presbyter and bishop are one? For each is a priest (sacerdos), but the bishop is first. While every bishop is a presbyter, still not every presbyter is a bishop. For he is the bishop who is first among the presbyters” (see Kemp 1955, 126 for discussion and references). There is also a notice concerning Cyprian’s career in Jerome’s Latin version of Eusebius’s Chronica, Cyprianus primum rhetor, deinde presbyter, ad extremum Carthaginiensis episcopus martyrio coronatur (Migne, P.G., 19, coll. 573574; see Clarke 1965, 636). Its historical value is unclear; moreover, one cannot determine

56

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Cyprian to the “just men of old”, it makes more sense for the author to use this aspect of the episcopal office, that is, its presbyterial quality, in the comparison here. Hence the usage would be congruent with the description earlier in chapter three: Cyprian became both bishop and presbyter simultaneously, in a most extraordinary fashion.96 If my revised reading of the ancient biography of Cyprian has merit, I believe it goes a long way in helping us to determine better the social dynamic of the Church in Carthage and, just as important, the theological positions which subsequently emerged with the episcopate of Cyprian. Important here is the fact that Cyprian was a member of the provincial aristocracy, used to exercising both authority and patronage and, not less important, of understanding the function of both as that related to the maintenance of status in a hierarchical context. It is in this respect too, that one should note carefully the determinative role of the laity who, according to the Vita, clamoured for the election of Cyprian: It is tedious to go through each aspect, to relate everything about him is burdensome. I consider one thing only to be enough for the proof of his great benefactions (bonorum operum97), that he was, by the judgement of God and the favor of the people (plebis favore), elected to the office of priest and the grade of bishop while he was yet a neophyte and, as it was thought of, a novice. Still very much in the first days of his faith and in the rudimentary stage of his spiritual life (5.XCV.7-12).

In the provincial social context of the third-century Roman Empire, it was the laity who quite naturally understood the mechanics of adopting a worthy patron.98 Nor was it simply the experience and expectation of benefactions, opera, which would have compelled such a decision (though that certainly must have played a role), but the whole notion, so characteristic of the time, of proper governance whether presbyter and episcopus are being equated (a distinct possibility given Ambrosiaster’s usage). So also it is also hard to determine whether the reference in Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana 4.14 is of independent value (as Watson 1896, 200 n. 1, suggests, it may imply no more than Augustine’s having had a manuscript of the Vita and the treatises). 96   In addition, one might argue plausibly that the Vita in this section is not presenting a separate length of time in the office of elder. The Vita describes only one characteristic activity of the “presbyterate” of Cyprian, that he used to teach righteousness according to scriptural examples: “if he had read about anyone proclaimed with the praise of God, he asked an inquiry be made into what actions of his were pleasing to God” (3.XCIV.2-3). The description of Cyprian’s teaching which follows, however, is based upon the Vita’s familiarity with the treatises of Cyprian, all of which were written when Cyprian was bishop of Carthage. For extended discussion see Bobertz 1992, 112-117. 97   For discussion of this term, see Rebenack 1962, 35-43. 98   Indeed, the description of the episcopal election in chapter five casts special attention on the role of the people: “when the whole people (totus populus), by the inspiration of God, leapt forward in their love and honor of him” (5.XCV.15-16). It is they who were inflamed with eager excitement (5.XCV.19) and who formed “a great gathering of the brotherhood [which] had taken position outside the house and through every entrance [i.e., not a small house!] an anxious love circulated” (5.XCV.23-24).



Chapter 2: The Election of Cyprian

57

applied to place and social status. Cyprian was undoubtedly born into a class which quite naturally expected and accepted such social expectations, authority tied to benefaction, while the laity quite naturally, when they had such an extraordinary candidate, one who was Christian and high aristocracy both, hastened to adopt him as their patron-bishop. It remains to explore what such an arrangement between an aristocratic patron-bishop and laity as clients would mean in the frightening days of the Decian persecution. We will explore how a consideration of the social dynamic between patrons and their dependents helps us to interpret better the events of the time. We will also consider at some length a character portrait of Cyprian himself and his understanding of Christian clerical office and function within this social context. And finally, we will peer into the ways in which Cyprian’s desires, actions and expectations for the Christian Church in Carthage were intertwined with his own social and economic status. In short, this book will explore the ways in which Cyprian’s understanding of social function, hierarchical control through patronage, status and honor, shaped his theological vision for the Church.

Chapter Three The Early Exile Sometime in early 250 C.E. Cyprian was forced, by the exigencies of the Decian persecution, to flee the city of Carthage and to seek a place of hiding nearby.1 If, as seems warranted, one places the election of Cyprian sometime early in the year 249 C.E.,2 he would have been bishop for less than one year before being forced to direct from afar the affairs of the congregation in one of its most pressing periods. From the exchange of letters thus produced it is possible to form a picture of a bishop, familiar with ancient social norms and expectations of patronage, operating now within a setting marked by the unique norms and expectations of a third century Christian community.3 This was a moment, I will argue, in which the norms and expectations of two social worlds came together in a remarkable way; two social worlds which had, one hastens to admit, never been completely separate, but which now collided with momentous results for the historical development of the institution of the church and the episcopate: omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositus gubernetur; 4 episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo.5 Neither church nor the episcopate would never be the same again. Such dramatic change, however, actually developed quite slowly amidst the complex social forces of the third century church. 1   For discussion see Clarke 1984a, 197. In Ep. 20 Cyprian claims to have gone into hiding “when the people had frequently demanded me with violent shouting” (20:1.527.9-11). In Ep. 7 he is fearful that his presence (nostri praesentia) would once again provoke mob action (cf. Ep. 43:4.593.11-14). Perhaps Cyprian was able to stay in one of his estates outside of Carthage – the Vita indicates that as the place of the second exile (15.CVI.12-16). 2   See Clarke 1986, 244, 330; 1984b, 111. As Clarke outlines, the two pivotal references for the date of Cyprian’s election to the episcopate are Epp. 59:6.673.10-11 (plebi suae in episcopatu quadriennio iam probatus – dated to the summer of 252 C.E.; cf. Ep. 66:5.730.9-11) and 29:1.548.5-6 (quando aut Saturo die Paschae semel atque iterum lectionem dedimus). Given the Roman custom of inclusive numbering (followed by Cyprian in reference to his exile, cf. the use of biennium in Ep. 43:4.593.4 written at the beginning of his second year of exile; triennium in Ep. 56:2.649.10 referring to 24 to 36 months [Clarke 1986, 210]), and the apologetic context of the former reference (Cyprian was striving to emphasize how long he had been bishop; as Clarke 1986, 244, suggests, he would have undoubtedly used quinquennium for a period much longer than 48 months), one could strongly suggest that Cyprian was elected bishop not long before the summer of 249 C.E. The second reference allows us to add some precision to that conclusion. It refers to Cyprian acting in concert with his clergy at Easter in pre-persecution conditions (dedimus). This all leads to the conclusion that Cyprian was elected bishop in Carthage shortly before Easter (April 15) 249 C.E. and therefore would have been bishop for less than one year at the time of his exile. 3   For a short history of research on the issues involved in Cyprian’s episcopate, see Bakker 2010, 3-27. 4   Ep. 33:1.566.12: “Every act of the Church is governed by this same bishop”. 5   Ep. 66:8.733.5: “The Church is in the bishop and the bishop is in the Church”.

60

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

In his first letter from exile, Ep. 7,6 Cyprian expresses his longing to be back in the city of Carthage, “for where could I be more joyful or better served than there (Carthage) where God willed that I should believe (credere) and grow (crescere)” (7:1.485.7-8). The emphasis, so characteristic of Cyprian, is upon the will of God,7 but more importantly, upon the will of God that justifies Cyprian’s conversion (credere) and advancement in the faith (crescere). Hence it is quite possible that even here, in his first correspondence from exile, Cyprian was addressing the unusual circumstances of his election, for such a description is, as I have argued, highly reminiscent of the Vita’s description of that event.8 Nor is it improbable, given what we know of his unusual election and the events which would follow, that Cyprian was not already cognizant of a certain potential for opposition to his episcopate; opposition now perhaps emboldened by his absence.9 Such an assumption, I think, partly explains the sense of urgency with which Cyprian writes in Ep. 7. He is concerned that the social assistance of the church, what certainly would be understood within an ancient context as patronal benefactions, should continue uninterrupted under his auspices. In the manner of a patron, he urges the clergy who had remained in Carthage to act as his clients, to be diligent (diligenter) in their care for the widows, the weak and, more generally, for all the poor (omnium pauperum). And while such gifts would have met genuine social needs (one of the truly outstanding characteristics of early Christianity10), it is also true that such benefactions 6   Gülzow 1975, 1-19, provides a full discussion of the chronology of the exilic letters. For bibliography, see Clarke 1984a, 122. For the general chronology I rely on the carefully reasoned discussions in Clarke 1984a, 1984b and 1986 ad loc. Ep. 7 begins the exilic correspondence, with Epp. 7-27 covering the period between February-March 250 C.E. and the high summer of that year. Epp. 28-37 pickup in that same summer and continue until January 251 C.E. Finally, Epp. 38-43 are considered as part of latest exilic period, from January 251 until Cyprian’s return sometime after Easter (March) of that year. Within that general framework, my order of discussion for each letter follows the chronology of Clarke, ad loc. 7   Ep. 7:1.485.8: Deus … voluit. Cf. Ep. 33:1.566.13: the role of bishop in the church is established by “divine law” (divina lege). So also the election of Cyprian to be bishop was through divina suffragia (Ep. 43:1:591.15-16; cf. 43:1.591.7-11; 43:5.595.1-3). For further examples, cf. Epp. 58:1.656.12-13 (a plebi cui de divina indulgentia praesumus); 59:2.667.13-15 (actum est de episcopatus vigore et de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac divina potestate); 58:4.670.16-17; 59:5.672.14 (bishops are elected voluntate Dei); Ep. 66 passim. For discussion of the term suffragium, see Evers 2020, 168-170. 8   “And with the sudden speed of piety he almost began to be perfect before he learned how”, Vita 2.XCII.18-20; cf. 3.XCIII.10: plus fide posse quam tempore promoveri. 9   Vita 5.XCVI.4 alludes to the opposition. It is more clearly stated by Cyprian himself in Ep. 43:1.597.7-11: “while they (i.e. the five presbyters) do not forget their plots and hold onto that ancient venom against my episcopate, nay, against your vote and the judgement of God, they have renewed their old fight against us and resurrected once again sacrilegious machinations with their accustomed insidiousness” (cf. Epp. 59:12.679.21ff.; 52:3.619.8-16). The reference is most likely to presbyteral opposition to Cyprian’s election. 10   For an overview of the comprehensive nature of early Christian charity, see Harnack 1908, 147-198. Among the provisions discussed there are the support of orphans and widows, the support



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

61

as well would have engendered predictable social expectations. Such patronage would have functioned to strengthen the loyalty of the people to the Christian cause in the face of persecution and to reestablish and strengthen the link between the newly elected bishop and the Christian laity in Carthage. Here also one must note a difference in patronage exercised within the Christian community and the usual practice of the larger society. In Christian groups there was a common fund dedicated to the social assistance of members, a good portion of which, it seems, might have been garnered through Cyprian’s appeals to the wealthier members of the congregation. As outlined in the treatise On Works and Alms (De opere et eleemosynis11), most likely written in the period immediately prior to the outbreak of persecution,12 Cyprian used expressly theological language to justify such an appeal to the wealthy.13 Yet the appeal of the sick, infirm and disabled, the care of the poor needing burial and the cult of the dead in general. Cf. Hatch 1881, 42-47. 11   References are to the edition of Simonetti 1976 (CCSL), chapter and line. 12   Koch 1926b, 148 places it as an appeal for funds in connection to the plague of 252 C.E. (see p. 145 for references to earlier scholars who also took this position), though there is no mention of the plague in the treatise. Sage 1975, 273-275, also places the treatise during the plague, perhaps directed to the raising of funds for those suffering outside the Christian community (perhaps a misguided connection to chapter nine of the Vita). Rebenack 1962, 1-47, however, is undoubtedly correct to place this treatise before the persecution. There is no mention of the persecution or the effects it might have had on the topic being addressed, though one would expect at least an allusion. More important, there is a general affinity of subject matter with De habitu virginum, a treatise which is generally admitted to be pre-persecution. Countryman 1980, 195ff., followed by Weaver 1987, 373, is mainly concerned with attempting to explain away the thoroughgoing presentation of atonement for alms in the treatise. In dating the work to a period of extraordinary financial strain in the year 252 (and thus the need for revenue), he fails to note that the doctrine (also found in De habitu virginum 11) is based on an interpretation of Proverbs 16:6; 19:17, which is the subject of the first heading of the third book of the Ad Quirinum. In general, the notion of the necessity of a positive act (e.g., the giving of alms) to erase the negative effect of sin was widely held in the Greco-Roman world (see Grant 1962, 116-117). For the Jewish and early Christian history of this understanding, see Gary Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven, 2009). 13   There can be no doubt that this early treatise, like De habitu virginum, is addressed primarily to the wealthiest members of the church in Carthage. Those who are addressed possess some considerable inheritance (patrimonium) and Cyprian is concerned to assure them that their wealth will not be diminished through their act of almsgiving (chapters 9-13). In an echo of De habitu virginum, he addresses the wealthy and rich (locuples et dives, 14.274; 15.284) who have estates large enough to be threatened by state and legal action (19.376-383) and which are of sufficient size to require a tutor for the heirs and a curator for the property in case something befalls the owner (on tutela in Roman law, see Crook 1967, 113-116; on curatio 116-118). Even more striking is the comparison of the addressees to those members of the provincial aristocracy who were accustomed to providing shows (munerarii) and other entertainment for the populace of the city. These would have been among the very wealthiest patrons of Carthaginian society (chapters 21 and 22). That the provision of these benefits to a city the size of Carthage was an enormous expense to the aristocracy is indicated by ILS 9406: a patron of Carthage provides games (ludi) for Carthage (panthers and gladiators) at a cost of HS50,000 for each of four days (see DuncanJones 1974, 97, 104-106; cf. the discussion in Charles-Picard 1959, 29ff. and n. 46). On the high

62

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

would have been in keeping with ordinary expectations of patronal exchange in provincial Roman society, “Since in spiritual costs we ought to consider Christ who has declared that it is he who accepts them, nor should we prefer our fellow Christians to our children, but the Lord” (16.310-312). It is not the language of a direct humanitarian concern for the poor which is operative here,14 but perhaps the much more congenial notion, at least to the wealthy Christians Cyprian was addressing,15 of providing an offering to God. The gifts which were given within the organizational structure of the church were corban, dedicated to God.16 They only indirectly became the sustenance of the needy: You wealthy and rich women, do you believe that you are celebrating the Lord’s Supper (dominicum), you who have no respect at all for the gifts dedicated to God (corban)? You who come to the Lord’s Supper without a sacrifice (sine sacrificio), you who take part of the sacrifice which the poor person has offered (15.284-287).

The use of a technical term corban as well as other hints in the treatise, point to the conclusion that this treatise finds its Sitz im Leben in the actual worship of the church.17 Hence within the Christian community one ordinary path for patronal benefaction was within the liturgical service of the community.18 Perhaps also cost of these munera for the Roman amphitheater, see Juvenal Sat. III.34-40. Indeed, Cyprian was well aware of the burden: rebus suis vel obligatis in muneris comparatione vel venditis (De opere et eleemosynis 22.436-437; cf. Ad Donatum 11.239-244). 14   The classical aristocratic attitude toward the poor has been much discussed (MacMullen 1964, 110-120; Hands 1968, 65ff.; Bolkestein 1939, 287-379). There seems to have been little sense of a moral duty to alleviate poverty per se, an attitude also characterized by a sense of disdain for those lower on the social and economic ladder. 15   For discussion, see Finley 1973, 39. 16   See Hatch 1881, 39 n. 32, for still useful discussion and references. 17   For example, in chapter fifteen Cyprian appears to be explaining both the scriptural reference used here (Luke 21:1-4) and the Latin translation of the word corban as that was used within the community liturgy: “And so that we understand these benefactions (opera) to be given to God (deo dari) and that whoever does these things to be favored by God, Christ calls these the gifts of God (dona dei) and tells us that the widow has cast her two mites among the gifts of God, so that it can become more and more evident that whosoever is merciful to the poor lends to God at interest” (15.303-307). 18   This might explain the vague allusion in chapter twelve: “we see now of what sort are certain men in the church (in ecclesia) whose ears are closed and hearts hardened, who let in no light from the spiritual and salutary warnings, concerning whom it is not necessary to wonder that they condemn the servant in his sermons (tractatibus)” (12.242-246). A setting within the community’s religious service best explains the phrase quod contemnant in tractatibus servuum (Watson 1901, 433, however, asserts it to be reference to the opposition clergy whom Cyprian left behind when he fled Carthage during the Decian persecution). From Cyprian’s usage there can be little doubt that the biblical word corban is actually being used in Cyprian’s community for the gifts (money and kind) given there. The cheese and olives of the Apostolic Tradition 6 must be a pertinent reference to this (Williams 1958, 33). Cf. Mark 7:11; Lev 2:1, 4, 12, 13; cf. Josephus, Antiquities 4.73. If this is the case, then it presents an interesting example of the influence of Jewish tradition in the relationship of the sacred and social functions of the third century church. See Rebenack 1962, 126-127, for discussion.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

63

within this setting there was a special collection taken up once a month.19 Such a setting would further strengthen the theological justification which is being employed in the treatise: to give within the divine service (dominicum) means that one is providing a benefaction and, of course, it is God who is now the client. God will support and serve the interests of the patron: a fine client indeed!20 Yet how God would have been understood as a client function only within the context of the Church and its proper leadership. Funds will be used for those in need, but expectations of honor and authority accrue to the bishop of the church.21 What is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this treatise is the conscious effort of Cyprian to motivate the patronage of wealthy Christians by comparing their patronal benefactions with those of wealthy secular patrons (chapters 21 and 22). Secular patrons are depicted as providing their benefactions (munera) for the approval of proconsuls and emperors, the Christian patron for the approval of God and Christ. Secular patrons strive after the empty and temporary favor of the populace, the Christian patron receives the permanent reward of heaven: sed perpetuum praemium regni caelestis accipitur (21.423). 19  Cf. Ep. 34:4.571.1-4, the subdeacons Philumenus and Fortunatus along with the acolyte Favorinus are asked to “refrain from the monthly allotment (divisione mensurna) for a time” (cf. Ep. 39:5.585.1-2). This must be the same procedure found in Tertullian, Apology 39.5-6: “Even if there is some sort of common chest (arcae), it is not collected from honoraria summa as if is religion for a price. Each one puts in a small amount on one day of the month (menstrua die), or whenever he wishes and wants to and is able. For no one is compelled, but each offers voluntarily. These funds are like deposits of piety. For they are not spent on suppers, or drinking parties or thankless eating houses, but for the support and burial of the poor and for boys and girls who lack property and parents and for elderly servants. So also the money is spent on the shipwrecked and if there are any condemned to the mines or the islands or in prisons (provided it is for the sake of God’s sect), for pupils of their confession are created”. I would point out two things here. First, Tertullian mentions offerings at times other than on the one day in the month (this might be what Cyprian refers to here). Second, no context for the monthly offerings is provided. It is likely, however, that it was within the context of the community’s liturgy where the gifts would be dedicated to God (cf. 1 Clement 44.4, ta dora; cf. Didascalia 9; for discussion, see Colson 1956, 178). 20   Is it also possible to suggest here that the dominicum of chapter fifteen is a reference to the ancient practice of an agape meal (cena dominica) rather than a eucharistic service? Probably not. The cena dominica, as the service is outlined in chapters 27-29 of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, was utilized as a means whereby the wealthier members of the community could provide social welfare to the less fortunate. The reference here, however, seems to have combined that aspect of the cena dominica with the regular eucharistic service. The regular service of the community was thus the means of both worship and welfare (cf. Tertullian, Apology 39.16 and AT 6, the blessing of cheese and olives in the Eucharistic service). For discussion of the cena dominica in the Apostolic Tradition, see Bobertz 1993. On the surprising absence of a connection of sacrificial metaphors with the meal prior to Cyprian, see Rouwhorst 2016, 132-141. 21   Cf. 16.324-327: “For if one lends to God through alms to the poor and gives to Christ when he gives to the least”; 17.351-353: “so that it is apparent from this how much one sins in the church (in ecclesia peccet) who, putting himself and his sons before Christ, saves his wealth and does not share his abundant patrimony with the poverty of the indigent”.

64

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Cyprian goes on to ask whether the patrons who served Christ would allow themselves to be outmatched by the secular patrons who served the devil. Those who served the devil often exhausted their entire patrimony in their efforts to please the populace, only to lose social standing by the potential rejection of these same people if there benefactions were insufficient. The Christian patron, on the other hand, did not provide for temporary pleasures but the real needs of food and clothing.22 Christian patrons did not waste their patrimony but secured honor and privilege in heaven. Playing on expectations emerging from both sides of the patron-client relationship, Cyprian now declares that God will also become the patron of wealthy and generous Christians. On the other side, Christian patrons were to please God and Christ by accepting benefactions from the divine patron and offering their benefactions only within the Church. This is an important distinction, for it provides that wealthy members of the congregation would not have exercised their patronage by providing their philanthropia directly to the poor; rather, the bond thus created was between God and the benefactor. Cyprian was urging a specific dyadic relationship between the Christian patron and God rather than a relationship between a Christian patron and other Christians. More important, the benefactions received by those in need would be perceived by them to come from the Church rather than the patron . The honor, loyalty and public authority which, in secular social expectation, would have been the recompense of private patronage would now be directed toward the church and the leader who provided benefactions in the name of the church: the bishop.23 As a result, within Christianity the more usual role of the patron was transformed in three specific ways. First, lay Christian patrons were asked to forego the usual status enhancement and social authority that would result from acts of patronage. Second, God acting in the role of patron would have reinforced the ideological and social coherence of the group. Christians would now respond as clients of God and would from now on be distanced from ordinary social loyalties engendered by patronage. Third, the bishop’s unique role as priest in the cultic assembly and his control over the actual distribution of benefactions would have placed him in the powerful role of de facto patron, the one now to receive loyalty, honor and authority.   De opere et eleemosynis 22.444-446.   That Cyprian as bishop normally would have such control over the resources of the community is clearly indicated by the letters from exile. Cf. especially Epp. 5, 7, 13, 34, and note especially Ep. 41:2.588.14: stipendia eius episcopo dispensante perciperent. The Didascalia offers an extended discussion of the subject: “For you are commanded to give, but he to dispense. And you shall require no account of the bishop, nor observe him, how he dispenses and discharges his stewardship, or when he gives, or to whom, or where, or whether well or ill, or whether he gives fairly; for he has one who will require, even the Lord God, who delivered this stewardship into his hands and held him worthy of the priesthood of so great an office” (Didascalia II.35.3-4 [Funk 1905], trans. (modified) Connolly 1929, 98-100). For a general introduction to this work which places it in Syria in the third century, see Connolly 1929, xi-xcii and Stewart 2009. 22 23



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

65

It is this understanding of the church and the bishop as patron that informs the directives in Ep. 7. Moreover, in this case it is quite obvious that his institutional role as patron was coupled with personal generosity, a combination which, as we shall see, was of special moment. Many Christians, perhaps seeking the anonymity of an urban center, had apparently fled to Carthage at the onset of persecution. Hospitality, that most ancient of Christian benefactions, was called for. Hospitality toward Christian travelers (peregrini) had traditionally been the prerogative of the bishop and a symbol of his status in the Christian community.24 Yet Cyprian also acts here within the expectations aroused by more ordinary patron-client exchange: I ask that you furnish the expenses of any travelers (peregrinis) if they are in need from my own funds (de quantitate mea propria) which I have left with Rogatianus our co-presbyter. Lest these funds have been totally expended, I have sent to him another portion by the acolyte Naricus, so that benefactions (operatio) might be given generously and promptly to all those who are struggling (7:1.485.10-14).

Hospitality (hospitium) was, of course, one of the most pervasive links between patrons and clients in the Roman world. A well positioned patron might, for example, provide a place for a client to stay while the latter was in Rome on political or private business. Politically and socially valuable introductions would be made. In return the client would be expected to represent the interests of his patron in the provinces.25 On a more local level, in the provinces governors travelling the judicial circuit would be hosted by those seeking to gain influence in decisions or other benefactions.26 The gift of hospitium, to put it succinctly, was recognized in Roman society as a valuable element in social exchange: those who received it were under various sorts of social obligations to those who had provided the benefaction to them. From the very beginning of Christianity hospitality played a demonstrable and, at times, definitive role in the determination of status and authority, as well as being an ordinary outlet for charity. As early as 3 John, for example, Gaius was commended by the author, the elder (presbyteros), for showing the proper hospitality to the emissaries who lately had come from him. Gaius thereby affirmed his allegiance in the midst of temptation to declare for someone else.27 In Rome, in the middle of the second century, it is already the bishops (episkopoi) and welcomers (philoksenoi), perhaps lay patrons of the community, who are commended by the Shepherd of Hermas for the provision of hospitality to strangers. The Shepherd obviously believed the role important enough to be

  For discussion, see Greer 1974, 29-48.   See Rouland 1979, 445-455. 26   Saller 1982, 160-161. 27   See Malherbe 1977 for a discussion of the social context of hospitality in 3 John. For a discussion of the role played by hospitality in 1 Clement, see Chadwick 1961. 24 25

66

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

spelled out in the hierarchical division of the community.28 Justin Martyr, writing perhaps within a few years of the Shepherd of Hermas, reserves this responsibility for the bishop alone; a responsibility important enough, more­ over, to be included in Justin’s famous description of the Christian weekly liturgy. It is the bishop (proestos) who takes care of the orphans and widows and those in need, those who are in prison and “the strangers who are sojourning among us”.29 In the third century the increasing organizational structure of the urban congregations, along with increasing contact between churches, also brought the problem of schismatic congregations which resembled, in every detail, the organizational structure of already established Christian communities.30 In such an environment the social function of hospitality, the acceptance of which called upon the traveller (messenger) to recognize the status and authority of the host, would have become even more important than it had been previously.31 In the same way as the heading on a letter could indicate who was to be recognized as the legitimate Christian leader in a city,32 so also the choice from 28   Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. 9.27.2, where note also that it is the bishops who are commended for their ministries to the widows and the poor. The reference to their houses (eis tous oikous heauton) recalls the emphasis of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3:4-5 and Tit 1:5-9) upon the ability of the bishop to provide hospitality, perhaps in his own house (cf. the role of the domus in the election of Cyprian, Vita 5.XCV.23). 29  Justin, First Apology 67; Cf. Didascalia 9: “And hold not aloof from the church but when you have received the Eucharist of the oblation, that which comes into your hands and that you may share with strangers; for this is collected and brought to the bishop for the entertainment of all strangers” (trans. (modified) Connolly 1929, 100; [Funk 1905, II.36.4, cf. II.4.1; II.25.8]). See also Brightman 1918, 394. 30   The best example, of course, is the schism between Novatian and Cornelius in Rome. Cyprian is unsure about whom to recognize there, as both parties claim legitimate election and consecration by other bishops to the cathedra in Rome. On the diplomatic maneuvering of Cyprian and the churches in Africa concerning the election, see Epp. 44, 45, and 48 and the discussion in Bévenot 1977 (cf. Clarke 1984b, 7-8). See Ep. 59:9 for the elevation of Maximus the Roman confessor to be bishop of the Novatianist faction in Carthage (the Novatianists also set up rival bishoprics in other cities, see Ep. 55:4). See also Ep. 59:10 for the elevation of Fortunatus, one of Cyprian’s rival presbyters, to a schismatic cathedra in Carthage; the schism included presbyters, deacons and confessors as well as laity. On the historical setting of the schism, see Bobertz 1990. On the leading heretical movements of the mid-third century, cf., e.g., Epp. 75:5 (Marcion and Valentinus with their disciples) and 75:7 (Montanism). For discussion, see Klein 1957, 56-78. 31   The constant travelling of Christians is witnessed vividly in the letters of Cyprian. See, e.g., Ep. 8:2.486.24f. (sed discere poteritis a pluribus a nobis ad vos venientibus); Epp. 45 and 47 (envoys between Rome and Carthage); Ep. 67:5 (Basilides of Spain travelling to Rome to receive recognition). Rome and Carthage were in especially close contact. On the sailing time between Rome and Carthage, see Pliny, Natural History 19.1.4. 32   Cf., e.g., the rejection of Ep. 8 (the Roman clergy writing to the clergy in Carthage) by Cyprian (Ep. 9:2) because the epistle, which included veiled criticism of Cyprian’s flight from Carthage, was not addressed to him as representing the church in Carthage. So also was Cornelius insulted by a letter from Hadrumetum in Africa addressed to the “presbyters and deacons” in Rome when he had been elected bishop there (Ep. 48). In Ep. 45 Cyprian addresses letters to his episcopal colleagues advising them to send letters of recognition to the newly elected Cornelius of Rome.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

67

whom to accept hospitality would be a decision concerning whom to recognize as representing the leadership of the “church” in a city.33 In brief, legitimacy and so authority was accorded by the act of receiving someone’s hospitality.34 It is probable that Cyprian was aware both of the necessity of charity and its social function as he went about ensuring, through his trusted client-presbyter Rogatianus,35 the means by which hospitium could be granted to fleeing Christians who found themselves in Carthage. Nor it is unreasonable to surmise that Cyprian’s care in this matter (not only had he left a certain amount of his own fortune with Rogatianus before he took flight, but in this case he was also sending along more in the event those funds had been exhausted) bespeaks a knowledge of the tension between himself and some of the clergy and laity in Carthage; a tension which was only a short while later to break out into the open. Representatives as well as refugees from other communities who found themselves in Carthage during this difficult period would encounter the personal patronage of the bishop through his client and would thereby be brought into the patron-client relationship established by hospitality. Nor can it be doubted that such recognition would, in turn, function to enhance Cyprian’s status among his own community in Carthage. The second letter from exile, Ep. 5, addressed to the presbyters and deacons, continues to show Cyprian’s concern that the church’s patronage reach those in need: I ask you through your faith and piety to discharge there (Carthage) your duties and mine (vestris partibus et meis) that nothing ought to be lacking in either discipline (disciplinam) or the provision of needs (diligentiam) (5:1.478.14-16). 33   In the midst of the dispute over the election of a new bishop in Rome (spring 251), Cyprian explained to each traveler from Carthage to Rome that “they should acknowledge and hold onto the womb and root of the Catholic church” (Ep. 48:3.607.8-9). Hanson 1962, 154, misinterprets this as a reference to Cornelius’ party in Rome, whereas the language is surely ambiguous on purpose: Cyprian was uncertain about whom to recognize in the Roman dispute. See Bévenot 1977. 34   A good example of this part of the social world of early Christianity is depicted in Firmilian of Cappodocia’s letter to Cyprian (Ep. 75) about the abuse of Stephen of Rome in promoting discord among the churches during the rebaptism controversy. He complains ironically about the inhospitality of Stephen toward bishops who had arrived as delegates from the African communities: “from whom he received the legate bishops with enough kindness and patience so that he would not admit them even to the dialogue of an ordinary conference but moreover, mindful of love and charity, he gave orders to all the Christians that no one should take them into their house, with the result that he denied not only peace and communion to those who had come, but a roof and hospitality” (Ep. 75:25.826.7-12). In this same letter Firmilian informs us that Stephen had called Cyprian pseudochristum, pseudoapostolum and dolosum operarium (75:25.827.5-6). Though it is not clear that an actual schism occurred between Cyprian and Stephen, the inhospitality of Stephen was certainly a indication of dissensio and discordia. See Frend 1984, 356-357. 35   As will become clear in the following pages, confessor Rogatianus was clearly a trusted client of Cyprian, handling the distribution of the church’s patronage and serving on a sort of “ecclesiastical commission” (Clarke 1984b, 203) established by Cyprian at the height of the crises (Ep. 41). In Ep. 6 he has made confession, appears to be in prison waiting sentence, and (apparently upon release) is singled out for leadership in Cyprian’s church.

68

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

In this instance once notes the link between the structure of authority, disciplina, and Cyprian’s vowed responsibility to help provide for the material needs (diligentiam) of those who have to rely upon the bishop and the church.36 Such patronage, exercised through his client Rogatianus, created part of the matrix of authority, obligation and loyalty in which Cyprian, even amidst exile, understood his role as bishop of the church in Carthage. In this ancient social context the dependence fostered by such considerations would help insure the loyalty of the congregation in the midst of temptations to apostatize – either to Roman authorities or to Christian enemies of the bishop. Epistle 5, moreover, implies that the persecution in Carthage had become steadily worse. With the information that some within the community had lapsed, Cyprian directed his benefactions toward those who had confessed (and had therefore begun to suffer torture and imprisonment) and those poor and needy (pauperes et indigentes) who had “perservered in the Lord” (in Domino perseverant). In striking contrast to the previous letter,37 it was now clear that the church’s patronage was to play a key role in the fight against Rome.38 He therefore directed that their expenses (sumptus) were to be provided from the common collection (redacta est): a fund, it should be noticed, which he still attempted to control from his place in exile.39 No doubt Cyprian’s motive for making such a distinction was to encourage faithfulness to the Christian cause among the stantes (those who had so far escaped the requirement to apostatize) and the confessors. But his action nevertheless would have created three distinct classes of laity in Carthage in terms of the preference for benefactions: the confessors, the stantes and an apparently significant number of apostates (those who apparently had already offered sacrifice or paid a bribe to avoid offering). Moreover, this division of the laity would appear to have created an opportunity for those who opposed Cyprian in Carthage. They could begin building a base of support among the many lapsed through the establishment of alternative patron-client relationships. In a mirror 36   There can be no doubt that what Cyprian refers to by the word diligentia (diligenter) is the ordinary system of assistance which was operated by the Christian community (cf. Epp. 7:1.485.8-10; 14:2.510.15-20). The provisions provided by the church in Carthage consisted of both food and clothing. There is other evidence from the fourth century that this was the situation in Africa: the basilica of Abthungi possessed supplies of oil and corn (CSEL 26.200.5); at Cirta there were stocks of tunics, shoes, veils and capes (CSEL 187.8ff., cited in Clarke 1984, 186). 37   Ep. 5:1.485.9: omnium pauperum curam. 38  Cf. Epp. 12:2 and 14:2 and see the discussion in Clarke 1984a, 186. 39   Throughout Cyprian’s letters it is clear that it was the bishop who dispensed the common fund. In Ep. 41, for example, when Felicissimus and the five presbyters had come into open rebellion against Cyprian, the test of loyalty was that those who were on Cyprian’s side had come forward to receive a stipend from the bishop (stipendia eius episcopo dispensante). So also, in Ep. 34:4 Cyprian is able to suggest that three clergymen (Philumenus, Fortunatus and Favorinus) be denied the monthly distributions, ostensibly for neglect of duty during the persecution, but perhaps more for reasons of questionable loyalty.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

69

image to the social network in place before the persection, such relationships would be based on both spiritual and material assistance and the social bonds created by the exercise of such patronage. That this was exactly the situation in Carthage is indicated in a later letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome in which he describes these earliest days of exile: There is one thing, which is the concern of neither myself nor men but of God, concerning their action which I believe I ought not to be silent about: that immediately from the first day of persecution (primo statim persecutionis die), when the recent deeds of those who had transgressed were still glowing and not only the altars of the devil but the hands and mouths of the lapsed themselves were smoking with the foul sacrifices, they did not cease to communicate with the lapsed and to interfere with their doing penance (59:12.679.19-25).40

Hence my assumptions about the social context of these early letters are warranted. From the very beginning of the persecution the point of contention between Cyprian and his opponents centered on the apostates’ eligibility for immediate reconciliation and continued communion in the church. Also implied here was the status of their claim for social assistance from the Church. Cyprian’s apparent willingness to cut them off – even for a time – was not shared by other powerful forces within the community. In an apparent attempt to reverse the patronal expectations inherent in Cyprian’s election, these Christians saw in the chaos of persecution the opportunity to establish alternative social networks that would soon challenge Cyprian’s episcopal honor and authority in Carthage. In the controversies that broke out following the advent of persecution in Carthage, Cyprian argued not against the possibility of penance, but only that the actions of reconciliation take place only within the structure of his own episcopal authority. It was the bishop who must act as patron for this benefaction. To say otherwise was to jeopardize the church itself. Here again was the coupling of social context with theological argument, namely that properly governed penance, that is, penance under episcopal authority, appeases the wrath of God.41

40   Clarke 1986, 235 provides a date for this letter of sometime after May 252 C.E., thus some two years after the events I am discussing in this part of the study. Ep. 59 is an explanation from Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome as to why he should have nothing to do with the delegation of the newly arisen rival bishop in Carthage, Fortunatus. Fortunatus, moreover, was one of the five presbyters who apparently initially opposed the election of Cyprian (qui est unus ex quinque presbyteris, Ep. 59:9.676.5-6; cf. 43:3) and therefore was most likely active early on in the opposition to Cyprian. 41   The basic statement of this position is, of course, De lapsis (especially chapters 16 and 17). This position is also expressed repeatedly as Cyprian justifies his penitential policy after his return to Carthage (e.g. Epp. 55:3; 55:6; 55:15; 55:17; 55:28; 59:8; 59:13; 59:15; 59:16 etc.).

70

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Hence in Ep. 43 Cyprian describes the error of the opposition: nor is satisfaction given to the Lord through the bishops and priests, but when the bishops of the Lord are cast aside there arises, against the gospel discipline, a new tradition of a sacrilegious institution (43:3.592.17-20).42

Here God would be understood as the patron and his benefaction the restoration of peace with God. In effect the bishops, and here Cyprian refers to his own episcopate, must be the clients of God and patrons of the laity who act on God’s behalf. Further, if one grants that from the beginning of his episcopate Cyprian’s position was that appropriate penance ought to be decided by the bishop and followed by his laying on of hands as the final requirement in the restoration of the sinner to the community, it is difficult for a social historian to fail to interpret the significance of such symbolic actions in establishing patterns of loyalty within the community.43 Cyprian’s understanding explicitly called for his direct control over the resources of community membership (and the benefits derived thereby) and the recognition of his role as the patron who could successfully gain favor in the court of God.44 Indeed, the social effects of such symbolic actions (the direct laying on of hands) and theological arguments are quite apparent in earlier Christian history.45 42  Cf. Ep. 16:2.519.3-4: “when penance has not been done, when confession has not been made, when the hand of the bishop and the clergy has not yet been laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them (i.e., the lapsed)”. 43  See Ep. 16:2.518.17ff. In this case the bishop would have been acting as the mediator of a basic conception of cosmic and social order. On the function of symbols integrating (and disintegrating) notions of social order, see Geertz 1966. 44   See, e.g., Ep. 59:13. 45   In the West at least, there can be no doubt that an increase in the status of the bishop accompanied a shift in the church’s penitential policy in the period surrounding the turn of the second to third centuries. Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition 3 in the prayer at the bishop’s ordination implores God to “Grant the power to forgive sins according to your commands, to assign lots according to your precepts, to loosen every bond according to the power which you gave to the apostles”. The same author, however, complains bitterly that his rival bishop Callistus had become lax in his policies of readmission of penitents who had gravely sinned as long as they would personally show allegiance to Callistus as bishop (Refutatio IX.7). Tertullian also, in his Montanist phase, complains bitterly about the bishop of Carthage: “The Pontifex Maximus, the bishop of bishops, decrees: I remit the sins of fornication and adultery to those who have done penance” (De pudicitia 1, cf. De baptismo 17 for his “catholic” position on the power of the bishop to remit sin). Both of these authors saw and opposed (for their own reasons) such penitential policies for social as well as theological reasons: the recognition of the bishops’ capacity to intervene with God and to grant forgiveness within the community meant an increase in the number of the bishop’s clients and an enhancement of social and political status. It is not coincidental that this period marks a turning point in the increase of the power of the monarchical episcopate in Rome (La Piana 1925, 203-204). Cf. Eusebius H.E. IV.23.6; V.28.8-12. For the mid-third century, cf. Didascalia 2.18; Origen, Homily on Leviticus 2.4; H.E. VI.44. The secondary discussion is voluminous; for a start see Taylor 1942, 27-29; Hübner 1962, 49; Nauck 1977 (cultic priestly duties



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

71

And while it is possible to assume the traditional interpretation, friendly to Cyprian’s testimony, that there was a party in Carthage which was “laxist” and therefore opposed to Cyprian,46 it might also be argued that there were simply many in Carthage, perhaps led by a faction of disaffected and disappointed clergy, opposed to Cyprian’s election as bishop. A party, to be sure, with its own penitential standard of accepting apostates more readily, but which was equally concerned to oppose any penitential policy which involved direct recognition of Cyprian’s status as material and spiritual patron.47 The conflict may have involved the changing of institutional structure that was developing a rival means of distributing the benefactions and acting as patron in the court of God. In other words, the opposition to Cyprian was bent on establishing alternative patron-client relationships.48 Early in his exile Cyprian had found opposition on two fronts. On the one hand was the crisis of persecution and his heartfelt obligation to lead the confessing community in its opposition to the demands of the Roman Imperium;49 on the other hand, there existed a group in Carthage which was opposed to his authority and which, in the crisis of persecution and Cyprian’s absence, was moving to consolidate a position in opposition to Cyprian’s status as patron, a status which had been, perhaps, quintessential to his initial election and which he was now striving to maintain. being attached to the bishops increased their power at the turn of the century); Barnes 1971, 247 (Tertullian’s referent in De pudicitia 1 is the bishop of Carthage; cf. Campenhausen 1953, 229 n. 78); Williams 1958, 27; Janssen 1938, 76; Harnack 1900, 111; Baus 1965, 318-344; Campenhausen 1953, 236. 46   For a discussion of the theological and dogmatic side of the question of penance and reconcilation in Cyprian’s writings, see Ales 1922, 272-302; Koch 1926, 211-285; Capelle 1935; Poschmann 1940, 368-424; Joyce 1941; Taylor 1945; Rahner 1952; Swann 1980. For bibliography, see Swann 1980, 472-479. A concise Forschungsbericht appears in Fraenkel 1970, 71-73. 47   See Greenslade 1953, 39. The question of whether Cyprian was innovating a new policy when he allowed the reconciliation of apostates after “appropriate” penance has been much discussed. I tend to agree with Poschmann 1940, 396 that Cyprian shows no signs of introducing an innovation when he calls for the reconciliation of apostates. Certainly, his opponents seem to have accepted the notion. For early bibliography on the question, Taylor 1942, 28. Cf. Batiffol 1922, 399-483; Hübner 1962 (bibliography, cf. p. 49: “Die Ordnung der Kirchenbusse und die ihr zugrundeliegende Glaubenslehre wird zwar nirgends im Zusammenhang dargestellt, doch bieten sich so viele einzelne Auskünfte, dass sie wie Mosaikstein zusammengesetzt und ergänzt werden können”); Poschmann 1908; Saxer 1969, 110 (bibliography); Fraenkel 1970. 48   “With scarcely any exception, every passage in which Cyprian stresses the need for true penance on the part of the sinner, emphasizes equally the need for the intervention of the ecclesiastical authority” (Daly 1957, 202). 49   The best early expression of this is perhaps Ep. 6. In addition, the glowing reference to the client-presbyter Rogatianus (Ep. 6:4) is an obvious attempt to raise Rogatianus’ status (a pres­byter and glorious confessor) so that he would be a more effective client for Cyprian in Carthage – especially since the status and authority derived from confessors was one of the mainstays of the opposition to Cyprian. Cyprian’s careful language here certainly supports an interpretation of an early challenge to Cyprian’s authority in Carthage.

72

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Two letters written simultaneously, Ep. 14, addressed to the clergy, and Ep. 13 addressed to the confessors, contain the first overt notice of the strained relationship between Cyprian and the clergy in Carthage.50 Indeed, it is the issue of whether to grant immediate reconciliation to apostates which is undoubtedly behind Cyprian’s statement at the beginning of the Ep. 14: and although urgent reasons (causa) would dictate that I ought to come to you in haste (above all my affection and desire for you, which feelings are foremost in my prayers) and then that we might be able to consider together in a large council those things which the the common good demands for the government of the church and to investigate accurately the issues – it nevertheless appears that I should remain in hiding for a time (Ep. 14:1.509.12ff.).

Perhaps on the information and advice of another faithful client, Tertullus, who had lately come from Carthage and knew the situation there first hand (Ep. 14:1.510.7-11),51 Cyprian perceived that a delicate situation had developed in Carthage. A different policy of reconciliation could further exacerbate the divisions already created in the Christian community by his election and now by the persecution (causa). More to the point, such a policy, by refusing to recognize his control over the spiritual and material resources of community membership, could threaten his status and authority within the community. His response was to plead that issues surrounding the reconciliation wait for a determination until he could return to Carthage and a council of the local clergy could be held.52   Clarke 1984a, 182, notes that in the titulus of this letter and in several later letters addressed to the clergy, the clergy are addressed not as fratribus carissimis (cf. Epp. 5 and 7, “dearest brothers”) but simply as fratribus. Cyprian was thus aware that there was a problem in his relationship with the clergy in Carthage, though he shies away from a too obvious suspicion of their loyalty to him. Cyprian begins this letter by stating that the persecution has touched (perstringeret) a portion of the clergy there. While it is difficult to assess what Cyprian meant by this phrase, one result would certainly have been the increased likelihood of their joining the opposition to Cyprian’s policy of penance and reconciliation under his authority in Carthage. It is clear, however, that the main group of presbyters who were to oppose Cyprian in Carthage were not “lapsed”. Cyprian would not have failed to indicate such in his attacks upon them in Epp. 43 and 59. It is possible that this is a reference to certain unknown presbyters (per lapsum quorundam presbyterorum nostrorum, Ep. 40:1.586.8), but more likely indicates lower clergy (cf. Ep. 29:1; 34:4). 51   Cf. 12:2.503.14ff. Clarke 1984a, 250-251; 263-264 argues convincingly that Tertullus did not have clerical status in Carthage. On the practice of sending and receiving envoys, whose duty was to provide oral commentary as well as to carry written messages between correspondents, see Mitchell 1992, 654. For a discussion of the ancient sources which depict one of the roles of the faithful client as the dutiful informant for a patron, see Rouland 1979, 445ff. If this Tertullus can be identified with the bishop listed in the titulus of Ep. 4 (written sometime after the persecution), by no means a certain conclusion, it would be instructive to note the reward of a client for faithful service. 52   There is no hint of the bishop (or even bishops) taking an autocratic or even a primary role at this council. This is in stark contrast, moreover, to the role he envisions for the council of bishops as the crisis deepened. In this earlier period, he appears to be attempting to persuade the 50



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

73

So also in this letter Cyprian puts himself in a diplomatic posture, specifically describing himself as a “fellow presbyter” (compresbyter).53 Surely part of the function of such language was an attempt to encourage, by linking his status more closely with theirs, the loyalty of those presbyters who were wavering in their allegiance to Cyprian’s authority as bishop in Carthage. And perhaps this is also the context within which one should understand his continued exhortation to the clergy. In an echo of Ep. 5:1, Cyprian again urges the clergy to maintain his patronage as bishop in the community at Carthage: Relying, therefore, on your love and piety which I know to be satisfactory, with this letter I exhort and command you (hortor et mando), whose presence in Carthage is with little hatred and not thus far dangerous, to administer in my stead (vice mea) those things which ought to be done, which the divine administration (administratio religiosa) requires. In the meantime let your care of the poor be as much as possible and in whatever way that is possible. Provided, however, that they are still standing with the faith intact and have not deserted the flock of Christ, you are to provide the expense of those things which can make poverty tolerable, otherwise poverty may make necessary what the storm could not cause among the faithful.54

A comparison of this charge to the clergy with the earlier admonition of Ep. 555 reveals that the language here has become much stronger (hortor et mando) along with a much keener notion of the bishop’s role as patron of the clergy. The clergy were to act only as his clients (vice mea) in providing the Church’s material benefactions to those in need. One cannot help but conclude by the strength of Cyprian’s warning here that he perceived his status as patron to be precisely what was in danger. Those who were not his clients were taking control over the means of offering benefaction, become patrons, in the stead of bishop Cyprian. Gone is the idea of shared responsibility for the material patronage of the community (partibus); Cyprian appears to be much more conscious of the struggle to uphold his authority in and through his continued control of the community’s material and spiritual resources. The reference here to divine administration (administratio religiosa) also suggests that Cyprian was especially concerned to continue to provide for those who had not apostacized, the stantes (those who had not sacrificed to the Roman gods) and confessores, from the resources of the community (Ep. 14:2.510.15ff; lower clergy to continue to recognize his authority by this description of a local clerical council. In the later period, he has distinctly given up this idea and turned to a desire to hold a more general council of the laity, clergy (though at times the “clergy” are left out of the equation), and outside bishops upon his return to Carthage. Cf. Ep. 43:7.596.22-23 (addressed to the laity in Carthage), quibus praesentibus secundum arbitrium quoque vestrum et omnium nostrum [i.e. bishops] commune consilium, and note the discussion in Clark 1984b, ad loc. 53   Ep. 14:4.512.16. For discussion, see Watson 1896, 262. 54   Ep. 14:2.510.12-20; for further discussion, see Ritschl 1885, 10-11. 55   “I ask (peto) you through your faith and piety to administer there (Carthage) your duties (partibus) and mine that nothing ought to be lacking in either discipline or diligence” (5:1.478.14-16).

74

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

14:2.510.20ff). In the case of the stantes, such patronage was a means by which their loyalty, their self-understanding as Christian clients, might be held for Cyprian’s church. More important, it was the clergy in Carthage who were themselves to act as clients of bishop Cyprian (vice mea) in the event of the state moving against them by means of confiscation (14:2.510.19-20). More­ over, it is not unreasonable to assume that this portion of the laity, continually subject to persecution, might naturally have been more supportive of Cyprian’s position on penance and delayed reconciliation.56 Cyprian’s patronage as bishop should therefore be contextualized within a matrix of social obligations created by the Church’s benefactions. In the final section of Ep. 14 we get the first direct indication that Cyprian has been made aware of the involvement of certain presbyters in what appears to be a dispute over the policy of penitential discipline in Carthage. Cyprian responds to a question raised in a separate letter from four presbyters: Donatus, Fortunatus, Novatus, and Gordius.57 His answer is extraordinarily diplomatic given the probability that the presbyters had been active in reconciling apostates in Carthage in a manner opposed by Cyprian.58 It most likely indicates that Cyprian was unsure of his support in Carthage. An attempt at outright confrontation over status was deemed premature. 56   A logic aptly expressed by the Roman confessors in Ep. 31:8. Indeed, in the period immediately following this letter, Cyprian increasingly called for a delay until he could make his way back to Carthage (e.g. Epp. 17:3; 19:2; 20:3). See Clarke 1984a, 268. 57   It is certain that these presbyters were the center of the opposition to Cyprian’s authority in Carthage. The most important clue from the present context is the fact that they have addressed a separate letter to Cyprian, i.e., not a letter in the name of the whole clergy but representing a faction of that clergy. In Ep. 59:12, Fortunatus is identified as one of the presbyters who opposed Cyprian’s policy toward the lapsed “from the first days of persecution” (primo statim persecutionis die) and who was later appointed an opposition bishop in Carthage. The presbyter Novatus, along with the deacon Felicissimus, is identified in Ep. 52:2 as being in opposition to Cyprian. The other two presbyters here remain anonymous. The context of this letter and the letters which follow make it probable that the question referred to in their letter was on the subject of read­ mission to the community for those who had lapsed. For further discussion see Clarke 1984a, 267-268; Monceaux 1902, 30-36; Ritchl 1885, 12-13; Benson 1897, 108-118. 58   The indications of gentle diplomacy are manifest. Cyprian refers to the presbyters as conpresbyteri nostri and declares that from the beginning of his episcopate he has made no policy (statuerim nihil) on his own without the council of these presbyters and the consent of the people. He further declares “that those things which have been done and those things which ought to be done, as mutual honor requires, will be considered together” (14:4.512.20-22). The clear hope is that by the promise of their inclusion in the later settlement of affairs, he can avoid their opposition to his authority in the present. Cyprian was, in fact, planning that a council would be held upon his return to Carthage, but it is important to note that the agenda for that council changes as Cyprian addresses different audiences. For example, in Ep. 17:3, written to the plebs, the clergy is not mentioned; in Ep. 19:2, written to the clergy, he mentions the assembly of bishops (unlike here); in Ep. 20:3, written to the Romans, only the bishops are mentioned. Surely Cyprian has a keen sense of the diplomatic context. Here every hint of the bishop’s final authority has been removed in the hopes of maintaining the loyalty of these presbyters while Cyprian is in exile.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

75

By the time of the writing of Epp. 13 and 14 the persecution of Christians in Carthage had been going on for some two or three months,59 long enough for there to arise a new and potent source of spiritual benefaction in the community: the capacity of Christian confessors to successfully plead on behalf of their clients, those who had lapsed in the persecution, in the court of God. Ep. 13, addressed specifically to the confessors in Carthage, marks the beginning of Cyprian’s attempts to maintain his authority as bishop with respect to these confessors and their perceived capacity to act as a patron advocate (patronus precatore) before God. This exercise of real spiritual patronage, which in the present circumstance Cyprian feared was being translated to more general authority in the church, had, since the beginning of the church, undergirded the confessors status and authority within the church.60 And given what has been discussed above, it cannot be surprising that in this time of persecution the patronal capacity which the confessors possessed, namely, to intervene effectively with God on behalf of apostates (patronus causae), would present an opportunity to those presbyters and others who opposed Cyprian’s authority in Carthage. They would soon unite their own status as clergy within the church with the patronal prerogatives of the confessors to offer a profound challenge to Cyprian’s status as the sole patron of the church in Carthage. 59   Dated by Clarke ad loc. to before mid-April of 250 C.E. Cyprian had been in exile for two or three months. For Cyprian’s exile beginning in January or February of 250, see Ep. 43:4.593.4-5 and Clarke 1984b, 219. 60   This authority, of course, centered around the martyrs’ and, to lesser extent, the confessors’ perceived ability to sit with Christ at the final judgement (Rev 7:14; 20:4; Origen, Exhortatio ad martyrium 30; Tertullian, Ad martyras 2; Eusebius, H.E. V.18.7; VI.42.5). Lucian, On the Death of Peregrinus 11-13, provides perhaps our clearest picture of the inherent authority brought about by the act of confessing (if for no other reason than that Lucian is a hostile witness to Christianity in the ancient world). Proteus wanders into Palestine to become a leader in the Christian community there (prophetes kai thiasarches kai ksunagogeus) who “interpreted and explained and even wrote many of their books”. When he is thrown into prison, he assumes an even greater authority: Christians came even from cities in Asia to assist their hero and, and as a result of his “marvelous” teaching from prison, he was called “the new Socrates” (kainos Sokrates) by them. Cf. Eusebius, H.E. VI.42.5. In Africa, this idea is clearly expressed in Tertullian (Ad mart. 1.6; De pud. 22; and Scorp. 10.8). In the vision of Perpetua, the martyr Perpetua is granted the power to intervene on behalf of her dead and unbaptized brother Dinocrates because of her pending martyrdom (et cognovi me statim dignam esse, et pro eo petere debere, Passio Perpetua 7, ed. Robinson 1891). It is worth noting in that same text, in the vision of Saturus (chapter 11), the bishop Optatus and the presbyter doctor (presbyterum doctorem) Aspasius do obeisance and make the request of the martyrs to establish peace between them (componite inter nos) signaling both the authority of the soon-to-be martyrs and the inherent tension between the presbyters and the bishop, both themes which play crucial roles in the events in Carthage some fifty years later. On the intercessory power of martyrs in Cyprian’s writings, cf. Epp. 6:2; 21:2; 60:5 and the discussion in Clarke 1986, 271. The statement of Campenhausen 1953, 283 n. 84, on the inherent authority of confessors in Cyprian’s day (“Plainly, however, no one was still aware what this meant”) is patently absurd. Contrast, e.g., the essay of Brown 1978, 54-80, on the importance of spiritual patronage in the third century. See also Miles 1986, 172 and Brent 2010, 9-11.

76

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

In Ep. 13 there are repeated clues that Cyprian was conscious of this threat to his status as bishop posed by the patronal capacity of the confessors to plead in the court of God. In the letter he acknowledges the honor of the confessors, but then hastens to add, “since it is necessary for all Christians to rejoice in this (status), then in the rejoicing of all the share of the bishop is greater, for the glory of the church is the glory of the bishop (praepositi) (13:1.504.20ff.). This is a clear assertion of Cyprian’s claim to higher status within the ecclesia vis-à-vis the confessors. It is also an attempt to characterize any honor or status resulting from the confessors’ capacity to plead for others in the court of God. Such patronage does not set them out as patrons of the community. There is but true patron of the community: And since quietness (quies) and humility (humilitas) and the peacefulness of good conduct (tranquilitas bonorum morum) are fitting for every Christian according to the word of God (Dei vocem), which has regard for no one unless he is humble (humilem) and quiet (quietem) and fearful with respect to its teachings, it is all the more necessary for the confessors to observe and fulfill this teaching, you who have been made an example to the rest of the Christians (13:3.505.24ff.).61

Here Cyprian is describing deference to his own status (quies, humilitas, tranquilitas bonorum) at least partly as a means of encouraging the confessors to see themselves as clients of the bishop. To follow discipline (disciplina62) and the word of God, as Cyprian understood them, was to act in deference to the bishop as a proper client. The actions as spiritual patrons, to plead in the court of God, must be understood in the context of their own position as clients of the bishop.63 61  Cf. Ep. 13:3.506.20-21: “You are guarding and preserving your glory by your peaceful and good conduct (tranquillis et bonis moribus)”. Such language (quies, humilitas, tranquillus etc.) might well be construed as a Christian version of the proper virtues of a client. 62   Ep. 13:2.505.21. This particular connotation of the word disciplina in Cyprian’s writings is evident from the very first treatise of Cyprian, De habitu virginum, which opens with the words Disciplina custos spei. Even a cursory reading of Cyprian’s other treatises and the letters suggests that this type of theological language often served the purpose of reinforcing Cyprian’s position and status in the community: “Therefore, dearest brother (Cornelius), ecclesiastical discipline ought not to be given up, nor should the judgement of the episcopate be lessened because we are attacked with insults and harassed with threats” (Ep. 59:3.668.21-23). Cf. Ep. 15:1.513.9, lex et disciplina Domini; Ep. 15:1.514.1 divina praecepta; Ep. 16:2.518.18, disciplinae ordinem; Ep. 17:2.522.3, memores evangelii. There is no doubt that Cyprian himself believed in such a divine order with the bishop controlling effective divine intervention: “Heresies and schisms have their origin and source precisely in circumstances where people fail to obey God’s bishop and where they forget the fact that in the church there is but one bishop and judge who acts in Christ’s stead for the time being” (Ep. 59:5.671.19ff.). Cyprian also often combines the language of deference (quies) with references to the “Gospel” or “Law” or “Divine Precepts” etc. (cf. Epp. 38:1.580.1219; 39:4.584.6-13; 40:1.586.14-15 etc.). Not surprisingly, the interpretation of these laws and precepts remained the prerogative of the bishop. For further discussion see Watson 1896, 275. For a theological interpretation of disciplina, see Laurance 1982-1983, 70. For bibliography on Cyprian’s use of disciplina, see Clarke 1984a, 241. 63   Cyprian’s purpose in utilizing this language becomes even more clear when the passage is compared with the use of similar language in De unitate 21-22. There Cyprian is also exactly



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

77

Confessors were not to be haughty in an attempt to assert their own status as patrons of the community: But I hear certain of your number are inflated and puffed-up… Does anyone who is now living through Him and in Him dare to exalt himself and to be arrogant, mindful of the deeds which He (Christ) accomplished and the commandments which he handed down to us either by Himself or through the Apostles … those who follow the Lord ought to imitate his footsteps humbly, peaceably and quietly (humiles et quieti et taciturni) (13:4.507.4-17).64

In the letter Cyprian appears already to have been aware that there were those who were attempting to join with the confessors in opposition to him. According to Cyprian, if the confessors remained “quiet and in good behavior” they preserved and protected their glory as confessors. The unstated converse of Cyprian’s admonition was that if they opposed Cyprian, they would not be a part of the church and would lose their status and prerogatives as confessors altogether, a proposition which is clearly stated in De unitate 21.523-525 and elsewhere.65 Within the larger context of the events taking place in the early persecution, the opposition to Cyprian, perhaps stemming from as far back as his election, now seems to have been coalescing around the opportunity presented by Cyprian’s self-imposed exile amidst the presence of active persecution. Presbyters and some of the laity were attempting to assert control over one of the Church’s most valuable benefactions, namely, the patronal capacity to intercede in the court of God on behalf of lapsed Christians living in Carthage. It is this context, then, from which we must determine the importance of Cyprian’s final remarks to the confessors in Ep. 13. It is worth quoting the text in full: And indeed I recently wrote to our clergy while you were yet in prison, and now I have written again more fully, that whatever was necessary in the manner of your clothing addressing the issue of the confessors’ loyalty to the “church” (in Cyprian’s thought ecclesia is synonymous with the status and authority of the bishop, see, e.g., De unitate 5.127-129). Again, he stresses humilis et quietus; so also to be on the side cum Domini evangelio is to be on the side of the “church” and the bishop. Otherwise, the rebellious confessor has cut the concord of unity and exchanged his first faith for a later perfidy. Conversely, De unitate praises the majority of confessors who, by that time, had declared loyalty to Cyprian. They stand in the strength of their faith and the truth of the law and the Lord’s discipline (Dominicae disciplinae) and have not joined the faction opposed to Cyprian in Carthage (contagio criminis, De unitate 22.534-536). For the secular equivalent to such descriptions of clientship, see, e.g., Pliny, Ep. X.26 (describing the client Rosianus Geminus): tantum mei post consulatum reverentium praestat. For extended discussion, see Koch 1926b, 83-131. 64   For the influence the confessors might have upon the Christian community, cf. Ep. 51:2 (some Carthaginians readily followed the Novatianist confessors in Rome). 65   The most famous expression of this is De unitate 14.337-338: Esse martyr non potest qui in ecclesia non est. Cf. De unitate 19.474-477; also Epp. 27:3; 36:2; 55:17; 60:4; 73:21; De Dominica oratione 24. That the prerogatives emerging from such suffering were potentially independent of episcopal control is indicated in the Apostolic Tradition, a catechumen who is martyred before baptism is baptized, i.e., achieves salvation, in his own blood (chapter 19).

78

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

and food ought to be furnished. Nevertheless, I myself have sent 250 sesterces from the little amount which I brought here with me – also, I have previously sent another 250 sesterces. Also Victor the deacon who was previously a lector, who is with me, has sent to you 175 sesterces. I rejoice, moreover, when I learn that many of our brothers through their own affection assemble together eagerly and help in providing your necessities with their own collection. I wish you, dearest brother, always to prosper.66

One purpose of this concluding paragraph was to call attention to the fact that Cyprian was the generous patron of these same confessors whom he had encouraged in this letter. Not only does he provide this financial gift from his own funds for the needs of the confessors, but Cyprian is careful to remind his audience (apparently expecting the letter to be read or heard by all the confessors in Carthage) that he has been their patron in the past.67 Beyond this, Cyprian 66   The text, not strong in the manuscript tradition, is relegated to the apparatus in Hartel’s edition of the letters. Yet “there appears to be no ground for doubting its genuineness. Given the practical nature of its contents, the paragraph may have been edited out in some of the copies subsequently distributed” (Clarke 1984a, 259). As my argument makes clear, the paragraph also fits well with Cyprian’s purpose of maintaining the loyalty of the confessors. The text, taken from Bayard 1945, 39, reads as follows: Et quamquam clero nostro et nuper cum adhuc essetis in carcere constituti, sed nunc quoque denuo plenissime scripserim, ut si quid vel vestitum vestrum vel ad victum necessarium fuerit, suggeratur: tamen etiam ipse de supticulis propriis quos mecum ferebam misi vobis CCL. sed et alia CCL. proxime miseram. Victor quoque ex lectore diaconus qui mecum est misit vobis CLXXV. Gaudeo autem quando cognosco plurimos fratres nostros pro sua dilectione certatim concurrere et necessitates vestras suis conlationibus adiu­vare. Opto te, frater carissime, semper bene valere. 67   This gift, like the funds sent in Ep. 7:2, must have come from the personal wealth of Cyprian. He distinguishes his gift from that of the deacon Victor, which would make no sense if the money were coming from some sort of common fund which Cyprian had with him. It is also unlikely that this is a reference to the funds sent by the acolyte Naricus in Ep. 7:2. Those funds were designated to take care of the bishop’s responsibility to provide proper hospitality to peregrini who found themselves in Carthage. As a result, the total amount spoken of here is actually HS500 which Cyprian had sent to Carthage to provide for the confessors. It is difficult to know just exactly how much this amount represented in the economy of third century Carthage. DuncanJones 1974, 89-114, provides prices for various items in Africa during the first three centuries of the common era. While most expenditures worthy of inscriptional recording (public works, summae honorariae, statues, foundations etc.) are of an amount far above the HS500 provided by Cyprian, it is worth noting that such an expenditure would have nevertheless provided a great deal of assistance. In Italy, alimenta which were established to provide for the needs of dependent freedmen might range from HS70 per month to HS40 per month (Pliny, Ep. 7; contra Clarke 1984a, 259-260, it is questionable whether the funds provided by Pliny to his freedmen were to include provision for housing, see Duncan-Jones 1974, 30 and n. 2). The cost of keeping an adult male slave might be HS30 (cf. Seneca, Ep. Mor. 80.7 and Duncan-Jones 1974, 30 and 208). At the rate of HS40 Cyprian’s patronage could care for 12 confessors for a month (presuming they were completely dependent). Put in another way, if the price for a large loaf of bread was 2 asses (the amount indicated in the graffiti from Pompeii and from the famous collegia inscription of Lanuvium, see Duncan-Jones 1974, 244), it would mean the amount provided by Cyprian (not counting for inflation) was the purchase equivalent of about 1,250 loaves of bread. Yet regardless of whether these estimates are very accurate, such an amount must be an indication not only of a



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

79

moves to take credit for any patronage from the other clergy in Carthage (clero nostro), for he asserts that it was at his direction that such gifts were provided. It would have been equally obvious that the deacon Victor’s contribution, purposefully included second to that of the bishop and of a lesser amount, was coming from a clergyman who was himself a loyal client to Cyprian. Cyprian notes as well that the faithful laity (fratres nostros) – apparently the stantes whom Cyprian had so carefully cultivated in his previous letter – had acted on behalf of the confessors. As a good aristocrat who was presumably quite familiar with social norms informing the exercise of patronage, Cyprian apparently had begun to construct effective patron-client links as a means to preserve his own status and authority in the community.68 Given this description we might again turn to the analysis of Ep. 14. It is possible to conclude that there also Cyprian was attempting to structure a patron-client relationship with the confessors. Once again Cyprian makes the connection between the obedience of the confessors to his position as bishop (humiles, modestos, and quietos) and their reception of his benefaction: Nevertheless, if there are some who are lacking clothing and provisions, as I wrote recently when they were still in prison, they ought to be supplied with those things which are necessary, provided that they know and are instructed and learn from you what ecclesiastical discipline according to the instruction of the scriptures (scripturarum magisterium) requires: they ought to be humble (humiles), modest (modestos) and quiet (quietos).69

It is also not surprising, giving Cyprian’s affinity for scripture, that a specific citation of scripture (Eccl 11:30) is here used by Cyprian to link the status of the confessors to membership in the Church (ecclesiastica disciplina): “for there remains more than what appears to have been accomplished”.70 In other words, Cyprian argues, the suffering of the confessors that provides both status concern for the confessors’ physical welfare, but the importance such confessors’ loyalty possessed for his own patronal status and authority in Carthage. 68   For discussion, see Rhee 2013, 172-173. In this regard it is interesting to note that the final salutation of Ep. 13 (Opto te frater carissime) is in the singular and that therefore the letter was probably delivered to the person addressed in the praefatio: the loyal client-presbyter Rogatianus (cf. Epp. 6:4; 41:1). There is manuscript evidence for the more usual plural ending, but there is no good reason to doubt that this, lectio difficilior with a plausible explanation, is the proper reading. Cyprian’s intention was the delivery of the funds and the letter via his trusted agent in Carthage who would have used them to enhance Cyprian’s authority in Carthage as the patron of the confessors and to draw them away from any opposition to his authority which was arising in the city. For discussion see Bayard 1945, vxii; Clarke 1984a, 259; Duquenne 1972, 66-67 (Duquenne suggests that the original editing of the concluding paragraph may have gone back to Cyprian himself, who later saw no need to publish his generosity; given similar paragraphs in Epp. 7 and 62, it is difficult to follow Duquenne’s reasoning here). 69   Ep. 14:2.510.22ff. 70   Ep. 14:2.511.7.

80

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

and the capacity for patronage (the capacity to plead in the court of God) does not even exist while they are alive because they in fact have not yet consummated their suffering in martyrdom. In a sentence Cyprian undercuts the patronal status of living confessors, status and patronage potentially available to his opponents in Carthage. Even status gained from the most glorious sacrifice of martyrdom remains subordinate to the status of the episcopate. Yet the very arguments Cyprian was making here show quite clearly that there was inherent status and potential patronage recognized by all parties, not just any Christian had the status to plead before God on behalf of other Christians. The issue was over the exercise of patronal prerogatives within the church. Confessors who chose not to recognize the position of the bishop and who made arrogant claims, perhaps centering on their own patronal status (sibi insolenter adsumpsit), were to be excluded from the social bonds established by the bishop’s patronage. Conversely, it is quite clear in this letter that Cyprian believed that in establishing the confessors as clients he would in turn have a patronal prerogative on the spiritual resources they might control. 71 Cyprian reinforces the social obligation assumed clients with admonitions from the recognized authority of scriptural examples, utilizing both means to encourage the confessors’ link to his position as bishop in Carthage (14:2.511.7ff.).72 By the time of the writing of Ep. 11 it becomes clear that some of the confessors were openly challenging Cyprian’s patronal prerogatives in Carthage. They were perhaps linked with some of the clergy in an understanding of patronage that would give this alliance authority in the Christian community. So it would seem that the keen theological argument at the beginning of this letter was not solely for the purposes of community reflection. Cyprian begins with a call to repentance and supplication in order to appease God. The persecution had come about because of the community’s sins. Prominent among these were those sins which spoke directly to the situation in Carthage as Cyprian interpreted it: the 71   It must be stressed that the admonitions of Cyprian to the confessors to be humble, modest, quiet etc. pertain to more than just the general catalogue of vices quoted in chapter 3 of this letter (e.g. “to speak improperly and insolently, to have leave for foolishness and discord”, Ep. 14:3.512.7-8). The recitation of hearsay charges of improper behavior (sexual and otherwise) might have also functioned socially to lower the status of the offending confessors in the eyes of the clergy and community and consequently to reinforce Cyprian’s prior claims vis-à-vis the confessors (cf. the charges against Felicissimus as sexual miscreant in Epp. 41:2; 59:1; cf. 55:26, Novatian’s followers are guilty of adultery). It is not possible to know whether the charges of immorality were “manufactured” by those loyal to Cyprian (though he is obviously distressed by the reports he has received). What we can observe is how such charges might have functioned socially within a social matrix dominated by patron-client relationships. 72   Ep. 14:2.511.16ff. has to do with the example of Paul who was mitis et humilis despite his many sufferings. The text Cyprian chooses to illustrate that point (2 Thess 3:8), however, strains the analogy. It is quite possible that the allusion to Paul’s not accepting payment for his services to the Thessalonians was selected in order to contrast the confessors’ having accepted the bishop’s patronage (Epp. 7, 5 and 13) but who were even then not “meek and humble”.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

81

allowance of discord (aemulatio) and dissension (dissensio) in the community (Ep. 11:1.496.4-5).73 Cyprian goes on to argue that because the persecution had come about by the Christians’ own fault, it is necessary that there be a period of trial: Let us seek and receive, and if there is delay and slowness in being accepted because we sin gravely, let us knock, for to him who knocks it is opened: but only if our prayers and tears and groans with which it is necessary to insist and not be put off knock at the door and if the prayer is united (Ep. 11:2.497.3-7).

Cyprian’s apparent theological justification of persecution, that it resulted from deserved offenses against God, is here inextricably bound up with the developing social situation in Carthage. When the community no longer challenges the rightful status of the bishop (Cyprian) there will be peace in the community. As Cyprian put it, “when discipline (disciplina) leads the way, mercy (venia) will follow” (Ep. 11:7.501.11-12).74 Ep. 11 also reveals for the first time that some of the clergy could now be accused of normally not passing along Cyprian’s letters to the brethren: Neither, therefore, should you keep this epistle to yourselves, but you should provide it to the brethren to read. For to interfere with those things by which the Lord has deemed us worthy to instruct and to admonish is to be someone who does not want his own brother to be instructed and admonished (11:7.500.19-22).

It was these letters, of course, which were one of Cyprian’s primary means of maintaining his authority in Carthage. As we have seen, they contained his directives to the clergy to provide his own personal benefactions as well as the gifts from the common chest which were distributed under the aegis of the bishop (mea vice). Such gifts, important in establishing patronage links to the stantes and confessors, were coupled with Cyprian’s personal and scriptural exhortations for the community in Carthage. If some of the clergy were in fact blocking the dissemination of Cyprian’s correspondence, it is likely that the 73  Cf. Ep. 11:1.496.10-11 (a lack of discipline among the confessors, i.e. failing to recognize the status of Cyprian as bishop); and 11:3.498.7-8 (these evils would not have befallen the Christian community if it had been animated by a united spirit, i.e., under the leadership of bishop Cyprian). 74   This social situation in Carthage, that there was opposition to Cyprian’s claimed prerogatives as bishop among confessors and clergy, is also undoubtedly the proper context in which to examine Cyprian’s use of visions in this letter (ostensibly the reason for its composition, Ep. 11:3.497.8-10). Cyprian has the prerogative of gaining direct revelation from God and mediating that vision to the community. The visions reveal that it is discord which has prevented the cessation of persecution (Ep. 11:3.497.8ff.; 11:4.498.9ff.). For discussion and bibliography on Cyprian’s use of visiones, often at moments where Cyprian is struggling to maintain his status as bishop, see Clarke 1984a, 287-289 (of the studies listed there, Harnack 1902, is of enduring value). Robeck 1992 is perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of this phenomenon in Carthage (pp. 149-195 are devoted to the evidence from Cyprian’s episcopate); see also Seagraves 1993, 240-253; Montgomery 1996, 203 n. 30.

82

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

purpose of such action was to keep the laity in Carthage from knowing that Cyprian had continued to act as their patron, providing benefactions by means of his client-clergy in the city. Such a breakdown of communication, when actively fostered, would inevitably create a gap in the perceived links between the patron bishop and his clients among the laity in Carthage. Moreover, it would allow others to begin to fill that need. In Ep. 12, once more addressed to the clergy in Carthage, Cyprian is, not surprisingly, careful to reiterate an account of his patronage of the confessors: If only the circumstance of my status (gradus) and my position would permit that I could be present now, I would promptly and freely fulfill all the duties of love toward our courageous brothers in the administration of my appointed obligation.75 But your attentiveness represents my office; let everything be done which ought to be done toward those whom the divine honor has made illustrious by such merits of faith and virtue (12:1.502.10-15).76

Moreover, within a careful laudation of his client Tertullus77, which is, more than likely, a “comment” on the proper role of the clergy to whom he is writing, Cyprian tells his clergy that, thanks to the continued communication of Tertullus, he has not failed to act as a proper patron of some newly created martyrs: “offerings and sacrifices are celebrated here in their memory”.78 If, as appears likely, the previous letter from the group of four presbyters (Ep. 14:4) had challenged Cyprian on the question of his authority as bishop to reconcile lapsed Christians, it is also apparent that Cyprian had not felt secure enough in his position as bishop to respond forthrightly to that challenge. Hence a response such as the one recorded here might well have been intended to argue both that his patronage of confessors and martyrs continued. This implied proper fides was owed in return, and that the clergy in Carthage ought to see themselves not as exclusive patrons of the lapsed laity (along with the confessors and martyrs), but to understand their exercise of patronage as linked within the patronage of the bishop. It is with the writing of the tripartite letter, Epp. 15, 16 and 17, that these social developments withing Carthage find even greater illumination by attentiveness to the social matrix created by patron-client links. These letters were written at the same time but addressed to separate groups, the martyrs and 75   Note Cyprian’s claim that it is the dignity of his status as bishop which prohibited his return to Carthage – the very status which was being opposed by his opponents in Carthage. Perhaps then, this was a not so subtle refutation of the opponents’ charge that Cyprian had abandoned Carthage. 76   The reference is to the provisions needed by the confessors – as Cyprian himself repeatedly emphasized (litteris meis frequenter admonitus esse, Ep. 12:1.502.6-7; cf. 12:2.504.2). 77   Tertullus is fidelissimus ac devotissimus, he has, continued to write to Cyprian “amidst all the other duties of charity which he has undertaken for the brothers with his usual care and diligence” (Ep. 12:2.503.16-18). 78   Ep. 12:2.503.21f.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

83

confessors, the presbyters and deacons (clergy), and the laity. Each letter includes the request that the addressees read the letters which were written to the other two groups.79 The dispute with the opposition party, headed by a group of presbyters, had now come out into the open. Cyprian states that he had known about their actions for some time.80 And it is clear that Cyprian’s primary fear was that the community would be reconstituted in his absence by those who were in opposition to his episcopate.81 Cyprian’s careful attention to the needs of the martyrs and confessors during the first months of persecution would have placed him firmly in the position of being their patron.82 Now in Ep. 15 he appears to be counting on that relationship in the developing dispute with some of the clergy in Carthage. Some of these presbyters, in conjunction with certain deacons, were issuing certificates of peace (libelli) from the martyrs as a benefaction for the lapsed.83 On the basis of these certificates, that is, utilizing the suffering of the martyrs as the means by which the lapsed could now claim peace with God, gaining victory in the court of God, these libelli would have been powerful benefactions. These certificates were apparently enough to establish the authority of the rebellious presbyters and deacons.84 In this epistle Cyprian clearly recognizes the prerogative of those in prison to offer such forgiveness to the lapsed. This was commensurate with past practice given that confessors and martyrs were destined to sit in judgement   Epp. 15:4.516.1-2; 16:4.520.17-18; 17:3.523.6-8.  Cf. Epp. 15:1.517.3-9 and 16:2.517.16-17. 81   There are constant indications of this: the hands of the bishop must be imposed on the lapsed before they can be received back into the community (Epp. 15:1.514.11; 16:2.518.19, 519.4; 17:2.522.11); Cyprian implores each of the three addressees to wait for his return (Epp. 15:2.515.1-3; 16:3.519.20-21; 16:4.520.9-10, 16-17; 17:1.522.1-2; 17:3.523.2-3: expectent regressionem nostram). 82   Cf. Eusebius 5.2.2-5. The distinction between the confessor and martyr in the terminology of Cyprian is quite complicated and discussed by Clarke 1984a, 272-273. (“Ultimately, confessors are survivors, martyrs are deceased… In between these extremes Cyprian can vary…”). One explanation might be that by the time of these letters some of the confessors had been condemned to death, thereupon attaining the somewhat proleptic designation as martyr. For further discussion, see Bévenot 1957, 79 n. 17; Hummel 1946, 5-20; Delehaye 1921, 20-49; Tabbernee 1993, 252253. 83   This must be the interpretation of the reference to the deacons who have been visiting the prisons: “I had believed that the presbyters and the deacons who were present there were admonishing and instructing you fully in the law of the Gospel (evangelii legem)” (15:1.513.13-15). It is important to note how Cyprian in this letter equates the evangelii lex and the scriptuarum praecepta along with the lex et disciplina Domini with the control of the bishop over community sources of authority; he attacks those qui nec timorem Dei nec episcopi honorem cogitantes (Ep. 15:1.513.7ff.). 84   Ep. 15:1.514.11-12: “Before the hand of the bishop and clergy has been laid upon them in their penance, they make the offering on their behalf and give them the Eucharist”. Cf. Ep. 16.3.519.2122: communicent (i.e. presbyters) cum lapsis et offerent et eucharistiam tradant. 79 80

84

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

with the Lord in his court.85 Cyprian is careful to place the blame not upon the confessors who have issued the certificates of peace (libelli), but upon the opposition clergy who have given the confessors and martyrs unworthy instruction in prison.86 The issue then, was not the benefactions per se, but how such benefactions were to be socially constructed within the community. Clearly, Cyprian was concerned that opposition clergy could act as the new patrons of the laity by establishing patronal control of a recognized and powerful benefaction within the Christian community. It is apparent in this letter that Cyprian was no longer certain that his policy concerning the proper reconstruction of authority within the community was being communicated to the martyrs in prison. Consequently, he turned what would have been the usual practice of the church upon its head. The martyrs and confessors were to become the teachers of the clergy: “they (the clergy) should be taught by you when they are supposed to teach” (15:2.514.22f.). Cyprian was counting on his direct influence with the confessors in prison; influence carefully established through his exhortations and, at least partially, through his personal and delegated material assistance to them as patron in their time of difficulty. Cyprian had been their most generous benefactor and now it appears he was counting on social conventions establishing obligations of loyalty in his dispute with the rival clergy. It is this social norm, I think, which best explains why Cyprian appears to have been so extremely trusting of the loyalty of the confessors in his absence.87 85   The sanction of tradition, Ep. 15:1.513.15-16: sicut in praeteritis semper sub antecessoribus nostris factum est; cf. 15:3.515.8-9. The role of judgement, Ep. 15.3.515.10-11: ut pote amici Domini et cum illo postmodum iudicaturi inspiciatis. 86  It is interesting to note the close alliance and division of duties depicted in Cyprian’s description of the opposition presbyters and deacons. The deacons were the clergy traditionally responsible for visiting the prisons on behalf of the congregation and providing for the needs of the martyrs (cf. Ep. 15:1.513.16-18 with Passio Perpetuae 3.7; 6.7; 10.1-4; Eusebius, H.E. VII.11.4 and Lucian, Peregrinus 12 [a reference to deacons who bribe prison guards?]). Apostolic Tradition 9 depicts the deacons as directly responsible to the bishop and not to the presbyters (Quia non in sacerdotio ordinatur, sed in ministerio episcopi ut faciat ea quae ab ipso iubentur, non est enim particeps consilii in clero sed curas agens et indicans episcopo quae oportet, ed. Botte 1963). Thus it is likely that the deacons would have been responsible for actually providing for the martyrs as the representatives of the “church” under the leadership of the bishop and, in turn, mediating the martyrs’ requests to the bishop. But Cyprian was in exile and he recognized the breakdown in the lines of patronage when certain deacons began to serve the desires of the opponent presbyters instead of the bishop in their contact with the martyrs. 87   Ep. 15:1.514.5-6: cum vos (the martyrs and confessors) ad me litteras direxeritis. Cf. 15:3.515.19-23: “This whole matter can be accomplished (i.e. the discipline of the church under the auspices of Cyprian) if you guide those requests which are sought from you with pious contemplation, recognizing and holding back those who, while they are accepting persons from your benefactions, are either doing favors or are waiting to traffic in an illicit business”. The confessors are called upon to be the first line of opposition to those who opposed Cyprian through forfeiting their right of benefaction in inappropriate cases. It is also instructive to note the perceived value of church membership: it was the subject of bribes.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

85

Cyprian’s intention for the reconciliation and reconstruction of the community after the persecution was to take effect only after Cyprian’s return from exile. His plan involved an individual investigation into each case and the personal reception of each apostate by the laying on of hands by client clergy and patron bishop. While Cyprian provides a great deal of theological justification for this conception of the church,88 it is also clear that his planned ritual actions would ensure his control over the benefaction of reconciliation and membership in the community. Cyprian would soon be present in Carthage to preside personally over the reinstatement of those who had lapsed. In sum, the theological and social aspects of the emergence of episcopal authority in the third-century church were inextricably linked.89 The final section of Ep. 15 tells us something more about the social structure of the community which the opposition to Cyprian was attempting to create. It was a notable feature of some of the certificates of peace (libelli) which were being issued that they included collective forgiveness for the most common socially bonded group of the ancient Roman world: the household (Ep. 15:4).90 It is likely, therefore, that a primary basis upon which the opposition to Cyprian was building its social structure was the readmission of and communion with entire households and – quite possibly – the house churches located within them. By utilizing the martyrs’ certificates of forgiveness to structure a community in opposition to Cyprian, the opponents of Cyprian would have realized two ready advantages. First, they would have gained the loyalty of intact social and ecclesial structures consisting of, by Cyprian’s own estimation, twenty and thirty new members at one time.91 Second, the induction of patronal heads of household – with corresponding client links of their own – into the opposition 88   This point is obvious in these three letters and throughout the rest of the Cyprianic corpus: there must be the requisite penance for sin or there is danger of God not being appeased (Epp. 15:2.514.2022; 16:2.518.13-17; 17:1.521.14-17; cf. De lapsis 17 and 18). 89   As I will discuss below, there were great differences between Cyprian and some of the confessors over their prerogative to grant forgiveness from their status as confessors; yet such differences cannot be understood from a theological basis alone, but must be examined in light of the ramifications they would have for the social structure of the community. 90  Cf. Ep. 55:13. On the significance of the household in the social structure of ancient Christianity, see Judge 1960b, 31-35; Meeks 1983, 75-77 (and literature cited therein) as well as Maier 1991, 15-28. For a description of the emergence of church households under the patronage of presbyter bishops in the first two centuries, see Stewart-Sykes 2002, 115-119. It is clear that such households would have been the basis for house churches. The internal and external social links thus created and sustained might go far to explain Cyprian’s apparent concern here. 91   Perhaps this speeded the process of proselytization, for much effort would have been saved in recruiting groups as opposed to individuals. Cyprian, of course, makes a strong argument for the martyrs’ investigation of each individual before the granting of the libelli, but it should be noted that even in this circumstance the requests are to be contained in letters directed to the bishop. It is the bishop who is to have final control over the readmission: designatis nominatim libello et sic ad nos fidei et disciplinae congruentes litteras dirigatis (15:4.516.12-13). For patterns of proselytization by Novatian’s party in Africa, see Ep. 44:3.

86

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

community would have provided a ready source of material benefactions: undoubtedly some of these potential patrons would have been among the wealthiest Christians in Carthage. Hence the opposition presbyters and deacons, acting as patrons, would have been given status and honor with the bestowing of forgiveness and readmission to the church. When one adds that this emerging opposition party also would have readily at hand the capacity for material benefactions within the normal client links of the ancient household, it is easy not to underestimate the threat felt by Cyprian in exile.92 According to Cyprian, the primary purpose of his clerical opponents in Carthage was to reconstitute the Christian community in opposition to his prerogatives as bishop. So in Ep. 16, another letter addressed to the clergy, the situation is clarified: For ought we not to fear danger from this offense to the Lord? When some of the presbyters are mindful neither of the Gospel (evangelii) nor of their own position; they consider neither the future judgement of the Lord nor the bishop who is now their leader (praepositum), since with contempt and scorn they have arrogated to themselves complete leadership (praepositi totum) – something which was never done under our predecessors.93

Cyprian’s accusation that his opponents are “without the thought of restoring salvation but desire only popularity” (Ep. 16:2.517.19f.), cuts to the heart of the matter. These opponents were seeking to enhance their own status in the community as patrons and they were doing so by means of the benefaction, reconciliation with God, granted by means of the martyrs’ pleading as friends of God. Hence, there can be little doubt about the social reality which lay underneath Cyprian’s genuine concern for the proper repentance of those who had apostatized from the faith: the bishop (Cyprian) was to be the final judge of repentance and readmission into the community.94 It was the patron bishop who would intercede with God on behalf of the lapsed. Cyprian’s position was that those who were readmitted would acknowledge directly the prerogative of the bishop to control such benefaction within the community. Yet Cyprian was still in exile and so his vision of the reconstituted community which would 92   Stewart-Sykes 2002, 128-129 provides the helpful suggestion that the apparent independence of the presbyters in Carthage was due to the specific historical development of the elders (seniores) in North Africa. 93   Ep. 16:1.517.9-14. These clergy are allowing the lapsed back into the Christian community. They are joining in communion with the fallen, making the offering and giving them the Eucharist before Cyprian returns to preside over the church’s reestablishment (Ep. 16:3.519.20ff.) 94   Cyprian specifies in Ep. 15:1 that even in the case of the desideria of the martyrs, the correct action is that they should be sent on to the bishop until there is peace in the church and there can be a meeting of all concerned. Nevertheless, if there are mistakes made by the martyrs in the granting of forgiveness and admission to the church, then it is the clergy who are to blame for not providing them with the proper instruction (cf. Ep. 16:3.520.2-4). The whole issue thus centers on control over an agreed upon potent spiritual resource in the community.



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

87

yield to his prerogatives as bishop and patron would have to wait and survive the challenge of an alternative social and ecclesial structure. From his place in exile, Cyprian was forced to attempt to present a picture of his status as bishop as a future reality; a picture that would leave no doubt in the minds of the opponents that it would be Cyprian as bishop who would be the final patron distributing the resources of the community. Cyprian admonished the rebellious presbyters with the threat of new sanction: In the meantime there are certain men among you who are audacious, inconsiderate, puffedup, who have no regard for man and who do not fear God. They should know that if they persist in these things I shall use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use, that they might be temporarily prohibited from making the offering, and they will plead their case before us and the confessors themselves and before all the people when, with the Lord’s permission, we have begun to be gathered in the lap of mother church (16:4.520.10-17).95

In the framework of the argument being presented here the threatened prohibition against “making the offering”, a reference no doubt to the performance of liturgical rituals in the community, is important for two reasons.96 As I have noted, the cultic assembly was the focal point of the people’s offering of their material gifts, gifts which, in the context of the sacred assembly, were now owned by God and distributed by the patron bishop. If the laity were to accept Cyprian’s authority to prevent presbyters from “making the offering” the social structure of patronal benefaction from these presbyters would obviously be interrupted. Second, the presbyters’ ritual offering of sacrifice, a pleading before God for the forgiveness of sin, would limit their capacity to act as patrons of the laity. Material and spiritual patronage would be disrupted and so also the status and authority of the rebellious presbyters within the community. Cyprian goes on to state that the final ecclesial judgement of the offending presbyters was to be at a gathering of Cyprian with his loyal client clergy, the confessors themselves (confessores ipsos), and all the people (presumably the stantes).97 It is significant that Cyprian, in this letter addressed to the clergy, specifies the participation of the latter two groups. For in the hierarchical structure of the Carthaginian church, it was the clergy who were in a position of higher status and power. Now they were to be cast into a position of being judged by 95   Luttenberger 1976, 52, misreads this passage as a reference to action that Cyprian actually had undertaken instead of the threat voiced here. In fact we do not know if Cyprian ever carried out the threat before the excommunication of these presbyters in the spring of 251 (Ep. 43). 96   On the presbyters’ normal practice, and apparently traditional North African prerogative, of making the offering see, e.g., Epp. 5:2.479.14-15; 15:1.514.12; 17:2.522.5-7 and the discussion in Brent 2010, 9. Cf. also Ignatius, Smyrn. 8. On the term offerre see Vilela 1971, 321-322. 97   Following the argument of Clarke 1984a, 291, the use of apud nos here, when Cyprian earlier in the sentence has referred to himself (me), indicates that Cyprian is using a true plural. Clarke helpfully notes that at the beginning of Ep. 20 Cyprian uses the same deliberate variation and it bears the same distinction as here.

88

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

those of normally lower status, confessors and laity, clients of the patron bishop. Cyprian, in other words, appears to have been banking on the support of the client groups he had so assiduously courted as patron. The obligations imposed by such patronage, so much a part of the ancient social context, apparently were large factors in the strategy of reconstituting episcopal authority in Carthage. In Cyprian’s correspondence, Ep. 17 has a special place, for it is the only letter addressed specifically to the laity of the church in Carthage: Cyprianus Fratribus in Plebe Consistentibus. Its unique address to the laity in that regard points out the depth of the crisis confronting the exiled bishop. With this letter Cyprian was actively seeking the support of the laity in the dispute which had arisen between himself, the presbyters and the confessors in Carthage. Hence his first appeal undercuts the position of the presbyters concerning the reconciliation of the lapsed while preserving his own status: I suffer with them, I grieve with our brothers who are lapsed and have been made prostrate by the onset of persecution. They have pulled out part of our vitals with them and by their wounds they have given an equal pain to us, wounds which are able to be cured by divine mercy (Ep. 17:1.521.10-14).

Cyprian’s personal identification with the many lapsed would have struck a cord with many in the community who undoubtedly had friends and relatives among the fallen. More important, if the stantes could be assured that the lapsed would indeed merit the benefaction of reconciliation under the patronage of Cyprian (“wounds which are able to be cured by divine mercy”) there would be no reason link themselves with the opposition faction headed by the presbyters. Cyprian follows this plea, as was the case in the letter to the confessors, by highlighting (and thereby enhancing) the relative status of the stantes within the community at Carthage. Not only would the stantes sit in final judgement of the presbyters after the latter’s ability to make the offerings had been revoked (Ep. 16:4), they are also to be included along with the bishop in the judgments concerning those lapsed whom the martyrs desire to be pardoned (Ep. 17:1.521.17ff.). As a result even the capacity of the martyrs to plead before the court of God was to be placed under control of the bishop who now acted in consort with a faithful client laity. Cyprian relies on his clients, the stantes, to reject the patronage of presbyters who oppose him. He seems also to rely on the social convention that clients have a claim in selecting their patrons. He asks the stantes to replace presbyters and deacons who oppose him. Cyprian’s client laity are now to guide lapsed Christians according to Cyprian’s announced policy of delaying decisions concerning reconciliation to the church until his return (Ep. 17:3.522.20ff.). The client stantes are henceforth to join directly with Cyprian against the machinations of the opposition presbyters. In all of this, it is possible to discern that Cyprian believed these lay Christians to be the veritable cornerstone of his support in Carthage. These were the same



Chapter 3: The Early Exile 

89

people whom had supported his election, taking him on as their patron bishop, despite his relative newcomer status in the Christian community. These clients were now being called upon to support him as their patron and to reject other would-be patrons in the church, presbyters and even confessors and martyrs. All sources of patronage must be directed singularly toward the status and honor of the bishop. Simultaneous to his attempt to raise the status of the stantes, Cyprian attempts to elevate his own status as bishop in relation to the rest of the laity. Only here in the three letters does he refer to recognized symbols of patronal status, the “honor” of the priesthood and the episcopal throne: Still I hear that there are certain presbyters who are mindful neither of the gospel nor of what the martyrs have written to us; they do not consider the bishop nor do they preserve the honor of the priesthood or the throne (cathedrae) (17:2.522.3-5).98

Only here is mentioned the fact that the council which was to take place at the end of persecution would include other bishops (Ep. 17:3.523.4). In part then, Cyprian’s role as patron must have depended on heightening the sense of status difference between himself and the laity. For it is only in the perception of such difference and the control of resources it represents that clients in the ancient world were linked in the relationships that distributed access to these resources in ways that fostered specific social bonds. On the other hand, there is also evidence that the social links thus forged were genuine, that mutual affection and esteem was characteristic of many of the relationships between patron and clients. The tripartite letters considered here set the stage for Cyprian’s attempt to maintain his authority and position as bishop in Carthage. The challenge to his status as bishop and patron centered on the possibility of a new and complex patron-client structure in Carthage between presbyters, confessors and martyrs, and households and house churches of lapsed Christians. It was precisely in maintaining and enhancing his own links as patron, especially to specific confessorpresbyters such as Rogatianus and other confessors and laity, which was, and would continue to be, Cyprian’s response to that challenge. In other words, in the midst of the exigencies of persecution and exile we have evidence that the structure of the Church itself was evolving in ways that perhaps brought it closer to taking up particular social patterns inherent in the ancient world. The next group of letters to be examined, written in the high African summer of 250 C.E. after several months of exile, reveals a situation that had gotten demonstrably worse for Cyprian’s position as patron of the church in Carthage. 98   On the cathedra as a symbol of the status and honor of the bishop, see Stommel 1953 and Saxer 1969, 88. Such symbols of status, moreover, show quite convincingly that Christians participated in the ethos of “honor” and patronage in the ancient world. Cf., e.g., the use of the bisselarius in ancient associations.

Chapter Four The Later Exile In the introduction to Ep. 18 Cyprian complains that he has not yet heard from the clergy in Carthage, this despite the many letters he had sent to them from exile (probably with oral instructions for reply).1 He was, as a result, manifestly uncertain of his position in the community there. In Ep. 20:3, to the Roman clergy, Cyprian described the situation which pertained to the composition of Ep. 18: there were many who possessed libelli from the martyrs and confessors and who were petulantly seeking reconciliation to the community. “In order that, in some manner and for a time (interim) their violence should be mitigated”,2 Cyprian had commanded that those who were close to death and who possessed a certificate (libellus) from the martyrs ought to be granted reconciliation. He was, of course, in both these letters endeavoring to put the best possible face on a difficult situation. The account in Ep. 20 is significantly different from the circumstances described in Ep. 18.3 There is no mention in Ep. 18 that the remedy that has been provided was temporary (interim), nor is there a report of extortion by violent attack (extorquere violento impetu niterentur). Yet Cyprian represented to the Roman church that he was forced to make some concessions to control an unruly situation. He even appears to be defending himself against accusations coming out of Carthage, that “in this matter I neither gave a law nor did I rashly constitute myself as an authority” (Ep. 20:3.528.22-23). Perhaps more important, in his letter to the Romans Cyprian makes no mention of the requirement by which he deferred to the status and authority of the martyrs, namely, that those who would be reconciled to the community must possess a martyr’s libellus. This change would have placed him fully in line with the Roman position and, with their support, in sole control over the benefaction of reconciliation.4 1   Clarke 1984a, 297, estimates that the silence of the clergy in Carthage was nearly six months in duration (the first half of the year 250). In my reconstruction of events surrounding the writing of Epp. 18 and 20, I am indebted to the discussions of Clarke 1984a and Gülzow 1975, loc. cit. 2   Ep. 20:3.528.18-19. 3  In Ep. 18 Cyprian appears to link, as usual inextricably, his concern for the welfare of the laity (summer was to bring constant and serious illness, occurendum puto fratribus nostris) and his position as patron. His concessions (a presbyter or even a deacon was to be allowed to offer peace to an afflicted individual who possessed a martyr’s libellus) seem to have been directed at precisely those groups, clergy and martyrs, most in opposition – perhaps as a way of staving off outright rebellion. Cf. Dionysius of Alexandria apud Eusebius, H.E. VI.44.4 with Ep. 38:8 (Novatian). 4   There can be no doubt that from the time after the tripartite letters until he returned from exile, Cyprian was making a concerted effort to gain the backing of the Roman church for his position vis-à-vis the community at Carthage. Duquenne 1972, 114-120 argues that the policy of

92

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Cyprian, in describing the situation for the Romans in such terms, gives no hint of his concern that his authority with respect to the community in Carthage had met increasing opposition (violentia) and that some concession was necessary if Cyprian was to continue to hold his position there. In terms of the analysis here, one might presume that if he did not make some concession to the hard line outlined in the tripartite letters (that is, no forgiveness until he returned to Carthage), those presbyters and deacons who opposed Cyprian would have been able to gain an incontrovertible advantage over Cyprian through the exercise of the benefaction – through their “corruption” of the martyrs and confessors – of forgiveness and reinstatement to the benefits of community membership. Cyprian’s dilemma, therefore, was how to go about making a concession (by granting a certain amount of leniency in the process of forgiveness and reconciliation) without appearing to have made a concession. In this way he would attempt to maintain whatever clerical and lay support he had in Carthage until the time of his return. By delegating the power to grant forgiveness and reconciliation in these extreme cases to the clergy in Carthage, even to deacons, Cyprian would have been empowering those clergy who remained loyal to provide a portion of the benefaction that the opposition clergy was already utilizing to enhance their own position.5 In a real sense Cyprian’s client-clergy could now compete; they could hold out the hope that a Christian would not die before the ultimate benefaction of the church’s peace was given to him or her. To go farther would have been to capitulate to the opponents’ position, impossible for Cyprian both on theological and ecclesial grounds. In the final section of Ep. 18 Cyprian implores those clergy still loyal to him to uphold his position in Carthage until he could get back to take control of the situation: Encourage by your presence the portion of the community which has lapsed and resuscitate (focillate) them with your solace so that they do not forsake the faith and mercy of the Lord, for those who are meek (mites) and humble (humilis) and who truly do penance and remain in good repute shall not be bereft of the aid and help of the Lord; not inferior is the divine remedy which provides for them (18:2.524.8-14).

Once again Cyprian uses language that describes loyal clients (“those who are meek and humble”) while there is also encouragement even of catechumens (audientes) to stay with Cyprian’s cause (18:2.524.14ff.). Indeed the very purpose Rome allowing death-bed reconciliation which appears in Ep. 9 was communicated to Cyprian before Ep. 18. In addition, one notes not only the subtle change in Cyprian’s own policy concerning the requirement of the martyr’s libellus, but also his diplomatic gesture of referring to the Roman clergy as praepositi (a term normally reserved for bishops) and worthy of holding common council (concilium). See the careful discussion of Gülzow 1975, ad loc., who devotes much of his wellconsidered analysis to this very point. 5   Cf. Luttenberger 1976, 53-54, for discussion.



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

93

of the letter, it seems, was to undermine the position of the opponents by a significant modification of Cyprian’s policy toward the lapsed and the offer of certain benefaction of reconciliation to those who would remain clients (mites, humilis) with respect to the bishop. In sum, Cyprian’s theological position as well as his very real compassion continued to be mediated by the political and social necessity to act as an effective patron in the face of the alternative exercise of patronal authority from his opponents in Carthage. In Ep. 19, a long-awaited reply from some of the clergy in Carthage, we learn that there was at least a portion of the clergy in Carthage who had remained loyal to Cyprian. He once again refers to the clergy as “dearest brothers”, an epithet which he had not used in his letters to the clergy for quite some time.6 Cyprian makes it clear to these clergy that proper penance is to be mindful of the divine command (divini praecepti memor); to be humble (mitis) and patient (patiens) and obedient to the bishops of God (sacerdotibus Dei obtemperans). The desired structure of penance and the process of reconstituting authority within the community is clearly dependent on spiritual and social links between the community and their patron-bishop. Deference to the bishop is coupled with acts of benefaction within the Church. The Lord’s favor is merited by acts of submission (obsequiis suis) and works of justice (operibus iustis).7 Here Cyprian not only reiterates one aspect of his basic doctrine of atonement, namely, that the giving of alms provides for the forgiveness of sins,8 but at the same time urges the continued provision of the church in Carthage under his auspices. Once again the theological determination, specifically the prevalence of the grave sin of apostasy, was decidedly linked to an envisioned social result; the increased necessity of atonement would lead to an increase in the bishop’s capacity to provide the benefaction of pleading before God on behalf of the loyal laity. Provided that presbyters 6   Clarke 1984a, 261, points out that the clergy has been addressed as merely fratribus since the writing of Ep. 14 (sometime before mid-April 250). Before that (Epp. 7 and 5) the address in the titulus had been fratribus carissimis, a clear indication that relations between Cyprian and his clergy were not as cordial after the writing of Ep. 14. The use of the term fratres carissimi in the first line of Ep. 19, while not being used in the titulus, indicates that Cyprian was now more, but perhaps not fully, confident of his clergy’s loyalty. 7   Rebenack 1962, 34-52, provides extensive analysis of Cyprian’s use of the terms opus and iustus in De opere et eleemosynis. There can be no doubt that what is meant here is the giving of alms (money and goods) within the ecclesia. 8   Countryman 1980, 195, in describing the doctrine of atonement for alms (a major theme of both De opere et eleemosynis and De habitu virginum), fails to note that it is based on an inter­ pretation of Proverbs 16:6; 19:17, and is the subject of the first heading of the third book of Ad Quirinum. In general, the notion of the necessity of a positive act (e.g., the giving of alms) to erase the negative effect of sin was widely held in both the Greco-Roman world as well as earlier Christianity. For discussion, see Grant 1962, 116-117 and Mills 2020, 35-38; cf. 2 Clement 16.4, Didache 4.5-6, Barnabas 19.9, Polycarp, Philippians 10.2. For arguments against and for the authorship of Ad Quirinum, a compendium of biblical passages, see Bobertz 1992b and Murphy 2014.

94

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

such as Tertullus and Rogatianus continued to act as Cyprian’s clients in Carthage (including sharing the content of Cyprian’s letters9) it would have been apparent to the laity in Carthage that bishop Cyprian was continuing to act as their patron. Cyprian is careful to note in this letter that the general council of the Carthaginian community to be convened after the persecution will include the faithful laity: For this is befitting of the modesty and discipline and the life of us all that we bishops (praepositi), meeting with the clergy and also with the laity who have stood steadfast – and to whom honor ought to be given for their faith and their fear10 – ought to be able to arrange piously all these matters in a common council (19:2.526.4-8).

The significance of this statement in Ep. 19 can only be grasped within the context of what Cyprian elsewhere reports to be the conciliar tradition of the Carthaginian church. Ep. 1, perhaps written before the outbreak of persecution,11 appears to describe two types of councils that had regular authority within the Christian community: the more or less informal council of Cyprian with other bishops and presbyters who happened to be present in Carthage and a more formal council of bishops. While this may be a matter of either incomplete or shorthand description, it is worth noting that the laity are not included as a matter of course in the description.12 Now in Ep. 19 Cyprian reiterates, on three separate occasions, the promise of Ep. 17: the stantes are to play a major role in the council to be convened upon the end of the persecution and Cyprian’s return to Carthage. He even singles them out for special praise. Hence it is not unreasonable to conclude that Cyprian expected the loyalty of this portion of the laity to uphold his authority in the community. Such an expectation was a natural consequence   Cyprian’s expectation in this regard is made clear in Ep. 11:7.500.19-22.   quibus et ipsis pro fide et timore suo honor habendus est. Clarke 1984a, 100, translates this as “their faith and their fear of the Lord”, though Dominus is not in the text here. Could it be that Cyprian is implying a double meaning in this letter to the clergy, not only the loyal laity’s (stantes) faith and fear of the Lord, but their loyalty to the bishop as well? Clarke 1984a, 302-303, also notes that the loyal clergy (for whom this letter was undoubtedly intended) are not similarly praised. It is quite apparent that Cyprian was counting heavily on the support of the stantes in his attempts to resume his authority in the church in Carthage. 11   Clarke 1984a, 148, describes the evidence for dating this letter as “scanty”. 12  Cf. Ep. 1:1.465.8-10: “when a short time ago (pridem) it was decided in a council of bishops (in concilio episcoporum)”. Besides Ep. 1, there are other indications that such councils might not necessarily have included the participation of the laity. Eusebius, H.E. 6.43.2, describes the Italian council of 251 C.E. mentions only presbyters and deacons who outnumbered the bishops. In addition, in a letter to Cyprian Firmilian states that it was the tradition in Asia Minor that the presbyters (seniores) and bishops (praepositi) would join in common council to arrange the affairs of the church (Ep. 75:4). There is no mention of lay participation. For a full discussion of the African councils in Cyprian’s episcopate, see Saxer 1969, 12-20 and Safranski 2018, 55-66. 9

10



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

95

of the circumstances of his election when the laity had coopted him as their patron.13 With the writing of Epp. 24 and 25 Cyprian had begun in earnest to seek support from his Christian peers, his fellow African bishops (collegae). He drew on the opportunity provided by a letter from bishop Caldonius (Ep. 24) to state the situation in Carthage and ask for the loyalty of Caldonius and the other bishops (Ep.25:1.531.14ff.). Cyprian included copies of Epp. 15-19 and stated that many of the other bishops had received these letters and were supportive of his position.14 They should stand in accord with the Catholic faith (secundum catholicam fidem, Ep. 25:1.538.19-20). Cyprian goes on to ask Caldonius to transmit the dossier to as many bishops as possible so that “all might hold a single policy and consensus according to the precepts of the Lord (Domini prae­ cepta)” (25:1.538.21-22). These letters (Epp. 24 and 25) along with the letters to the Roman and Carthaginian clergy (Epp. 18 and 20) vividly illustrate how precarious Cyprian thought his position in Carthage actually to be. In every instance he was attempting to solidify his own position vis-à-vis his opponents in Carthage through maintaining or gaining control over what might be termed sources of benefaction in the community: creating clients of the confessors and martyrs with their capacity to plead before the judgment of God, the material patronage of the church, and now the increase in status that would follow upon belonging to the church headed by a bishop recognized not only by the Roman church, but by other bishops in Africa as well. All of these benefactions were, of course, directed at the laity. It was their support, their role as loyal clients in the deliberations of a future common council, upon which Cyprian’s status as bishop ultimately depended. With Ep. 26, Cyprian again sent a forceful letter to his clergy, most likely intended for those who were wavering between loyalty to him or joining the opposition which had already taken shape. The gravity of the situation is marked in the abrupt opening greeting which was unlike any he had yet sent to the clergy: “The Lord speaks and says” (Ep. 26:1.539.3). The martyrs in prison, under the leadership of Lucianus, but doubtless in conjunction with Cyprian’s clerical opponents, had now openly communicated a policy of immediate reconciliation which challenged Cyprian’s prerogative as bishop to control such 13   There are later indications that Cyprian was as good as his word here; the laity of Carthage played a significant role in the African church councils which met to resolve challenges to Cyprian’s position in Carthage (Ep. 45:2) and even the more doctrinal dispute with Stephen of Rome (Sent. Episc. Praefatio). In Rome the laity played a decisive role in the readmission of the Novatianist confessors (Ep. 49:2). 14   quae epistulae etiam plurimis collegis nostris missae placuerunt (25:1.538.17-18). As Clarke 1984a, 351 notes, “it is impossible to guess at the number of recipients this might mean, but it is clear from what follows that circulation was very far from complete even amongst the local proconsular bishops”.

96

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

benefactions. Cyprian’s response was to reassert the policy which he had previously attempted to establish: individual investigation, imposition of penance, and eventual reconciliation must be under the direct auspices of the bishop (Ep. 26:1.539.16-17).15 Yet Cyprian also argues that his policy was in accordance with the letter of the martyrs (Ep. 23):16 I ask that you read all these things (i.e. the letters of the bishops which support Cyprian) to our brothers so that they may be more and more inclined to patience and do not add another sin to their previous sin by not permitting us to serve the Gospel or to examine their cases according to the letter of all the confessors (Ep. 26:1.540.2-5).

This claim appears to have been for the benefit of this particular audience in Carthage. In Ep. 27, written to the Roman clergy at very nearly the same time, Cyprian intimates that he believed the policy of the martyrs stipulated in Ep. 23 to be a challenge to his prerogative as bishop: “Lucianus wrote a letter in the name of all the confessors [i.e. Ep. 23] by which he dissolved nearly every bond of faith and fear of God and command of the Lord and the holiness and integrity of the Gospel” (27:2.542.2-4). The clear differences in the two descriptions of the same letter demonstrate quite clearly that Cyprian was not at all sure of his support in Carthage. Instead of directly attacking the loyalty of the martyrs as he does in the letter to the Roman clergy, in Ep. 26 he plays down any differences between his position and that of the martyrs. Quite the opposite, Cyprian attempts to portray the martyrs as actually in support of his own prerogative as bishop. Ep. 27 once again shows Cyprian self-consciously attempting to gather the support of the Roman church in his struggle to maintain his status as bishop and patron in Carthage. He had previously given Rome an account of his leadership and benefactions with respect to the community in Carthage (Ep. 20). 15   Cyprian also moved to assure the loyal clergy of their participation in all of this; simultaneously asking that his policy, established in his previous letters be adhered to (Ep. 26:1.539.11-14). For added emphasis, he informed his clergy that he had received the support of other bishops (Ep. 26:1.539.17ff.). 16   Ep. 23 baldly asserted the traditional prerogative of the martyrs to plead successively before God and grant reconciliation to the church for the lapsed (for the history of this prerogative, see Brent 2010, 257-273). The martyrs here stipulated a role for the bishop (Cyprian) in the final determination of reconciliation to the church in a particular case, but what was to be judged by him was not the severity of the offence and the extent of the necessary penance, but merely whether the penance since the apostasy was satisfactory. Any necessary role of the bishop to plead before God was therefore limited. Cyprian judged that such a policy, if adopted, would be ­devastating to his authority as patronus causae of the laity. He was aware, moreover, that the reassertion of his authority in Carthage was largely dependent on the adoption of his policy of determining the quality of the acts of penance followed by readmission to the community: “he does penance who, mindful of the divine precept, is meek and humble and obedient to the bishops (sacerdotibus) of God” (Ep. 19:1.525.9-11).



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

97

He now wrote again in the face of the threat to his position represented by the patronal intercessions of the martyrs and confessors (Ep. 23). Cyprian squarely attacks the martyr’s capacity to reconcile apostates to the church (that is, to plead successfully for God’s forgiveness) irrespective of their position as clients of the bishop. Cyprian speaks somewhat vaguely about the effects that Ep. 23 produced in Carthage: Among us as well there are certain firebrands (turbulenti) who in the past were governed by us only with difficulty and who used to be disquieted in our presence, who through this letter have grown even hotter by the inflaming of such a torch and have begun to demand the reconciliation (pacem) which has been given to them [by the martyrs] (27:3.542.17-21).

The language of this passage hints at certain lay members of the Carthaginian community who had been in opposition to Cyprian in the brief time of his episcopate before the exile, perhaps even stemming from his election.17 It is possible, therefore, that there were both clergy and lay who had opposed Cyprian’s episcopate from the very beginning. Now some of them were using the occasion of the martyrs’ patronage to create an alternative social structure, ostensibly by interrupting the clear lines of patronage, the capacity to intercede successfully with God, that held up Cyprian’s authority in the community. Cyprian’s defense to the Romans, therefore, includes every bit of evidence that Cyprian can muster to support his position and authority in Carthage.18 The opposition to Cyprian (invidiae impetus) was based not only in his current exile and lack of benefactions, it was based upon ancient rivalries as well. After Ep. 28, a letter of praise for the client status of the Roman confessors,19 Cyprian received word that some members of the congregation in Carthage had proceeded in his absence formally to reconstitute the Carthaginian church 17   Clarke 1984a, 113, provides what I believe is a somewhat misleading translation of part of the Latin text here: “In our own case, too, certain rebels who in the past were only with difficulty kept by us in check and whose cases were to be deferred until we should be present” (apud nos etiam quidam turbulenti, qui vix a nobis praeteritum regebantur et in nostram praesentiam dif­ ferebantur). The use of the two imperfect verbs (regebantur and differebantur) in parallel suggests that they are both in reference to the same time frame (praeteritum) and are describing the situation before the exile (when Cyprian was present [praesentiam] in Carthage). 18   Ep. 27:3.542.21ff. This evidence included sending along copies of Epp. 26, 24, 25 (which included letters of support from other bishops), 21 (the Roman confessor Celerinus was supportive of Cyprian’s position) and 22 (in order to show how the Carthaginian confessor Lucianus had from the beginning opposed Cyprian as bishop in Carthage). For discussion, see Soden 1904, 36. 19  It is not unimportant to note that such a letter of praise, by heightening the honor of its recipients, would itself have been an act of benefaction. It would have served as an attempt by Cyprian to consolidate his position with the Roman confessors. For all confessors, even those of another community, possessed certain prerogatives to plead before God on behalf of other Christians. Moreover, it is worth noting that Cyprian no longer had similar words of praise for the confessors in Carthage.

98

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

without him.20 The response given in Ep. 33 was Cyprian’s first categorical statement on the structure of the church and episcopal dignity. The now famous appeal to Matthew 16:18-19 (“you are Peter…”) is followed by the assertion that the organization of the church is established according to the “precepts of the Lord” (praecepta Domini). It is those precepts which have established the unbroken chain of episcopal succession so that “every act of the church is governed through these same bishops (praepositi)” (33:1.566.12). Hence where the bishop is there is the church.21 By asserting through scriptural inference (Mark 12:27; Matt 22:32) that the lapsed are no longer members of the ecclesia, Cyprian was again making his claim that there could be no general reconciliation, irrespective of the patronage of the martyrs’ pleading before God (libelli) without regard for the proper status and prerogative of the bishop as the ultimate patron of the church.22 And yet, Cyprian writes, there are those who had written to Cyprian in the name of the church (ecclesiae nomine, Ep. 33:1.566.14). They had claimed that the ecclesia was “among them and in them”.23 With biting sarcasm, Cyprian countered their assertion by proclaiming the such persons instead ought to take on the proper status of clients, to be submissive (summissos), quiet (quietos) and humble (verecundos); in other words, to be loyal to the position and status of their patron-bishop.24 In the second chapter of Ep. 33 Cyprian turns to a group of the lapsed in Carthage who have remained loyal to his status as bishop: they are the ones doing true penance (paenitentiam veram) and who are willing to wait until Cyprian’s return for reconciliation, until a time in which the bishop can act as their patron and intercede with God on their behalf. It is therefore clear that the 20  In Ep. 28 Cyprian elaborates at length upon the notion of disciplina. Powerful terminology is used (praecepta Domini, divina et caelestia mandata, evangelium Christi) to describe the proper position of a client loyal to Cyprian’s status as bishop. Apparently, there had been attempts to draw the Roman confessors into a position of opposition to Cyprian (28:2.546.1-4), but the Roman confessors had remained loyal: they were good soldiers (clients) whose honors Cyprian shared. The rebuke, aimed at the Carthaginian confessors, was certainly intentional. 21   Ep. 33:1.567.8 (cum se magis sciant ecclesiae scribere). As Clarke 1984b, 145, points out, such autocratic statements must be viewed within the context of the challenge to Cyprian’s status as bishop by his opponents. And even here Cyprian does not lose sight of the necessary conjoining of bishop, clergy and faithful laity which constitute the Christian community (Ep. 33:1.566.15-16). 22   On the ancient prerogative of the martyrs’ capacity to plead before God on behalf of the laity, see Brent 2001, 25 and Burns 2002, 26-27. 23   Ep. 33:1.567.3-5: “If then certain lapsed desire to be the church, and if the church is among them and in them, then what is left other than that they should be sought out by us so that they might deign to admit us to the church”. 24   Again, Cyprian’s perceived uncertainty in his position is apparent in what he does not say. He withholds any direct threat of action against the group of rebellious lapsed. Yet in Ep. 35, written to the Roman church (and which discusses the situation presented in this letter, see Clarke 1984b, 161), he makes a veiled threat of excommunication against these same opponents in Carthage (agemus ea quae secundum evangelium Dominus agere praecepit, Ep. 35:1.572.5-6).



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

99

issue here was not primarily between a group of the laxist members of the congregation who had written to Cyprian “in the name of the Church” (ecclesiae nomine) and another group who were supportive of Cyprian’s more rigorist position.25 Rather, what appears to be at stake was control of the benefaction of successful pleading before God and the subsequent benefactions tied to membership in the church. Indeed, far from a rigorist position, Cyprian leaves absolutely no doubt that the laity who were loyal to him as bishop would be reconciled to the church upon his return: “they are waiting for our return, saying that reconciliation, if it is received in our presence, will be sweeter in the future” (Ep. 33:2.567.18-20). In contemporary scholarship the discussion of the situation in Carthage in these years is often depicted as a confrontation between the laxist Christians who opposed the rigorist Cyprian. And, one must admit, this is how the situation might be perceived at first glance. This study shows that the situation deserves more careful interpretation. The theological argument advanced by Cyprian cannot be evaluated without careful attention to the social context. Cyprian in exile would not have been able to exercise his role as patron and benefactor, distributing funds and pleading before the judgment seat of God on behalf of the laity.26 This is not a claim that Cyprian did not genuinely believe that God had to be appeased by due penance under the extreme circumstances of pagan sacrifice and apostacy. Rather, I am arguing here that it mattered greatly who was to act as patron of the laity in the court of God. Was this to be Cyprian or martyrs who had suffered greatly and who now, because of their suffering, could be called friends of God? In other words, could the martyrs act as patrons irrespective of being clients of the bishop? The dispute between Cyprian and his opponents on Carthage, it seems to me, was simultaneously both theological and social. While it was true that lapsed Christians needed a powerful patron in the court of God in order to be forgiven, it was also true that a certain social construction – the role of martyrs as patrons and the bishop as patron, and the role of martyrs as clients, or not, of the bishop – enfleshed this theology of God and forgiveness. In another respect as well, Cyprian was arguing for his control over resources of benefaction which could potentially be distributed irrespective to his position as patron. Some members of the opposition clergy and laity in Carthage claimed the prerogative of atonement inherent in the giving of alms: Certain other of the lapsed have written to me; those who are humble (humiles) and meek (mites) and who are fearful and tremble before God. They have always made glorious

25   Cf., e.g., Weaver 1987, 372: “Cyprian insisted upon a penitential discipline so rigorist that many joined the schismatic group which was more lenient in its judgement of the situation”. See Harris 2011, 94 for a similar view. 26   On the requirement of Cyprian’s presence in Carthage, cf. Epp. 20:3.520.2-4; 26:1.539.13-17.

100

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

and renowned benefactions within the church (in ecclesia27) and have never imputed such benefactions to be a merit with the Lord (Ep. 33:2.567.9-12).

The giving of alms as atonement must be accomplished in such a way as to respect the role of the patron-bishop. Cyprian argues that these gifts do not purchase satisfaction for sins directly, but rather become part of the social structure of the church. The bishop will act as the patron who provides the church’s benefactions. The bishop will plead before God on behalf of the laity. Personal atonement for sins will only come within the social structure of the church (in ecclesia).28 In Ep. 29 Cyprian begins the arduous process of attempting to establish himself as patron in quite another way: he moves to establish a client clergy in Carthage, clients who would honor his status as patron of the community.29 In this letter Cyprian reveals that he had made the arbitrary decision to advance two new members to the ranks of clergy, Saturus to reader (lector) and Optatus the confessor to subdeacon (hypodiaconus). Yet the manner in which Cyprian couches his actions in the most diplomatic language possible shows just how precarious he believed his prerogatives to be in relation to the status and prerogatives of the still present clergy in Carthage. Yet despite an apparent 27   I read the variant of Hartel’s text at this point, ecclesia, instead of the printed plural ecclesiis. In Ep. 55:5.627.11 Cyprian uses the plural ecclesiis to refer to the worldwide church, while his constant term for the church in Carthage is the singular ecclesia. Clarke’s suggestion that the plural may be due to a reference to pilgrims (peregrini) from other churches who are in Carthage does not appear to fit this context. See Clarke 1984b, 149-150; Watson 1896, 257. 28   Note also how Cyprian carefully heightens the power of atonement inherent in almsgiving when it is accomplished by his clients (humiles et mites). The language evoked (gloriose) recalls even the supreme sacrifice of martyrdom (Clarke 1984b, 149). 29   It is difficult to surmise at any given time during these events where the clergy (presbyters, deacons and lower orders) stood on the question of deferring to Cyprian’s understanding of his role as patron-bishop. Undoubtedly there was division. Some of the clergy (e.g., the presbyters Rogatianus and Tertullus, the deacon Victor and the acolyte Naricus) had always been loyal to Cyprian. There were some (e.g. the four presbyters of Ep. 14:4) who were always tending to challenge the authority of Cyprian but who may have acted discreetly. Still others (e.g. presbyter Novatus, Ep. 52) appear to have been adamantly opposed to Cyprian. Since the clergy apparently held their clerical status for life, it stands to reason that conflict might have emerged between existing clergy and a newly elected bishop. As I have argued, I believe the best explanation for the depth of this conflict between Cyprian and his clergy is the fact that he had not been a cleric before his popular election to the episcopate. That tension is certainly apparent in this letter. The very democratic tendency which is emphasized (communi consilio omnium nostrum) as being part of Cyprian’s earlier model of governance befits a leader who was careful to establish positive initial relations with those clerics with whom he shared clerical honor and status. Worth noting is also the contrast in the manner with which Cyprian addresses a group of rebellious laity in Ep. 33: there the emphasis is on the rightful status and authority of the bishop. This letter, on the other hand, indicates a much more sensitive and nuanced approach to the bishop’s status and authority. Brent 2001, 326, argues that since the presbyters in Carthage were not ordained by Cyprian, they in turn did not have bonds of loyalty to Cyprian as their patron.



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

101

awareness that such action could actually damage already fragile relations with the clergy in Carthage,30 Cyprian deemed the benefits to outweigh the risks. Cyprian emphasizes that it was a common decision of bishop and clergy before the persecution which placed these two in the ranks of the minor clergy (Ep. 29:1.548.4-5).31 “Therefore, nothing new has been done by me in your absence, but what was begun some time ago in a common council of us all, was advanced by urgent necessity” (29:1.548.10-12).32 This necessity, Cyprian goes on to explain, has to do with the continued administration of patronage to the Christian community, “the few (clerics) who are there in Carthage are hardly sufficient for the daily distribution of benefactions (operis)” (Ep. 29:1.548.1-2). Hence, the appointment of these new clerics ostensibly offered two distinct advantages. Presumably they would, on the basis of having been elevated by Cyprian, act as loyal clients of Cyprian amidst the divided community.33 They would also ensure the continued benefactions of Cyprian’s church in the context of Cyprian’s role as patron and bishop. Cyprian’s efforts to gain the support of Rome, support which would have meant an increase in his status as bishop, bore fruit with the arrival of the twin letters – one from the clergy and and the other from the confessors in Rome – Epp. 30 and 31.34 It is apparent that the Roman support expressed in these letters emboldened Cyprian to take more concerted action against his opponents in Carthage.35 His first action though, as it is aptly described in Ep. 32, was to 30   Clark 1984a, 300, points out that by the time of Ep. 29 Cyprian had not received word from the clergy in Carthage for quite some time. The last specific mention of a letter from the clergy to Cyprian was in Ep. 19, perhaps late June of the year 250. Ep. 29 could very well be dated some two months later, to late summer of 250 (Clarke 1984b, 107). If these approximations are correct, they certainly contribute to the conclusion that Cyprian’s position vis-à-vis the clergy in Carthage was precarious. 31   For a general discussion of the clerical structure in Carthage at this time, see Clarke 1984a, 39-44. 32  Cf. Ep. 20:3.528.22-23 (to the Roman clergy): nec in hoc legem dedi aut me auctorem temere constitui. 33   Such clergy were also apparently to serve Cyprian as envoys to other churches, especially to Rome. They would protect vital correspondence (not insignificant in Cyprian’s continued efforts to portray himself as patron) as well as transmitting favorable oral information to the clergy in Rome. Cf. Ep. 9:2.489.17-19 (perquam etenim grave est, si epistulae clericae veritas mendacio aliquo et fraude corrupta est). See the discussion in Clarke 1984b, 107. 34   Clarke 1984b, 141, argues Ep. 36, another letter of support for Cyprian from the Roman clergy, probably arrived shortly after Ep. 32 (to his clergy in Carthage). If Cyprian had received Ep. 36, he would no doubt have included it there in the dissemination of the other letters to his clergy in Carthage. Ep. 36 provides some pertinent information about the situation in Carthage when it describes the association of some of the confessors and opposition clergy in Carthage: “Neither do we believe that all of them would have dared to assert reconciliation for themselves so petulantly without the prodding of certain people [the opposition presbyters?]” (Ep. 36:3.575.3-4). For discussion see Brent 2001, 334. And for extensive discussion of the relationship of Cyprian with the Roman church in this period, see Gülzow 1975, especially 136-139. 35   Clarke 1984b, 141.

102

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

make extraordinary efforts to make sure that his previous correspondence with Rome, now including these letters of support, was distributed widely to the Carthaginian clergy in Carthage, clergy from other churches who were pere­ grini in Carthage and, significantly, to individual lay Christians in Carthage. Not surprisingly, the support of confessors in the church at Rome is singled out. Cyprian points out that these confessors, unlike some of the Carthaginian confessors and martyrs, do not claim the independent authority to plead before God on behalf of others. Cyprian carefully distinguishes the titles of the Roman clergy who are, though temporarily without a bishop in Rome, supportive of the bishop in Carthage. It is obvious that Cyprian felt that the letters from Rome were somewhat of a coup d’autorité. The powerful reference of the Roman confessors and martyrs cannot have been lost on the Carthaginian clergy, confessors and martyrs who were opposing his status as bishop.36 Following the circulation of the letter from the Roman confessors and martyrs, Cyprian continued to reconstitute the Carthaginian clergy with loyal clients. This newly bold and direct effort is the subject of three letters: Epistulae 38, 39 and 40. Here Cyprian obviously felt himself to be in a much stronger position vis-à-vis his opponents in Carthage. Unlike his earlier assertion that what he had done in appointing Saturus and Optatus to the clergy was merely to complete an earlier decision taken in common council, he asserts in these letters a much more autocratic power of appointment. In Ep. 38, for example, the common council is preempted by God’s direct fiat (divina suffragia).37 In Ep. 39 the common council is no longer in the picture at all. There is simply an announcement (referimus): Celerinus “has been joined to our clergy not by human choice, but by divine authority” (divina dignatione).38 In Ep. 40 Cyprian declares: It was necessary to announce to you, dearest brothers (fratres carissimi), a matter which pertains to the common happiness and the greatest glory of the church. For you should be informed that we have been advised and instructed by divine authority (dignatione divina) that the presbyter Numidicus should be enlisted in the number of the Carthaginian presbyters and should sit with us among the clergy.39 36   Ep. 32:1.565.4-7. For a full discussion, see Clarke 1984b, 141. In a similar attempt to affirm his position, Cyprian, in the closing to this letter, makes a pointed reference to the gathering of bishops which will meet when the bishop is able to make his return to Carthage (Ep. 32:1.565.1720; cf. Ep. 26:1.539.12-17). 37   “In ordaining clerics, dearest brothers, it is our custom to consult with you beforehand and to ponder the habits and merits of each candidate in common council. But human testimony ought not to be expected when it is preempted by divine suffrage” (divina suffragia) (Ep. 38:1.579.19ff.). 38   Ep. 39:1.582.1-4. Brent 2001 helpfully notes that Celerinus, as a confessor, would already receive the status of presbyter per confessionem, a condition that makes it even more clear that Cyprian was attempting to establish Celerinus as a client. 39   Ep. 40:1.585.10-14. The text (which has been much discussed, see Clarke 1984b, 196-197 for bibliography) reads as follows: Nuntiandum vobis fuit, fratres carissimi, quod pertineat et ad



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

103

In each of these three cases, moreover, Cyprian justifies the quite irregular appointments (Aurelius and Celerinus were too young to be presbyters while Numidicus had to be translated to Carthage from another community where he was already a presbyter) by emphasizing the new clergys’ status as confessors of Christ; this is the divine authority to which he appeals to override what must have been traditional Carthaginian practice. It is obvious in these three letters that Cyprian was attempting to rebuild his flagging fortunes in Carthage by the formation of a client clergy who would be loyal to his status and honor as bishop. With the appointment of young readers who also held the honor of existing presbyters and who would in the future assume the status of presbyters,40 and with a transfer of an outside presbyter to Carthage, Cyprian would have been boldly infringing on the status and honor of the existing presbyters in Carthage. A full-scale rebellion was in the offing. Yet there is a bit more to describe of the relationship between Cyprian and the church in Carthage. It is quite possible that the young Aurelius (Aurelius adulescens), mentioned in Ep. 27 as one of the confessors who was having certificates of peace (libelli) issued in his name by Lucianus, had now been coopted by Cyprian to become his client cleric in Carthage.41 As a result, those laity in Carthage who had received a libellus from this young confessor, and who had placed such trust in his patron status as a suffering confessor to plead for their forgiveness in the court of God, these lay persons would now witness this same young confessor being elevated to the status of lector and client in communem laetitiam et ad ecclesiae nostrae maximam gloriam. Nam admonitos nos et instructos sciatis dignatione divina ut Numidicus presbyter adscribatur presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero et nobiscum sedeat in clero. There is no doubt that this is a case of the temporary translation of the presbyter Numidicus to the ranks of the Carthaginian presbyterate rather than an outright appointment of a new presbyter. The appointment is apparently until the time of Cyprian’s return (Ep. 39:1.586.9-11). It should also be noted that there is no mention of the other bishops acting with Cyprian as is the case with Epp. 38 and 39. This absence can be most easily explained by the fact that this was an administrative action of transferring a presbyter from another city to Carthage and not an ordination of any sort. Moreover, Cyprian indicates that Numidicus is undoubtedly slated for the episcopate (promovebitur). Cyprian is certainly not designating his own successor in Carthage! Perhaps this is yet another indication, unlike the elevation of Cyprian, of the more ordinary Christian pattern (cursus) of office, namely, deacons and presbyters becoming bishops. Most important, there is no other way to read the Latin of this text. Numidicus already possesses the title presbyter (Numidicus presbyter) when he is enrolled in Carthage. Gryson 1974, 366, recognizes this case as a clerical transfer but is confused about the context: “Il faut donc songer à une charge particulière qui pouvait être confiée à certains presbytres, par exemple celle de prêtre catéchiste”. 40   Ep. 39:5.584.21ff. For discussion see Robeck 1992, 156-160; Rhee 2013, 175. 41   Besides the similar description of Aurelius having been a young man (adulescens), there is the added coincidence that he had undergone tortures (Ep. 27:1.541.14: tormenta perpessi; cf. Ep. 38:1.580.12: post exilum tormenta superaret). In the writings of Cyprian, having undergone torments (tormenta) seems to have been a very unique type of confession. It is not used, for example, in the description of the punishments received by either Numidicus or Celerinus.

104

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Cyprian’s clergy. He would soon be elevated to the status of presbyter, but only as a client of the patron-bishop. Such a new client-confessor would undoubtedly support Cyprian’s position that peace with God and reconciliation to the church must wait until the return of the bishop and his role in the judgment of individual cases. Celerinus too (Ep. 38), would have been a particularly visible symbol of one who earlier had supported the patronal status of the confessors (and possibly by inference the position of the opposition clergy who were “corrupting” them), but who now had become one of Cyprian’s client clergy in Carthage.42 Celerinus’ letter to Lucianus (Ep. 21), the confessor whom we know Cyprian opposed as having overstepped the bounds of his authority in the matter of the libelli (Ep. 23), indicates that he too had likely been a supporter of Lucianus and the other opposition confessors in Carthage.43 In Ep. 21:3 Celerinus remarks that his efforts to gain a pardon for his sisters via the regular church leaders in Rome had met with no success: they were inclined to wait until a bishop was appointed in Rome. Celerinus, specifically recognizing Lucianus’ leadership role among the confessors in Carthage,44 then had placed his trust in the capacity of the confessors in Carthage, as friends of Christ, to plead before God: “but seeing that through your holy prayers and entreaties, in which we have faith because you are not only the friends but the witnesses of Christ, (I ask) you to grant all these things”.45 Hence, Celerinus had at one time been fully convinced of the imprisoned confessors’ capacity to gain reconciliation with God. He did not have qualms about taking his request to the confessors in Carthage and disregarding Cyprian’s status as patron-bishop.46 Ep. 27, however, indicates that soon after the writing of Ep. 21, Celerinus was persuaded to accept the patronal status of bishop Cyprian. Cyprian was able to include Ep. 21 in a letter to Rome and to praise Celerinus in the manner of a client, for he was “temperate and circumspect and possessing the humility and reverence (humilitate et timore) true to our religion” (Ep. 27:3.543.8-9). Celerinus now manifested the proper loyalty to Cyprian, ready to understand himself as Cyprian’s client in the struggle to uphold Cyprian’s authority in Carthage 42   Wischmeyer 1989b, 138-139, speculates that Celerinus’ family was of particularly high social status (military) and that the recruitment of such persons was an attempt to subordinate the power of such local Christian aristocracy, perhaps centered in a particular area of the city (in monte), to that of the bishop. “Oberschichten Christen finden ihren besten Platz nicht mehr in monte, sondern im Klerus” (p. 140). 43   See Gülzow 1975, 52-56 for more discussion. 44  Cf. Ep. 21:3.531.8: Audivi enim te [Lucianus] floridiorum ministerium percepisse. 45   Ep. 21:3.531.22ff. This is the best sense I can make from a very awkward text: sed quatenus per vestras sanctas orationes et petitiones, in quas nos fidimus, quoniam estis amici sed et testes Christi, qui omnia indulgeatis. For comment, see Clarke 1984, 327-328. 46   Indeed, under the plan advocated by Cyprian (that reconciliation must wait until his return to decide each case individually, Ep. 26:1.539.16-17), Celerinus’ sisters would not have been able to receive the reconciliation that Celerinus desired for them.



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

105

against the confessor Lucianus. Such a dramatic switch, undoubtedly witnessed by the clergy and laity in Carthage as they both listened to this letter and heard directly from Celerinus, would have made Celerinus a particularly effective client for Cyprian. Moreover, it is not unimportant that Cyprian, in taking this determined action to rebuild his fortunes in Carthage, addresses these three letters to the presbyters, deacons and to all the laity (plebi universae). With the exception of Ep. 17, a letter addressed to only the laity, these are the first letters in the crisis to include the laity in the address. This specific address to the laity comes, moreover, in the moment of the appointment of new clerics. Ep. 29 indicates that Cyprian recognized that clerical appointments from exile would potentially disturb the precarious loyalty of certain members of the clergy in Carthage.47 The inclusion of the laity in the address here, laity whom he had from the day of his election as bishop perceived as his clients in Carthage, perhaps was in response to potential clerical opposition.48 47   This is also evident from a careful consideration of the opening to Ep. 40 (the only letter in which Cyprian adds a member to the ranks of the Carthaginian presbyterate). While Epp. 38 and 39 were straightforward in their address, Ep. 40 adds the words “dearest and most beloved” (carissimis ac desiderantissimus). Moreover, the careful praise is repeated in the initial sentence of the letter. 48   At first glance, Clarke’s suggestion, that the laity are included as addressees in these three letters because they were normally to be included in the appointment of clergy, seems reasonable (Clarke 1984b, 178-179). Yet I think the issue is more complex than Clarke suggests. In Ep. 29 the same words – communi consilio – which appear in Ep. 38 are used to describe the meeting wherein decisions pertaining to the clergy are made. Yet Ep. 29 does not have the laity included in the address. Further, there is no reference at all to the commune consilium in Ep. 39, yet the laity are again included in the address. Finally, Ep. 40 has to do not with clerical appointment, but with the translation of a presbyter from another city into Carthage. If even other bishops are not mentioned as being part of this decision (as they are in Epp. 38 and 39), it hardly seems likely that the laity would have been normally included. Manifestly then, the direct participation of the laity is not the reason for their inclusion in the tituli here. That said, Clarke provides abundant evidence that it was normal for the laity to participate in, and even control (as in the the election of Cyprian), the election of bishops. Yet none of the other references in Cyprian’s writings point outright to a lay electorate having a voice in lesser clerical appointments. In fact, Ep. 41:1.587ff. says just the opposite: it was the responsibility of Cyprian to appoint the lower clergy. Indeed, the outside evidence also suggests strongly that the laity had no such role. Apostolic Tradition 2.1 mentions the election of the bishop by the people (electus ab omni populo), but fails to supply the same information concerning the lower clergy. On the contrary, the presbyter is specifically ordained by the bishop and other presbyters (Apostolic Tradition 8.1). The deacon, in turn, is singled out to be the assistant to the bishop (Apostolic Tradition 9.3). Eusebius describes the ordination of Origen to the presbyterate by the laying on of hands by the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem (H.E. 6.8.4; 6.23.4). Moreover, it is also clear from the letter of Cornelius which is quoted in H.E. 6.28.17 that the overriding factor in the appointment of the presbyter Novatus (sic) was the favor of the bishop (kata charin tou episkopou); the people and the other clerics might have opposed the choice, but there is no mention of a formal assembly (commune consilium) for doing so. At the other extreme, Campenhausen 1953, 299, argues that everywhere in the governing circles of the third century one sees efforts to make clerical authority as unrestricted, unqualified and as exclusive as possible vis-à-vis the congregation. This too, does not seem to describe adequately

106

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

These letters, following contemporary social models of patronal commendation of clients, served as letters of patronal commendation from Cyprian to the community in Carthage.49 They establish, through the benefaction which is being bestowed (the grant of status and office), a patronal link between Cyprian and these three confessors. Their pleading before God on behalf of those who had fallen in the persecution would now be understood as a benefaction from the patron-bishop. Their status as confessors would now only serve to enhance the status and authority of the bishop. Each of these confessor clients is commended to the Christian community with appropriate praise.50 After the careful rehearsal of Aurelius’ sufferings in Ep. 38, Ep. 39 describes Celerinus as the very first of the confessors. Here was the Carthaginian confessor who had the signal honor of having made confession in Rome before the emperor himself and who still possessed the visible marks of his torture. In the manner of proper commendation, Cyprian also praises his client’s noble family of confessors, his grandmother Celerina and his uncles Laurentius and Egnatius had all been martyrs and were still commemorated in the Carthaginian liturgy.51 In a rare vocative to the entire congregation – “this man is coming to us, beloved brothers (fratres dilectissimi), with such authority of the Lord”52 – Cyprian calls for Celerinus to be placed on the pulpit as reader: So that supported by the higher position and conspicuous for his honor and nobility (pro honoris sui claritate conspicuus) he might read to all the people the precepts and gospel of the Lord (praecepta et evangelium Domini) which he follows so strongly and faithfully (Ep. 39:4.583.25ff.). the situation here. Although Cyprian believed he possessed a certain prerogative of appointment, he also knew the successful exercise of that prerogative depended on the support and loyalty of the laity of Carthage. All of this is to say that one must look farther than have Clarke and Campenhausen for the reason that Cyprian has included the laity (plebs universa) in the address of these three letters. It had everything to do with Cyprian perceiving himself, and acting, in the role of patron, relying on the fides of clients to uphold his status and honor, whence came his authority as bishop. For more general discussion, see Gryson 1974, 386-388; Speigl 1974, 44-45; Ferguson 1974, 28; Stamm 1969, 84-85; Rives 1995, 285-307. 49   For a full discussion of contemporary patronal letters of commendation, see Bobertz 1997. 50   Cf. Fronto, Ep. ad Amicos I.1, item istae commendantium litterae laudationis munere fungi visae sunt (Haines 1919, vol. I, 284). For discussion and further examples of the sorts of praise used in letters of recommendation, see Cotton 1981, 6-7; cf. p. 6: “In all periods and places the letter of recommendation was first and foremost a testimonial…” (cf. Cotton 1979, 40). See also Keyes 1935, 37-38 (esp. nos. 37 and 39; note also the manual of letter writing by Demetrius Phalereus, “The introductory type which we write to one person for the sake of another, inserting (words of) praise…” (quoted in Keyes 1935, 38). 51   Cf. the letter of commendation from Pliny to Trajan (Ep. X.4) concerning Pliny’s client Voconius Romanus (whom Pliny wished to be raised to senatorial status): Auget haec et natalium et paternarum facultatium splendor (cf. X.12, natalium splendor). On Christian papyrus letters of recommedation in the third and fourth century, see Kim 1972, 99-118. 52   Ep. 39:4.583.22-23. Note the final greeting of the letter: “I wish you, dearest and most beloved brothers (carissimi et desiderantissimi), to fare well always”.



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

107

Here also is the traditional heightening of the client’s status, pro honoris sui claritate conspicuous.53 There is included the expectation of loyalty (praecepta et evangelium Domini) both from the client and the people to whom he will read. Reading before the congregation, the confessor Celerinus would have been a highly visible client of the bishop in the midst of other confessors granting patronal benefactions directly to some of the laity in Carthage. Cyprian now adds the praise of Aurelius to his commendation of Celerinus. Together the two confessores are to be praised (gloria sublimes, divina digna­ tione, robore), once again heightening their status in the community. At the same time, they manifest the virtues of being proper clients of the bishop among the clergy and laity in Carthage: They are a matching pair. They are as lofty in glory as they are humble in meekness (verecundia humiles); as much as they have been advanced by divine authority, that is the measure of their submissiveness in quietness and tranquility (quiete et tranquil­ litate). They show to each one an example of both virtue and character; combat and peace befits them equally, being praiseworthy in the former for their courage and in the latter for their modesty (pudore) (Ep. 39:4.584.8-13).54

In addition, Cyprian assigns these new clients the specific task of instructing the community in disciplina (Ep. 39:5.584.16), the paramount virtue of deference to the proper status and authority of the patron-bishop. Finally, Cyprian in this letter makes is clear that Celerinus and Aurelius were destined for even higher status within the church, for they would not long remain in the grade of reader: You ought to know that they have been appointed readers only for the time being… What’s more, you should know that we have given them (designasse) the honor of presbyters and they are to be honored with the gifts along with the presbyters and are to share equally in the monthly salary (Ep. 39:5.584.21ff.).55

Cyprian’s unusual stipulation (designasse) – that Aurelius and Celerinus were to receive the same honor along with the gifts and monthly salary which came with the status of presbyter – was, it appears, an attempt to do everything he could to raise the status of his new clients short of actually ordaining them directly to the presbyterate.56 Moreover, in a social world which took so much 53   See the commendatio of Fronto’s clients discussed in chapter one (above). Aufidius Victo­ rinus, Servilius Silanus and Postumius Festus are praised respectively as, moribus tantaque elo­ quentia; optimum et facundissimum; morum et eloquentia. 54  Cf. Ep. 39:5.584.19-20: nihil in honore sublimius, nihil in humilitate summisius. For discussion, see Hardy 1984, 223. 55   Cf. 1 Tim 5:7; Tertullian, De ieiunio 17.4 and the discussion of Schöllgen 1990, 1-20, esp. 3-8. 56   For discussion, see Brent 2010, 280-286. Two factors probably prevented Cyprian from taking this action. If, as seems plausible, the center of opposition to Cyprian was among some of the presbyters in Carthage, then an outright ordination (as opposed to a transfer as in the case of Numidicus) to their ranks without their consent and participation might have created even more

108

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

account of status and honor, the reception of the same gifts as presbyters at banquets or other gatherings would have indicated dramatically to the laity (plebs universa) that these two clients were of the same status level and authority as the other presbyters. As in the collegium at Lanuvium and similar social settings, they would receive the greater share of the distributions as a mark of status and authority in the organization. Finally, Cyprian’s recitation in Ep. 40, in excruciating detail, of the sufferings of the confessor-presbyter Numidicus – how he encouraged others, including his own wife, to martrydom by fire and how he was saved only by having been pulled half-dead from the ashes by his daughter – is obviously meant to raise the status and enhance the acceptance of this newly transferred confessorpresbyter in Carthage. And, as a client of Cyprian, Numidicus was to play an exemplary role as the bishop’s client in the presbyteral assembly. Hence Cyprian prays that “the Lord might cause to flourish honorably in our assembly men of like meekness and humility”.57 Epp. 38, 39 and 40 are Christian letters of patronal commendation. They were written to the clergy and, perhaps more important, to the laity in Carthage because their purpose was to enhance the honor and status of the new clients being commended. Moreover, the enlistment as clients of these three noble and renowned confessors by a bishop who had evaded persecution by means of self-imposed exile, certainly would not have been lost on the laity in Carthage.58 In a very real sense, according to the social conventions governing patrons and clients, the honor of the patron was enhanced by the honor of the client.59 It seems clear that Cyprian was acting within the ordinary social conventions that structured status, and therefore authority, in the ancient Roman Empire. Judging from the tone of the later Ep. 34, it appears that these clerical appointments greatly strengthened Cyprian’s status as patron and bishop of the church in Carthage.60 Unlike his earlier threat to prohibit temporarily certain presbyters from making the offering (Ep. 16:4), or a vague allusion to an unspecified disciplinary action (Ep. 35:1), Cyprian was now willing actually to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against a visiting presbyter (Gaius opposition (cf. Apostolic Tradition 7). So also, an ordination to the presbyterate of persons so young could well have weakened Cyprian’s credibility among clergy and laity in Carthage. 57   Ep. 40:1.586.14-15. It is not unimportant that this same letter brings the information that some of the presbyters in Carthage had lapsed (Ep. 40:1.586.8). 58   A good example of the importance of the confessors’ loyalty to the bishop is demonstrated in the events surrounding the dispute between Novatian and Cornelius in Rome. The Roman confessor-presbyter Maximus and the other confessors were allowed to leave the Novatianist party and rejoin the faction of Cornelius with no loss of status and no penance (as was usual in both Rome and Carthage for returning schismatics (Ep. 49, cf. Eusebius, H.E. 6.43.10 and Epp. 72:2; 55:2; 64:1 [Victor]; 65:1 [Fortunatianus]; 67:6). See Clarke 1984b, 274 for further discussion. 59   Cf., e.g., Cicero, Ep. Ad Fam. XIII.31 (Honoris mei causa). 60   I assume a relatively late dating for Ep. 34 (at least the late summer of 250 C.E.), though its dating is somewhat controversial. For discussion and bibliography see Clarke 1984b, 153-154.



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

109

Didensis) and a deacon.61 The sentence then becomes a firm warning to “certain of the presbyters” (quidam de presbyteris) in Carthage. But this was, nonetheless, only a warning. Cyprian’s authority, or perhaps better, his willingness to exercise authority, among clergy and laity in Carthage was still precarious. With respect to his own clergy in Carthage he complains that certain presbyters judge rashly that they ought to establish communion with the lapsed. His policy of delaying reconciliation until his return was still not being followed: “Naturally our saving and true counsels make no progress while the saving truth is blocked by pernicious flattery and fawnings” (Ep. 34:2.569.1517). This was the ancient charge of demagoguery, a rhetorical flourish by the classically educated bishop.62 Yet perhaps it also reflects an effort by the opposition presbyters to provide the spiritual benefaction of successfully pleading before God on behalf of the laity and, of course, to garner the means to provide further material benefactions.63 These were precisely the means of patronage which Cyprian wished to preserve for the episcopate. 61   There are several reasons which, when considered together, enable one to conclude that Gaius Didensis and his deacon were peregrini and not indigenous Carthaginian clergy. First, Ep. 32 informs us that bishops, presbyters and deacons from other churches (peregrini) were known to be in Carthage. Second, Didensis sounds distinctly like the nomenclature of origin, though no place matching the name exactly has been uncovered. Third, Cyprian complains that the presbyter Gaius and the deacon are “deceiving certain brothers from our people” (decipientes quosdam fratres ex plebe nostra, Ep. 34:1.569.3). The phrase ex plebe nostra makes the most sense as a designation of the Carthaginian laity in contradistinction to Christians outside of Carthage. Fourth, Cyprian in this letter distinguishes the presbyter Gaius and the deacon from his own clergy. He admits that some of his own presbyters are doing precisely what Gaius Didensis and the deacon have been excommunicated for: admitting the lapsed into communion (Ep. 34:2.569.11-13). Yet the Carthaginian clergy are only threatened with excommunication (though the threat is strengthened by two references to a full council of bishops). Fifth, there is the distinct parenthesis of Ep. 40:3.570.9-10: “whether from our (nostris) presbyters and deacons or from those outside” (peregrinis, cf. plebe nostra above). It is highly likely that Cyprian in Ep. 40 is making a reference to the case presented in this letter: the presbyter Gaius Didensis and his deacon. There is no other more reasonable explanation for the inclusion of such a parenthetical remark. Finally, the example of the outside (peregrinus) presbyter Numidicus who was temporarily added to the Carthaginian clergy, confirms the existence of such outside clergy in Carthage. For all of these reasons, it appears that the letter reflects a knowledge of two classes of clergy in Carthage. Cyprian’s act of excommunication against outsiders (peregrini) would not have challenged directly the status and position of the clergy in Carthage. It was not fraught with the same peril to Cyprian’s position in Carthage. Hence the carefully worded and supported threat of excommunication in the latter case. Undoubtedly Cyprian still hoped successfully to reestablish his authority and position vis-à-vis the clergy in Carthage before his return. For a contrary opinion see Ritschl 1885, 49-51 (though I honestly do not understand the argument of p. 51 n. 2). For further discussion see Clarke 1884b, 155-156. 62   For an extended discussion of the demagogue topos in ancient rhetoric, see Martin 1990, 86-116, esp. 91-100. 63   This is how I understand the importance of the phrase, offerendo oblationes eorum, used here (Ep. 34:1.568.14). The cultic assembly was the setting in which gifts to the church were made (discussed in Rhee 2013, 170-174). The presbyters’ capacity to act as priests in such an instance would have put them in position to control both money and goods “offered” within the cult.

110

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

The social conventions surrounding patronage and clients would not allow competing patrons within the church to ignore the sentiments of the laity; on the contrary, in a social world in which honor was so highly prized, it was the granting of loyalty and support from clients which held the balance of power. Hence Cyprian’s response to the actions of the presbyters, couched as it is in medical allusions, squarely addresses the issue of the quality, that is, the effectiveness, of the benefactions being offered to the community by his opponents. Cyprian claims that the only effective remedy for the sin of apostasy is reconciliation under the direct auspices of the bishop; what the presbyters are providing is quackery (Ep. 34:2.569.21ff.). Without the bishop’s approval the martyrs’ pleas before God would surely fail to assuage divine judgement. In addition, Cyprian again attempts to increase his own status in the eyes of the community by not-so-subtle hints at the support he continued to receive from other bishops, some of whom apparently were now in Carthage (Ep. 34:1.569.1). Indeed, in this letter he frames an actual threat against the opponents with two references to a council of bishops: We will fully discuss all these matters when, by the Lord’s mercy, we [bishops64] meet together (convenire in unum). In the meantime if anyone, immoderate and rash, whether from our own presbyters or deacons or those who are visiting (peregrinis) should dare to communicate with the lapsed before our judgement (sententiam), he is to be banished from our communion. He will plead the case of his upstart conduct to us all when, Lord willing, we meet together (Ep. 34:3.570.9-13).65

Cyprian’s ability now to enroll, in effect, his fellow bishops as clients, apparently had greatly strengthened Cyprian’s position in Carthage. The earlier warning to the presbyters (Ep. 16:4) threatened only a temporary prohibition on their making the offering. Now presbyters who continued to offer communion to the lapsed would be banished from Cyprian’s church.   The reference here is clearly to Cyprian’s fellow bishops (collegis meis, 34:3.570.5).   It is not unreasonable to assume, perhaps on the basis of his position as bishop in the leading city of North Africa, that Cyprian expected these fellow bishops to act as his clients (cf. the sententiae of the Sententiae Episcoporum which almost always follow the position of Cyprian). For the first time Cyprian is able here to predict the outcome of the formal church council (ante sententiam nostram) which took place after Easter of 251 C.E. (Ep. 45:2, perhaps the first hint of this council is in Ep. 32:1.565.17-20). Councils, of course, had been alluded to in many of the previous letters (see Epp. 17:3; 20:3; 30:5; 31:6; 32:1), but these appear to be references to a more local (and informal?) Carthaginian community council (some bishops, the clergy and, as the crisis progressed, the laity). It is quite possible that Cyprian’s response in this letter to the cases of the subdeacons Philumenus and Fortunatus and the acolyte Favorinus (Ep. 34:4.570.14ff.) has to do with such a local church council designated to deal with this less weighty problem of minor clergy. The reference here, however, seems to be to a formal council of many bishops with the clergy and laity also present (cf. Sent. Episc. praefatio). Yet one should especially note that now with both councils Cyprian is careful to include the laity (plebs universa) in the counsels’ considerations. Their loyalty (fides) as clients is quite obviously instrumental in Cyprian’s efforts. 64 65



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

111

With the writing of Ep. 41, in the spring of 251 C.E., approximately a year had lapsed since Cyprian first went into exile. The many efforts by Cyprian to maintain and enhance his status and authority in the community in Carthage were now all coming to a climax as he prepared for his promised return to the city. Yet even with all the efforts of conciliation and warning, the concern for financial and material patronage provided by loyal clergy and personal envoys, the appointment and transfer of clergy to create new clients among that body, and the support of other bishops and the Roman church, Cyprian still faced a crisis with respect to his position as bishop in Carthage. Ep. 41 reveals that there remained a majority of the presbyters and a significant portion of the community who remained opposed to him.66 Moreover, it is likely that these opponents were now able to hinder successfully the normal lines of patronage between Cyprian, his client-clergy, and the laity in Carthage. One of the ostensive purposes of this letter, then, was the to reestablish these all important links by instructing a special group of client-clergy (Caldonius, Herculanus, Rogatianus and Numidicus) to act as Cyprian’s clients in Carthage.67 These clients’ remarkable mission was twofold: first, to distribute funds directly to tradesmen in order to replenish trade-tools in the cases of laity who had suffered confiscation in the persecution; second, to gather names of potential clients to be appointed to the ranks of Cyprian’s clergy.68 In the latter instance it is instructive to note carefully the list of qualifications for the new clergy: “I wish to know everything about them and to promote those who are worthy (dignos) and humble (humiles) and meek (mites) to the duties of ecclesiastical administration” (Ep. 41:1.587.17ff.). This is a Christian version of language describing clients: every expectation is centered upon obedience and   Clarke 1984a, 39-44.   The letter is addressed to these four confessors with instructions specifically to act as clients: cumque ego vos pro me vicarios miserim (Ep. 41:1.587.12-13). Caldonius was a confessor bishop (cf. Ep. 24:1.537.2), probably from the vicinity of Carthage, who had frequently demonstrated his loyalty to Cyprian in representing the latter to the other bishops (Epp. 24 and 25). Rogatianus, described as the first Christian in Carthage to become a confessor in Ep. 6:4.484.10 (populi impetum primum), was the same loyal presbyter who had earlier been entrusted with representing Cyprian in the distribution of Cyprian’s funds to those in need. The praises of Numidicus, the confessor and presbyter whom Cyprian had translated to his clergy in Carthage (perhaps for just this purpose), are sung in Ep. 40. Hence at least three of the four (we know little about Herculanus) were proven clients of Cyprian. In addition, and if the lengthy laudations of Epp. 38-40 are any guide, Cyprian was keenly aware of the authority inherent in these confessors’ status in Carthage. Their presence in Carthage as his clients was most likely a carefully chosen strategy to enhance his status among the laity there. For further discussion, see Clarke 1984a, 202-203. 68   On the importance of envoys in Greco-Roman antiquity, see Mitchell 1992, esp. 644-651. Of the social conventions commented on there (with numerous primary references), two stand out in importance to this study: the expectation that such client-envoys would be well received and their “significant power and authority to speak for those who sent them in accordance with their instructions” (p. 649). 66 67

112

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

deference to the status of the bishop. Yet this effort also reveals the depth of the opposition to Cyprian among the clergy still in Carthage. Cyprian apparently needed to build a new and loyal client clergy in the city of Carthage. In granting these benefactions, direct payments and position,69 bishop Cyprian would have been acting, and would have been perceived as acting, in the role of patron: granting traditional benefactions in the expectation of receiving honor and the loyalty from the laity as well as from a re-constituted clergy. This letter also reveals, perhaps surprisingly, that the opposition to Cyprian in Carthage had now centered not on the group of presbyters, but on a particular deacon, a certain Felicissimus.70 And it is quite apparent that he struggle with Felicissimus was over who would be considered the most effective patron of the laity (plebs universa), now more than ever in disarray from the great numbers of Christians who had either sacrificed to the Roman gods or purchased certificates stating they had sacrificed (when they had not actually sacrificed). Felicissimus and his party apparently had been able to block successfully Cyprian’s capacity to act as the material patron of the community in Carthage:71 And now he has attempted to strike a portion of the people with their bishop,72 that is, to separate the sheep from the pastor, to sever the children from their parent and to scatter the members of Christ. And so I sent you in my stead (vicarios) to take care of the necessities of our brothers by your expenditures (sumptibus istis). If anyone wished to engage their trade (suas artes), you were to provide, by an increase in the amount, as much as would be enough to satisfy their desire (Ep. 41:1.587.10-16).73   It should also be noted here that even minor church offices were paid, cf. Ep. 34:4.571.1-2.  Cf. Epp. 6:4 and 52:2.618.11-13: ipse est qui Felicissimum satellitem suum diaconum nec permittente me nec sciente sua factione et ambitione constituit. The context of this much discussed passage seems to imply that Felicissimus was already a deacon who had been usurped for service by Novatus. The most telling reason for assuming this is the unusually mild outcry by Cyprian (nec permittente me nec sciente) highlighting the fact that Cyprian had been personally affronted. This, of course, makes sense given the fact that a deacon was the personal representative of the bishop (cf. Ep. 3:3 and Apostolic Tradition 9.2). Cyprian’s reaction might have been much more pronounced if Novatus had actually ordained Felicissimus as deacon with no consultation with Cyprian and the other clergy (cf. Epp. 29:1 and 38:1) or, indeed, without the bishop’s laying on of hands (cf. Apostolic Tradition 9.1). For discussion and bibliography see Clarke 1984b, 289-291; Greenslade 1953, 40 n. 14. Moreover, if Felicissimus was a deacon, then perhaps Cyprian’s charge of fraud and embezzlement (fraudes suas et rapinas, Epp. 41:1.587.9; 41:2.589.2, cf. 59:1.666.20f.) is given a context. For the fact that Cyprian repeats that he had previously known about these things (de quibus iam pridem multa cognoveram, Ep. 41:1.587.9-10; 41.2.589.2) suggests that the crimes had taken place in the community and concerned community funds. 71   Wischmeyer 1989b, 132, presents the interesting argument that in Felicissimus we catch a glimpse of the formerly quite prominent role of the lay patron of the Christian community – in fact, just the sort of role I discuss in Bobertz 1993. 72   nun quoque cum episcopo portionem plebis inlidere. I recognize the difficulty of the text, but accept Hartel’s printing. Variants provide dividere and illudere, both of which make more sense, though perhaps this is a case of lectio difficilior. 73   See Stewart-Sykes 2002, 118. It appears likely that the funds distributed were from the personal fortune of Cyprian. There is, of course, the precedent of his previous largess. In addition, 69 70



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

113

By all accounts, the action of Cyprian was extraordinary. Not only was he providing (apparently from his own funds in exile), as he had in the past, the necessities of those in need, but now also literally the tools of trade (suas artes) for those who were artisans in Carthage. Cyprian had thus moved to become the active patron of a vital component of the Carthaginian congregation, namely, the skilled artisans. Moreover, such artisans would have produced an income which would have made more certain the capacity of Cyprian’s church to provide expected benefactions.74 The urgency of tone manifested in this letter speaks volumes to the importance Cyprian placed on being able to reestablish and maintain the ties of patronage between himself and the community in Carthage. Thus he rails against the efforts of Felicissimus: He intervened lest anyone should be assisted and so that the facts which I inquired about could not be ascertained by your careful examination. He even threatened, by his impudent domination and violent intimidation, those who were the first to advance to receive our benefactions, that those who wished to obey us would not communicate with him in death (in morte).75 Cyprian had ostensibly sent (miserim) these four envoys from his place of hiding, a place in which Cyprian had access to a portion of his personal fortune. Nor does he mention the use of money from the common chest, as he does elsewhere (Ep. 5:1). If this is correct, then the impression of Cyprian as the personal patron of the laity, perhaps a primary reason for his election in the first place, would have been reinforced at the very time of his return to Carthage. On earlier usage of the language of “tending the flock” for Christian leadership, see Nauck 1957, 201-202. 74   Telfer 1962, 172 (cf. Reveillaud 1966, 34), is confused about the function of this passage. He sees it as a restoration of back-pay for clergy who had missed their salaries during the persecution. Gülzow 1975, 121, recognizes its function (“Natürlich spielten diese Gelder auch im Ringen um die Autorität des Bischofs und den Gehorsam seiner Gemeinde eine Rolle”) but, by placing the letter as far back as January of 251 C.E., fails to recognize the absolutely pivotal role such patronage would have had in restoring Cyprian’s position in Carthage. 75   Ep. 41:1.588.2-7. I admit that I am as perplexed as anybody about the meaning of the elusive phrase in morte here. Some (e.g. Bayard 1961, 102-103) follow ms. v in adopting here the variant reading in montem. According to Hartel, the same variant (monte, montem) occurs in mss. T and Z at Ep. 41:2.588.17. The suggestion is that mons designates a particular section of Carthage (the Byrsa?) which Felicissimus controlled, thus evidence for an incipient parish organization. Besides the fact that there is precious little evidence for this in the other writings of Cyprian (in fact, just the opposite is the case, the plebs and clergy are constantly treated as belonging to a single congregation), the manuscript tradition favors in morte. None of the three manuscripts which record the variant mons do so in both places, perhaps to be expected if they are showing evidence of a more original reading. In addition to its stronger support in the manuscript tradition generally, in morte appears to be the more difficult reading. Hence one is left with having to explain in morte here. One possibility which has not, I believe, been heretofore considered is that this Felicissimus is to be equated with the confessor of Ep. 6. In that case, this is perhaps a reference to the confessor’s role in pleading before God after death (in morte). Felicissimus was then utilizing his confessor status along with other confessors who had joined him (Ep. 43:2.591.22-25) in a direct challenge to Cyprian who was not, at least in the sense of having suffered, a confessor with the same capacity to plead before God on behalf of the laity. The story of the Montanist confessor Alexander in Eusebius, H.E. V.5.6, apparently has to do with this claimed status of

114

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Here the importance of patronal benefaction is clear. Cyprian complains that his patronal benefactions have been cut-off by Felicissimus, an action which Cyprian knows directly threatens his authority in the church in Carthage. Indeed, Cyprian makes it plain that to accept patronage in the present dispute was tantamount to belonging to a particular faction. The importance of this patronage is also indicated by the fact that, despite an initial failure to establish clients among the laity in Carthage, the small group of Cyprian’s client-clergy apparently stayed on in Carthage. These clients continued to provide benefactions to the laity in Carthage: I am happy that many brothers have preferred to withdraw from his insolence and to find repose with us so that they might remain with mother church and gain her stipends (stipendia) which are dispensed by the bishop (41:2.588.12-14).

Cyprian congratulates his client-envoys for the fact that many of the laity have decided to come and accept Cyprian’s offer to be their patron and recognize his authority as bishop. For Cyprian the acceptance of the stipendium marks the symbolic boundary between the sacred assembly, the church, and the outside world. At first glance, it is very difficult to explain how Felicissimus, a deacon cleric of lower status than Cyprian, was able to create such a successful opposition to Cyprian’s position as bishop of the church in Carthage. Here attention to the social conventions surrounding patrons and clients can be most helpful. Cyprian’s language implies that Felicissimus has been providing material assistance to some of the laity in Carthage. Yet, Cyprian argues, a large number had preferred (maluisse) Cyprian’s material stipend, presumably in direct comparison to the stipendia provided by deacon Felicissimus (Ep. 41:2.588.13). Lines of authority, the very boundaries of the church, were established by the clients’ acceptance of benefactions. Most likely Felicissimus’ claim to authority also centered on the fact that he was a both a cleric (deacon) and confessor. In the traditional role of deacon he would have been responsible for the direct distribution of material benefactions, one of the reasons deacons often became bishops in the early Christian churches.76 Felcissimus, a confessor and therefore friend of God, also has the spiritual capacity to plead before God on behalf of the laity.77 We can get an idea of the importance of this recognized confessor status through Cyprian’s careful description of Felicissimus’ threat to those who would remain loyal to himself confessors in an earlier period. For further discussion of the text, see Clarke 1984b, 206-207; Saumagne 1975, 69-81 (but note especially the review essay of Hornus 1980). Wischmeyer 1989b, 131, reads in monte as the area near the capitol and provides an interesting reconstruction of events on that basis. 76   On the frequency of deacons becoming bishops in the earliest Christian churches, see Bobertz 1992. 77   One is again reminded of the story of Perpetua, the confessor and martyr, who has a vision of being able to translate her pagan brother Dinocrates from Hell to Heaven. See Robinson 1891.



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

115

as bishop: Felicissimus claimed that those who chose to follow Cyprian would not be in communion with him even at the time when they would be most in need of the confessors’ capacity to plead before God, namely, at the point of their death (in morte). Given that normal duties of a deacon included the hands-on dispensation of material benefactions provided by the church,78 it might be possible to conclude from Cyprian’s charge of fraud and embezzlement (fraudes suas et rapinas, Ep. 41:1.587.9) that Felicissimus had now taken control of some of these benefactions in order to establish his rival church. If, on the other hand, Cyprian is referring here to secular ambition, Felicissimus might have been a wealthy man in his own right. In either case, it is certain that Felicissimus was acting as both a material and spiritual patron to establish his own authority with respect to a faction of lay Christians in Carthage. The ecclesial schism in Carthage, therefore, was partly, if not mainly, the result of the inextricable social expectations surrounding patronage, expectations of loyalty and honor, with commensurate authority, in return for benefactions, both material and spiritual.79 The material assistance of the church was no longer being dispensed on behalf of the bishop (episcopo dispensante, Ep. 41.2) but by the rebel leader (dux et princeps80) on behalf of an opposition church. Moreover, the threat of excommunication by Felicissimus was the threat not only to end the benefaction of material patronage from the new leader but also to lose the spiritual patronage of confessors when it was most needed, at the moment the Christian faced the fearsome judgement of God. Ep. 43 is perhaps the last letter of Cyprian from exile. As such it provides us with a description of the situation in Carthage at the moment before Cyprian’s return. Felicissimus, leader of the opposition faction, had the backing of five   There is abundant evidence for this in the history of Christianity before Cyprian. An excellent survey of all the texts involved, and especially those which mark out the function of the deacon as both the administrator of community funds and the individual who actually provided the assistance of the church to those in need, is provided by Hamman 1968, 93ff. We know, for example, that in Cyprian’s day the deacon was in charge of the general fund of the church (Epp. 52:1.617.2-3; 50:1.613.12-13, the deacon Nicostratus) and so was particularly vulnerable to the type of charge (rapina et fraudes) which is levelled here (for some examples see Clarke 1984b, 280). I should note, however, that there is no specific mention of church funds here as perhaps one would expect (cf. Ep. 59:1 accusing Felicissimus again, but which does not mention church funds specifically; see also Ep. 50:1.613.9-13, Nicostratus is accused specifically of embezzlement of church funds, but there rapina et fraudes refer to secular crimes. 79   Thomas Robinson is worth quoting on this point: “Even though they may have taken steps to guard their meetings from outsiders and may have consciously distanced themselves from various ‘religious’ activities in the day-to-day workings of the society, Christians did not live their lives in isolation from the society around them. Most things, from work and housing, to travel and toilets and bug-infested inns, were shared by Christians with the world around them” (Robinson 1992, 333). 80   For a discussion of the political vocabulary used by Cyprian here, see Wischmeyer 1989b, 131-132. 78

116

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

presbyters and some confessors in Carthage. These were members of the church who had been opposed to Cyprian from the very beginning of the persecution and perhaps as far back as his election. Moreover, Felicissimus’ faction was strong enough to prevent Cyprian’s return to Carthage (Ep. 43:4). It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Cyprian, acting as a patron, once again addresses a letter directly to all of the laity (plebs universa), stantes and apostates alike: “therefore I am warning you as best I can and I am visiting you in the way that I can, namely, by means of my letter” (Ep. 43:1.591.3-4). As a close interpretation of the events portrayed in the earlier letters suggests, the point of contention had always been Cyprian’s desire to delay the reconciliation to the apostates to the community until he could personally return to Carthage and preside over the ritual in which they would be reinstated. Ep. 43 confirms, moreover, what I have argued previously, namely, that the issue was not whether the apostates would receive the benefactions of forgiveness and full participation in the spiritual and material benefits of the community, but rather who would be the proper patron to plead before God on their behalf.81 In Ep. 43 the arguments concerning patronal status are fully developed. Those who opposed Cyprian in Carthage had established “another institution, another church, another altar”. They perhaps anticipated the election of a new bishop.82 Some presbyters, with their own clients among the confessors, were encouraging the lapsed with their client-confessors’ followed by reinstatement to the material benefactions of the church. Cyprian writes: and lest it was too little to have corrupted the minds of some of the confessors and to have desired to arm a portion of our ruptured community against the priesthood of God, they are now turning themselves to the ruin of the lapsed by their venomous deception (Ep. 43:2.591.22ff.).

Cyprian reminds the laity in Carthage that he was elected by them to be their patron and that they, in effect, were obligated to remain his clients: While they are still mindful of their conspiracy and hold on to that ancient poison against my (meum) episcopate, rather, against your election (suffragium) and the judgement of God, they are repeating their old fight against us (contra nos) and are renewing their sacrilegious connivings with their customary insidiousness (43:1.591.7-11).

There is a subtle change in pronouns here. The attack is not on Cyprian personally (meum), but on Cyprian with his people (contra nos), the clientes who have elected him. Cyprian links his present position as bishop directly to his 81   Campenhausen 1953, 288 n. 109 (citing Poschmann 1940), already alluded to this conclusion in affirming that in Cyprian’s writings the sacramental nature of penance is to be found in the ritual act of readmission to the church, while no emphasis is laid on the sinner’s confession. 82   Ep. 43:3.592.19-20: “a new tradition of a sacrilegious establishment arises against the gospel discipline (evangelicam disciplinam)”; Ep. 43:5.594.6-7: “another altar cannot be established, nor a new priesthood be made”; Ep. 43:6.596.9: “he [Felicissimus] promises a church” (ecclesiam).



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

117

relationship with the people as their patron, a relationship which began when they chose him, rather than any other candidate, for the episcopate.83 After an opening paragraph praising his client-clergy for their solicitude toward the community on Cyprian’s behalf,84 Cyprian insists throughout this letter that the very heart of his concept of the church resides in his responsibility to act as the patron of the laity: What torments I suffer, dearest brothers, that I am not able to come to you in person; to address each one of you, to exhort each one of you according to the teaching of the Lord and his Gospel. An exile now in the second year has not sufficed, having been sadly separated from your faces and your sight, not sufficient is a perpetual mourning and groaning which constantly torments me, alone and without you. The priest whom you created with such passion and love has not yet greeted you, has not yet embraced you (43:4.593.1-9).

Cyprian goes on to plead with his people to abandon their affiliation to others who have withdrawn from “the church” (i.e. Felicissimus and his clergy): Let no man cause you to wander from the ways of the Lord; let no man snatch you who are Christians away from the Gospel of Christ; let no man draw sons of the church away from the church. Let those who have desired to perish, perish alone by themselves; let those who have withdrawn from the church remain alone outside the church; let those who have risen up against the bishops be alone and not with the bishops; let them suffer their penalties alone, those who formerly according to your vote, but now according to the judgement of God, have merited to suffer the sentence of their conspiracy and malignity (43:5.594.21ff.).

In such passages it is obvious that Cyprian is relying most heavily on the argument that the laity had elected him as bishop and that Felicissimus and his client confessors were now trying to interfere with the prerogatives of the laity to honor their true patron. Hence Cyprian appeals to their sense of honor as well as issuing a call for their loyalty, sensibilities and obligations which ran deep in a world governed by the patronage system. Moreover, this relationship between patron and clients is what, according to Cyprian, defines the very unity of the church.85 83   Cyprian repeatedly emphasizes this relationship of the elected bishop with those who had earlier chosen him to be their bishop and patron (Ep. 43:1:591.15-16 [i.e. twice in the first chapter alone!]; 43:3:591.7-8; 43:5.595.1-3). 84  They are there in person even though Cyprian cannot be (not surprisingly, Cyprian’s continued absence appears to have been charged against him by his opponents); they are not failing in their granting of benefactions (diligentiam) to the faithful; they are guiding the lapsed by their saving counsels (consiliis salubribus). This latter action, of course, is a reference to their encouragement to the apostates to wait for reconciliation until Cyprian can return to Carthage. 85   “He promises salvation so that the transgressor will not come to salvation; he pledges a church when he acts so that whoever believes in him perishes totally outside of the church” (Ep. 43:6.596.8-10).

118

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

One of the primary intentions of this letter specifically addressed to all the laity becomes clear as Cyprian presents himself as a good patron who will successfully plead before God on their behalf: They are interfering with our prayers which you are pouring out with us day and night in order that you might please him with just satisfaction. They are interfering with our tears with which you are washing away the offense of the sin that has been committed. They are interfering with the reconciliation which you are asking for faithfully and truly according to the mercy of the Lord.86

Here the theological argument, that the forgiveness of sins requires due penance, is subordinated to the theme of the patron bishop pleading day and night before God the judge. It is surely the bishop, acting in the traditional role of patronus causae, the patron who represents the interests of his clients before the court, who provides a great benefaction through being their “patron and most eloquent advocate” (patronus et advocatus eloquentissimus) before God on their behalf.87 It is the bishop who will provide effective intercession before God: “We pour out prayers to the Lord for you every day constantly; we desire that you be taken back into the church through the clemency of the Lord” (43:6.595.22ff.). The outcome is never in doubt, the apostates will be forgiven by God, yet on the condition that they remain loyal clients of the bishop: “and you who have lapsed through the wiles of the adversary should, in this second trial,88 86   Ep. 43:5.594.14-18; cf. Ep. 58:18. One is reminded of Pliny’s remark when discussing his decision to take on the role of patronus causae for the Baetici: “It is generally agreed that past benefits cease to count unless confirmed by later ones; for, if a single thing is denied people who have every reason to be grateful, the denial is all they remember”. Ep. III.4, trans. Radice 1969, 171). Pursuant to this letter, Nicols 1980b, 376, observes that “the patronal relationship depended, at least in theory, upon the continuous performance of mutual duties and services”. 87   See above, chapter one; the patronal role of advocate, of course, was exercised in relation to both individuals and communities. Cf. Pliny, Ep. III.4; Fronto, Ad amicos ii.11 (cited above, chapter 1); also Fronto, Ep. Ad amicos ii.7 (Haines 1919, Vol. II, 176-187): “Volumnius Serenus Concordiensis, if in these things which he is relating to me has neither added nor subtracted anything from the truth, has the right and merit to claim me as his patronus and advocate (precatore)”. For further discussion (Pliny acting as patronus causae for the province of Baetica), see Nicols 1980b, 370-378. For a good description of the patronus causae in the later Roman Empire, see the description of Libanius in Liebeschuetz 1972, 195. 88   This theme, namely, that an embrace of Felicissimus’ faction was the equivalent of a second apostasy for the lapsed, is fully developed toward the end of the letter. By stressing the current schism as the “latest and last trial of the persecution” before his imminent return, Cyprian was in effect holding out the assurance of forgiveness and reconciliation to the lapsed who remained loyal to his episcopate. They would, in effect, wipe out their former sin by their constancy in the new trial. Indeed, Cyprian’s views on such matters would have been well known. In Ep. 25, for example, Cyprian declared that those who confessed after a previous lapse “have washed away their entire fault and, with the Lord assisting them, they have erased the previous stain by their later courage” (25:1.538.9-10). So also in Ep. 19 Cyprian offers the lapsed the chance to regain their standing by volunteering for confession: qui differri non potest potest coronari



Chapter 4: The Later Exile 

119

faithfully care for your hope and your reconciliation and, in order that the Lord might pardon you, you ought not to withdraw from the bishops (sacerdotibus) of the Lord” (43:7.596.13-16). To remain with Cyprian, therefore, is to gain the real and effective pleading of a patron as opposed to the ineffective pleading offered by the other faction. Conversely, to go over to the party of Felicissimus was forever to lose hope of this assured opportunity for favorable judgment before God and reconciliation to the church: If therefore anyone refuses to do penance and make satisfaction to God and takes the part of Felicissimus and his clients and joins himself to that heretical faction let him know that afterwards it will not be possible to return to the church and communicate with the bishop and the people of Christ (43:7.596.25ff.).

These final letters from exile, the very last one addressed to all the laity in Carthage, provide a fitting conclusion to a consideration of Cyprian as a bishop in exile. Cyprian’s position, as he perceives it, was bound together with his capacity to act as an effective patron. His move toward establishing a group of well-known confessors as new client-clergy in Carthage, his concern that material benefactions, money and materials, continue uninterrupted, and finally his promise of the benefaction of his effective pleading before God on behalf of the laity. All of these actions bespeak the actions of a patron in the context of the social expectations that marked the third-century Roman empire. What is more, this relationship between patron and clients began, as he repeatedly reminds his audience, when he was coopted for the role of bishop-patron by the laity themselves. And it was the loyalty expected of his clients upon which his episcopate continued to depend when, shortly after the writing of Ep. 43, he returned to Carthage in the spring of 251 C.E. I began this chapter with the observation that in the high summer of 250 C.E. Cyprian appeared to be manifestly uncertain about his position as bishop of Carthage. His opponents apparently had been able, through their status as clergy (primarily presbyters) and their “control” over the benefaction of atonement inherent in the suffering of the confessors and martyrs, to make great strides in establishing a community in Carthage in opposition to Cyprian. Over the course of the following nine months, until his return in the spring of 251 C.E., Cyprian’s response was to attempt to regain his position in Carthage by acting in the role of patron. In this he utilized social expectations of benefaction and loyalty similar to those which, as I have argued, brought him to the episcopate in the first place. He changed an earlier policy and allowed his clients in Carthage to grant the benefaction of forgiveness in cases of grave illness. Simultaneously he increased his own status by obtaining the support of the Roman church as well as other bishops in Africa. Finally, Cyprian made a (Ep. 19:2.526.16-17, though the vindictive nature of this passage ought to be kept in mind). See also De lapsis 13 and further discussion in Hummel 1946, 114-119.

120

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

concerted effort to transform the clergy in Carthage by establishing well known confessors as his clients. With their status, carefully elevated by Cyprian in letters of commendation to the people of Carthage, enhancing his own status, Cyprian finally felt able to challenge directly the opposition faction in Carthage. It was the bishop, Cyprian argued, who could provide the most effective material and spiritual benefactions – money, trade-tools and the status to plead before God on their behalf. It was to their patron bishop that the laity owed their loyalty as clients.

Chapter Five The Return Within the social conventions marking out expectations of patronage and loyalty, Cyprian had managed carefully to orchestrate the preparations for his return to Carthage in the spring of 251 C.E. When he finally made that return, sometime shortly after the writing of Ep. 43,1 Cyprian was faced with the task of articulating concretely, in the wake of the events of the previous year, the structure of the church and the role of the bishop in Carthage. He accomplished this in two of his most remembered and influential treatises written in the summer of 251 C.E. for the Christian community at Carthage, On the Lapsed (De lapsis) and On the Unity of the Church (De ecclesiae unitate).2 Not surprisingly, both of these treatises understand the role of the bishop within the expectations surrounding patronage: the bishop as patron who effectively pleads before God as judge and the one from whom all of the benefactions of the church flow to both clergy and laity, the patron bishop who is in return owed status and honor with the church. It is the bishop, Cyprian argues with considerable force, who constitutes the proper social boundaries of the church.3 All benefactions, spiritual and material, coming from outside of that boundary fail to establish proper lines of connection, even intimacy, between the patron bishop and the faithful. In Ep. 54, written in the summer of 251 C.E. to certain confessors who had joined the Novatianist party in Rome,4 Cyprian mentions the writing of his two most famous treatises: You can peruse all these matters thoroughly by reading the pamphlets which I read out here recently (hic nuper legeram) and which I had already sent to you for your reading out of our common esteem. Neither censure which rebukes nor the medicine which heals is lacking therein. We have also humbly expressed, as much as was possible, the 1   The next letter in chronological order, Ep. 44, has Cyprian writing from Carthage to Cornelius, the newly elected bishop of Rome. Cyprian returned to Carthage sometime after Easter (April) of 251 C.E. See Clarke 1984b, 10-11. 2   The manuscript tradition varies on the title of the latter. Some manuscripts read De ecclesiae unitate (On the Unity of the Church) while others offer a fuller title, De ecclesiae catholicae unitate (On the Unity of the Catholic Church). I am inclined to the former title for reasons specified by Hugo Koch (Koch 1926, 102-107): the shorter title is the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior). For full discussion, see Bévenot 1957, 74-75, n. 6. In the notes to his translation, Bévenot also discusses the role of these treatises in modern controversy. For both treatises I quote the CCSL edition (ed. Bévenot 1972), chapter and (where appropriate) line. 3   Cf. the discussion of Dassman 1974, 88. 4   Cyprian was attempting to persuade these confessors to declare allegiance and become clients of bishop Cornelius. This was obviously a friendly benefaction for the bishop of Rome at a time when Cyprian needed the reciprocal support of Rome in his own affairs.

122

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

unity of the Catholic church. I am confident that the latter pamphlet will now be more and more pleasing to you so that now when you read it you will approve and love it inasmuch as what we have written in words you are fulfilling in deeds when you return to the church in the unity of love and peace (Ep. 54:4.623.16ff.).

While there is some scholarly disagreement as to the purpose and date of these two treatises, there can be no doubt that the primary audience for both was the Carthaginian laity and that, as the above passage shows, Cyprian composed them amidst the turmoil surrounding his return to Carthage in the spring of 251.5 The context of both treatises, therefore, was an effort to resolve fully the tenacious conflict between Cyprian and the rebellious elements of his community which had developed over the course of the past eighteen months. After a preface declaring the end of persecution, De lapsis opens in chapter two with vociferous praise of the loyal confessors, intended, it appears, to raise carefully the status of these confessors in the midst of an opposition which also claimed a certain number of confessors (chapter 2). The opposition is also undoubtedly in mind when Cyprian moves immediately in the same chapter to a concerted laudation of the stantes (those who had not committed apostasy through pagan sacrifice). Here he adds only a slightly veiled reference to his own actions (as one who fled the city) as being the near equivalent of the confessors in gaining spiritual status: Let no one, brothers, no one disparage this glory. Let no one gainsay with evil detraction the uncorrupted integrity of the stantes. When the day prescribed for denial was passed, whoever had not professed in that time confessed himself to be a Christian. If the first title of victory is to confess the Lord when one falls into the hands of the gentiles, then the second grade of glory is to be reserved for the Lord by withdrawing in cautious retirement. The former is public confession, the latter private; the former conquers the judge of this world, the latter is content, with God as his judge, to guard a pure conscience in the integrity of his heart; the former is more ready in strength, the latter more secure in solicitude; the former, when his hour approached, was found already prepared, the latter was perhaps delayed, who, when he left his estate (patrimonium), withdrew because he was not going to deny. He would have confessed if he had been captured (De lapsis 3.47-60).6

The purpose of Cyprian’s presentation appears to have been twofold. It answers directly what was apparently the opponents charge against Cyprian (that he had 5   There is a scholarly consensus on the approximate date and purpose of De lapsis: written sometime shortly before the Carthaginian council of 251 C.E. to address primarily local issues in Carthage. See Bévenot 1957, 3; Sage 1975, 232-240; Clarke 1984b, 301-302; Monceaux 1902, 293-298; Koch 1926b, 80). On the date and purpose of De unitate, however, there is significant disagreement. I have argued elsewhere that the treatise was intended primarily for the local conflict of Cyprian with his opponents in Carthage. See Bobertz 1990, 107-111. 6   One notes here, as I will also have occasion to discuss below, that any hint of praise for the clergy as a group (even those who had remained loyal to Cyprian) is singularly lacking in De lapsis. On the use of scripture to construct a particular Christian identity in De lapsis, see Wilhite 2010.



Chapter 5: The Return 

123

fled instead of confessing) and it attempts to establish his honor as one of the stantes (he did not sacrifice to the pagan gods) as the near equivalent of the confessors who remained in Carthage. Cyprian’s description also raises in general the status of laity in Carthage who had not sacrificed. These people, of course, had seen Cyprian’s patronage directed toward them early on in the crisis (Epp. 5:1; 14:2); while later, in the midst of open conflict just prior to his return to Carthage, Cyprian had carefully provided the funds to reestablish their livelihood in Carthage (Ep. 41). Clearly whatever the theological motives Cyprian had for praising their performance during the persecution, the social implications of Cyprians actions and words were equally prominent: the continued client faithfulness of the stantes would be a key element in establishing Cyprian’s position securely again in Carthage. Cyprian’s description in De lapsis, however, does not stop with praise calculated to elevate the status of confessors and stantes loyal to him. He also describes himself as the effective patronus causae, the patron who pleads successfully before God for the many, perhaps even a majority, of the laity who had lapsed in the persecution (either through sacrifice or the obtaining of a libellus7). He was not hard and unfeeling (durus ac ferreus), but “with those who mourn I mourn, with those who cry I cry” (De lapsis 4.78-79). The lapsed and their loved ones are left with no doubt of the bishop’s effective pleading for them at the bar of God the judge. The bishop’s surely effective pleading as their patron was deserving of their reciprocal loyalty.8 Having established his position as patron, Cyprian moves to paint a clear picture of the causes of the persecution: God’s judgement on a lax and sinful people (De lapsis 5-6).9 The guilt was increased, according to Cyprian, by the actions of Christians who too easily gave into the demands of the state to sacrifice, who encouraged others to sacrifice with them, who were too attached to their material wealth to risk confiscation of property (De lapsis 7-12). Nor, Cyprian argues, can the apostates claim that they were overcome by the torture of the authorities when they did not submit to torture (De lapsis 13-14). All of this, of course, is by way of preparation for the main argument of the treatise: the lapsed are guilty and in need of God’s forgiveness followed by reconciliation with the church.10 The bishop is their true patron who can successfully plead before God. The opponents are false patrons who provide a false benefaction. They cannot be sure that their pleading before God on behalf of the guilty laity is immediately successful. The laity who rely on them as patrons also cannot 7  The libelli were certificates issued by the Roman authorities which certified that one had in fact sacrificed according to the terms of the Imperial edict. They apparently could be purchased from corrupt officials without the Christian having offered sacrificed. For discussion, see Clark 1984a, 27-30. 8   Burns 2002, 37. 9   For a fine review of the theological significance of these chapters, see Fraenkel 1970. 10   For a more overtly theological discussion of penance, see Swann 1980, 345-352.

124

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

be sure of the outcome; they might not receive favorable judgement from God, the basis of their reconciliation to the church. Moreover, the false patrons’ pleading before God is dangerous, it threatens to anger the judge: Against the force of the Gospel, against the Lord and law of God (Dei legem), by the temerity of certain people communion is allowed to the incautious, a vain and false peace, dangerous to those who give it and of no use to those who accept it (De lapsis 15:290-293).11

This is not, one hastens to add, an assertion that forgiveness was either impossible or extremely hard to come by; rather, it is an argument over which patron, the bishop or his opponents, possessed the capacity to successfully plead in the court of God.12 De lapsis reveals that Cyprian himself perceived that the greatest threat to his status and authority was the claim of the opponents, through their effective intercession, to offer the surety of God’s forgiveness.13 This patronage appears to have been a very real benefaction to the Christians in Carthage, real enough in fact, to be the social exchange instrumental in establishing the boundaries of an opposition faction in Carthage. In bold arguments Cyprian sets out to limit the martyrs’ benefaction. First, Cyprian asserts that the martyrs’ intercession before God was limited quite explicitly to a future final judgement.14 The martyrs’ status as potential patrons cannot challenge the law of God. Cyprian’s appeal to scripture (Jer 17:5; Rev 6:10) here is a very early instance in the history of the church of the use of scripture to regulate and emerging church tradition: The martyrs order something to be done, but if those things which are commanded are not written in the law of the Lord (Domini lege). We must know (sciamus) beforehand that what they ask from God has been obtained and then do what they ask. For that 11  Cf. De lapsis 33.653-657. In its portrayal of the persecution, this treatise echoes Ep. 11: the voluntary nature of the actions betraying the church (11:8) as well as the use of medical terminology to describe the need for penance (11:14). 12   “Nor do I say this so as to burden the cause of the brethren but rather that I might start brothers in the prayer of satisfaction” (De lapsis 14.271-272). 13   Clarke 1984a, 150, argues that by the time of Ep. 33:2 practically all the lapsed in Carthage had been able to obtain certificates of peach (libelli) from the martyrs and so because of the sheer number of certificates the martyrs had ceased to be a factor in the debate after Ep. 36. Cyprian’s argument here, however, suggests that they were still an issue and that Cyprian was moving boldly to subordinate the prerogatives of the martyrs to his own authority as bishop. On the martyrs’ capacity to successfully plead before God on behalf of still living Christians, both before and after Cyprian, see Poschmann 1940 (pp. 377-379 on Cyprian). Poschmann, however, is writing eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung and so pays scant attention to historical context. 14   De lapsis 17.348-351: “We believe that the merits of the martyrs and the benefactions of the just have influence upon the Judge (God), but (only) when the day of judgement comes, when, after the season of this age and world (saeculi huius et mundi), his people stand before the tribunal of Christ”. The implication of this argument is that in the present age on earth the only legitimate capacity to plead before God belonged to the bishop, a point which Cyprian makes explicit elsewhere in his writings: Ep. 59:5.672.3 (ad tempus iudex vice Christi). See Klein 1957, 56-59; Bévenot 1957, 86 n. 80, for discussion.



Chapter 5: The Return 

125

which has been promised by human assurance cannot at once be seen to have been conceded by the divine majesty (De lapsis 18.366-369).

Cyprian clearly argues that the determination of the actual meaning of scripture is in the hands of the bishop.15 It was Cyprian who would determine whether something was in fact “written in the Law of the Lord” and, through his not infrequent visions and other signs,16 whether God was indeed speaking directly to the Church. In sum, when and where the benefaction of martyrs to successfully plead before God would count as real patronal benefaction (with the consequent social construction of loyalty and honor) must be understood within the proper boundary of the church. Patronage, such as the pleading before God on behalf of the laity, must be tied to the larger patronal structure governed by the bishop: The martyrs order something to be done: if they are just and licit and if they are not against God himself, these things ought to be done by the bishop of God. Let the consent of the one obeying be ready and easy if the moderation (moderatio) of the asking party is pious (religiosa).17

This is the language describing martyrs as clients of the bishop (moderatio, religiosa).18 Their proper deference to the bishop allows the status and power of the client to accrue to the patron. A description of the profound guilt of the Christian community pleading before God the judge takes up a good many chapters at the heart of the treatise (21-33). Cyprian’s rhetorical purpose was undoubtedly intended to instill a sense of a heightened need for penance among those reading and hearing the treatise. And perhaps this explains why the description of the ritual act of penance includes in detail the role reserved exclusively for the bishop. There is also a subtle change in the formula of penance. Before his return to Carthage, Cyprian had expressly included the clergy in his description of the imposition of hands upon those who sought reconciliation after apostasy.19 Now, however, 15  For an extended discussion of the manner in which Cyprian interpreted scripture, see Bobertz 1991. 16   For these, cf. Epp. 11:3; 16:4; 57:1 and 66:10. For further bibliography and discussion, see Clarke 1984a, 287-289. 17   De lapsis 18.363-366; cf. De lapsis 19:399-402. Note also the plain argument in De lapsis 20.414-420: “Let no one, dearest brothers (fratres dilectissimi) defame the dignity of the martyrs. Let no one destroy their glories and their crowns. The strength of their uncorrupted faith remains sound. Neither is he able to do or say anything against Christ whose hope and faith and virtue are all in Christ. So that those who have followed the commands of God are not able to be the authorities for something being done against the commands of God by the bishops”. At the council of 251 C.E., probably at Cyprian’s behest, the role of the martyrs’ capacity to intercede with God is excluded altogether (Ep. 55:17, cf. Koch 1926b, 80; Bévenot 1955b, 205). 18   See the discussion of Ep. 13 above. Cf. Epp. 17:2.522.13; 27:3.543.8; 11:1.495.13. 19   Ep. 15:1.514.11-13: “before the hand has been laid upon them by the bishop and clergy in penance, they (the opponents) dare to make the offering for them and to give them the Eucharist, that is, to profane the sacred body of the Lord” (cf. Epp. 16:2; 17:2).

126

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

the role of the clergy acting alongside of the bishop in the readmission of penitent laity to the church has been excluded. The emphasis is entirely upon the place and role of the bishop. Indeed, sins are only expiated by the sacrifice “and hand of the bishop” (sacerdotis).20 It is now the patron bishop who successfully pleads in the court of God: I ask you, brothers, let each one confess his own sin while he who has sinned is still in this age (saeculo21), while it is possible for his confession to be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the bishops is pleasing to God (De lapsis 29.571574).

The bishop, and only the bishop, is able effectively to grant the proper benefaction of a patronus causae before the court of God.22 It follows, then, that one ought to assume the status of client in the transaction; one should make confession “to the bishops of God, submissively and simply (dolenter et simpliciter) making a confession of conscience” (De lapsis 28:550-552). This proper deference toward the bishop is exemplified by the three youths in the Book of Daniel who were mites, simplices, and innocentes (De lapsis 32.631-638): “They did not cease from humility (humilitatem) and from making atonement to the Lord even among the glorious witnesses (martyria) of their own virtues” (De lapsis 31.314-316). Thus Cyprian argues that confessors and especially martyrs are to become clients of the bishop. Their status is now to reinforce and enhance the honor of the bishop as he, and he alone, provides the benefaction of effective pleading before God.23   De lapsis 16:315-316: Ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesin factam criminis, ante pergatam conscientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdotis. Bévenot 1957, 26, provides what I think is a misleading translation of the Latin here: “without making expiation of their sins or any open acknowledgement of their guilt, before their conscience has been purified by sacrifice offered by the priest or by imposition of hands”. This obscures the singular reference to the bishop and the exclusion of the clergy in the formula. Literally the hand of the bishop (de manu sacerdotis) is being emphasized as the primary action of the bishop. On the understanding of this imposition as an important beneficium, see Stewart-Syles 2002, 125. As Brent 2001, 337 and Brent 2010, 252253 highlights, Cyprian is the innovator here. This is a not-so-subtle contrast to the earlier formula (de manu) which included clergy (Epp. 15-17). Poschmann 1940, 422, does not discern any change in the rite of reconciliation being described by Cyprian in Epp. 16:2; 17:2 and De lapsis (nor does Daly 1957; Swann 1980, 454-456). Yet surely events in Carthage had moved Cyprian to highlight the singular role of the bishop. On the bishop’s authority to plead before God for forgiveness on behalf of the laity, see Tertullian De pudicitia 28. On the effectiveness of this ritual practice, see Burns 2002, 44-45. For references in Origen, see Watson 1920, 97. 21   This is an obvious reference to De lapsis 17.350. The martyrs, in contradistinction to the bishops, have no capacity to successfully plead before God in the present circumstances. See Middleton 2012, 178 for discussion. 22   Satisfactio can be granted only through the pleading of the bishop, per sacerdotes aput Deum (De lapsis 29.573-574). 23   Brent 2010, 250-289 argues, and I agree, that the capacity of the martyrs to plead on behalf of the laity directly (irrespective of formal alignment with the bishop) was the traditional position in the North African church. We are here witnessing a major shift in ecclesiology. 20



Chapter 5: The Return 

127

Cyprian’s effort to resolve fully the local conflict between himself and his opponents in Carthage was also the primary context for Cyprian’s best-known treatise, On the Unity of the Church.24 The treatise functions, therefore, not only as one of the landmark works on ecclesiology in the ancient church, but also as setting out the emerging norm of social relations between bishop and laity. The first three chapters of the treatise explain that the present schism is inspired by the devil in order to threaten the laity’s salvation: What else, dearest brethren (fratres), is more fitting than that we be vigilant with an anxious heart (solicito corde vigilantes) in order to understand the plots (insidias) of the crafty enemy and to be cautious, lest we who have put on Christ, the Wisdom of God the Father, appear to be less than wise in providing for our salvation (salute)… One ought to fear more and be more cautious when the enemy creeps in secretly, whence he receives the name of serpent. This is always his cunning. This is his blind and dark stratagem (fallacia) for the undermining of man (De unitate 1.4-16).

It is not coincidence that this description recalls almost exactly the language used in Ep. 43 to describe the schism of Felicissimus: But I plead with you, brothers (fratres), be vigilant (vigilate) against the plots (insidias) and, anxious (solliciti) for your salvation (salute), keep diligent watch against this deadly stratagem (fallaciam) (Ep. 43:3.592.7-9).25

In both cases Cyprian was pleading against the tendency of the laity (fratres) to follow the opposition faction in Carthage. Martyrs and confessors who plead before God irrespective of their proper place as clients of the bishop are wholly ineffective patrons. To rely on them as patrons who can plead effectively before God is to put one’s salvation in jeopardy. Salvation, Cyprian tells his community, can only be obtained by belonging to the church, a community which is defined by proper status relations between the bishop, clergy and laity and which includes confessors and martyrs as clients of the bishop. So it is that Cyprian makes an early reference in De unitate to those who do not acknowledge his status in the church: He [the devil] invented heresies and schisms by which he subverts the faith, corrupts the truth and divides the unity… They [the opponents] still call themselves Christians when they do not stand with the Gospel of Christ (evangelio Christi) and observe the law (lege)… This happens, dearest brothers when there is no return to the origin of the truth, nor is the head sought or the doctrine of the heavenly teacher kept (De unitate 3.54-70).26   For a full discussion of this point, see Bobertz 1990.  Cf. Ep. 43:4.593.11; Ep. 43:6.596.3-5: “Avoid the wolf who separates the sheep from the pastor; avoid the envenomed tongue of the devil who, ever deceitful (fallax) and a liar since the beginning of the world”. 26  Cf. De unitate 6.160-162: “He who does not hold this unity does not hold the law of God (Dei legem), he does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, he does not hold life and salvation”. On the philosophical context of Cyprian’s argument for unity, see Halliburton 1972. 24 25

128

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Echoing Ep. 43, loyalty to the “gospel of Christ” (evangelium Christi) is equated with membership in Cyprian’s faction: “Let no one, brothers (fratres), cause you to wander from the paths of Christ. Let no one take you who are Christians from the Gospel of Christ (evangelio Christi)” (Ep. 43:5.594.21-22). It is clear that the first three chapters of De unitate, and by analogy the whole of the treatise, were written with the opposition faction headed by Felicissimus in full view.27 It is a plea to the laity in Carthage to remain loyal to Cyprian and his church. This is the context within which one must examine some of the most widely influential passages in the history of Christianity.28 Unquestionably, Cyprian’s emphasis in chapter four on the unity of bishops as a definition of the church does provide a theoretical statement on the idea of the universal episcopal church,29 yet at the same time justifies Cyprian’s own position within the troubled Carthaginian community.30 After citing the text of Matthew 16:18-19 (“you are Peter…”), Cyprian further interprets the text by claiming that the chair of Peter was the source of unity in which the other apostles, and so all legitimate bishops, shared:31 “And although to all the apostles he gave an equal power still he established one chair and established by his own authority the logic (rationem) and origin of unity (De unitate 4.83-89).32 Indeed, the construction of this crucial argument in chapter four of De unitate effectively completes the justification of his position as bishop, a justification to which Cyprian had alluded as early as Ep. 33: Our Lord, whose precepts we ought to fear and serve, establishes the honor of the bishops and the logic (rationem) of his own church when he speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter: [Matt 16:18-19]. Whence runs through time the ordination of bishops in succession   For a full discussion, see Bobertz 1990 and Dunn 2007, 80-90.   See, e.g., the studies of Wickert 1971 and Bévenot 1984. Bévenot reiterates a complaint voiced by Yves Congar, namely, that no full study has yet been made of the history of Cyprian’s influence on the life and development of the church through the centuries (p. 211). A beginning has been made with studies such as Zillenbiller 1993. 29   A classic example of this line of interpretation is Butler 1952-1953 (arguing largely against Batiffol 1913). His study practically ignores the social context of Cyprian’s position in Carthage while at the same time imputing to him a grand vision of the universal church. For an interesting theological, and even ontological interpretation of Cyprian’s concept of unity, see Davids 1972. 30   Since the article by Chapman 1902, there have been examinations and re-examinations of the different textual versions of chapter four (the so-called primacy text versus the received text). The arguments of Bévenot 1961 for the originality of the primacy text are detailed and convincing, though I share the doubts of Rossner 1958, as to what Bevenot’s conclusions actually indicate about the status of papal authority in the third century. Moreover, and in addition to Rossner, I think the argument can be fairly advanced that the oneness referred to in both versions is the episcopal chair at Carthage rather than a reference specifically to the Roman episcopate. For further discussion, see Butler 1952-1953, 258-259; Bévenot 1954c; Turner 1928, 35-39; Eynde 1933; Lebreton 1934; Bévenot 1966; Adolph 1993, 33-40; Zillenbiller 1993, 17-20, Bakker 2010, 10 et al. 31   It was axiomatic for Cyprian that legitimate bishops were the successors of the apostles. See especially Ep. 33 and Clarke 1984b, 146-147 n. 8 for discussion and bibliography. 32   On the composition and rhetorical force of De unitate 4, see the interesting discussion of Sachot 1982. 27 28



Chapter 5: The Return 

129

and the logic of the church so that the church is established upon the bishops and every act of the church is governed through these same leaders (Ep. 33:1.566.2-12).33

The legitimate bishop determines the boundary of the church in every locality because the bishop shares in the honor and logic of the single episcopal foundation granted to Peter as a, rather than the, first bishop. The position of Peter, his role as bishop, is the very rationale (ratio) of further episcopal succession in all of the churches rather than any one church (Rome). In terms of this study, the capacity for Cyprian’s effective patronage and reciprocal honor as bishop is rooted in the initial patronage and honor of Peter. There can be no authentic local church, for example in Carthage, without the position of apostolic bishop through whom effective benefaction is offered. In Ep. 43 Cyprian had made a similar argument against his opponents, the deacon Felicissimus and the presbyters, who had asserted non-episcopal authority in Carthage: “God is one and Christ is one and there is one church and one chair (cathedra) founded upon Peter by the word of the Lord [Matt 16:18-19]” (Ep. 43:5.594.5-6). The legitimate authority of a bishop, defined as the one elected to sit upon the cathedra, to govern the local community comes from the precedent of Christ’s grant of episcopal status (cathedra) to Peter. This is the status now granted only to the bishop. None other than a single bishop who possessed the unique status and authority granted to bishops by way of the grant to Peter can be a truly effective patron, the one who grants the church’s benefactions and who can successfully intercede with God on behalf of his clients. Cyprian here counters the claim that there can be effective patronage in a church without a legitimate (apostolic) bishop, an argument that directly serves to delegitimize an opposition centered on the patronal benefactions and inter­ cessions of a confessor-deacon and at least five presbyters claiming to dispense the benefactions of the martyrs.34 The similarity in argument and even literal phrasing between the known context of the letters (elements of the Carthaginian community actively in opposition to Cyprian) and De unitate clarifies the interpretation of the famous treatise.35 The immediate social context of the community in Carthage (the usurpation of certain prerogatives by non-bishops) had a direct bearing on the theological formulation behind Cyprian’s particular ecclesiological understanding put forth in De unitate. Yet the influence this formulation had on the future understanding of the episcopacy in the church at large was enormous.36   See also Turner 1928, 31-33.   This is also why, I think, he draws out the definition of the church as the unity of bishops, “the episcopate is a unity of which a part is held by each one in its entirety (in solidum)” (De unitate 5.127). There is a good discussion of the legal meaning of in solidum and other appropriate evidence in Bévenot 1955a, 244-248. 35   For a reprise of scholarship on De unitate, see Bakker 2010, 9. 36   Contra Sage 1975, 232 n. 1, Cyprian’s statement in De unitate 5.17-20 (“We bishops especially ought to vindicate and hold firmly to such unity, we who preside in the church”) does not 33 34

130

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

In De unitate Cyprian directly ties the patronage of the bishop to the performance of the church’s ritual offering: Does anyone who acts against the bishops of Christ think that he is with Christ? Who cuts himself off from his clergy and the society of his people? He carries arms against the church. He fights against the will of God. He is an enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ’s sacrifice. For faith he exchanges perfidy, for piety sacrilege, inobedient servant, an impious son, an enemy brother. With contempt for the bishops and despising the bishops of God he dares to establish another altar, to offer another prayer with illicit words; to profane the truth of the divine victim by a false sacrifice (De unitate 17.428-437).

Much is at stake here. For by the conduct of the liturgical sacrifice, with its inherent supplication of God on behalf of the laity, Cyprian’s non-episcopal opponents could claim legitimately the status and honor of the efficacious patron in delivering the verdict of forgiveness from God. They too could be effective spiritual patrons and thereby replace this particular role and status of the bishop within the community.37 Cyprian’s claim here is that their legitimacy and actions as patrons in this case are ineffective: they offer false sacrifices, ineffective supplication, and hence no benefactions of patronage. Only the bishops, or those clergy who are clients of bishops, could act as the laity’s patron in offering sacrifice, pleading before God on behalf of the laity. Cyprian’s argument here is precisely aimed at claiming the deserved honor and status (fides) from the laity in Carthage on the basis of the accepted social conventions of patronage. With respect to the martyrs, a certain logic informs Cyprian’s understanding: if martyrs are outside the church, that is, if they are not clients of the bishop, they possess no status as patrons who are able successfully to plead before God indicate that this treatise was written as an address to the bishops of the council of 251. Rather, Cyprian is here including himself in the company of bishops for the purposes of a stronger appeal to his audience. Cyprian, in fact, often includes himself in the company of bishops when addressing matters of purely local concern. For example, in Ep. 59 Cyprian describes his opponents as “sacrilegious against God, headstrong in impious madness against the bishops (sacerdotes) of God” (Ep. 59:13.680.13-14; cf. 13:3.681.3; 682.7; 682.19-20); “They (Cyprian’s opponents) have announced that a pseudo-bishop has been created in opposition to the bishops (episcopos)” (59:14.683.14-15; cf. 59:5.672.3-5; Ep. 66:8.733.6-8 et al.). In these instances, Cyprian’s reference to bishops is meant to include himself in the idea that there is no other authority in the church outside of the one grant to Peter (as bishop) at the beginning of the church. For further discussion, see Le Moyne 1953, 98. 37   Obviously, Cyprian has his own rebellious presbyters in mind rather than the Roman (Novatianist) schism. Cf., e.g., the reference to his Carthaginian opponents in Ep. 43:5.594.6-8: “It is not possible to establish another altar or a new episcopate to be appointed beyond this one altar and this one episcopate” (cf. De unitate 10.252-254). It was apparently customary that presbyters offered sacrifice within the liturgical assembly (Epp. 5:2; 16:4), hence the opponents’ ritual actions would have appeared to the Carthaginian laity to be both legitimate and efficacious. Burns 2010, 88, discusses Cyprian’s position of locating the capacity of legitimate offering to only the episcopate without commenting on whether or not Cyprian’s position is an innovation.



Chapter 5: The Return 

131

on behalf of the laity. All potential sources of benefaction must ultimately depend on the bishop or clients of the bishop. The possibility of a martyr’s patronage which could establish ties of clientele (officia, fides) and authority is, according to Cyprian, eliminated. Or, as Cyprian later states this idea in his most famous dictum: salus extra ecclesiam non est (Ep. 73:21.795.3-4). In De unitate Cyprian addresses those confessors who had joined the opposition in Carthage. In language reminiscent of Ep. 13, Cyprian attempts to lower generally the status of confessors by a reference to the moral laxity of some. He accuses them, among other things, of fraud, debauchery and adultery (De unitate 20.483-485). Hence whatever capacity they might have had to plead before God has been erased by their own guilt. Confessors, like the laity in general, stand guilty before the court of God and in need of the patronal pleading of the bishop in God’s court. With the martyrs (De lapsis 18.363-366), the confessors, too, ought to become clients of the bishop. Even as they are friends of God, their influence with God must be exercised as clients of the bishop. They are to deflect honor and status away from themselves and direct both to their patron bishop. It is his pleading before God that can save both confessors and laity: “Let no one perish by the example of a confessor, let no one learn injustice, insolence and treachery from the demeanor of a confessor. If he is a confessor, let him be humble (humilis) and quiet (quietus)” (De unitate 21.504-506).38 Finally, at the close of this treatise Cyprian once again alludes to the importance of material patronage in maintaining the reciprocal bonds of loyalty and authority in the community. Cyprian makes it explicit that alms given directly to the poor, that is, irrespective of the bishop in the church, weaken the social bonds of the church: “Among us unanimity is diminished as generosity in almsgiving is weakened” (De unitate 26.591-592). Indeed, Cyprian’s statement here is itself a commentary on the importance such material patronage had in establishing and perpetuating opposition churches in Carthage. In De unitate Cyprian is certainly expounding the ideal of the unity of the church as founded upon, and located within, the church of the bishops. Yet this understanding of the church emerges from within the local context of Cyprian’s struggle to maintain his own position as bishop in Carthage. If Cyprian was an important early ecclesial theologian, he was also very much a pragmatist. He well realized that his own position as bishop depended on the laity’s perception of his capacity to act as their patron, while at the same time he actively denies the effective patronage of his opponents. The singularly effective role of the bishop as patron was therefore at the heart of both De unitate and De lapsis.   De unitate 21:515-518: “The tongue which has confessed Christ should not speak evil, it should not be turbulent. Let it not be heard echoing with accusations and abuses, let it not cast the venom of serpents against the brethren and the bishops of God after words of praise”. 38

Conclusion The Role of Bishop and the Social Context of the Church in the Third Century As Cyprian had promised during the persecution, the laity of Carthage did participate in council with other bishops and clergy from Africa soon after Cyprian’s return shortly after Easter (March) 251 C.E. (Ep. 45:2).1 Moreover, it is apparent that at this council Cyprian relied upon the support and loyalty of the laity, in their capacity as clients, to bolster his efforts to reestablish his status and authority in Carthage in the face of still powerful opposition. Indeed, we can conclude that the laity’s presence en masse was not an insignificant part of Cyprian’s effectiveness at the council.2 Felicissimus and the opposition presbyters, who had refused to become clients of Cyprian, were excommunicated. Notice of the action was forwarded to Rome (Epp. 45:4; 59:14).3 More important, the council affirmed the principle of local jurisdiction and control over reconciliation for each bishop. Matters of penance and reconciliation, that is who would be considered again to be part of the church, would be left up to the individual bishops.4 Amidst the apologetic context of Ep. 55:6,5 Cyprian tells us that the very many bishops (copiosus episcoporum numerus) of this council came to a decision characterized by what Cyprian refers to as “saving moderation”. He goes on to explain: The hope of communion and reconciliation was not to be totally denied to the lapsed lest they should fall away still more. And because the church was closed against them, they would follow the world and live like the gentiles. On the other hand, the Gospel censure was not to be relaxed so that they would rush forward boldly to communion. But penance was to be done for quite some time and paternal mercy humbly (dolenter) sought. The reasons (causae) and willingness (voluntates) and circumstances (necessitates) of each one individually were to be examined according to what is contained   See p. 111, n. 67; Ep. 34:3.570.9-13.   Cf., e.g., Ep. 45:2, plebi istic universae, with Sententiae Episcoporum 1.435.7-8 (the council of 256 C.E.): praesentibus etiam plebis maxima parte. 3   So also the bishops Iovinus and Maximus, accomplices of the schismatic bishop Privatus, were condemned. These three, along with a certain Felix and Repostus, were the bishops apparently responsible for the ordination of the rival bishop in Carthage (Ep. 59:10). 4   Ep. 59:14. Cf. Ep. 59:21.639.4-7: “As long as the bond of concord remains and the undivided sanctity of the catholic church endures, each individual disposes and directs his own actions and will have to give an account for the rationale of his deeds”. See Ep. 64 for the application of this principle in practice and, for further discussion, see Bévenot 1957, 85 n. 72. 5   Cyprian, in this letter to a fellow bishop Antonianus, is justifying both the recognition of Cornelius in Rome and his actions in relation to the Carthaginian community during the persecution. See Clarke 1986, 159-164. 1 2

134

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

in the little book which I am sure has reached you. The individual citations of our opinions are written there… Nevertheless later, as the concord of bishops and the expediency of mending the wounds and collecting the brotherhood demanded, I gave in to the necessity of the times and thought it necessary to provide for the salvation of the many (Ep. 55:6.627.18ff.).

This account, even taking into account the apologetic motives of the letter, does provide us with a few clues as to the state of affairs immediately surrounding Cyprian’s return to Carthage and the Council of 251. There is a pronounced distinction between the lapsed who remained loyal clients of Cyprian and those who had joined the opposition. Even in the height of persecution and apostasy Cyprian had assured the laity in Carthage that all could be reconciled to the bishop’s church. Now at the council those who had obtained certification that they had sacrificed, but whom, apparently through bribery and other means, had not actually sacrificed (libellatici), were formally and immediately reconciled.6 As for the presumably smaller number of those who had actually sacrificed (sacrificati), we cannot know in detail what circumstances (causae, voluntates, necessitates) the decisions concerning penance were to be based upon. Yet given the tenor of the writings that have been examined in the present study, it would be a fair assumption that clients loyal to bishop Cyprian would, following penance, be brought back into the church.7 Moreover, it is probable that the policy of immediate reconciliation for the lapsed who had obtained written certifications of sacrifice (libelli) was dictated by social circumstances already present in Carthage (Ep. 55:14-15). Cyprian’s theological formulations must be interpreted in light of the fact that any delay would have strengthened the opponents’ offer to act as effective patrons before the throne of God. Cyprian’s status as a singularly effective patron was therefore threatened: “If someone is harshly and cruelly separated from the Church, he might change his ways to those of the heathens and profane works, or, when he is rejected, he might cross from the Church over to the heretics and schismatics” (Ep. 55:17.636.1-4). Hence, the policy adopted in the council of 251 C.E. for “the salvation of the many” apparently enabled Cyprian to complete, as far as possible, the reestablishment of his status as patron and bishop in the Christian community at Carthage. Not surprisingly, however, the schism which developed over the   Cf. Poschmann 1940, 393: “Was ihm so grosse Sorge gemacht und was er nicht allein zu entscheiden gewagt hat, nicht ob eine Vergebung statthaft ist, sondern wann sie erfolgen kann”. Though I disagree with Poschmann when he claims that it was the influence of other bishops and not Cyprian himself who was behind the policy of immediate reconciliation for the libellatici (cf. Ep. 55:17). Cf. Deléani 1977; Vogt 1968, 40. 7  Cf. Ep. 55:13-14. It is to be noted that in Cyprian’s discussion of the libellatici in Ep. 55:14, the perpetrator is to be forgiven on the grounds of having lived in accordance with the teaching of the bishop (episcopo tractante). 6



Conclusion: The Role of Bishop and the Social Context of the Church

135

course of Cyprian’s exile – and which was apparently centered on presbyters who opposed his initial election as bishop in Carthage – was able, perhaps largely on the basis of perceived benefactions, to form a permanent opposition in Carthage. In the summer of 252 C.E., about a year after Cyprian’s return, and perhaps as a credit to the force of his arguments concerning the role of bishop in De lapsis and (especially) De unitate, Cyprian’s opponents elected a rival bishop in Carthage. According to Cyprian, however, this was the beginning of the opposition’s demise. Many had been fooled into thinking they were going to rejoin Cyprian’s church until this appointment of the rival bishop. The opposition was now collapsing (Ep. 59:15). Cyprian began his episcopate by being elevated by the laity in an election which seems to have challenged the usual pattern (cursus) of ascending to the episcopal chair. It was the beginning of a close relationship of an adopted patron and his clients which proved to be instrumental in Cyprian’s struggle to overcome his opposition in Carthage. It is therefore fitting that the last passage to be examined in this study is contained in a letter to Cornelius of Rome on the occasion of the election of the rival bishop Fortunatus (252 C.E.).8 The passage provides perhaps the most detailed description of the relationship between Cyprian and his clients, the plebs of Carthage, to be found in Cyprian’s writings. Cyprian carefully describes the return of many from the opposition faction in Carthage: With some either their own crimes are an obstacle or the brethren resist them inflexibly and firmly so that it is not possible to let them in at all without causing scandal and danger to the majority… If you could be here with us, dearest brother, when they, depraved and perverse, return from schism, you would see what a task it is for me to persuade our brothers to patience, that with their mind at ease they ought to consent in receiving and curing these evil people. For as they are glad and rejoice when those who return are acceptable (tolerabiles) and less guilty, so also they loudly complain and are reluctant concerning those who are obstinate (inemendabiles) and shameless and who are contaminated with either adulteries or sacrifices. And yet after these things they return to the Church still arrogant (superbi) so that they corrupt the good and wellmannered people inside. With difficulty I persuade the laity, indeed I exhort them, that they might suffer such as these to be admitted. And the grief of the brethren was made more just in that one or two, with the laity objecting and speaking against me and yet they being received by my leniency, showed themselves to be worse than they had been before. They were not able to keep the faith of their penance because they had not come with true penance (Ep. 59:15.684.20ff.).

Here the laity’s participation in admitting the former schismatics to the church is hardly pro forma. Rather, it is vibrant and influential: the laity of Carthage, Cyprian’s clients, must be persuaded and exhorted. It is apparent that these lay persons were playing a crucial role in upholding Cyprian’s status and honor in 8

  Clarke 1986, 236, dates this letter to late summer of 252 C.E.

136

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Carthage.9 As good clients, they were protective of their patron as well as loyal, not allowing those who chose not to act as clients (superbi) to join them in upholding the status and honor of the bishop. Moreover, as in De lapsis, there is no mention here of the clergy’s role in what must have been, prior to the events of the preceding two years, the traditional imposition of hands by both bishop and clergy to receive the penitent schismatics.10 In the wake of all that had happened this is now solely and completely the honored prerogative of the bishop to bestow such benefaction, a symbolic action rich in tone and meaning.11 The social cohesion of the Roman Empire was largely reliant on the exchange relationship between patrons and clients. It is hardly surprising, then, that one can describe the emerging social organization of the church as being affected by, and adapting, these same social patterns and expectations.12 Those with power and resources were, by the very way they understood themselves within ancient society, forced to compete continually for the status they enjoyed. The expectation of patronage along with the status and honor granted by clients was a way of life, all the more interesting for the peculiar shape it took within an early Christian context.13 9   The importance of this relationship is also indicated in Epp. 64 and 67. In the former case, Cyprian, writing in the name of sixty-six members of the council of 252 C.E., is visibly disturbed at the reconciliation of the presbyter Victor to communion by the bishop Therapius “without the petition and knowledge of the laity”. It would appear that these bishops also clearly recognized that the foundation of their authority rested in the relationship of bishop to laity (note, e.g., the exclusion of the local clergy as being necessary to legitimize the action of reconciliation). In the latter case, in the course of supporting the removal of two Spanish bishops (Marsialis and Basilides), Cyprian (writing for a council of 37 bishops) specifies that the laity has the power to select worthy bishops and to reject unworthy ones (Ep. 67:3.738.1-2; for discussion see Salibury 1985, 238-239; Clarke 1989, 139-158; Burns and Jensen 2014, 292-294). Cornelius too, recognized the importance of the laity’s support for his own episcopate in Rome. The laity played a prominent role in receiving the repentant Novatianist bishop in H.E. 6.43.10 (cf. 5.28.12); in addition, the lengthy description of the return of the Novatianist confessors highlights their influence (Ep. 49:2). Moreover, in this last description one ought to notice the more definitive role of the clergy (they conduct, as it were, a prescreening of Cornelius’ opponents) in the affairs of Rome. This difference between Carthage and Rome is attributable, no doubt, to the different experiences of the two communities during the persecution. Cornelius had not faced a concerted rebellion of the majority of his presbyters. 10   “For when less serious sins are committed penance is done for an appropriate period and according to the order of discipline they come to confession and through the laying on of hands of the bishop and clergy they receive the right of communion” (Ep. 16:2.518.17-20). For discussion, see Poschmann 1940, 420-422; Burns and Jensen 2014, 345-346. 11   While Cyprian is writing here about admission to penitential status and not to Eucharist (ius communicationis), it is nonetheless significant that the laity played such a dynamic role in the rite to the exclusion of the clergy. On the penitential status of consistentes, those who were within the organization of the church but who did not have the right to attend communion (ius communicationis), see H.E. 6.42.5; 7.10.5 and the discussion of Lawlor 1954, ad loc. 12   See, e.g., the studies in Peristiany 1966. For comparative studies on the love of honor, see Swain 1990 (Plutarch) and Moxnes 1993 (Dio Chrysostom). Cf. Pitt-Rivers 1992. 13   It should be noted here that scholars of the New Testament and Christian origins have very often turned their attention to understanding the role of patronage, patrons and clients within the



Conclusion: The Role of Bishop and the Social Context of the Church

137

The unique evidence of Cyprian’s letters and treatises does allow at least a glimpse into the influence that such conventional social norms might have begun to exert on Christian churches as these communities moved toward becoming the imperial Church of the fourth and fifth centuries. I began this study by suggesting that Cyprian, in his election, had been able to surmount the ordinary pattern (cursus) of Christian office (honor) because of his high secular status, perhaps even of senatorial class, and his potential to be adopted as a patron of the plebs of the church in Carthage. In the turmoil of the Decian persecution and a subsequent self-imposed exile, Cyprian very early on faced an emerging opposition faction led by presbyters who, most likely, rejected the manner in which he was elected. In Cyprian’s absence the opposition appeared to rely on the opportunity for providing patronal benefactions such as material provisions and the capacity of martyrs and confessors to plead successfully in the court of God on behalf of the laity. Cyprian’s response played out over the course of almost a year. It was simultaneously a concerted effort to diminish the perceived worth of the opposition’s benefactions and to provide his own effective benefactions. He also raised his own status and honor by enlisting Roman clergy and confessors, as well as nearby African bishops as clients. At the same time he proceeded to rebuild a loyal client clergy in Carthage; a new clergy, moreover, that was singularly stocked with well-known confessors and whose status as such had been carefully augmented by letters of recommendation. Moreover, at the moment of his return, he provided, through a group of these loyal client-clergy, direct material patronage to the laity in Carthage. Finally, an analysis of Cyprian’s two most famous treatises, On the Lapsed (De lapsis) and On the Unity of the Church (De ecclesiae unitate), revealed less a concern with large theoretical statements about ecclesiology and the nature and boundary of the church than a description of the role of bishop as effective patron par excellence.14 It remains, then, to discuss briefly the broader implications of this study. Certainly to focus on any one aspect of the social world of early Christianity leads to the danger of over-interpretation. As one scholar of modern patron-client social studies has expressed it, “it is difficult to imagine situations in which it could be said that patronage analysis would be the only fruitful approach to their understanding”.15 Still, what I have presented here complements the context of a society that so highly prized honor. See, e.g., Stoops 1986; Dewey 1985; Malina 1991; Moxnes 1988; White 1986a; Jeffers 1991. For bibliography, see Elliot 1987. Some time ago, Thomas Robinson in his bibliographic survey of scholarship on early Christianity, also indicated that “the pervasive patron-client relationship may hold a clue to the development of early Christian office” (Robinson 1993, 335). 14   This is not of course meant to imply that systematic theological discussion of this same material is not also important. See, e.g., the engaging study of Cyprian’s episcopal ecclesiology in Adolph 1993. 15   Waterbury 1977, 332.

138

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

description of the development of penitential and ordination practices from within the history of doctrine. Theological descriptions and particular ritual practices (de manu) always emerge and exist within particular social contexts. And here two things can be true at the same time. Sincere theological understanding, such as the boundary of eternal salvation within the church of the bishop, can also have an immediate social origin and implication. Just consider that there can be no doubt Cyprian’s opponents were suggesting different ritual practices, presbyteral offering and the martyrs pleading before God, and theological explanations with respect to a different social order of the church. One can conclude that in relation to the social history of the Christian church in Carthage in the middle of the third century both Cyprian and his opponents appear to have been aware of the social importance of patronage and the reciprocal obligations of bestowing status, honor and authority on the patron. Changes in particular ritual and ecclesial practices, such as in a formal reconciliation that necessitated the laying on of hands by the bishop alone, or the singular appointment of new presbyters by the bishop, were grounded in theological explanations (De lapsis 16:315-316; Epp. 38-40) heard within the particular social realities of the church. Even when Cyprian’s most important theological explanation of the unity of the Church is presented, an explanation that still marks a primary understanding of the reality of the church,16 historical study must take into account the concrete exigencies and social practices that informed its formation. Cyprian’s insistence that the church was to be structured in direct patronal dependence on the bishop also helps to solve the riddle of why Cyprian’s opponents could be both the so-called “laxists” as well as “rigorist” (later Novatianists). Both of these church factions would have disagreed with Cyprian over the bishop’s prerogative to establish the boundaries of the church through singular and effective patronage, both material patronage and ritually pleading before the court of God. In the case of the laxists there were other possibilities for who could act as an effective patron pleading in the court of God for the verdict of forgiveness, namely martyrs and confessors. Presbyters in this faction also were of the conviction that they, as a presbyterial order distinct from the bishop, possessed the traditional capacity to offer sacrifice and thus win God’s forgiveness.17 And among the Novatianist rigorists there was no possibility   Laurance 1982-1983, 70-71, e.g., describes this as the sacrament of unity (sacramentum unitatis): “Just as Christ, by means of his concrete life, death and resurrection, joins in himself all humankind into the one life uniting the Trinity, so does the Church continue Christ’s reality in history my manifesting in its own lived existence the unity effected by Christ… It consists in each Christian’s giving his or her obedience according to the Gospel to the one properly ordained bishop…” Cf. Davids 1972, 47-50; Demoustier 1964; Simonis 1970. 17   On the peculiar development within African church order of the seniores laici, see Frend 1961 and Stewart-Sykes 2002, 116-124. See also Brent 2013, 170. 16



Conclusion: The Role of Bishop and the Social Context of the Church

139

at all of the bishop (or anyone else) granting the benefaction of effective patronal pleading with God: only those who had not lapsed were eligible for church membership and the salvation offered within. Finally, the description of social relationships engendered by the role of a bishop-patron with his clients is, I think, quite helpful in rounding out a picture of the ecclesial structure of Christianity in its first three centuries. For in this period we often find evidence of whole Christian groups or factions moving at one time in concert with a particular leader. Even in the New Testament we are given glimpses of the conversion of entire households at one time.18 In the events surrounding Cyprian’s election and early episcopate we readily observe whole factions following either Cyprian or Felicissimus. And this is no less true of bishop Trofimus, a Novatianist bishop who was repatriated to the church of Cornelius in Rome, an instance made famous by the description in Cyprian’s letter to bishop Antonianus: Large numbers of Trofimus’ congregation had seceded, following Trofimus. But Trofimus then proceeded to return to the Church and to acknowledge his former error, making amends for his offence and penitently begging for pardon. Indeed, he showed perfect humility and atonement by calling back the brethren whom he had so recently led away. His prayers were therefore heard and into the Church of the Lord were admitted not so much Trofimus as the large number of brethren who had remained with Trofimus, all of whom would have refused to return to the Church had they not come in the company of Trofimus.19

It is evident, and perhaps obvious, that among the laity described here a particular understanding of Christian doctrine was quite naturally intertwined with social norms and practices which engendered and sustained loyalty to a particular bishop (Trofimus). Indeed, as we read of the swift spread of groups such as the Novatianists, or even contemplate why and how there could have been so much opposition to a bishop like Cyprian, it might be profitable to take into account the role of patrons and their clients within the Roman social world. Identifiable social groups articulated their self-understanding, their theology, within the dominant social connections engendered by patronal benefactions and the obligations of gratia and fides. This is not to argue that theological conviction or motivations we encounter in the texts can or should be reduced to social constructs, but rather to see the social context of those convictions as integral to understanding their expression. It is to warn of the danger of a disembodied theology, one that can relate the history of doctrine, and even pronounce normative judgements, without the history of people.20   See, e.g., the discussion in Meeks 1983, 75-77.   Ep. 55:11.631.21ff., translation Clarke 1986, 39-40. 20   Here I echo Harry Maier’s concern, to seek in historical investigation a middle ground which takes into account both the history of ideas and the history of social structures, each one affecting the other, neither in all instances being primary (Maier 1991, 199). 18 19

140

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Perhaps more important, rather than perpetuating what has become an almost standard description of the early Catholic churches becoming more and more hierarchical as one moves away from their pristine democratic beginnings described in the New Testament,21 this study suggests that even the larger Catholic churches were changing in ways that made them even more responsive to the laity. For in a world of patrons and clients, the patron’s status and honor depended on the support (fides) of the laity. Indeed, it is not unimportant that patrons, ecclesial and secular, went to enormous trouble and expense to achieve status and honor. I might even suggest, if we use Cyprian as our guide, that this description of patrons and clients is a much better way to understand the emerging ecclesiology, at least in the Latin West, of the church before Constantine.22 We can see, for example, exclusive prerogatives of patronal benefaction being claimed by the bishop. Yet these claims in some sense must also be understood as being accepted by the laity and reciprocal honor given. In Cyprian’s understanding, patronal prerogatives belonged to the elected bishop, the very boundary of the church, but only so that the bishop would, as patron, grant spiritual and material benefactions to the laity. The moment this reciprocity ceased, that is, the moment the people were no longer necessary in their granting of honor and status to the bishop, the tendency for outright clericalism came into being.23 In one final way Cyprian’s situation was not so much unlike our own. Cyprian faced a relativizing of certain truth claims which, as he argued repeatedly, were grounded in the very reality of the Church. If the confessors and martyrs could successfully plead in the court of God without the bishop, if wealthy Christians could successfully purchase forgiveness by the giving of alms directly to the poor, if presbyters could independently offer sacrifice and gain the forgiveness of God, then the boundary of the church was untenable. Salvation can become cheap. Expressed within the social context of patronage, Cyprian’s adamant insistence on salvation only within the church defined and delimited by the 21   Campenhausen 1953, 299, argues, for example, that everywhere in the governing circles of the third century one sees efforts to make clerical authority as unrestricted, unqualified and as exclusive as possible vis-à-vis the congregation. See also Lietzmann 1950, 228-229; Grant 1970, 192-193; Latourette 1953, 129-133; Frend 1984, 398-414 et al. 22   Contrast, e.g., the clear and traditional description of Cyprian’s ecclesiology in Simonis 1970, 5-23; also Klein 1957. By the time of Augustine it might be possible to argue that the church was “structured vertically and Christians sought salvation through obedience to hierarchy” (Salisbury 1985, 247), but I suspect such a description must also be greatly nuanced. 23   Stewart-Sykes 2002, 127-128 understands the consent of the laity in electing a patronbishop as less than literal: “a patron is not elected by clients, but elects clients”. Our earlier discussion of Fronto’s letter to the decuriones of Cirta (chapter one) shows Fronto urging the city to adopt his relatives as civic patrons. In the same way, it was surely the laity of the church in Carthage who wished to adopt Cyprian as their patron-bishop. On the robust presence of the laity in episcopal elections, see Evers 2020, 166-168.



Conclusion: The Role of Bishop and the Social Context of the Church

141

bishops who must always act as patrons for their people, was, at its heart, a claim about the truth of that salvation. And he was believed. Most scholars of Cyprian and his legacy would agree, I think, that he was able, through his eloquence and personal example (martyred in 258 C.E.) to raise the price of the salvation: the Christian church of the bishops was able, within less than a century after Cyprian’s final witness, to enter the imperial court of Rome. Yet Cyprian’s insistence on the truth of the gospel was always accompanied with genuine dependence upon the laity for his position, and an obligation to provide for them. It was the people of God, the laity, who empowered him with status and honor to serve as their patron-bishop.

Bibliography Abbott, F. F., and A. C. Johnson. 1926. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Adolph, A. 1993. Die Theologie der Einheit der Kirche bei Cyprian. Frankfurt: P. Lang. Alès, A. d’. 1918. Le diacre Pontius. Recherches de Science Religieuse 8: 319-378. Alès, A. d’. 1922. La théologie de Saint Cyprien. Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne. Alföldy, G. 1974. The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 15: 89-111. Alföldy, G. 1985. The Social History of Rome, trans. David Braund and Frank Pollock. London: Croom Helm. Amidon, P. R. 1983. The Procedure of St. Cyprian’s Synods. Vigiliae Christianae 37: 328-339. Arnold, B. J. 2017. Cyprian of Carthage: His Life and Impact. Fearne: Christian Focus. Aronen, J. 1984. Indebtedness to Passio Perpetuae in Pontius’ Vita Cypriani. Vigiliae Christianae 38: 67-76. Aune, D. 1984. Review of Fredrick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. Interpretation 38: 421-425. Ausbüttel, F. M. 1982. Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des Römischen Reiches. Regensburg: Verlag Michael Lassleben Kallmünz. Badian, E. 1958. Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.). Oxford: Clarendon. Bakker, H., P. v. Geest, and H. v. Loon. 2010. Introduction: Cyprian’s Stature and Influence. In Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language and Thought, eds. H. Bakker, P. v. Geest, and H. v. Loon, 1-27. Leuven: Peeters. Balás, D. L. 1972. Recent Surveys of the History of the Early Church and the Tasks of the Historiography of Early Christianity. Church History 41: 444-451. Bardy, G. 1949. La conversion au christianisme durant les premiers siècles. Paris: Éditions Montaigne. Barnes, T. D. 1971. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bartlet, J. V. 1943. Church-Life and Church-Order during the First Four Centuries. Oxford: Blackwell. Basore, J. W., ed. 1935. Seneca: Moral Essays, trans. J. W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bastiaensen, A. A. R., ed. 1975. Vita di Cypriano. Vita di Ambrogio. Vita di Agostino. Milan: Arnaldo Mondadori Editore. Batiffol, P. 1922. L’Église naissante et le catholicisme. Paris: Lecoffre. Baus, K. 1965. From the Apostolic Community to Constantine. Freiburg: Herder. Beck, A. 1930. Römisches Recht bei Tertullian und Cyprian. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Bell, M. R. 1937. Roman Society from Commodus to Alexander Severus. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, Beneden, P. v. 1974. Aux origines d’une terminologie sacramentelle: ordo, ordinare ordinatio dans la littérature chrétienne avant 313. Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum. Benson, E. W. 1897. Cyprian: His Life, His Times, His Work. London: Macmillan. Bentivegna, G. 1993. L’effusion de l’Esprit Saint chez les Pères latins. Nouvelle Revue Théologique 115: 19-39.

144

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Bernard, J. H. 1918. The Cyprianic Doctrine of the Ministry. In Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, ed. H. B. Swete, 215-262. London: Macmillan. Bévenot, M. 1951-1952. A Bishop Is Responsible to God Alone. Recherches de Science Religieuse 39-40: 397-415. Bévenot, M. 1954a. Hi Qui Sacrificaverunt: A Significant Variant in Saint Cyprian’s De Unitate. Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 5: 68-72. Bévenot, M. 1954b. Primatus Petro datur: St. Cyprian on the Papacy. Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 5: 19-35. Bévenot, M. 1954c. St. Cyprian and the Papacy. Dublin Review 228: 307-315. Bévenot, M. 1955a. In Solidum and St. Cyprian: A Correction. Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 6: 244-248. Bévenot, M. 1955b. The Sacrament of Penance and St. Cyprian’s De Lapsis. Theological Studies 16: 175-213. Bévenot, M., ed. and trans. 1957. St. Cyprian: The Lapsed and The Unity of the Catholic Church. Westminster: Newman. Bévenot, M. 1961. The Tradition of Manuscripts: A Study in the Transmission of St. Cyprian’s Treatises. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bévenot, M. 1966. Épiscopat et primauté chez S. Cyprien. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 42: 176-195. Bévenot, M. 1970. The Preparation of a Critical Edition Illustrated by the Manuscripts of St. Cyprian. Studia Patristica 10: 3-8. Bévenot, M. 1971. Cyprian: De Lapsis and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bévenot, M. 1974. Review of Luc Duquenne, Chronologie des lettres de S. Cyprien. Vigiliae Christianae 28: 156-158. Bévenot, M. 1977. Cyprian and His Recognition of Cornelius. Journal of Theological Studies 28: 346-359. Bévenot, M. 1979. Sacerdos as Understood by Cyprian. Journal of Theological Studies 30: 413-429. Bévenot, M. 1984. Pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis (De Unitate 4): The Longevity of a Cyprianic Phrase. Studia Patristica 15: 209-211. Bobertz, C. A. 1988. Cyprian of Carthage as Patron: A Social Historical Study of the Role of Bishop in the Ancient Christian Community of North Africa. Ph.D. Dissertation: Yale University, Bobertz, C. A. 1990. The Historical Context of Cyprian’s De Unitate. Journal of Theological Studies 5: 107-111. Bobertz, C. A. 1991. For the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts Was the House of Israel: Cyprian of Carthage and the Jews. Jewish Quarterly Review 82: 1-15. Bobertz, C. A. 1992a. An Analysis of Vita Cypriani 3.6-10 and the Attribution of Ad Quirinum to Cyprian of Carthage. Vigiliae Christianae 46: 112-128. Bobertz, C. A. 1992b. The Development of Episcopal Order. In Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, ed. H. W. Attridge and G. Hata, 183-211. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Bobertz, C. A. 1993a. Patronage Networks and the Study of Ancient Christianity. Studia Patristica 24: 20-27. Bobertz, C. A. 1993b. The Role of Patron in the Cena Dominica of Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition. Journal of Theological Studies 44: 170-184.



Bibliography 

145

Bobertz, C. A. 1997. Patronal Letters of Commendation: Cyprian’s Epistulae 38-40. Studia Patristica 31: 252-259. Bolkestein, H. 1939. Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum. Utrecht: A. Oosthoek. Bonner, G. 1989. Christus Sacerdos: The Roots of Augustine’s Anti-Donatist Polemic. In Signum Pietatis, ed. A. Zumkeller, 325-339. Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag. Botte, B. 1956. Presbyterium et ordo episcoporum. Irénikon 29: 5-27. Botte, B. 1963. La tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte: essai de reconstitution. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Brent, A. 1992. Cultural Episcopacy and Ecumenism. Leiden: Brill. Brent, A. 1995. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. Leiden: Brill. Brent, A. 1999. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order. Leiden: Brill. Brent, A. 2001. Cyprian and the Question of Ordinatio per conessionem. Studia Patristica 36: 323-337. Brent, A. 2010. Cyprian and Roman Carthage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brent, A. 2013. Tertullian on the Role of the Bishop. In Tertullian and Paul, ed. T. a. D. Still, 165-194. New York: Bloomsbury. Brightman, F. E. 1918. Terms of Communion and the Ministration of the Sacraments in Early Times. In Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, ed. H. B. Swete, 313-408. London: Macmillan. Brisson, J. 1958. Autonomisme et christianisme dans l’Afrique romaine de Septime Sévère à l’invasion vandale. Paris: de Boccard. Brooten, B. 1982. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue. Chico: Scholars Press. Broughton, T. R. S. 1929. The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Brown, P. 1978. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brown, P. 1982. The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity. In Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity, 103-152. Berkeley: University of California Press. Brunt, P. A. 1965. Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, N.S. 11: 1-20. Brunt, P. A. 1988. Clientela. In The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays, 382-442. Oxford: Clarendon. Burns, P. 2002. Cyprian the Bishop. London: Routledge. Burns, P. 2010. The Holiness of the Church in North African Theology. Studia Patristica 49: 85-100. Burns, P., and R. Jensen. 2014. Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs. Nashville: Eerdmans. Butler, B. C. 1952-1953. St. Cyprian on the Church. Downside Review 71: 258-272. Campbell, J. K. 1964. Honour, Family and Patronage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Campeau, L. 1967. Le texte de la primauté dans le De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate de S. Cyprien. Sciences Ecclésiastiques 19: 81-110; 255-275. Campenhausen, H. v. 1951. Lehrerreihen und Bischofsreihen im 2. Jahrhundert. In In Memorian Ernst Lohnmeyer, ed. W. Schmauch, 240-249. Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk. Case, S. J. 1921. The Historical Study of Religion. The Journal of Religion 1: 1-17. Chadwick, H. 1961. Justification by Faith and Hospitality. Studia Patristica 4: 281-285.

146

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Chadwick, H. 1968. Preface and Bibliography. In The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, ed. G. Dix, a.o. London: S.P.C.K. Chadwick, H. 1981. The Church of the Third Century in the West. In The Roman West in the Third Century, ed. A. King and M. Henig, 5-13. Oxford: BAR. Chapman, J. 1902a. Les interpolations dans le traité de S. Cyprien Sur l’Unité de l’Église. Revue Bénédictine 19: 246-373. Chapman, J. 1902b. The Order of the Treatises and Letters in the Manuscripts of St. Cyprian. Journal of Theological Studies 4: 103-123. Chapman, J. 1903. Les interpolations dans le traité de S. Cyprien Sur l’Unité de l’Église. Revue Bénédictine 20: 26-51. Chapman, J. 1928. Studies in the Early Papacy. Port Washington: Kennikat Press. Charles-Picard, G. 1959. La civilisation de l’Afrique romaine. Paris: Librairie Plon. Chartier, M. 1939. La discipline pénitentielle d’après les écrits de Saint Cyprien. Antonianum 14: 17-42; 135-156. Clarke, G. W. 1965. The Secular Profession of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Latomus 24: 633-638. Clarke, G. W. 1969. Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius. Antichthon 3: 63-76. Clarke, G. W. 1970. The Epistles of Cyprian. In Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E.M. Blaiklock, ed. B. F. Harris, 203-221. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Clarke, G. W. 1971. Prosopographical Notes on the Epistles of Cyprian I. The Spanish Bishops of Epistle 67. Latomus 30: 1141-1145. Clarke, G. W. 1972. Prosopographical Notes on the Epistles of Cyprian II. The Proconsul in Africa in 250 A.D. Latomus 31: 1053-1057. Clarke, G. W. 1984. Letters 1-27. New York: Newman Press. Clarke, G. W. 1984. Letters 28-54. New York: Newman Press. Clarke, G. W. 1986. Letters 55-66. New York: Newman Press. Clarke, G. W. 1989. Letters 67-82. New York: Newman Press. Clarke, G. W. 1991. Cyprian. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, Vol. I: 1225-1228. New York: Doubleday. Clemente, G. 1972. Il patronato nei collegia dell’impero romano. Studi Classici Orien­ tali 21: 142-229. Cloud, D. 1989. The Client-Patron Relationship: Emblem and Reality in Juvenal’s First Book. In Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill, 205-218. London: Routledge. Colson, J. 1956. Les fonctions ecclésiales aux deux premiers siècles. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Colson, J. 1961. L’évêque: lien d’unité et de charité chez Saint Cyprien de Carthage. Paris: Éditions S.O.S. Connolly, R. H., ed. and trans. 1929. Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated and Accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Coppo, A. 1971. Vita cristiana e terminologia liturgica a Cartagine verso la metà del III secolo. Ephemerides Liturgicae 85: 70-86. Cotton, H. M. 1979. Cicero, Ad Familiares XIII, 26 and 28: Evidence for Revocatio or Reiectio Romae/Romam? Journal of Roman Studies 69: 39-50. Countryman, L. W. 1979. The Intellectual Role of the Early Catholic Episcopate. Church History 48: 261-268.



Bibliography 

147

Countryman, L. W. 1980. The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accomodations. New York: Edwin Mellen Press. Countryman, L. W. 1982. Christian Equality and the Early Catholic Episcopate. Anglican Theological Review 63: 115-138. Countryman, L. W. 1984. The Gospel and Institutions of the Church with Particular Reference to the Historic Episcopate. Anglican Theological Review 66: 402-415. Crook, J. 1967. Law and Life of Rome. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Daly, C. B. 1957. Absolution and Satisfaction in St. Cyprian’s Theology of Penance. Studia Patristica 2: 202-207. Danker, F. W. 1982. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House. Dassmann, E. 1974. Zur Entstehung des Monoepiskopats. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 17: 74-90. Davids, A. 1972. One or None: Cyprian on the Church and Tradition. In The Unifying Role of the Bishop, ed. E. Schillebeeckx, 46-52. New York: Herder and Herder. Davies, J. G. 1963. Deacons, Deaconesses and the Minor Orders in the Patristic Period. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14: 1-15. Davis, J. 1977. People of the Mediterranean: An Essay in Comparative Social Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Deléani, S. 1977. Gentiles Viae: Cyprien, Lettre 55,17,2. Revue des Études Augusti­ niennes 23: 221-44. Delehaye, H. 1921. Martyr et confesseur. Analecta Bollandiana 39: 20-49. Delehaye, H. 1966. Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes. Demoustier, A. 1964. L’ontologie de l’Église selon Saint Cyprien. Recherches de Science Religieuse 52: 544-588. Dessau, H. 1916. Pontius, der Biograph Cyprians. Hermes 51: 65-72. Dewey, A. J. 1985. A Matter of Honor: A Socio-Historical Analysis of 2 Corinthians 10. Harvard Theological Review 78: 209-217. Dill, S. 1905. Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius. London: Macmillan. Dix, G. 1946. The Ministry in the Early Church. In The Apostolic Ministry, ed. K. E. Kirk, 183-303. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Dix, G. 1968. The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome. London: S.P.C.K. Dodds, E. R. 1965. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drinkwater, J. 1989. Patronage in Roman Gaul and the Problem of the Bagaudae. In Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill, 189-203. London: Routledge. Drouzy, M. and R., eds. and trans. n.d. Tertullien: Traité du Baptême. Sources Chrétiennes 35. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Duff, A. M. 1928. Freedman in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Duff, P. W. 1938. Personality in Roman Private Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1962. Cost Outlays and Summae Honorariae from Roman Africa. Papers of the British School in Rome 30: 47-115.

148

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1963. Wealth and Munificence in Roman Africa. Papers of the British School in Rome 31: 159-177. Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1964. The Purpose and Organization of the Alimenta. Papers of the British School in Rome 32: 123-150. Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1965. The Finances of the Younger Pliny. Papers of the British School in Rome 33: 177-188. Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1967. Equestrian Rank in the Cities of the African Provinces under the Principate: An Epigraphic Survey. Papers of the British School in Rome 35: 147-165. Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1972. Patronage and City Privileges: The Case of Giufi. Epigraphische Studien 9: 12-16. Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1974. The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunn, G. 2003. Cyprian and His Collegae: Patronage and the Episcopal Synod of 252. Journal of Religious History 27: 1-13. Dunn, G. 2004a. Heresy and Schism According to Cyprian of Carthage. Journal of Theological Studies 52: 551-574. Dunn, G. 2004b. The White Crown of Works: Cyprian’s Early Pastoral Ministry of Almsgiving in Carthage. Church History 73: 715-740. Dunn, G. 2006. Cyprian and Women in a Time of Persecution. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57: 205-225. Dunn, G. 2006. Cyprian’s Care for the Poor: The Evidence of De Opere et Eleemosynis. Studia Patristica 42: 363-368. Dunn, G. 2007. Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church. Strathfield: St. Paul’s. Duquenne, L. 1972. Chronologie des lettres de S. Cyprien: le dossier de la persécution de Dèce. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes. Edwards, M. 2018. Early Ecclesiology in the West. In The Oxford Handbook of Ecclesiology, ed. P. Avis, 1-21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ehrhardt, A. 1953. The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Christian Church. London: Lutterworth Press. Ehrhardt, A. 1954. Jewish and Christian Ordination. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5: 125-138. Eisenstadt, S. N., and L. Roniger. 1980. Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22: 42-77. Eisenstadt, S. N., and L. Roniger. 1981. The Study of Patron-Client Relations and Recent Developments in Sociological Theory. In Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt and R. Lemarchand, 271-293. London: Sage. Eisenstadt, S. N., and L. Roniger. 1984. Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eisenstadt, S. N., and R. Lemarchand. 1981. Introduction. In Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development, eds. S. N. Eisenstadt and R. Lemarchand, 1-32. London: Sage. Elliot, J. H. 1987. Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society: A Short Reading Guide. Forum 3: 39-48.



Bibliography 

149

Evers, A. W. H. 2010. Post Populi Suffragium: Cyprian of Carthage and the Vote of the People in Episcopal Elections. In Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life, Language and Thought, eds. H. Bakker, P. v. Geest, and H. v. Loon, 165-180. Leuven: Peeters. Eynde, D. v. d. 1933. La double édition du De Unitate de S. Cyprien. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 29: 5-24. Fahey, M. 1971. Cyprian and the Bible: A Study in Third Century Exegesis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Fasholé-Luke, E. 1975. Who Is the Bridegroom? An Excursion into St. Cyprian’s Use of Scripture. Studia Patristica 12: 294-298. Ferguson, E. 1962. Eusebius and Ordination. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 13: 139-144. Ferguson, E. 1963. Jewish and Christian Ordination. Harvard Theological Review 56: 13-19. Ferguson, E. 1974. Origen and the Election of Bishops. Church History 43: 26-33. Filoramo, G. 1981. Un aspetto di religione populare nella Vita di Cipriano del Diacono Ponzio. Augustinianum 21: 91-98. Finley, M. I. 1973. The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Finley, M. I. 1983. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fontaine, J. S. L. 1975. Unstructured Social Relations: Patrons and Friends in Three African Societies. West African Journal of Sociology and Political Science 1: 51-81. Fortim, B. 1963. Problèmes de succession épiscopale au milieu du IIIe siècle. Laval Theologique et Philosophique 19: 49-61. Fowler, H. N., ed. and trans. 1936. Plutarch’s Moralia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fox, R. L. 1987. Pagans and Christians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Fraenkel, P. 1970. Solus Dominus Misereri Potest: Saint Cyprien, De Lapsis, ch. XVII, et le problème de son interprétation. Studia Patristica 10: 71-76. Frend, W. H. C. 1961. The Seniores Laici and the Origins of the Church in North Africa. Journal of Theological Studies 12: 280-285. Frend, W. H. C. 1984. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress. Frey, J. 1931. Les communautés juives à Rome. Recherches de Science Religieuse 21: 129-168. Funk, F. X., ed. 1905. Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. Paderborn: Schoe­ningh. Futrell, J. C. 1958. The Monarchical Episcopate. Irish Theological Quarterly 25: 305-327. Gagé, J. 1964. Les classes sociales dans l’empire romain. Paris: Payot. Gager, J. 1982. Shall We Marry Our Enemies? Sociology and the New Testament. Interpretation 36: 256-265. Gallicet, E. 1982. L’Antico Testamento nell’Ad Demetrianum di Cipriano. Augustinia­ num 22: 199-202. Garnsey, P. 1968. Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Past and Present 41: 3-24. Garnsey, P. 1970. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Garnsey, P., and R. Saller. 1987. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Garnsey, P., and G. Woolf. 1989. Patronage and the Rural Poor in the Roman World. In Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill, 153-170. London: Routledge.

150

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Gassman, M. 2017. The Conversion of Cyprian’s Rhetoric? Towards a New Reading of Ad Donatum. Studia Patristica 94: 247-257. Gassman, M. 2019. Cyprian’s Early Career in the Church in Carthage. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70: 1-17. Gaudette, P. 1971. Baptême et vie chrétienne chez Saint Cyprien de Carthage. Laval Theologique et Philosophique 27: 251-279. Geertz, C. 1966. Religion as a Cultural System. In Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. M. Burton, 1-46. London: Tavistock. Gellner, E. 1962. Concepts and Society. In Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology, 153-183. Louvain: International Sociological Association. Gellner, E. 1977. Patrons and Clients. In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. E. Gellner and J. Waterbury, 1-6. London: Duckworth. Gellner, E., and J. Waterbury, eds. 1977. Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies. London: Duckworth. Gelzer, M. 1969. The Roman Nobility, trans. Robin Seager. Oxford: Blackwell. Goetz, K. G. 1891. Geschichte der Cyprianischen Literatur. Basel: Reich. Goetz, K. G. 1896. Das Christentum Cyprians: eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Giessen: J. Ricker. Gold, B. K. 1987. Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Gore, C. 1902. On the Ordination of the Early Bishops of Alexandria. Journal of Theological Studies 3: 278-282. Gore, C. 1919. The Church and the Ministry, Rev. C. H. Turner. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Granfield, P. 1976. Episcopal Elections in Cyprian: Clerical and Lay Participation. Theological Studies 37: 41-53. Grant, R. M. 1970. Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement Into the Roman World. New York: Harper and Row. Grant, R. M. 1972. Early Episcopal Succession. Studia Patristica 11: 179-184. Grant, R. M. 1977. Early Christianity and Society. San Francisco: Harper. Greenslade, S. L. 1942-1943. Scripture and Other Doctrinal Norms in Early Theories of the Ministry. Journal of Theological Studies: 43-44: 163-176. Greenslade, S. L. 1953. Schism in the Early Church. London: SCM Press. Greenslade, S. L. 1961. Sede Vacante Procedure in the Early Church. Journal of The­ ological Studies, N.S. 12: 210-226. Greer, R. A. 1974. Hospitality in the First Five Centuries of the Church. Monastic Studies 10: 29-48. Greschat, K. 2013. Christianus sum et episcopus: Der Bischof Cyprian von Karthargo und sein Werk im Licht neuerer Forschungen. Theologische Rundschau 80: 1-15. Grotz, J. 1955. Die Entwicklung des Bussstufenwesens in der vornicänischen Kirche. Freiburg: Herder. Gryson, R. 1973. Les élections ecclésiastiques au IIIe siècle. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésias­ tique 68: 353-404. Gryson, R. 1974. Review of Albano Vilela, La condition collégiale des prêtres au IIIe siècle. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 69: 108-114. Grzywaczewski, J. 2015. The Validity of the Baptism of Heretics According to Cyprian of Carthage, Pope Stephen and Firmilian of Caesarea. Vox Patrum 35: 1-18.



Bibliography 

151

Gülzow, H. 1967. Kallist von Rom: ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der römischen Gemeinde. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58: 102-121. Gülzow, H. 1975. Cyprian und Novatian: Der Briefwechsel zwischen den Gemeinden in Rom und Karthago zur Zeit der Verfolgung des Kaisers Decius. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hall, U. 1964. Voting Procedures in Roman Assemblies. Historia 13: 267-306. Halliburton, R. J. 1972. Some Reflexions on St. Cyprian’s Doctrine of the Church. Studia Patristica 11: 192-198. Hamman, A. 1968. Vie liturgique et vie sociale. Paris: Desclée. Hamman, A. G. 1989. La formation du clergé latin dans les quatre premiers siècles. Studia Patristica 20: 238-249. Hands, A. R. 1968. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. London: Thames and Hudson. Hanson, R. P. C. 1962. Tradition in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Westminster. Hardy, E. G. 1906. Studies in Roman History. New York: Macmillan. Hardy, E. G. 1912. Roman Laws and Charters. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hardy, E. R. 1984. The Decline and Fall of the Confessor-Presbyter. Studia Patristica 15: 221-225. Harmand, L. 1957. Un aspect social et politique du monde romain: le patronat sur les collectivités des origines au Bas-Empire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Harnack, A. 1902. Cyprian als Enthusiast. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissen­ schaft 3: 177-191. Harnack, A. 1910. The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries, trans. F. L. Pogson. London: Williams and Norgate. Harnack, A. 1913. Das Leben Cyprians von Pontius. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Harris, G. D. 2011. Cyprian and His Role as the Faithful Bishop in Reponse to the Lapsed, the Martyrs, and the Confessors Following the Decian Persecution. Eleutheria 1: 87-96. Hartel, G., ed. 1868. S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera Omnia. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vol. III:1-3. Wien: Gerold. Hatch, E. 1881. The Organization of the Early Christian Churches. London: Rivingtons. Hatch, E. 1887. The Growth of Church Institutions. New York: Thomas Whittaker. Hatch, E. 1891. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, ed. A. M. Fairbairn. London: Williams and Norgate. Hays, C. 2011. Resumptions of Radicalism: Christian Wealth Ethics in the Second and Third Centuries. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 102: 261-282. Haywood, R. M. 1933-1940. Roman Africa. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Vol. 4. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hengel, M. 1974. Property and Riches in the Early Church. London: SCM Press. Hornus, J. 1980. À propos de Cyprien, évêque de Carthage. Études Théologiques et Religieuses 55: 307-312. Howe, Q. 1970. St. Cyprian and the Christian Experience. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University. Hübner, S. 1962. Kirchenbusse und Exkommunication bei Cyprian. Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 84: 49-84; 171-215. Hummel, E. L. 1946. The Concept of Martyrdom According to St. Cyprian of Carthage. Washington: Catholic University Press.

152

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Janssen, H. 1938. Kultur und Sprache: zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche im Spiegel der Sprachentwicklung von Tertullian bis Cyprian. Nijmegen: Dekker/Van de Vegt. Jarrett, M. G. 1958. A Study of the Municipal Aristocracies of the Roman Empire in the West, with Special Attention to North Africa. Ph.D. Dissertation, Durham. Jeffers, J. S. 1991. Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress. Josaitis, N. F. 1971. Edwin Hatch on Early Church Order. Gembloux: J. Duculot. Jovanovic, Z. 2018. Cyprian’s Communal Modal of Episcopal Ministry and Governance. Philotheos 18: 18-25. Joyce, G. H. 1941-1942. Private Penance in the Early Church. Journal of Theological Studies 42: 18-42. Judge, E. A. 1960a. The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community. Journal of Religious History 1: 1-15; 125-137. Judge, E. A. 1960b. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century. London: Tyndale Press. Kaufman, P. I. 1996. Church, Book and Bishop: Conflict and Authority in Early Latin Christianity. Boulder: Westview Press. Kaufman, R. R. 1974. The Patron-Client Concept and Macro-Politics: Prospects and Problems. Comparative Studies in Society and History 16: 284-308. Keenan, A. E., ed. and trans. 1932. Thasci Caecili Cypriani De Habitu Virginum: A Commentary with an Introduction and Translation. Washington: Catholic University Press. Kemp, E. W. 1955. Bishops and Presbyters at Alexandria. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 6: 125-142. Keyes, C. W. 1935. The Greek Letter of Introduction. American Journal of Philology 56: 28-44. Klein, G. 1957. Die hermeneutische Struktur des Kirchengedankens bei Cyprian. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 68: 48-68. Koch, H. 1910. Cyprian und der römische Primat. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Koch, H. 1926a. Cyprianische Untersuchungen. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber. Koch, H. 1926b. Das dritte Buch der cyprianischen Testimonia in seinem zeitlichen Verhältnis zum ersten und zweiten. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 45: 1-9. Koeniger, A. M., ed. 1922. Beiträge zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und der byzantinischen Literatur: Festgabe Albert Ehrhardt. Bonn: Schroeder. Kornemann. 1900. Collegium. In Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertums­ wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag. Kotula, T. 1968. Les curies municipales en Afrique Romaine. Wrocław: Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Wrocław. Laurance, J. D. 1982-1983. Eucharistic Leader According to Cyprian of Carthage: A New Study. Studia Liturgica 15: 66-75. Laurance, J. D. 1984. Priest as Type of Christ: The Leader of the Eucharist in Salvation History According to Cyprian of Carthage. New York: Peter Lang. Lawlor, H. J. a.o., eds. and trans. 1954. Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine. London: S.P.C.K. Lebreton, J. 1934. La double édition du De Unitate de Saint Cyprien. Recherches de Science Religieuse: 456-467. Lécuyer, J. 1953. Episcopate et presbytérat dans les écrits d’Hippolyte de Rome. Recherches de Science Religieuse 41: 30-50.



Bibliography 

153

Lemarchand, R. 1981. Comparative Political Clientelism: Structure, Process and Optic. In Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt and R. Lemarchand, 7-32. London: Sage. Lemarchand, R. and K. 1972. Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary Analysis. Comparative Politics 4: 149-178. Leon, H. J. 1960. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. Lesousky, M. A. 1956. Traditional Thought Processes in St. Cyprian’s Letters. The Classical Bulletin 33: 16-20. Levick, B. M. 1967. Imperial Control of the Elections under the Early Principate: Commendatio, Suffragatio, and Nominatio. Historia 16: 207-230. Levick, B. 1985. The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook. Totowa: Barnes and Noble. Lewis, C. T. a.o., eds. 1907. A New Latin Dictionary. New York: American Book Company. Lewis, N. and M., eds. 1951. Roman Civilization Sourcebook. Vol. I: The Republic. New York: Harper. Lewis, N. and M., eds. 1955. Roman Civilization Sourcebook. Vol. II: The Empire. New York: Columbia University Press. Liebeschutz, J. H. W. 1972. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon. Lietzmann, H. 1950. The Founding of Church Universal, trans. B. L. Woolf. New York: Scribner’s. Luttenberger, G. H. 1976. The Priest as a Member of a Ministerial College. Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 43: 5-63. Maclean, A. J. 1930. The Position of Clergy and Laity in the Early Church in Relation to the Episcopate. In Episcopacy Ancient and Modern, ed. C. Jenkins and K. D. MacKenzie, 47-66. London: S.P.C.K. MacMullen, R. 1974. Roman Social Relations. New Haven: Yale University Press. MacMullen, R. 1976. The Roman Government’s Response to Crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press. MacMullen, R. 1980. Women in Public in the Roman Empire. Historia 29: 208-218. Maier, H. O. 1991. The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement and Ignatius. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press. Mair, L. 1962. Primitive Government. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Malherbe, A. 1977. The Inhospitality of Diotrephes. In God’s Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. Meeks, 222-232. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Malina, B. J. 1982. The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation. Interpretation 36: 229-242. Malina, B. 1991. Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World. In The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed. J. Neyrey, 25-65. Peabody: Hendrickson. Martin, D. B. 1990. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press. Martin, J. 1918-1919. Die Vita et Passio Cypriani. Historisches Jahrbuch der GörresGesellschaft 39: 674-712. Martin, J. 1976. Der Eingang von Cyprians Schrift Ad Donatum. In Paradosis, ed. H. G. Fletcher and M. B. Schulte, 31-34. New York: Fordham University Press. Mattingly, H. 1948. The Emperor and His Clients. Sydney: Australian Medical Publishing Co.

154

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Mauss, M. 1967. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. Ian Cunnison. New York: Norton. Meeks, W. 1979. Since Then You Would Need to Go Out of the World: Group Boundaries and Pauline Christianity. In Critical History and Biblical Faith, ed. T. J. Ryan, 4-29. Villanova: College Theology Society. Meeks, W. 1982. The Social Context of Pauline Theology. Interpretation 36: 266-275. Meeks, W. 1983. The First Urban Christians. New Haven: Yale University Press. Merlin, A. 1944. Inscriptions latines de la Tunisie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Middleton, P. 2012. Enemies of the (Church and) State: Martyrdom as a Problem for Early Christianity. Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 29: 161-181. Milbank, J. 1990. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Miles, M. R. 1986. Patriarchy as Political Theology: The Establishment of North African Christianity. In Civil Religion and Political Theology, ed. L. S. Rouner, 169-186. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. London: Duckworth. Mills, D. F. 2020. Cyprian and the Atonement. Puritan Reformed Journal 12: 35-53. Mitchell, M. M. 1992. New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus. Journal of Biblical Literature 111: 641-662. Mohrmann, C. 1975. La ‘Vita Cypriani’. In Vita di Cypriano. Vita di Ambrogio. Vita di Agostino, ed. A. A. R. Bastiaensen, ix-xxvi. Milan: Arnaldo Mondadori Editore. Molland, E. 1950. Irenaeus of Lugdunum and the Apostolic Succession. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 1: 12-28. Monceaux, P. 1914. Saint Cyprien, évêque de Carthage. Paris: J. Gabalda. Montgomery, H. 1985. Decurions and the Clergy: Some Suggestions. Opuscula Romana 15: 93-95. Montgomery, H. 1996. Pontius Vita S. Cypriani and the Making of a Saint. Symbolae Osloenses 71: 195-315. Morel, V. 1944-1945. Disciplina: le mot et l’idée représentée par lui dans les œuvres de Tertullien. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 40: 5-46. Moxnes, H. 1988. Honor, Shame and the Outside World in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. In The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. Neusner, 207218. Philadelphia: Fortress. Moxnes, H. 1993. The Quest for Honor and the Unity of the Community in Romans 12 and the Orations of Dio Chrysostom. In Paul in his Hellenistic Context, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen, 203-230. London: T&T Clark International. Le Moyne, J. 1952-1953. Saint Cyprien est-il bien l’auteur de la rédaction brève du ‘De Unitate’ chapitre 4? Revue Bénédictine: 62-63: 70-115. Mrozek, S. 1966-1968. Quelques remarques sur les inscriptions relatives aux distributions privées de l’argent et de la nourriture dans les municipes italiens aux Ier, IIème et IIIème siècle d.n.è. Epigraphica: 28-30: 156-171. Muehlenberg, E. 1972. Beyond Harnack and Pelikan. Church History 41: 440-444. Mühlenberg, E. 1990. Les débuts de la biographie chrétienne. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 122: 517-529. Murphy, E. 2014. ‘As Far As My Poor Memory Suggested’: Cyprian’s Compilation of Ad Quirinum. Vigiliae Christianae 68: 533-550.



Bibliography 

155

Murphy, E. 2017. Sell Your Possessions: Cyprian, Luke and Wealth. Colloquium 49: 11-23. Murphy, E. 2018. The Bishop and the Apostle: Cyprian’s Pastoral Exegesis of Paul. Berlin: De Gruyter. Murphy, E. 2019. Death, Decay and Delight in Cyprian of Carthage. Scrinium 15: 79-88. Murphy, E. 2021. Like Angels in Heaven: Cyprian, Sex, and Celibacy. Journal of Early Christian Studies 29: 193-214. Musurillo, H., ed. and trans. 1972. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nauck, W. 1957. Probleme des frühchristlichen Amtsverständnis. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 48: 200-220. Nicols, J. 1980a. Pliny and the Patronage of Communities. Hermas 108: 365-385. Nicols, J. 1980b. Tabulae Patronatus: A Study of the Agreement between Patron and Client-Community. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, 2.13, ed. H. Temporini, 535-561. Berlin: De Gruyter. Noorman, R. 2009. Ad Salutem Consulere: Die Paränese Cyprians im Kontext antiken und frühchristlichen Denkens. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Noorman, R. 2010. Secundum Euangelii Legem: Die Biblische Begründung des Bußverfahrens zur Wiederaufnahme abgefallener Christen bei Cyprian von Karthago. Römisches Quartalschrift für Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 105: 169-191. Nutton, V. 1978. The Beneficial Ideology. In Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, 209-221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osawa, T. 1983. Das Bischofseinsetzungsverfahren bei Cyprian. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Pellegrino, M. 1955. Vita e Martirio di San Cypriano. Alba: Edizioni Paoline. Pelletier, A. 1964. Les sénateurs d’Afrique proconsulaire d’Auguste à Gallien. Latomus 23: 523-531. Peristiany, J. G., ed. 1966. Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peristiany, J. G., ed. 1968. Contributions to Mediterranean Sociology. Paris: Mouton and Co. Piana, G. L. 1925. The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century. Harvard Theological Review 18: 201-277. Pitt-Rivers, J. 1992. Postscript: The Place of Grace in Anthropology. In Honor and Grace in Anthropology, ed. J. G. Peristiany and J. Pitt-Rivers, 215-246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poirier, M. 1976. Reflexion sur l’emploi du mot munus dans le De Opere et Eleemosy­ nis de Saint Cyprien. Studia Patristica 12: 254-260. Poschmann, B. 1940. Paenitentia Secunda: Die kirchliche Busse im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes. Bonn: Hanstein. Proksch. 2007. Christus in den Schriften Cyprians von Karthago. Wien: Lit Verlag. Rahner, K. 1952. Die Busslehre des Hl. Cyprian von Karthago. Zeitschrift für Katholi­ sche Theologie 74: 251-276; 381-438. Rajak, T., and D. Noy. 1993. Archisynagogos: Office, Title and Social Status. Journal of Religious Studies 83: 75-93.

156

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Ramsay, H. L. 1901. On Early Insertions in the Third Book of St. Cyprian’s Testimonia. Journal of Theological Studies 2: 276-288. Ramsay, W. M. 1941. The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Rappaport, R. A. 1979. Ecology Meaning and Religion. Richmond, CA: North Atlantic Books. Ratcliff, E. C. 1966. Apostolic Tradition: Questions Concerning the Appointment of the Bishop. Studia Patristica 8: 266-270. Rebenack, E. V., ed. and trans. 1962. Thasci Caecili Cypriani De Opere et Eleemosynis: A Translation with an Introduction and Commentary. Washington: Catholic University Press. Reicke, B. 1957. The Constitution of the Primitive Church in Light of the Jewish Documents. In The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl, 143-156. New York: Harper. Reid, J. S. 1913. The Municipalities of the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reitzenstein, R. 1913. Die Nachrichten über den Tod Cyprians. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Renaud, B. 1971. L’Église comme assemblée liturgique selon Saint Cyprien. Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 38: 5-68. Reveillaud, M. 1966. Pastorat et salariat au cours des premiers siècles de l’Église. Études Théologiques et Religieuses 41: 27-41. Rhee, H. 2013. ‘Every Good and Perfect Gift Comes from Above’: Episcopal Control of Charity and Christianized Patronage. Scrinium 9: 165-181. Ring, T. G. 1975. Auctoritas bei Tertullian, Cyprian und Ambrosius. Würzburg: Augus­ tinus. Rives, J. B. 1995. Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine. Oxford: Clarendon. Robeck, C. M. 1992. Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Robinson, J. A., ed. 1891. The Passion of S. Perpetua. Texts and Studies Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, J. A. 1918. The Christian Ministry in the Apostolic and Sub-Apostolic Periods. In Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, ed. H. B. Swete, 57-92. London: Macmillan. Robinson, T. A. 1993. The Early Church: An Annotated Bibliography of Literature in English. Evanston: Scarecrow Press. Roniger, L. 1981. Clientelism and Patron-Client Relations: A Bibliography. In Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt and R. Lemarchand, 297-330. London: Sage. Roniger, L. 1983. Modern Patron-Client Relations and Historical Clientelism: Some Clues from Ancient Republican Rome. Archives Européennes de Sociologie 24: 63-95. Rordorf, W. 1978. The Eucharist of the Early Christians. New York: Pueblo. Rossner, J. L. 1958. New Light on Cyprian. Anglican Theological Review 40: 214-219. Rostovtzeff, M. 1926. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.



Bibliography 

157

Rostovtzeff, M. 1957. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Second ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rouland, N. 1979. Pouvoir politique et dépendance personnelle dans l’Antiquité romaine. Brussels: Éditions Latomus. Rouwhorst, G. 2016. Sacrifice in Early Christianity: The Social Dimensions of a Meta­ phor. In Sacrifice in Modernity: Community, Ritual, Identity: From Nationalism and Nonviolence to Health Care and Harry Potter, 132-137. Leiden: Brill. Sachot, M. 1982. Saint Cyprien: de la tradition de l’Écriture à l’écriture de la Tradition. In Du texte à la parole, ed. J. M. Aubert a.o., 11-40. Paris: Beauchesne. Safranski, B. 2018. St. Cyprian of Carthage and the College of Bishops. Lanham: Fortress Academic. Sage, M. 1975. Cyprian. Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation. Sagnard, F., ed. 1952. Irénée de Lyon: Contre les Hérésies. Sources Chrétiennes 34. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Sahlins, M. D. 1965. On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange. In The Relevance of Models for Social Anthrolpology, ed. M. Banton, 139-236. London: Tavistock. Le Saint, W. P., ed. and trans. 1959. Tertullian, Treatises On Penance, On Penitence, On Purity. Westminster: Newman Press. Salisbury, J. E. 1985. The Bond of a Common Mind: A Study of Collective Salvation from Cyprian to Augustine. Journal of Religious History 13: 235-247. Saller, R. P. 1982. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sanday, W. 1891. The Cheltenham List of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament and the Writings of St. Cyprian. Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica 3: 217-325. Sanford, E. M. 1930. Political Campaigns in Roman Municipalities. Classical Journal 25: 453-463. Saumagne, C. 1975. Saint Cyprien évêque de Carthage, ‘Pape’ d’Afrique. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Saumagne, C. 1962. La persécution de Dèce en Afrique d’après la correspondance de S. Cyprien. Byzantion 32: 1-29. Saxer, V. 1984. Reflets de la culture des évêques africains dans l’œuvre de Saint Cyprien. Revue Bénédictine 94: 257-284. Schmidt, S. W., L. Guasti, C. H. Lande and J. C. Scott., eds. 1977. Friends Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schöllgen, G. 1990. Sportulae: zur Frühgeschichte des Unterhaltsanspruchs der Kle­ riker. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 101: 1-20. Schreiber, A. 1977. Die Gemeinde in Korinth. Münster: Verlag Aschendorf. Schubert, P. 1949. Shirley Jackson Case, Historian of Early Christianity: An Appraisal. Journal of Religion 29: 30-46. Schütz, J. H. 1974. Charisma and Social Reality in Primitive Christianity. Journal of Religion 54: 51-70. Scott, J. 1977. Patronage or Exploitation. In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. E. Gellner and J. Waterbury, 21-39. London: Duckworth. Scroggs, R. 1975. The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement. In Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Part II: Early Christianity, ed. J. Neusner, 1-23. Leiden: Brill.

158

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Seagraves, R. 1993. Pascentes cum disciplina: A Lexical Study of the Clergy in the Cyprianic Correspondence. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires. Shelton, J. 1988. As the Romans Did: A Source Book in Roman Social History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1966. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Simonis, W. 1970. Ecclesia visibilis et invisibilis: Untersuchungen zur Ekklesiologie und Sakramentumlehre in der afrikanischen Tradition von Cyprian bis Augustinus. Frankfurt: Josef Knecht. Smith, J. Z. 1974. The Social Description of Early Christianity. Religious Studies Review 1: 19-25. Smith, J. Z. 1978. Too Much Kingdom, Too Little Community. Zygon 13: 123-130. Smith, J. Z. 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Soden, H. F. v. 1904. Die Cyprianischer Briefsammlung. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Sordi, M. 1986. The Christians and the Roman Empire, trans. Annabel Bedini. Normon: University of Oklahoma Press. Souter, A. 1933. The Interpolations in St. Cyprian’s Ad Quirinum. Journal of Theological Studies 34: 45-46. Spanneut, M. 1969. Le stoicisme des Pères de l’Église. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Speigl, J. 1967. Zum Problem der Teilnahme von Laien an der Konzilien im Kirch­ lichen Altertum. Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 10: 241-248. Speigl, J. 1974. Cyprian über das Iudicium Dei bei der Bischofeinsetzung. Römische Quartalschrift 69: 30-45. Stam, J. E. 1969. Episcopacy in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt. Ste. Croix, G. E. M. 1954. Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage. British Journal of Sociology 5: 33-48. Stein, A. 1927. Der Römische Ritterstand. Munich: Beck. Stewart-Sykes, A. 2002. Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in Third Century Africa. Vigiliae Christianae 56: 115-130. Stewart, A. C. 2009. Studia Traditionis Theologiae: Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology, Vol. 1, The Didascalia Apostolorum: An English Version. Turnhout: Brepols. Stoops, R. F. 1986. Patronage in the Acts of Peter. Semeia 38: 91-100. Stout, J. 1988. Ethics after Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents. Boston: Beacon Press. Sullivan, D. D. 1933. The Life of the North Africans as Revealed in the Works of St. Cyprian. Washington: Catholic University Press. Sutcliffe, R. 2018. To Flee or Not to Flee? Matthew 10:23 and Third Century Flight in Persecution. Scrinium 14: 133-160. Swain, S. C. R. 1990. Hellenic Culture and the Roman Heroes of Plutarch. Journal of Hellenic Studies 110: 126-145. Swann, W. S. 1980. The Relationship between Penance, Reconciliation with the Church and Admission to the Eucharist in the Letters and the De Lapsis of Cyprian of Carthage. S.T.D. Dissertation, Catholic University of America. Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.



Bibliography 

159

Tabbernee, W. 1993. Montanist Regional Bishops: New Evidence from Ancient Inscriptions. Journal of Early Christian Studies 1: 249-280. Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Taylor, J. H. 1942. St. Cyprian and the Reconciliation of Apostates. Theological Studies 3: 27-46. Telfer, W. 1952. Episcopal Succession in Egypt. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 3: 5-17. Telfer, W. 1961. The Origins of Christianity in Africa. Studia Patristica 4: 512-517. Telfer, W. 1962. The Office of a Bishop. London: Darton, Longman and Todd. Thani Nayagam, X. S. 1950. The Carthaginian Clergy. Tuticorin: Tamil Literature Society. Theissen, G. 1974. Theoretische Probleme Religionssoziologischer Forschung und die Analyse des Urchristentums. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 16: 35-56. Theissen, G. 1982. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, ed. and trans. by John H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress. Turner, C. H. 1892. Two Early Lists of St. Cyprian’s Works. The Classical Review 6: 205-209. Turner, C. H. 1905. Prologomena to the Testimonia of St. Cyprian: Part I. Journal of Theological Studies 6: 246-270. Turner, C. H. 1908. Prologomena to the Testimonia of St. Cyprian: Part II. Journal of Theological Studies 9: 62-87. Turner, C. H. 1912. Studies in Early Church History. London: Clarendon Press. Turner, C. H. 1915. The Ordination Prayer for a Presbyter in the Church Order of Hippolytus. Journal of Theological Studies 16: 542-547. Turner, C. H. 1928. Prologomena to the Testimonia and Ad Fortunatum of St. Cyprian. Journal of Theological Studies 29: 113-136. Turner, C. H. 1930. Prologomena to the Testimonia and Ad Fortunatum of St. Cyprian. Journal of Theological Studies 31: 225-246. Veyne, P. 1976. Le pain et le cirque. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Vilela, A. 1971. La condition collégiale des prêtres au IIIe siècle. Paris: Beauchesne. Vogt, H. J. 1968. Coetus Sanctorum: Der Kirchenbegriff des Novatian und die Geschichte seiner Sonderkirche. Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag. Walker, B. 2020. The Salvific Effects of Almsgiving and the Moral Status of the Poor in Talmudic Judaism and Late Antique Christianity. Jewish Studies Quarterly 27: 1-21. Wallace-Hadrill, A., ed. 1989. Patronage in Ancient Society. London: Routledge. Waltzing, J. P. 1914. Collegia. In Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol and H. LeClercq, 2107-2140. Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané. Warmington, B. H. 1954. The Municipal Patrons of Roman North Africa. Papers of the British School in Rome, N.S. 9: 39-55. Waterbury, J. 1977. An Attempt to Put Patrons and Clients in Their Place. In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. E. Gellner and J. Waterbury, 329-342. London: Duckworth. Watkins, O. D. 1920. A History of Penance. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Watson, E. W. 1896. The Style and Language of St. Cyprian. Studia Biblica et Ecclesias­ tica 4: 189-324.

160

Cyprian of Carthage: Priest and Patron

Watson, E. W. 1901. The De Opere et Eleemosynis of St. Cyprian. Journal of Theological Studies 2: 433-438. Weaver, R. P. C. 1963. The Status Nomenclature of the Imperial Freedmen. Classical Quarterly 13: 272-278. Weaver, R. P. C. 1964. The Status Nomenclature of the Imperial Slaves. Classical Quarterly 14: 134-139. Weaver, R. P. C. 1967. Social Mobility in the Early Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Imperial Freedmen and Slaves. Past and Present 37: 3-20. Weaver, R. H. 1987. Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church. Interpretation 41: 368-381. Weingrod, A. 1977. Patronage and Power. In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. E. Gellner and J. Waterbury, 41-51. London: Duckworth. White, L. M. 1986. Sociological Analysis of Early Christian Groups: A Social Historian’s Response. Sociological Analysis 47: 249-266. White, L. M. 1986. Grid and Group in Matthew’s Community: The Righteousness/ Honor Code in the Sermon on the Mount. Semeia 35: 61-90. Wickert, U. 1971. Sacramentum Unitatis: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Kirche bei Cyprian. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wiles, M. 1963. The Theological Legacy of St. Cyprian. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14: 139-149. Wilhite, D. 2010. Cyprian’s Scriptural Hermeneutic of Identity: The Laxist Heresy. Horizons in Biblical Theology 32: 58-98. Wilhite, D. 2017. Ancient African Christianity: An Introduction to a Unique Context and Tradition. London: Routledge. Wilken, R. 1970. Toward a Social Interpretation of Early Christian Apologetics. Church History 39: 437-458. Wilken, R. 1984. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale University Press. Williams, G. H. 1956. The Ministry of the Ante-Nicene Church. In The Ministry in Historical Perspectives, ed. H. R. Niebuhr and D. D. Williams, 27-59. New York: Harper. Williams, G. H. 1958. The Role of the Layman in the Ancient Church. Greek and Byzan­ tine Studies 1: 9-42. Wischmeyer, W. K. 1985. Zur Sozialgeschichte der Kirche im 3. Jahrhundert: sozialgeschichtliche Implikationen des Bischofsamtes. Studia Patristica 18: 99-103. Wischmeyer, W. K. 1989a. Der Bischof Im Prozess. In Fructus Centessimus, ed. A. H. and A. A. R. Bastiaensen, 363-371. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Wischmeyer, W. K. 1989b. Ecclesia in Monte. Studia Patristica 19: 130-140. Wolf, E. R. 1966. Kinship, Friendship and Patron-Client Relations in Complex Societies. In The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies, ed. M. Banton, 1-22. London: Tavistock. Younge, R. G. 1979. Cyprian of Carthage: Conversion and Influence. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate Theological Union. Zell, R. L. 1972. The Priesthood of Christ in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. Studia Patristica 11: 282-288.

= 100,2 mm

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706