Studia Patristica - Papers Presented at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2019: Cineres Extincti Dogmatis ... Period (17) (Studia Patristica, 120) 9789042947689, 9789042947696, 9042947683

Citation preview

STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. CXX

Papers presented at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2019 Edited by MARKUS VINZENT Volume 17:

Cineres extincti dogmatis refouendo? “Pelagianism” in the Christian Sources from 431 to the Carolingian Period Edited by RAÚL VILLEGAS MARÍN

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2021

STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. CXX

STUDIA PATRISTICA Editor: Markus VINZENT, King’s College London, UK and Max Weber Centre, University of Erfurt, Germany

Board of Directors (2019): Carol HARRISON, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, UK Mark EDWARDS, Professor of Early Christian Studies, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, UK Neil MCLYNN, University Lecturer in Later Roman History, Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford, UK Philip BOOTH, A.G. Leventis Associate Professor in Eastern Christianity, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, UK Sophie LUNN-ROCKLIFFE, Lecturer in Patristics, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK Morwenna LUDLOW, Professor, Theology and Religion, University of Exeter, UK Ioannis PAPADOGIANNAKIS, Senior Lecturer in Patristics, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King’s College London, UK Markus VINZENT, Professor of the History of Theology, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King’s College London, UK Josef LÖSSL, Professor of Historical Theology and Intellectual History, School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University, UK Lewis AYRES, Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology, Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, UK John BEHR, Regius Chair in Humanity, The School of Divinity, History, Philosophy & Art History, University of Aberdeen, UK Anthony DUPONT, Research Professor in Christian Antiquity, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium Patricia CINER (as president of AIEP), Professor, Universidad de San Juan-Universidad Católica de Cuyo, Argentina Clayton JEFFORD (as president of NAPS), Professor of Scripture, Seminary and School of Theology, Saint Meinrad, IN, USA

STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. CXX

Papers presented at the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2019 Edited by MARKUS VINZENT Volume 17:

Cineres extincti dogmatis refouendo? “Pelagianism” in the Christian Sources from 431 to the Carolingian Period Edited by RAÚL VILLEGAS MARÍN

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2021

© Peeters Publishers — Louvain — Belgium 2021 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. D/2021/0602/154 ISBN: 978-90-429-4768-9 eISBN: 978-90-429-4769-6 A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in Belgium by Peeters, Leuven

Table of Contents Raúl VILLEGAS MARÍN Introduction .........................................................................................

1

María Victoria ESCRIBANO PAÑO Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418 ..

7

Jérémy DELMULLE A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine (c. coll. 21.3) .......................................................................................

31

Richard FLOWER ‘I cut its neck with its own sword’: Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus .................................

55

Matthieu PIGNOT Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin: The Legacy of Augustine’s Liturgical Argument in the Early Medieval West ....................

79

Mickaël RIBREAU Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons, de Léon le Grand à Grégoire le Grand .................................................... 101 Giulio MALAVASI The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources from the Council of Ephesus (431) to Photius..................................................................... 117 Raúl VILLEGAS MARÍN The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse: ‘Pelagianism’ in the British and Irish Sources ..................................................................... 135

Abbreviations AA.SS AAWG.PH AB AC ACL ACO ACW AHDLMA AJAH AJP AKK AKPAW ALMA ALW AnalBoll ANCL ANF ANRW AnSt AnThA APOT AR ARW ASS AThANT Aug AugSt AW AZ BA BAC BASOR BDAG BEHE BETL BGL BHG BHL

see ASS. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philologisch-historische Klasse, Göttingen. Analecta Bollandiana, Brussels. Antike und Christentum, ed. F.J. Dölger, Münster. Antiquité classique, Louvain. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz, Berlin. Ancient Christian Writers, ed. J. Quasten and J.C. Plumpe, Westminster (Md.)/London. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, Paris. American Journal of Ancient History, Cambridge, Mass. American Journal of Philology, Baltimore. Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, Mainz. Abhandlungen der königlichen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin. Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin du Cange), Paris/Brussels. Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft, Regensburg. Analecta Bollandiana, Brussels. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo/New York. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed H. Temporini et al., Berlin. Anatolian Studies, London. Année théologique augustinienne, Paris. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. R.E. Charles, Oxford. Archivum Romanicum, Florence. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, Berlin/Leipzig. Acta Sanctorum, ed. the Bollandists, Brussels. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Zürich. Augustinianum, Rome. Augustinian Studies, Villanova (USA). Athanasius Werke, ed. H.-G. Opitz et al., Berlin. Archäologische Zeitung, Berlin. Bibliothèque augustinienne, Paris. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven, Conn. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn F.W. Danker, Chicago. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Paris. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, Louvain. Benediktinisches Geistesleben, St. Ottilien. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, Brussels. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Antiquae et Mediae Aetatis, Brussels.

VIII BHO BHTh BJ BJRULM BKV BKV2 BKV3 BLE BoJ BS BSL BWAT Byz BZ BZNW CAr CBQ CChr.CM CChr.SA CChr.SG CChr.SL CH CIL CP(h) CPG CPL CQ CR CSCO

CSEL CSHB CTh CUF CW DAC

Abbreviations

Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis, Brussels. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, Tübingen. Bursians Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Leipzig. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, ed. F.X. Reithmayr and V. Thalhofer, Kempten. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, ed. O. Bardenhewer, Th. Schermann, and C. Weyman, Kempten/Munich. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. Zweite Reihe, ed. O. Bardenhewer, J. Zellinger, and J. Martin, Munich. Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, Toulouse. Bonner Jahrbücher, Bonn. Bibliotheca sacra, London. Bolletino di studi latini, Naples. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, Leipzig/Stuttgart. Byzantion, Leuven. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Leipzig. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin. Cahiers Archéologique, Paris. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington. Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, Turnhout/Paris. Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum, Turnhout/Paris. Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, Turnhout/Paris. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout/Paris. Church History, Chicago. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. Classical Philology, Chicago. Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ed. M. Geerard, vols. I-VI, Turnhout. Clavis Patrum Latinorum (SE 3), ed. E. Dekkers and A. Gaar, Turnhout. Classical Quarterly, London/Oxford. The Classical Review, London/Oxford. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Louvain. Aeth = Scriptores Aethiopici Ar = Scriptores Arabici Arm = Scriptores Armeniaci Copt = Scriptores Coptici Iber = Scriptores Iberici Syr = Scriptores Syri Subs = Subsidia Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Bonn. Collectanea Theologica, Lvov. Collection des Universités de France publiée sous le patronage de l’Association Guillaume Budé, Paris. Catholic World, New York. Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. J. Hastings, Edinburgh.

Abbreviations

DACL DAL DB DBS DCB DHGE Did DOP DOS DR DS DSp DTC EA ECatt ECQ EE EECh EKK EH EO EtByz ETL EWNT ExpT FC FGH FKDG FRL FS FThSt FTS FZThPh GCS GDV GLNT GNO GRBS

IX

see DAL Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. F. Cabrol, H. Leclercq, Paris. Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris. Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris. Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines, ed. W. Smith and H. Wace, 4 vols, London. Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique, ed. A. Baudrillart, Paris. Didaskalia, Lisbon. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Cambridge, Mass., subsequently Washington, D.C. Dumbarton Oaks Studies, Cambridge, Mass., subsequently Washington, D.C. Downside Review, Stratton on the Fosse, Bath. H.J. Denzinger and A. Schönmetzer, ed., Enchiridion Symbolorum, Barcelona/Freiburg i.B./Rome. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. M. Viller, S.J., and others, Paris. Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, and E. Amann, Paris. Études augustiniennes, Paris. Enciclopedia Cattolica, Rome. Eastern Churches Quarterly, Ramsgate. Estudios eclesiasticos, Madrid. Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. A. Di Berardino, Cambridge. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Neukirchen. Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae, ed. Ueding-Kirch, 6th ed., Barcelona. Échos d’Orient, Paris. Études Byzantines, Paris. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Louvain. Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum NT, ed. H.R. Balz et al., Stuttgart. The Expository Times, Edinburgh. The Fathers of the Church, New York. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Göttingen. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Göttingen. Festschrift. Freiburger theologische Studien, Freiburg i.B. Frankfurter theologische Studien, Frankfurt a.M. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg/Switzerland. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, Leipzig/Berlin. Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit, Stuttgart. Grande Lessico del Nuovo Testamento, Genoa. Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Leiden. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, Mass.

X GWV HbNT HDR HJG HKG HNT HO HSCP HTR HTS HZ ICC ILCV ILS J(b)AC JBL JdI JECS JEH JJS JLH JPTh JQR JRS JSJ JSOR JTS KAV KeTh KJ(b) LCL LNPF L(O)F LSJ LThK LXX MA MAMA Mansi MBTh

Abbreviations

Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, Offenburg. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen. Harvard Dissertations in Religion, Missoula. Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft, successively Munich, Cologne and Munich/Freiburg i.B. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Tübingen. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Theological Studies, Cambridge, Mass. Historische Zeitschrift, Munich/Berlin. The International Critical Commentary of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Edinburgh. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, ed. E. Diehl, Berlin. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, Berlin. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Münster. Journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, Pa., then various places. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin. Journal of Early Christian Studies, Baltimore. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, London. Journal of Jewish Studies, London. Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, Kassel. Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, Leipzig/Freiburg i.B. Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia. Journal of Roman Studies, London. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, Leiden. Journal of the Society of Oriental Research, Chicago. Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford. Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vätern, Göttingen. Kerk en Theologie, ’s Gravenhage. Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, Gütersloh. The Loeb Classical Library, London/Cambridge, Mass. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, Buffalo/New York. Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, new (9th) edn H.S. Jones, Oxford. Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg i.B. Septuagint. Moyen-Âge, Brussels. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, London. J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Florence, 1759-1798. Reprint and continuation: Paris/Leipzig, 1901-1927. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, Münster.

Abbreviations

MCom MGH ML MPG MSR MThZ Mus NA28 NGWG NH(M)S NIV NKJV NovTest NPNF NRSV NRTh NTA NT.S NTS NTTSD OBO OCA OCP OECS OLA OLP Or OrChr OrSyr PG PGL PL PLRE PLS PO PRE PS PTA PThR PTS PW QLP QuLi RAC RACh

XI

Miscelanea Comillas, Comillas/Santander. Monumenta germaniae historica. Hanover/Berlin. Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Louvain. See PG. Mélanges de science religieuse, Lille. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift, Munich. Le Muséon, Louvain. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition, Stuttgart. Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Nag Hammadi (and Manichaean) Studies, Leiden. New International Version. New King James Version. Novum Testamentum, Leiden. See LNPF. New Revised Standard Version. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Tournai/Louvain/Paris. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, Münster. Novum Testamentum Supplements, Leiden. New Testament Studies, Cambridge/Washington. New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, Leiden/Boston. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, Freiburg, Switz., then Louvain. Orientalia Christiana Analecta, Rome. Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Rome. Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Louvain. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, Louvain. Orientalia. Commentarii editi a Pontificio Instituto Biblico, Rome. Oriens Christianus, Leipzig, then Wiesbaden. L’Orient Syrien, Paris. Migne, Patrologia, series graeca. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G.L. Lampe, Oxford. Migne, Patrologia, series latina. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed. A.H.M. Jones et al., Cambridge. Migne, Patrologia, series latina. Supplementum ed. A. Hamman. Patrologia Orientalis, Paris. Paulys Realenzyklopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, Stuttgart. Patrologia Syriaca, Paris. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, Bonn. Princeton Theological Review, Princeton. Patristische Texte und Studien, Berlin. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa, Stuttgart. Questions liturgiques et paroissiales, Louvain. Questions liturgiques, Louvain. Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, Rome. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart.

XII RAM RAug RBen RB(ibl) RE

Abbreviations

Revue d’ascétique et de mystique, Paris. Recherches Augustiniennes, Paris. Revue Bénédictine, Maredsous. Revue biblique, Paris. Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, founded by J.J. Herzog, 3e ed. A. Hauck, Leipzig. REA(ug) Revue des études Augustiniennes, Paris. REB Revue des études byzantines, Paris. RED Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Rome. RÉL Revue des études latines, Paris. REG Revue des études grecques, Paris. RevSR Revue des sciences religieuses, Strasbourg. RevThom Revue thomiste, Toulouse. RFIC Rivista di filologia e d’istruzione classica, Turin. RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Gunkel-Zscharnack, Tübingen RHE Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, Louvain. RhMus Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Bonn. RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions, Paris. RHT Revue d’Histoire des Textes, Paris. RMAL Revue du Moyen-Âge Latin, Paris. ROC Revue de l’Orient chrétien, Paris. RPh Revue de philologie, Paris. RQ Römische Quartalschrift, Freiburg i.B. RQH Revue des questions historiques, Paris. RSLR Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, Florence. RSPT, RSPh Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, Paris. RSR Recherches de science religieuse, Paris. RTAM Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Louvain. RthL Revue théologique de Louvain, Louvain. RTM Rivista di teologia morale, Bologna. Sal Salesianum, Roma. SBA Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Basel. SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, Stuttgart. ScEc Sciences ecclésiastiques, Bruges. SCh, SC Sources chrétiennes, Paris. SD Studies and Documents, ed. K. Lake and S. Lake. London/Philadelphia. SE Sacris Erudiri, Bruges. SDHI Studia et documenta historiae et iuris, Roma. SH Subsidia Hagiographica, Brussels. SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae. SJMS Speculum. Journal of Mediaeval Studies, Cambridge, Mass. SM Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige, Munich. SO Symbolae Osloenses, Oslo. SP Studia Patristica, successively Berlin, Kalamazoo, Leuven. SPM Stromata Patristica et Mediaevalia, ed. C. Mohrmann and J. Quasten, Utrecht.

Abbreviations

SQ SQAW SSL StudMed SVigChr SVF TDNT TE ThGl ThJ ThLZ ThPh ThQ ThR ThWAT ThWNT ThZ TLG TP TRE TS TThZ TU USQR VC VetChr VT WBC WUNT WZKM YUP ZAC ZAM ZAW ZDPV ZKG ZKTh ZNW ZRG ZThK

XIII

Sammlung ausgewählter Quellenschriften zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Tübingen. Schriften und Quellen der Alten Welt, Berlin. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Louvain. Studi Medievali, Turin. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Leiden. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. J. von Arnim, Leipzig. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich. Teologia espiritual, Valencia. Theologie und Glaube, Paderborn. Theologische Jahrbücher, Leipzig. Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig. Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg i.B. Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen. Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart. Theologische Zeitschrift, Basel. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Lancaster, Pa. Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin. Theological Studies, New York and various places; now Washington, DC. Trierer theologische Zeitschrift, Trier. Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig/Berlin. Union Seminary Quarterly Review, New York. Vigiliae Christianae, Amsterdam. Vetera Christianorum, Bari (Italy). Vetus Testamentum, Leiden. Word Biblical Commentary, Waco. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vienna. Yale University Press, New Haven. Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, Berlin. Zeitschrift für Aszese und Mystik, Innsbruck, then Würzburg. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen, then Berlin. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Leipzig. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Gotha, then Stuttgart. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, Vienna. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, Giessen, then Berlin. Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, Weimar. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen.

Introduction Raúl VILLEGAS MARÍN, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain

In his third apostolic exhortation, Gaudete et exsultate (dated March 19, 2018), Pope Francis warned against the perils of a ‘neo-Pelagian’ tendency towards ‘self-centred and elitist complacency’ on the part of some Christians. According to Pope Francis, this ‘neo-Pelagian’ current would also find expression in ways of thinking and acting such as ‘an obsession with the law’ and ‘a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy’.1 Few contemporary historians of the late-antique Pelagian controversy would embrace the dogmatically-biased definition of Pelagianism underlying Pope Francis’ exhortation.2 The paradigm shift in the study of ancient Christian doctrinal controversies pioneered by Walter Bauer and further developed by Alain Le Boulluec has also affected scholarship on Pelagianism.3 Nowadays, most scholars agree that the construction of orthodoxy was always simultaneous to, and in fact entailed the negative definition of heretical propositions that – although depicted as modern deviations from a prior, apostolic orthodox tradition –, were nevertheless seen as ‘orthodox’ by previous Christian generations.4 This has resulted in the historiographical deconstruction of ancient heresiological categories such as ‘Gnosticism’, ‘Marcionism’, or ‘Arianism’.5 As for ‘Pelagianism’, it has been argued that it 1 Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et exsultate of the Holy Father Francis on the Call to Holiness in Today’s World, ch. 2, 57 (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/ papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20180319_gaudete-et-exsultate.html, last consulted July 6, 2021). 2 For a recent similar use of ‘Pelagianism’ and ‘Pelagian’ as negative theological and heresiological categories in the Protestant world, the reader may refer, for instance, to several chapters in Keith L. Johnson and David Lauber (eds), T&T Clark Companion to the Doctrine of Sin (London, New York, 2016). In the chapter devoted to Augustine in this otherwise worthwhile companion, Jesse Couenhoven describes the Pelagians as ‘moral elitists who believed that only a select few could purify themselves’ (197); ‘Pelagianism’ is a negative ‘tendency’ (266, article about Friedrich Schleiermacher, by Kevin M. Vander Schel), characterised by its ‘isolated individualism’ (268, article about Søren Kierkegaard, by Sylvia Walsh); it is a negative trend that reappears throughout the history of Christianity, especially in our current times (342-3 and n. 6, in the article ‘Freedom’ by Alistair McFadyen). 3 Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen, 1934); Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque, 2 vol., Collection des Études augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 110-1 (Paris, 1985). 4 Mauro Pesce, ‘La relazione tra il concetto di eresia e la storia del Cristianesimo’, Annali di storia dell’esegesi 31 (2014), 151-68. 5 See, for instance, Michael A. Williams, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’. An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, 1996); Judith M. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic. God

Studia Patristica CXX, 1-6. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

2

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

developed into a coherent system of thought only in the minds of Augustine or Jerome, thus embodying the Otherness in its antagonists’ own construction of orthodoxy.6 The deconstruction of the heresiological category of Pelagianism has led some scholars to reconsider its value as a historiographical concept. Andreas Kessler has suggested a list of criteria (chronological, geographical, and thematic) for labelling a text as ‘Pelagian’.7 Borrowing conceptual tools from Max Weber’s sociology of religion, Jean-Marie Salamito has pointed to elective affinities between the allegedly elitist, sectarian concept of Christianity shared by Pelagius and Julian of Aeclanum and the ethos of the Roman aristocracy.8 Salamito’s work rests on the hypothesis – previously suggested by George de Plinval and Peter Brown9 – that the Pelagian paraenesis had an almost exclusively aristocratic target audience – an assumption questioned by Michel-Yves Perrin.10 In 2015, Winrich Löhr provided a new interpretative framework to understand the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius, that of the philosophical reflections on the limits and potentialities of the paraenetic discourse.11 Most recently, Alison Bonner propounded an interpretation of the making of the Pelagian heresy based on the symbolic interactionist theory. According to Bonner, scholars should avoid using the term ‘Pelagianism’ to refer either to a historical group of thinkers or to a system of thought.12 The studies I have referred to thus far mainly focus on the Pelagian controversy between 411 and 430. This is partly due to the assumption that, at least and Scripture in the Second Century (New York, 2015); Charles Kannengiesser, ‘Alexander and Arius of Alexandria: The Last Ante-Nicene Theologians’, Compostellanum 35 (1990), 391-403. 6 Bibliographical overviews: Otto Wermelinger, ‘Neuere Forschungskontroversen um Augustinus und Pelagius’, in Cornelius Mayer and Karl Heinz Chelius (eds), Internationales Symposion über den Stand der Augustinus-Forschung (Würzburg, 1989), 189-217; Mathijs Lamberigts, ‘Recent Research into Pelagianism, with Particular Emphasis on the Role of Julian of Aeclanum’, Augustiniana 52 (2002), 175-98; Mickaël Ribreau, ‘Des Virtuoses et la multitude de J.-M. Salamito à Pélage et le pélagianisme de W. Löhr. Augustin et la Controverse pélagienne. Bilan bibliographique et perspectives (2005-2015)’, Revue des études tardo-antiques 5 (2015-2016), 307-49. 7 Andreas Kessler, Reichtumskritik und Pelagianismus. Die pelagianische Diatribe De diuitiis. Situierung, Lesetext, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Paradosis 43 (Fribourg, 1999), 23-4. 8 Jean-Marie Salamito, Les virtuoses et la multitude. Aspects sociaux de la controverse entre Augustin et les pélagiens (Grenoble, 2005). 9 George de Plinval, Pélage. Ses écrits, sa vie et sa réforme. Étude d’histoire littéraire et religieuse (Lausanne, 1943); Peter Brown, ‘Pelagius and his Supporters: Aims and Environment’, JTS N.S. 19 (1968), 93-114. 10 Michel-Yves Perrin, ‘“The Blast of the Ecclesiastical Trumpet”. Prédication et controverse dans la crise pélagienne. Quelques observations’, in Piroska Nagy, Michel-Yves Perrin and Pierre Ragon (eds), Les controverses religieuses entre débats savants et mobilisations populaires: monde chrétien, Antiquité tardive-XVIIe siècle (Paris, 2011), 17-32. 11 Winrich Löhr, Pélage et le pélagianisme, Les Conférences de l’École pratique des hautes études 8 (Paris, 2015), 171-214. 12 Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford, 2018).

Introduction

3

from 418 onwards, there was an ‘official definition’ of the Pelagian heresy – contained in the anti-Pelagian pronouncements issued by Popes Innocent I (416) and Zosimus (418), the Council of Carthage of 1 May 418, and Emperor Honorius (418). Yet, there is enough evidence supporting the hypothesis that long after 418 – and even after 431 (Council of Ephesus) –, the boundaries between orthodoxy and Pelagianism remained a matter of discussion. The continuing redefinitions of the concept of Pelagianism after 418/431 might explain why such a fundamental document as Pope Zosimus’ anti-Pelagian letter Tractoria (418) has been lost, whilst texts suspected of or charged with this heresy between 411-430 continued to be circulated, copied, and transmitted in certain milieux – sometimes under the names of Augustine or Jerome. Whilst accusations of Pelagianism continued to be levelled against Christians who ended their days without being officially convicted of heresy by Church authorities (e.g. John Cassian, whom Prosper of Aquitaine charged with ‘reviving the ashes of an extinct dogma [Pelagianism]’),13 Augustine’s views on predestination as set out in his anti-Pelagian treatises also came to be construed as a ‘Predestinarian heresy’. Other Christian thinkers claimed that the orthodoxy/heresy dichotomy was best left aside when discussing a number of issues raised in the debates between Augustine and the ‘Pelagians’.14 Since the second half of the sixteenth century, ancient Christian thinkers who had distanced themselves from the Pelagian heresy without fully agreeing with Augustine’s views on grace and predestination were labelled as ‘Semipelagians’ – a term coined by Theodore of Beza to describe the Catholic stance on grace and free will. Indeed, the theological controversies of the Early Modern period had a historiographical dimension in which ancient and modern heresiologies reflected in a game of mirrors.15 The hermeneutical approaches put in place in these controversies continue to exert influence on modern scholarship. It has been argued, for instance, that despite its anachronism, the term ‘Semipelagianism’ can still be used to describe a certain view of grace that is neither fully Augustinian nor fully Pelagian,16 thereby presupposing a univocal definition of ‘pure Pelagianism’. This has led scholars to analyse the body of works 13

Prosper Aquit., C. Coll., 6, ed. Jérémy Delmulle, CChr.SL 68 (Turnhout, 2020), 22: Quid cineres exstincti dogmatis refouendo deficientis fumi nitorem in rediuiuam flammam conaris accendere? 14 Raúl Villegas Marín, ‘Plerique non putant Christianam fidem hac dissensione uiolari: auctoritas doctrinal y libre reflexión teológica durante la “controversia post-pelagiana” en Provenza’, in La teologia dal V all’VIII secolo fra sviluppo e crisi, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 140 (Roma, 2014), 457-79. 15 Jean-Louis Quantin, ‘Histoires de la grâce. “Semi-pélagiens” et “prédestinatiens” dans l’érudition ecclésiastique du XVIIe siècle’, in Thomas Wallnig, Thomas Stockinger, Ines Peper and Patrick Fiska (eds), Europäische Geschichtskulturen um 1700 zwischen Gelehrsamkeit, Politik und Konfession (Berlin, Boston, 2012), 327-59. 16 Irena Backus and Aza Goudriaan, ‘“Semipelagianism”: The Origins of the Term and its Passage into the History of Heresy’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65 (2014), 25-46.

4

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

relating to the ‘Semipelagian controversy’ independently from other sources that would attest to the Fortleben of ‘pure Pelagianism’ in the period between the Council of Ephesus and the Carolingian period. * * * This volume brings together the papers presented at the workshop ‘Pelagianism in the Christian Sources from 431 to the Carolingian Period’ held on 22 and 23 August 2019 in Oxford, within the framework of the Eighteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies. The contribution by Maria V. Escribano analyses the anti-Pelagian legislative texts issued by the imperial court in 418, which brought about the birth of ‘Pelagianism’ as a legal category. Escribano advocates that the patricius and comes Flavius Constantius was the true proponent of these legal measures, and that his action responded more to the exercise of his responsibilities as a guarantor of the public order than to the implementation of a religious agenda on his part. As we know, however, subsequent decades will see some Christian authors raising this imperial legislation and the ecclesiastical resolutions against Pelagianism to the same heights: for these authors (Prosper of Aquitaine, for example), all these measures would be testimony of divine providential interventions against heresy. The expansion of the heresiological category of ‘Pelagianism’ is inseparable from the diffusion of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings. In this sense, Jérémy Delmulle shows that shortly after the death of Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine already had an extensive knowledge of the works of the bishop of Hippo, most likely acquired during time spent in Provence and Rome – regions that, from a very early date, became key centres of reception and diffusion of the works of Augustine. Delmulle also raises the interesting hypothesis that Prosper composed a florilegium of anti-Pelagian texts by Augustine, which is now lost but could have inspired later similar collections, such as that by the Venerable Bede. In the days of Prosper, and in subsequent decades, the orthodoxy of Augustine’s theories on predestination continued to be discussed. Richard Flower analyses the use that the author of the Praedestinatus made of the rhetorical techniques in heresiological literature to undermine the doctrinal authority of the bishop of Hippo and to present himself as the champion of orthodoxy against those defending Augustinian predestination. The study by Flower is part of a larger research project examining the relationship between Late Antique heresiological literature and classical technical literature – especially medical writings and encyclopaedic texts. Predestination was not the only topic debated in the Pelagian controversy that continued to be the subject of open discussion in the Latin Church long after the official condemnation of Pelagianism. The contribution by Matthieu Pignot analyses the use of the argument of pre-baptismal exorcism of children

Introduction

5

in the context of the debates on original sin that took place during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, particularly during the pontificate of Gelasius I (492-496). Pignot shows that the success of the pre-baptismal exorcism of children as an argument in favour of the transmission of original sin was largely due to its inclusion in Prosper of Aquitaine’s Auctoritates de gratia Dei, a writing transmitted as the work of the Roman bishop Celestine I since the beginning of the sixth century. Mickaël Ribreau looks into the presence of the Pelagian heresy in some of the main Late Antique homiletical corpora, from Leo the Great to Gregory the Great. Ribreau identifies two significant trends in this regard: on one hand, the absence of allusions to Pelagius, Caelestius or Julian of Eclanum – or the Pelagian heresy in general – in preachers who otherwise fully subscribe to the Augustinian doctrine of grace (Leo the Great, Caesarius of Arles), which might be explained – according to Ribreau – by the will of these preachers to isolate this doctrine from the exact polemic context in which Augustine formulated it and to present it, purely and simply, as Christian doctrine. In other cases, on the other hand (Quodvultdeus of Carthage, Gregory the Great), the Pelagian heresy is mentioned in the preaching and presented as the antithesis of the Augustinian ethos that the preachers want to promote. In my opinion, the concept of ‘Augustinian ethos’ is paramount in understanding the consolidation of ‘Pelagianism’ as a heresiological category during Late Antiquity and its Fortleben in later times. The contribution by Giulio Malavasi is in two parts. The first analyses how the episcopal factions during the Council of Ephesus (431), led by Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch respectively, mutually accused each other of welcoming condemned and deposed Pelagian ecclesiastics into their ranks. The ‘physical association’ with the ‘Pelagian heretic’ was a controversial argument in Ephesus, just as later heresiology will exploit the argument of the ‘spiritual association’ with Pelagius or Caelestius. In the second part of his contribution, Malavasi presents the Byzantine sources written between the Council of Ephesus and the episcopate of the patriarch Photius that mention Pelagius, Caelestius or Julian of Eclanum. In these sources, Pelagianism appears as a heresy that must be condemned, frequently included in heresiological catalogues, but whose doctrinal postulates (real or attributed) have been forgotten. It is significant in this sense that the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius read the discourse written by Theodore of Mopsuestia against Augustine and fully subscribed to Theodore’s criticism of the theses on original sin and carnal concupiscence defended by Augustine against the Pelagians. Once again, this shows that centuries after the official condemnation of Pelagianism, the contours of this heresy were still blurred. Finally, my own contribution re-examines the documentary dossier on the alleged presence of the Pelagian heresy in Britain and Ireland during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. I advocate that in the British and Irish

6

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

sources analysed, the heresiological label of ‘Pelagianism’ was used to classify, denigrate and exclude from Christianity some practices and beliefs judged as erroneous by the authors of these sources. Although such practices and beliefs – rejection of certain expressions of the cult of saints or differing calculations as to the date of Easter – had little or nothing to do with the thought of Pelagius, Caelestius or Julian de Eclanum, they were associated with Pelagianism because this was, at that time, the last – and the most genuinely ‘Western’ – of heresies.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418 María Victoria ESCRIBANO PAÑO, Zaragoza, Spain

ABSTRACT On April 30 418, Honorius issued a law by which Pelagius and Caelestius were expelled from Rome as capites of an execrating dogma (ut pulsis ex urbe primitus capitibus dogmatis exsecrandi Caelestio et Pelagio). The followers of the impia commentatio, if they persisted in their deviation, had to be brought before a judge and, if found guilty, punished with deportation. This law, the first among anti-Pelagian laws, was addressed to the Italian Praetorian Prefect Palladius and has been transmitted in the Collectio Quesnelliana (Coll. Quesnell. 14). The same collectio has preserved the edict that implemented the imperial order (Coll. Quesnell. 15). The debate has focused preferentially around the causes of Honorius’ legislative intervention and less attention has been paid to its consequences. This article analyzes therefore the forms assumed by the enforcement of Honorius’ law and the legislative dynamics that caused the intervention of imperial officials in this implementation. For this purpose, special attention will be paid, on the one hand, to the letter of Flavius Constantius to the urban prefect Volusianus (Coll. Quesnell. 19), probably dating from the autumn of 418, and to the edict of publication of the aforementioned letter by Volusian (Coll. Quesnell. 20).

La inspiración religiosa de la legislación antipelagiana de Honorio transmitida en la Collectio Quesnelliana ha sido objeto de estimulantes estudios que han permitido redefinir los límites de la influencia africana y romana, reconstruir el proceso de creación de la elusiva herejía pelagiana, delimitar la geografía de su expansión y replantear la delicada cuestión de las relaciones de Pelagio con la aristocracia cristiana de Roma1. Sin embargo, la preciosa * Este trabajo forma parte del proyecto de investigación HAR2016-77003-P, financiado por la Agencia Estatal de Investigación. 1 Las leyes imperiales contra el pelagianismo han sido objeto de dos estudios específicos, los de Raúl Villegas Marín, ‘El rescripto antipelagiano de Honorio (Collectio Quesnelliana 14). Nota sobre las relaciones Iglesia-Estado bajo la dinastía teodosiana’, en Emilio Suárez de la Torre, Enrique Pérez Benito (eds), Lex Sacra: Religión y derecho a lo largo de la Historia (Valladolid, 2010), 179-87; y Mar Marcos, ‘Anti-Pelagian Legislation in Context’, en Lex et religio, XL Incontro di Studiosi dell’Antichità Cristiana, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 135 (Roma, 2013), 317-44. Sobre el pelagianismo cf. estudios fundamentales de Peter Brown, ‘Pelagius and his Supporters: Aims and Environment’, JThS 19 (1968), 93-114; id., ‘The Patrons of Pelagius’, en Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine (London, 1972), 208-26; Otto Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius.

Studia Patristica CXX, 7-29. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

8

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

documentación conservada en la Quesnelliana presenta otros aspectos susceptibles de análisis que han merecido una atención menor en el debate historiográfico. En efecto, los textos legislativos compilados en la Collectio proporcionan información sobre los funcionarios implicados en su redacción y difusión, las estrategias del poder imperial para hacer efectivas sus decisiones, las formulaciones retóricas insertas en el lenguaje legal y la importancia de la correspondencia en la administración imperial. También sobre la posibilidad real de encontrar promotores distintos del emperador en las leyes2. Del dossier documental nos interesan los textos relacionados con los trámites administrativos derivados de la emisión y ejecución de la ley de Honorio de 30 de abril de 418 y la implicación del entonces hombre fuerte del régimen, el patricio Flavio Constancio, y funcionarios tales como el prefecto del pretorio Paladio y el praefectus urbi Volusiano. Su análisis permite comprobar que la influencia eclesiástica en la legislación antipelagiana, sin dejar de existir, fue menor de la estimada y que el funcionamiento de la fábrica de leyes obedecía a usos y fines propios, preferentemente políticos, dependientes de una tradición, también en materia religiosa, decenios después de que las resoluciones conciliares hubiesen encontrado lugar en la ley. Se procurará argumentar esta línea de averiguación en dos partes, la primera relacionada con la emisión de la ley y los modos que asume la percepción imperial del conflicto pelagiano desde Rávena y la segunda con su implementación en la medida en que permite comprobar el activismo de Flavio Constancio en la corte de Honorio. 1. El denominado rescriptum de Honorio contra los pelagianos (418): Peticiones y respuesta La Collectio Avellana conserva una epístola enviada por Honorio a Arcadio en 404 para censurar su actuación en el affaire de Juan Crisóstomo en Die theologische Position der römischen Bischöfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411-432 (Stuttgart, 1975); Brinley R. Rees, Pelagius. A Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge, 1988); Jean M. Salamito, Les virtuoses et la multitude. Aspects sociaux de la controverse entre Augustine et les pélagiens (Grenoble, 2005); Winrich Löhr, Pélage et le pélagianisme (Paris, 2015), 17-61. Cf. además, Angelo Di Berardino, ‘Il tardo pelagianesimo e la Collectio Avellana’, en Rita Lizzi Testa, Giulia Marconi (eds), The Collectio Avellana and Its Revivals (Cambridge, 2019), 86-101; Mar Marcos, ‘AntiPelagian Dossiers in Late Antique Canonical Collections’, en ibid. 102-22. 2 Que el emperador deje oír su propia voz en las leyes, habida cuenta de la complejidad del proceso de creación de la ley, no es frecuente, pero tampoco imposible. Constantino, confrontado por primera vez con la necesidad de legislar sobre la herejía, tomó iniciativas personales. Cf. sobre la primera cuestión Tony Honoré, ‘The Making of the Theodosian Code’, ZRG 103 (1986), 133222; sobre la voz de Constantino en las leyes, Jill Harries, ‘Constantine the Lawgiver’, in Scott McGill, Cristiana Sogno, Edward J. Watts (eds), From the Tetrarchs to the Theodosians: Later Roman History and Culture, 284-450 CE (Cambridge, New York, 2010), 73-92; María Victoria Escribano Paño, ‘El edicto de Constantino contra los heréticos: la desviación religiosa como categoría legal’, en Josep Vilella Masana (ed.), Constantino, ¿El primer emperador cristiano? Religión y política en el s. IV (Barcelona, 2015), 377-92.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

9

Constantinopla. En ella recordaba a su hermano en tono admonitorio que in causa religionis competía a los obispos el iudicium y la interpretatio rerum diuinarum, mientras al emperador le correspondía la obediencia sumisa (obsequium), a la vez que afirmaba que la intervención imperial en los asuntos místicos y católicos había sido prematura3. En la misma carta señalaba al obispo de Roma, entonces Inocencio, con sus colegas de Italia, como el árbitro idóneo para dilucidar la disputa4. El contenido de la carta respondía a los intereses de los partidarios del Crisóstomo trasladados a Roma y probablemente su contenido había sido compartido con el obispo de la ciudad5, que estaría detrás de las noticias y rumores que habían llegado a los oídos del entorno del Augusto y motivado la carta6. Sin embargo, la política de la corte de Honorio no siempre fue coherente con esta principio de no intervención y actuó en función de las circunstancias e intereses, sin descuidar los instrumentos de legitimación que podían poner de manifiesto el favor divino. Distintas leyes emitidas por la cancillería de Honorio aluden de manera directa o sobrentendida a las peticiones episcopales que habían dado motivo para la injerencia imperial en asuntos eclesiásticos. Además de justificar la ocasión de la ley, al apuntar a los inspiradores se dejaba constancia de la piedad del emperador y de su alianza con los medios eclesiásticos, en correspondencia con la propaganda oficial que establecía una correlación entre la paz pública y la devoción del emperador7. Éste contribuía con sus 3 Coll. Avell. 38, 4-5: … cum si quid de causa religionis inter antistes ageretur, episcopale oportuerit esse iudicium? Ad illos enim diuinarum rerum interpretatio, ad nos religionis spectat obsequium. Sed esto, sibi de mysticis et catholicis quaestionibus amplius aliquid principalis cura praesumpserit. 4 Coll. Avell. 38, 8. 5 Sobre los partidarios del Crisóstomo que viajaron a Roma y presentaron sus peticiones ante Inocencio durante el 404, cf. Geoffrey Dunn, ‘Roman Primacy in the Correspondence between Innocent I and John Chrysostom’, en Giovanni Crisostomo. Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo, XXXIII Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 93/2 (Roma, 2005), 687-98, 695. El mismo Juan escribió a Inocencio I solicitando ayuda después de la Pascua de 404, antes de su deposición final: Pallad. Dial. 2, 78 (Anne-Marie Malingrey [ed.], Palladios: Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, SC 342 [Paris, 1988], 100-2). Cf. sobre estas cuestiones Émilienne Demougeot, ‘À propos des interventions du pape Innocent Ier dans la politique séculière’, Revue Historique 212 (1954), 23-38; Charles Pietri, Roma Christiana: recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311-440) (Rome, 1976), II 1310-25 y Alan Cameron, Jacqueline Long, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Berkeley, 1993), 249-50. 6 Coll. Avell. 38, 1: Quamuis super imagine muliebri nouo exemplo per prouincias circumlata et diffusa per uniuersum orbem obtrectantium fama litteris alii commonouerim, ut talis facti paenitentia et intermissione propositi rumor aemulus consenescat et, quod in moribus temporum carpat, publica lingua non habeat. 7 Sobre el vínculo operativo entre el compromiso personal del Honorio con la fe católica y su legislación, sobre todo a partir de su establecimiento en Rávena. Cf. Chris Doyle, Honorius, The Fight for the Roman West AD 395-423 (London, New York, 2019), 155-62. Por su parte Tony Honoré, Law in the Crisis of Empire, 379-455 AD: The Theodosian Dynasty and Its Quaestors (Oxford, 1998), 228, apunta a la coincidencia entre las crisis militares bajo Honorio y la proliferación

10

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

leyes a garantizar la protección divina sobre el Imperio en un tiempo crítico por la amenazas internas y externas, no obstante, cumplidas8. La referencia a obispos como peticionarios de leyes antiheréticas se había hecho explícita, bajo el régimen de Estilicón, en la ley dirigida contra Joviniano y sus seguidores en 398 (CTh 16,5,53). En el extracto conservado en el Codex Theodosianus se alude a la ratio que había dado lugar a la ley: la querella9 presentada por episcopi no identificados en la que denunciaban ante el emperador que Joviniano celebraba reuniones sacrílegas extra muros de la que se denomina urbs sacratissima. Pese a que en las primeras leyes se había confirmado la legislación de Teodosio I en materia eclesiástica10, que sólo en contadas ocasiones había optado por la deportatio de heréticos11, se impuso al monje Joviniano esta severa forma de exilio, seis años después de que sus prácticas hubiesen sido vetadas como heréticas en dos concilios en Roma y Milán y se hubiese lanzado contra él y sus seguidores la sospecha de maniqueísmo12. Sin embargo, el emperador se reservaba la auctoritas asociada a la facultad de legislar y no identificaba a los obispos que habían presentado la querella, que en este caso probablemente había sido Siricio de Roma13. En esta misma línea, y como es sabido, las iniciativas episcopales y conciliares, mediante cartas y embajadas, ante los funcionarios implicados en la de leyes a favor de la iglesia. El Codex Theodosianus, y en particular el libro XVI dedicado a cuestiones religiosas, recoge una parte selecta de la intensa actividad legislativa de las oficinas de Honorio en esta materia. Cf. cuadro resumen de Roland Delmaire, Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin à Théodose II, I, Codex Theodosianus XVI (Paris, 2005), 45-51. Sobre su legislación como parte de la función religiosa y ceremonial del emperador, Meaghan A. McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367-455 (Cambridge, 2013), 208-10. 8 Cf. análisis de Ch. Doyle, Honorius (2019), 84-130, sobre las respuestas militares a la crisis gildónica en África y la presión goda. 9 Con el término querella se designa el procedimiento de denuncia, acusación y reclamación. Cf. Hermann G. Heumann, Handlexicon zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts (Jena, 1891), 443. Cf. CTh 16,2,12 (392); CTh 16,8,8 (392). 10 CTh 16,2,29 (395); 16,2,30 (397). 11 Lo hizo, por ejemplo, en el caso de Eunomio de Cízico, pero sólo cuando decubrió la infiltración de eunomianos entre los eunucos de palacio. Cf. Richard P. Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford, 2000), 358 ss.; María Victoria Escribano Paño, ‘Disidencia doctrinal y marginación geográfica en el s. IV d. C.: los exilios de Eunomio de Cízico’, Athenaeum 94 (2006), 231-60. 12 La doble condena episcopal de Joviniano y sus seguidores promovidas por Siricius en Roma y Ambrosio en Milán, había sucedido en 393 y la conocemos gracias a dos epístolas cruzadas entre ambos obispos transmitidas en el epistolario ambrosiano. La ep. 7 (Maur. 41a) de Siricius, dirigida a diuersis episcopis, pero en realidad a Ambrosio, y la respuesta de éste en la epístola extra collectionem 15 (Maur. 42). Siricius, Ep. 7 (Maur. 41a), 6 menciona los nombres de los seguidores. Siricius también es el destinatario de las epístolas 41 (Maur. 86) y 46 (Maur. 85) de Ambrosio. 13 Cf. argumentos a favor de la identificación en MaríaVictoria Escribano Paño, ‘Superstitiosa coniuratio soluatur: Jovinian’s Exile in Cod. Thds. 16.5,53 (398)’, en Dirk Rohmann, Jörg Ulrich, Margarita Vallejo (eds), Mobility and Exile at the End of Antiquity, Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 19 (Berlin, 2018), 69-90.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

11

función legislativa también había sido decisiva en la legislación antidonatista de la cancillería de Honorio antes y después de la caída del poderoso magister militum14. De hecho, el 14 de noviembre de 408 Honorio dirigió a Olimpio, un convicto cristiano y probablemente el inspirador del texto15, ascendido a magister officiorum una vez desaparecido Estilicón, una ley por la que se excluía de la militia intra palatium a todos los enemigos de la secta catholica, con el argumento de que quienes disentían de la fides catholica no podían colaborar en el servicio imperial (CTh 16,5,42 [408]). El compromiso imperial con la fe católica se hacía público en un texto normativo y nadie que estuviese en desacuerdo con el emperador en materia de fides y religio podía ser asociado con él. Los compiladores que conservaron esta parte del texto extractada incluyeron la constituto bajo el título de haereticis del libro XVI del Codex Theodosianus, lo que significa que la parte de la ley no conservada trataba de ellos. Se hacía incompatible la profesión de herejía con el servicio imperial y al contrario, ser católico era requisito indispensable para ser admitido en la militia. La Sirmondiana 14 ejemplifica esta interacción entre los obispos y la corte de Honorio como elemento fundamental en la formación de la voluntad imperial expresada en leyes. Fue emitida en Rávena el 15 de enero de 40916 y está dirigida a Teodoro17, prefecto del pretorio de Italia, Ilírico y África. Según se indica en el preámbulo, la occasio legis vino determinada por la violencia ejercida contra la religio christiana en distintas ciudades de la provincia de África y la falta de castigo contra sus autores a causa de la coniuentia y la negligencia (dissimulatio) culpable de los jueces. El emperador había descubierto los hechos, que desconocía, mediante testificatio publica y un memorandum (addiscimus, conperimus, memoratur) e indica que habían sido los obispos víctimas de las iniuriae los que, ante la pasividad de los iudices, habían tenido que pedir el castigo de los responsables (ut episcopi suas persequerentur iniurias et reorum nece desposcerent ultionem). Tres legados conciliares y el obispo Posidio se habían trasladado a Rávena en la segunda mitad de 408 para solicitar 14 Cf. análisis de Paola Marone, ‘Some Observations on the Anti-Donatist Legislation’, en Anthony Dupont, Mattew A. Gaumer, Mathijs Lamberigts (eds), The Uniquely African Controversy. Studies on Donatist Christianity (Leuven, Paris, Bristol, CT, 2015), 71-84, 75-7 y Noel Lenski, ‘Imperial legislation and the Donatist Controversy: From Constantine to Honorius’, en Richard Miles (ed.), The Donatist Schism, Controversy and Contexts (Liverpool, 2016), 166219, 180. Sobre la influencia eclesiástica en el edicto de Honorio de 405 cf. Carles Buenacasa, R. Villegas, ‘Agustín, autor intelectual del edicto de unión de 405’, en Lex et religio in età tardoantica, XL Incontro de Studiosi dell’Antichità Cristiana, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 135 (Roma, 2013), 617-45. 15 PLRE II, Olympius 2, 801-2; Aug., Ep. 96,1: sincerissimus conservus noster (…) Christianus. La constitutio también tiene como destinatario al comes domesticorum Valente. 16 La fecha de 412 transmitida en la Collectio ha sido trasladada a 409, cf. Roland Delmaire, Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin à Théodose II, II, Code Théodosien I-XV, Code Justinien, Constitutions Sirmondiennes (Paris, 2009), 530. 17 PLRE II, Theodorus 9, 1086-7. Cf. Sirm 9 y 16.

12

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

la ayuda imperial por medio de leyes. Antes de que llegasen los legados y para agilizar la emisión de una ley ad hoc Agustín de Hipona había hecho llegar una epistula (Ep. 97) y un commonitorium al magister officiorum Olimpio18. La Sirmondiana 14 pueder ser considerada como la respuesta a las legaciones episcopales y a la petición de Agustín, pero la iniciativa del influyente magister officiorum habría sido determinante19. Las delegaciones conciliares a la corte con el fin de obtener pronunciamientos favorables se hicieron tan frecuentes bajo Honorio que Inocencio I, probablemente por petición del entorno imperial, pero también por interés propio, decidió interponer como filtro la instancia papal y reguló que los emisarios eclesiásticos que pretendiesen presentar una petición a la corte, previamente debían exponer el caso ante él20. También el concilio de Cartago de 407 había decidido que los obispos que pretendieran una audiencia imperial, antes de dirigirse al emperador, debían estar en posesión del documento de autorización dado por el concilio o por el primado provincial, que después había de ser ratificado por el titular de la sede de Roma21. En realidad, ya el concilio de Sárdica (342/343) había intentado crear normas sobre las relaciones entre los obispos y la corte limitando el acceso directo mediante la introducción de controles intermedios para evitar inoportunas visitas, el último de los cuales era el visto bueno del obispo de la ciudad-sede del emperador22. Estas cautelas indican que las negociaciones entre la corte y los obispos no siempre tuvieron éxito, y que no en todos los casos se puede establecer una relación directa entre las medidas imperiales y las legationes y litterae episcopales23. Disponemos de un breve pero elocuente dossier documental compuesto por las 18 Cf. Erika Hermanowicz, ‘Catholic Bishops and Appeals to the Imperial Court: A Legal Study of the Calama Riots in 408’, JECS 12 (2004), 483-523. 19 Así lo hemos argumentado en MaríaVictoria Escribano Paño, ‘Bishops, Judges and Emperors: CTh 16.2.31/CTh 16.5.46/Sirm 14 (409)’, en Andrew Fear, José Fernández Ubiña, Mar Marcos (eds), The Role of the Bishop in Late Antiquity, Conflict and Compromise (London, New York, 2013), 105-26. 20 Concilia Africae 94. Cf. Erika Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama: A Study of the North African Episcopate in the Age of Augustine (Oxford, 2008), 149, n. 47. 21 Ibid. 170, n. 43. 22 El canon 5 Turner (8 Hess) establecía que un obispo sólo podía acudir a la corte tras ser convocado o invitado mediante carta; el canon 6 Turner (9 Hess) se mostraba todavía más restrictivo al establecer que sólo el diácono y no el obispo podría presentarse ante el comitatus. Previamente el diácono debía presentarse al metropolita de la provincia eclesiástica a la que perteneciese; tras examinar y aprobar la visita, éste redactaría una carta de recomendación que enviaría al obispo de la ciudad en la que residía el emperador. Sólo entonces el diácono, podría pedir audiencia al emperador en representación de su obispo. Se trataba de disuadir mediante un procedimiento largo no exento de dificultades. Cf. sobre estas cuestiones y la tradición manuscrita de los cánones conciliares de Turner y Hess Rita Lizzi Testa, ‘Ambroise de Milan et la cour au IVe siècle: entre mythes historiographiques et réalité’, en Sylvain Destephen (ed.), L’évêque de cour. Figure politique, figure polémique (Paris, 2017), 65-90. 23 Cf. recensión de Neil B. McLynn, al libro de E. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama (2008), en AnTard 17 (2009), 435-7.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

13

epístolas dirigidas por Agustín a los representantes de la autoridad imperial24 que muestran cómo y cuándo procuró ejercer su función episcopal interviniendo en la aplicación de las leyes contra los donatistas a partir de 405, una vez que estos fueron catalogados como heréticos por el nomen de forma explícita por Honorio25 y tras la conferencia de Cartago de 41126. El tenor de las epístolas obliga a reconsiderar la dimensión de la influencia eclesiástica en las leyes imperiales y a abordarla de manera casuística. La ley de Honorio de 30 de abril de 418 que condenaba la doctrina pelagiana y ordenaba la expulsión de Roma de Pelagio y Celestio27 también seguía el iudicium episcopal. Así consta, no en la ley, que como las anteriores leyes comentadas deja en el anonimato a los inspiradores, pero sí en la epístola de Honorio a Aurelio, obispo de Cartago de 9 de junio de 419, de la que se enviaba una copia a Agustín de Hipona28. Sin embargo, en este caso, el dossier documental preservado en la Quesnelliana, que permite seguir el iter legislativo desde la emisión hasta la aplicación de la ley, apunta a la implicación directa del que era entonces la figura prominente del régimen desde su matrimonio con Gala Placidia29 en 417, Flavio Constancio, en la efectiva dación y ejecución de la norma en Roma. En efecto, no sólo se conserva el edicto del prefecto del pretorio de Italia, Africa e Ilírico destinatario de la ley30, también la documentación extraordinaria generada por la epístola de Flavio Constancio al praefectus urbi Volusiano con el mandato expreso de alejar a los pelagianos de la ciudad31, y el edicto de Volusiano por el que se hacían públicas las órdenes de Constancio mediante propositio32.

24 Son las epístolas 86, 97, 100, 133, 134 y 139. La relación entre Agustín y representantes del poder imperial ha sido un tema de interés en la historiografía reciente, imponiéndose una visión mimimalista de la real influencia política del obispo: Neil B. McLynn, ‘Augustine’s Roman Empire’, Augustinian Studies 30 (1999), 29-44; Brent D. Shaw, ‘Augustine and Men of Imperial Power’, Journal of Late Antiquity 8 (2015), 32-61; María Victoria Escribano Paño, ‘Legenda sunt gesta ad sanandas animas: leyes, juicios y actas para la correctio de los donatistas en Agustín de Hipona’, AnTard 25 (2017), 287-301. 25 Los compiladores del Codex Theodosianus recogen cuatro leyes datadas el 12 de febrero de 405: CTh 16,6,3; 6,4 (edicto de unión); 6,5; y 5,38. 26 Edictum cognitoris, Serge Lancel, Actes de la conférence de Carthage de 411, III (Paris, 1975), 972-9. Cf. CTh 16,11,3 (410); 16,5,52 (415). 27 Coll. Quesnell. 14 (PL 56, 490-2). 28 Coll. Quesnell. 16 (PL 56, 493-4): Imperatores Honorius et Theodosius Augusti, Aurelio episcopo, salutem. 1. Dudum quidem fuerat constitutum ut Pelagius atque Celestius infandi dogmatis repertores ab urbe Roma, uelut quaedam catholicae ueritatis contagia, pellerentur, ne ignorantium mentes scaeua persuasione peruerterent. In quo secuta est clementia nostra iudicium Sanctitatis tuae, quo constat eos ab uniuersis iusta sententiae examinatione damnatos… Eodem tenore etiam ad sanctum Augustinum episcopum data. 29 PLRE II, Aelia Galla Placidia 4, 888-9. 30 Coll. Quesnell. 15 (PL 56, 492-3). 31 Coll. Quesnell. 19 (PL 56, 499-500). 32 Coll. Quesnell. 20 (PL 56, 500; 5).

14

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

Por lo que se refiere a la ley33, asume la forma estandarizada de comunicación del emperador con el prefecto del pretorio en materia de legislación antiherética y, al transmitirse al margen del Codex Theodosianus, no ha sido objeto de manipulaciones editoriales, por lo que se puede comprobar un elaborado esfuerzo de autojustificación imperial en el preámbulo, al que siguen las cláusulas dispositivas y la orden de difusión. El emperador intervenía en razón de la información que había llegado a sus oídos, información envuelta en la indefinición de expresiones como peruulgata opinio o recens fama, sobre el surgimiento de una nueva disensión entre los católicos cuyos autores eran Pelagio y Celestio. Los encargados de elaborar la ley intensifican la gravedad del que califican como novum crimen utilizando un repertorio conceptual denigrante y recurriendo a asociaciones agravantes del delito como eran la falsedad y el engaño. Aunque la categoría acusatoria de haereticus no se menciona en la ley34, el vocabulario, las metáforas, todas las estrategias de exclusión que componen el discurso heresiológico imperial y que son habituales en la legislación antiherética desde el edicto de Constantino de 32635 comparecen en la ley y apuntan a esta consideración implícita, que, además, había sido establecida por los oponentes de Pelagio en los concilios de Cartago y Milevi de 416 y por Inocencio I a comienzos de 417, si bien su sucesor Zósimo modificó su juicio exculpándolos en el verano-otoño del mismo año, ratificándose en la misma postura en su epístola a los obispos africanos de 21 de marzo de 41836, cuando ya el proceso legislativo probablemente estaba en marcha. La discordancia entre Inocencio y Zósimo a propósito del carácter herético de la teología pelagiana y la petición de definición taxativa por parte de los africanos puede explicar la incorporación de las principales tesis pelagianas al 33 Cf. resumen de su contexto en M. Marcos, ‘Anti-Pelagian Dossiers in Late Antique Canonical Collections’ (2013), 318-23. 34 Ibid. 324, que señala cómo el término haeresis era habitual entre los oponentes de Pelagio. 35 Hemos tratado la retórica de la denigración y sus recursos en María Victoria Escribano Paño, ‘La construction de l’image de l’hérétique dans le Code Théodosien XVI’, en Jean N. Guinot, François Richard (eds), Empire chrétien et Église au IVe et Ve siècles. Intégration ou “concordat”? Le témoignage du Code Théodosien (Paris, 2008), 389-412; ead., El edicto de Constantino (2015), 377-92. Cf. además, Richard Flower, ‘The insanity of heretics must be restrained: heresiology in the Theodosian Code’, en Christopher Kelly (ed.), Theodosius II Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 2013), 172-94; Alain Le Boulluec, ‘L’hérésie d’après le Code Théodosien (XVI): l’aggravation d’un grief’, en Christian Brouwer, Guillaume Dye, Anja Van Rompaey (eds), Hérésies: une construction d’identités religieuses (Bruxelles, 2015), 15-26. 36 Conc. Cartgh. a. 416, Aug., Ep. 175,1; Conc. Milevit. a. 416, Aug., Ep. 176,2; decisión del papa Inocencio I confirmando la excomunión de los heréticos decidida por los africanos: Innoc. I, Ep. 182,6-7. Tibia reacción por parte del papa Zósimo rectificando la postura inicial de la sede romana: Zos., Ep. 2 (Coll. Avell. 45); Ep. 3 (Coll. Avell. 46); Ep. 12 (Coll. Avell. 50). Cf. sobre estas cuestiones R. Villegas, ‘El rescripto antipelagiano’ (2010), 180-1; Geoffrey D. Dunn, ‘Did Zosimus Caelestius?’, en Lex et religio in eta tardoantica, XL incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 135 (Roma, 2013), 647-56, donde argumenta que Zósimo no perdonó a Celestio, pero le exoneró.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

15

tenor de la ley, aunque trasladadas con poco rigor y no confrontadas con la autoridad del credo de Nicea37. Con Teodosio, en 381, el credo niceno se había incorporado al texto legislativo38, pero la desviación del nicenismo era descrita en sus prácticas (reuniones privadas, ordenación ilícita de clérigos, posesión de iglesias) o asimilada con iniciativas perturbadoras para el orden social (coniuratio, conspiratio, infamia, praeuaricatio, perfidia, crimen, scelus, maleficium), lo que facilitaba la aplicación del castigo previsto para estos delitos en la legislación tradicional39. La ley, habitualmente, no daba publicidad a los dogmas heréticos. En este caso, el legislador no busca la precisión teológica, sino desautorizar la palabra de Pelagio y Celestio y, dado que entre los pelagianos había clérigos y laicos y su condición herética era debatida en medios eclesiásticos, se trataba de fijar y justificar la posición imperial en la línea asumida por Inocencio I y reivindicada por los africanos40. La parte retórica y penal de la ley se aviene con los módulos tradicionales de la legislación antiherética: se utiliza la metáfora médica para equiparar las enseñanzas censuradas con un pestiferum uirus, se singulariza Roma como el lugar con mayor incidencia del contagio y de mayor interés para el legislador, y, como era habitual desde Constantino, se impone la solución quirúrgica de amputar los miembros enfermos mediante el alejamiento forzoso41. Sin embargo, se establece una diferencia entre los capites dogmatis y sus seguidores: a los primeros, a los que se identifica por su nombre en el texto de la ley, como se había hecho con Joviniano, se les expulsa de la ciudad, lo que permitía la libre circulación fuera de los límites de la urbs y no era irreversible42; a sus prosélitos se les amenaza con la deportatio a la vez que se abre a cualquiera la posibilidad de acusarlos ante el juez competente en concordancia con la 37 Cf. Ch. Pietri, Roma Christiana (1976), 935, sobre las imprecisiones teológicas de la ley. Cf. W. Löhr, Pélage (2015), 171-214. 38 CTh 16,1,2 (380); 5,6 (381); 1,3 (381). 39 La lista de comparaciones o asimilaciones puede leerse en R. Delmaire, Les lois religieuses (2005), 73. 40 O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 199-203. 41 De acuerdo con la analogía establecida entre la herejía y la enfermedad, la imposición de la remoción forzosa se agravaba con la retórica de la erradicación, extirpación y escisión concordes con la dimensión execratoria, además de normativa, de la ley. Cf. Eric Fournier, ‘Amputation metaphors and the rhetoric of exile: Purity and pollution in late Christianity’, en Julia Hillner, Jörg Ulrich, Jacob Engberg (eds), Clerical Exile in Late Antiquity (Frankfurt, 2016), 231-49. 42 La forma más leve y frecuente de exilio clerical era la expulsión de las ciudades, sobre todo el desalojo de Roma y Constantinopla, expresada con los verbos pellere, expellere, segregare, scludere; CTh 16,5,7 (381): … a conspectu celebri civitate (Constantinopla), penitus coherceantur; 16,5,18 (389): … de hac urbe (Roma), pellantur sub interminatione iudicii; 16,5,29 (395): … extra moenia urbis huiusce iubebis arceri; 16,5,30 (396): omnes clerici haereticorum ex sacratissima urbe pellantur neque his finibus liceat conuenire (Constantinopla); 16,5,32 (396): de ciuitatibus pellantur extorres et humanis coetibus segregentur; 16,5,34 (398): consortio uel conuersatione ciuitatum uniuersarum adque urbium expellantur), que implicaba la prohibición de residir en una ciudad determinada, pero los heréticos eran libres de ir donde quisieran.

16

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

conceptuación de la noua uersutia como crimen publicum. Se recurría al terror para disuadir y evitar la división y discordia43 en los medios aristocráticos en los que habían resultado atrayentes las ideas de Pelagio44, aunque no se prohíben las reuniones en domus urbanas u otros lugares, un veto constante en las leyes antiheréticas45. En efecto, la deportatio comportaba el confinamiento en lugares aislados a perpetuidad e iba acompañada de la proscriptio, es decir, de la confiscación de los bienes y la pérdida de los derechos cívicos46. De la comparación entre la prohibición de residir en la ciudad impuesta a Pelagio, que en 418 residía en Palestina47, y Celestio, entonces en Roma48, a quien bastaba con ocultarse o huir para eludir la ley, y la deportación a perpetuidad con sus secuelas económicas y políticas emerge la verdadera finalidad y sentido de la ley: no tanto evitar el disenso teológico, cuanto la discordia social y eclesiástica y sus efectos disgregadores. Desde Rávena, donde residía la corte desde 40249, tras abandonar Milán, se trataba de preservar la paz pública en Roma, que había sido ocupada por dos usurpadores50 y después de 408 sólo había sido visitada dos veces por Honorio, una en 414 y otra en 41651. La función del emperador, aunque fuese cristiano, no era la de un obispo y el mantenimiento del orden público y evitar los conflictos internos, más aún en la Vrbs sacratissima, 43 Coll. Quesnell. 14, 3: Siquidem aures mansuetudinis nostrae recens fama perstrinxerat intra sacratissimam urbem nostram, aliaque loca, ita pestiferum uirus quorundam inoleuisse pectoribus, ut interrupto directae credulitatis tramite, scissis in partes studiis asserendi, materia impacatae dissensionis inducta sit: nouoque scandali fomite concitato beatissimae ecclesiae actu nutet attentata tranquillitas: aliis aliud ancipiti interpretatione sectantibus, et cum sit absoluta sanctorum apicum claritas, ac dilucide, quid sequi uniuersitas debeat, explanans, pro captu uersipellis ingenii nouorum ausuum profanam mouentibus quaestionem, Palladi parens carissime atque amantissime. 44 P. Brown, ‘The Patrons of Pelagius’ (1972), 208-26; M. Marcos, ‘Anti-Pelagian Dossiers in Late Antique Canonical Collections’ (2013), 324-5. 45 Cf. Henry O. Maier, ‘The Topography of Heresy and Dissent in Late Fourth-Century Rome’, Historia 44 (1995), 231-49; María Victoria Escribano Paño, ‘In aliis locis uiuant: la topografía de los heréticos en Codex Theodosianus 16,5’, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 85 (2019), 22-42, 22-8. 46 Se diferencia del exilio temporal o relegatio, que comportaba el traslado obligatorio con escolta a un lugar determinado, cuya dureza (isla, oasis, ciudad) era variable. Cf. Roland Delmaire, ‘Exil, relégation, déportation dans la législation du Bas-Empire’, en Philippe Blaudeau (ed.), Exil et relégation. Les tribulations du sage et du saint durant l’Antiquité romaine et chrétienne (Ier-Ve s. ap. J.-C.) (Paris, 2008), 115-32. 47 Sobre la estancia de Pelagio en Palestina W. Löhr, Pélage (2015), 39-44. 48 Coll. Avell. 47. 49 CTh 7,13,15 (402) dirigida al praefectus urbi Decius. 50 Priscus Attalus en 409: Zos. 6,7,1-4; el comes Africae Heraclianus en 412: Oros. 7,42,12-4; Marcell., Com. Chron. s.a. 413. Cf. Ch. Doyle, Honorius (2019), 142-49. 51 CTh 16,5,5.30 de agosto de 414 (atestiguado en Rávena el 8 agosto y el 17 de septiembre); en mayo de 416 en Roma, triunfo sobre Attalus, Prosp. Tiro. Chron., 1263.s.a. 417; Philostorg., Hist. eccl. 12,5 (atestiguado en Rávena el 3 de mayo y el 4 de julio). Cf. Valerio Neri, ‘Verso Ravenna capitale: Roma, Ravenna e le residenze imperiali tardo-antichi’, in G. Susini (ed.), Storia di Ravenna I, L’Evo antico (Ravenna, 1990), 535-84; Andrew Gillet, ‘Roma, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors’, Papers of the British School at Rome 69 (2001), 131-67.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

17

formaban parte primordial de sus obligaciones52, para cuyo cumplimiento los pronunciamientos normativos podían ser un instrumento de disuasión decisivo. Proteger Roma era una señal de legitimidad53. Está dirigida al prefecto del pretorio de Italia, Africa e Ilírico, Paladio, con amplia experiencia administrativa y cónsul en 41654, que procedió a emitir el edicto prefectural incorporando a la inscriptio de la orden a sus colegas de Oriente y Galias, Monaxius55 y Agricola56, respectivamente. Mucho más breve que la ley, cuyo contenido extracta, revela, en el criterio de selección, los intereses y competencias de los prefectos del pretorio en el ámbito legislativo de acuerdo con los usos habituales57. La brevedad y claridad del texto, desprovisto de elementos ambiguos o innecesarios, presenta concomitancias con los excerpta resultantes de la labor editorial que habrían de aplicar los compiladores del Codex Theodosianus unos años después en cumplimiento de las instrucciones recibidas de Teodosio II, a las que parecen adelantarse58, puesto que el edicto prefectural no sólo abrevia y clarifica, también se añaden contenidos cualitativamente estimables. Se atiende a la dimensión penal de la ley, conservando la diferencia entre los líderes y los partidarios, pero con cambios sustantivos. Menciona la cláusula de expulsión de la uenerabilis urbs59 de Pelagio y Celestio por decisión imperial (principalis sententia), pero añadiendo una aclaración que confería a la orden un significado antiherético: se les expulsaba también de la asamblea de los buenos, bonorum concilio60, una expresión similar a la que figuraba en una ley 52 Herbert Inglebert, ‘Introduction’, en Sylvain Destephen, Bruno Dumézil, Hervé Inglebert (eds), Le prince chrétien de Constantin aux Royautés barbares (IVe-VIIIe siècles) (Paris, 2018), XVIII. 53 Cf. desarrollo de estos argumentos en Hans Lejdegard, Honorius and the City of Rome: Authority and Legitimacy in Late Antiquity (Upsala, 2002), 30-8, 79-84. Cf. Alan D.E. Cameron, Claudian. Poetry and propaganda at the court of Honorius (Oxford, 1970) 384-6; Catherine Ware, Claudian and the Roman epic tradition (Cambridge, 2012). 54 PLRE II, Fl. Iunius Quartus Palladius 19, 822-4. Sobre su cursus AE 1928, 80. Del año 418 se han transmitido siete leyes según apunta T. Honoré, Law in the Crisis (1998), 242. Además de la mencionada Palladius recibió otras tres constitutiones conservadas en el Codex Theodosianus en 418: CTh 16,8,24 (marzo); 4,4,6 (junio) y 11,28,12 (noviembre). Sólo la de 30 de abril y la anterior de 10 de marzo, por la que se prohibía a los judíos servir en la militia armata, tratan de cuestiones religiosas. 55 PLRE II, Fl Monaxius, 764-5. 56 PLRE II, Agricola 1, 36-7. 57 Cf. Simon Corcoran, ‘State correspondence in the Roman empire: imperial communication from Augustus to Justinian’, en Karen Radner (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World from New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire (New York, 2014), 172-209. 58 CTh 1,1,6 (435): Quod ut breuitate constrictum claritate luceat, adgressuris hoc opus et demendi superuacanea uerba et adiciendi necessaria et demutandi ambigua et emendandi incongrua tribuimus potestatem, scilicet ut his modis unaquaeque inlustrata constitutio emineat. 59 CTh 14,15,4 (398): Roma es urbs uenerabilis; 14,10,4 (416): urbs sacratissima. 60 Coll. Quesnell. 15: Exemplar edicti Iunii Quarti Palladii Iunius Quartus Palladius, Monaxius, et Agricola iterum, praefecti praetorio, edixerunt. In Pelagium atque Caelestium catholici dogmatis

18

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

teodosiana de 384 por la que se ordenaba expulsar de Constantinopla a Eunomianos, Macedonianos, Arrianos y Apolinarianos61. A continuación se indica la razón del alejamiento de Roma: eran los destructores de la fides del dogma católico a través de discusiones siniestras (tractatus scaeuii). La referencia a los que se sintiesen tentados de prestar asenso a esta perversión se formula en clave preventiva advirtiéndoles que pueden ser objeto del mismo castigo y describiendo en su detalle las consecuencias de la deportación: el plebeius – en lugar de laicus – y el clericus que incurriesen en la desviación podrían ser conducidos ante el juez, acusado por cualquiera y sufrir las penas de confiscación de sus bienes e irrevocable exilio. Además de hacer explícita la amenaza de pobreza, el laicus de la lex se cambia por pebleius. En una ley antidonatista de la cancillería de Rávena de 30 de enero de 415 se habían utilizado ambos términos con distinto significado; mientras laicus aludía a toda persona que no era ni sacerdote ni clericus (donatistae tam sacerdotes quam clerici laicique), plebeius se refería a una categoría inferior en la jerarquía social que reproduce la ley (spectabiles, senatores, clarissimi, sacerdotales, principales, decuriones, negotiatores, plebei, circumcelliones)62. ¿La sustitución de laicus por plebeius implicaba concentrar la posibilidad del castigo en estos sectores que podían ser los que provocasen desórdenes públicos como consecuencia de las discusiones siniestras o respondía a una simple variación estilística? La primera interpretación gana fuerza si se atiende al colofón del edicto prefectural: pese a su obligada brevedad, añadía que se causaba iniuria al emperador y no se honraba su maiestas cuando se adoptaba una inepta disputatio63, es decir, se le ofendía mediante palabras. La iniuria verbal al emperador entraba en el crimen maiestatis desde Tiberio64. Teodosio, que consideraba sacrilegium violar las leyes imperiales65, en 393 había definido por ley la ofensa verbal dirigida contra el emperador, fidem scaeuis tractatibus destruentes sententia principalis incaluit, ut uenerabili urbe submoti bonorum concilio mulctarentur. 61 Cf. CTh 16,5,13 (384): In aliis locis uiuant ac penitus a bonorum congressibus separentur. 62 CTh 16,5,52 (415): Idem AA. Seleuco praefecto praetorio. … nisi ex die prolatae legis omnes donatistae, tam sacerdotes quam clerici laicique, catholicae se, a qua sacrilege desciuere, reddiderint, tunc illustres singillatim poenae nomine fisco nostro auri pondo quinquaginta cogantur inferre, spectabiles auri pondo quadraginta, senatores auri pondo triginta, clarissimi auri pondo uiginti, sacerdotales auri pondo triginta, principales auri pondo uiginti, decuriones auri pondo quinque, negotiatores auri pondo quinque, plebei auri pondo quinque, circumcelliones argenti pondo decem… 63 Coll. Quesnell. 15: Nam superna maiestas, ut colligit ex secreti ignoratione reuerentiam, ita ex ineptae disputationis iniuriam. 64 Tac., Ann. 1,72. Cf. Cecil W. Chilton, ‘The Roman Law of Treason under the Early Principate’, JRS 45 (1955), 73-81; Esteban Moreno Resano, ‘De la injuria al sacrilegio: la ofensa al emperador de Augusto a Teodosio II’, Clio&Crimen 13 (2016), 11-30. 65 CTh 6,35,13 (386): Hoc autem generale decretum si quis temeraria usurpatione uiolare temptauerit, sacrilegii reus legibus censeatur. CTh. 16,4,4 (404): Cuncta officia moneantur a tumultuosis se conuenticulis abstinere, et qui sacrilego animo auctoritatem nostri numinis ausi fuerant expugnare, priuati cingulo bonorum proscriptione multentur. (…) Constantinopoli.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

19

mostrándose clemente con los responsables, pero reservándose la decisión de castigar: ordenaba que le fuesen comunicados los casos surgidos, con toda la información, para decidir personalmente si los responsables de la injuria verbal debían ser exonerados o penados. En cualquier caso, las causas caían directamente bajo la jurisdicción imperial66. 2. ¿Flavio Constancio autor de la ley? La aplicación de las leyes siempre es selectiva. En el caso de la remoción forzosa dejaba un amplio margen para su interpretación e implementación por parte de los funcionarios responsables67, que no siempre mostraban la diligencia debida, menos aún cuando la materia legislada era religiosa, como prueban las severas advertencias vertidas en el colofón de muchas de las leyes compiladas en el libro XVI del Codex Theodosianus68. En el caso de Roma, correspondía al prefecto urbano y a su officium proceder a la expulsión de Celestio y a poner en marcha los procedimientos descritos en la ley y en el edicto de Paladio. Sin embargo, debía cumplirse un requisito previo. Desde Constantino, revalidado en este punto por Teodosio, eran los obispos los que debían establecer la ortodoxia o heterodoxia de sus fieles mediante la admisión o exclusión de la communio69. Al rectificar en el verano de 418 y condenar de manera inequívoca la doctrina de Pelagio, el papa Zósimo facilitó la aplicación de la ley, pero también la reacción de los pelagianos que acusaron al papa y al clero romano de haberse dejado influir por el edicto imperial, probablemente instigados por Celestio que permanecía oculto en la ciudad desobedeciendo el mandato imperial y el papal70 y fomentando la división y confrontación entre pelagianos y antipelagianos, incluida la parte clerical. 66

CTh 9,4,1: Imppp. Theodosius, Arcadius et Honorius AAA. Rufino praefecto praetorio. (…) Unde integris omnibus ad nostram scientiam referatur, ut ex personis hominum dicta pensemus et, utrum praetermitti an exequi rite debeat, censeamus. Dat. V id. aug. Constantinopoli Theodosio a. III et Abundantio v. c. conss. (393 aug. 9). 67 Sobre las autoridades y funcionarios responsables de la implementación del exilio cf. Daniel A. Washburn, Banishment in the Later Roman Empire: 284-476 CE (New York, 2013), 65-97; Rita Lizzi Testa, ‘Clerical Exile and Imperial Functionaries: Mechanism of Civic Exclusion in Late Antiquity’, en D. Rohmann, J. Ulrich, M. Vallejo (eds), Mobility and Exile (2018), 37-50. 68 María Victoria Escribano Paño, ‘Law, Heresy and Judges under the Thedosian Dinasty’, Klio 98 (2016), 241-62. 69 Eus., VC 3, 66. CTh 16,1,2 (380); 1,3 (381). 70 Aug., C. ep. Pel. 2,3,5. Cf. Otto Wermelinger, ‘Das Pelagiusdossier in der Tractoria des Zosimus’, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 26 (1979), 336-68; id., Rom und Pelagius (1975), 209-18. Por su parte Pelagio había sido expulsado de Palestina: M. Mercator, Comm. 3,5. Sobre las razones que influyeron en el cambio de postura de Zósimo tras la ley imperial y el concilio celebrado en Cartago el 1 de mayo de 418 cf. Mathijs Lamberigts, ‘Co-operation between Church and State in the Condemnation of the Pelagians’, en Theo L. Hettema, Arie van der Kooij (eds), Religious Polemics in Context (Assen, 2004), 363-75, 371-5; Geoffrey D. Dunn,

20

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

La división interna del clero romano parecía contravenir lo proclamado por la cancillería de Rávena en 409, en el sentido de que quien fuese en contra de las medidas que se habían tomado en favor de la utilitas de la sacrosancta ecclesia catholica se posicionaba en contra de la salus communis71. La corte se sintió concernida e intervino el patricio Flavio Constancio72 en este contexto contencioso dirigiéndose mediante una epístola al prefecto urbano de Roma, Volusiano, en el otoño de 41873. En ella le conminaba a aplicar la ley, bajo la promesa de que su reputación se beneficiaría de ello y, en sentido contrario, la sutil e implícita advertencia de que, de no hacerlo, su fama se resentiría, lo que podía afectar al aristocrático círculo del corresponsal. Era una apelación personal destacada en el colofón de la carta74. La trayectoria militar y política del magister utriusque militiae Flavio Constancio, un ilirio de Naissus que había servido probablemente bajo Teodosio I en la campaña contra Eugenio en 394 y bajo Estilicón75 y que, después de su exitosa campaña contra Constantino III y Geroncio en 411-413, fue nombrado cónsul por primera vez en 414 y recibió el título de patricius en 41576, así como su posición de poder en la corte de Rávena tras su segundo consulado77 y matrimonio con Gala Placidia en 41778 y después de los éxitos derivados de sus esfuerzos militares y diplomáticos por restaurar el poder romano en Galia, Britania y la diocesis Hispaniarum, han sido objeto de estudios que coinciden en señalarlo como el hombre más poderoso en la corte desde 411, una vez consumada la reacción contra el legado de Estilicón79. La carta que comentamos ‘Zosimus and Ravenna: Conflict in the Roman Church in the Early Fifth Century’, Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 62 (2016), 1-20, 16-20. 71 CTh 16,5,47 (409). 72 PLRE II, 321-5, s.v. Fl. Constantius 17. 73 PLRE II, Rufius Antonius Agrypinus Volusianus, 1184-5. Praefectus urbi del 4 de noviembre de 417 al 24 de diciembre de 418. Cf. discusión sobre la fecha en André Chastagnol, ‘Le sénateur Volusien et la conversion d’une famille de l’aristocratie romaine au Bas-Empire’, REA 58 (1956), 241-53, 241-5; id., Les fastes de la Préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire (Paris, 1962), 276-9. 74 Coll. Quesnell. 19: Et adiecta subscriptio: Impleatur quod iussimus, quia hoc famae tuae expedit. 75 Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 2005), 237. 76 Sobre el título de patricius cf. Wilhelm Ensslin, ‘Zum Heermeisteramt des spätrömischen Reiches. III. Der magister utriusque militiae et patricius des 5. Jahrhunderts’, Klio 24 (1931), 467502; Ralph W. Mathisen, ‘Patricians as Diplomats in Late Antiquity’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 79 (1986), 35-49; Paul S. Barnwell, Emperor, Prefects, and Kings: The Roman West, 395-565 (Chapel Hill, London, 1992), 44-7. 77 Roger S. Bagnall et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 36 (Atlanta, 1987), 368-9. 78 Olymp., Frg. 33,1,1-7. Cf. Soz., Hist. eccl. 9,16; Prosper 1259. 79 Cf. John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire (Edmonton, 1983), 63-73; Werner Lütkenhaus, Constantius III. Studien zu seiner Tätigkeit und Stellung im Westreich 411-421, Habelts Dissertationsdrucke Reihe alte Geschichte 44 (Bonn, 1998); M. McEvoy, Child Emperor (2013), 197-204; Ch. Doyle, Honorius (2019), 142, 165, 178-81, 182-5.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

21

viene a confirmar esta preeminencia política ventajosa al poner de manifiesto que asumía la función legislativa en primera persona hasta el punto de que en la Collectio Quesnelliana se le atribuye el indebido tratamiento de Imperator, que sólo poseería desde 421 cuando devino Constancio III y pasó a compartir el título de Augusto con Honorio80. En otoño de 418 cuando escribió a Volusiano probablemente era comes81, y sus amplios poderes, que le permitieron ser celebrado por el praefectus urbi Símaco como reparator rei publicae y parens inuictissimorum principum con ocasión de su tercer consulado en 42082, se habían plasmado en nombramientos de aristócratas afines para cargos relevantes. Entre ellos se encontraba la designación de Paladio, el destinatario de la ley de 30 de abril de 418, como prefecto del pretorio de Italia en 41683. La promesa a Volusiano no era vana. La carta es un ejemplo de correspondencia oficial, pero también de gestión de relaciones personales, en este caso en respuesta a insinuationes, y presenta algunos aspectos singulares, teniendo en cuenta el status del autor. Está redactada en plural mayestático con verbos imperativos (iusseramus, praecipimus, mandamus, iussimus) y fórmulas para dirigirse al destinatario propias de la auctoritas imperial cuando escribía a un funcionario subordinado de alto rango, habitualmente el prefecto de pretorio84. En efecto, el vocativo parens carissime atque amantissime comparece en la Sirmondiana 12, de 407 dirigida por Honorio al prefecto del pretorio Curcio, en la 14, de 409 y en la 16 de 408 con el prefecto del pretorio Teodoro como destinatario de ambas85. También se usa el vocativo parens carissime atque amantissime para dirigirse a Paladio en la ley de 30 de abril (par. 3). El contenido era un praeceptum (praecepta nostra) que debía cumplirse bajo amenaza de pena capital para el officium del prefecto en el caso de mostrarse negligente. El redactor de la epístola parece atribuirse la autoría de la ley de 30 de abril contra la que en la carta se conceptúa de praeterita superstitio sirviéndose 80 Olymp., Frg. 33,1,13-8; 33,2,1-10; Soz., Hist. eccl. 9,16; Philostorg., Hist. eccl. 12,12. Esta incorporación al colegio imperial nunca fue reconocida por la corte oriental. Cf. Peter Van Nuffelen, ‘Olympiodorus of Thebes and Eastern Triumphalism’, en Ch. Kelly, Theodosius II (2013), 13-152, 131, 139. 81 Coll. Avell. 29 (23 de marzo 419): domino semper inlustri et cuncta magnifico meritoque sublimi ac praecelso patrono Constantio; 32 (finales de marzo 419): ad uirum inl(ustre) com(item) Constantium patricium. En su réplica, Coll. Avell. 30 se autodenomina comes: Epistula illustris comitis Constantii. 82 CIL 6, 1719. 83 John F. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364-425 (Oxford, 1975), 263; M. McEvoy, Child Emperor (2013), 203. 84 Sobre carissime y otros superlativos, cf. Simon Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs (Oxford, 20002), 335-6; Eleanor Dickey, Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius (Oxford, 2002), 132-3. 85 Era una formula de cancillería utilizada para dirigirse al prefecto del pretorio habitualmente. Cf. Sirm 1 (333); Sirm 2 (405); Sirm 4 (336); Sirm 7 (380/381); Sirm 9 (408).

22

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

de un vocablo habitual en la legislación antiherética para designar las falsas creencias, distintas de las aceptadas oficialmente86 y que la cancillería de Honorio había utilizado para referirse a los jovinianistas en 39887 y la herejía donatista88. El motivo de la epístola era la falta de aplicación de la ley en Roma y el consiguiente aumento de la discordia, según hacían saber los informes que de manera cotidiana llegaban a Rávena (quotidianis insinuationibus maiora fieri nuntiantur). El término técnico de insinuatio89 sugiere que los informes podían proceder del mismo prefecto y su oficio que, ante la situación de conflicto creada en la ciudad, solicitaban la reiteración de la orden con un mandato específico para Roma, buscando la conformidad y corresponsabilidad del comes en las consecuencias que pudieran derivarse del exilio de Celestio y la persecución de sus seguidores. Su interés mayor, como el de Constancio, era preservar el orden público en Roma. En cualquier caso, el que, al parecer, había recibido las insinuationes era el mismo Constancio, lo que en sí mismo puede tomarse como indicio relevante de su parte en la ley. De hecho la carta contenía un endurecimiento de las condiciones. El comes, como si del emperador se tratase, instaba al prefecto, a buscar diligenter a los pelagianos sin esperar las denuncias90 y expulsarlos fuera de los muros de la ciudad más allá del límite de las 100 millas, que era donde terminaba la jurisdicción del praefectus urbi. En particular, se mencionaba por su nombre a Celestio (Caelestium quoque magis ac magis ex urbe pelli mandamus). Se pretendía el desarraigo y la separación, para evitar el proselitismo y la perturbación social. No era la primera vez que un praefectus urbi recibía la orden de no permitir a los heréticos residir dentro del espacio urbano y suburbano sometido a su jurisdicción91, pero el nombre del emperador aparecía en la inscriptio de los ejemplos conservados. La carta describe y reivindica con nitidez el papel del comes Constancio en la eliminación de la discordia en Roma. Estas particularidades adquieren un significado más claro si analizamos el edicto hecho público mediante propositio por el praefectus urbi Volusiano para proceder a la executio legis sin tardanza. La epistula, puesta en relación con el edicto, proporcionan un campo de observación privilegiado sobre la intervención de Constancio en el proceso legislativo. Tanto la ley de 30 de abril como la epistula denotaban que se ignoraba el paradero de Celestio y que su localización era el asunto urgente. El contenido 86 CTh 16,2,5 (323). Cf. Caroline Humfress, ‘Roman law, forensic argument and the formation of christian orthodoxy III-VI centuries’, en Susana Elm, Éric Rebillard, Antonella Romano (eds), Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire (Paris, Roma, 2000), 125-47. 87 CTh 16,5,53 (398). 88 CTh 16,5,39 (405); 5,51 (410); 5,54 (414); 5,56 (415). 89 CJ 8,53,32 (496). 90 Cf. CTh 16,5,9 (382): Sublimitas itaque tua det inquisitores… 91 CTh 16,5,18 (389); 16,5,30 (402); 16,5,40 (407); 16,5,62 (425). Cf. D.A. Washburn, Banishment (2013), 74-5.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

23

del edicto iba dirigido contra quiénes lo escondían desoyendo la ley imperial, aunque no se vetan las asambleas en casas privadas, una constante en la legislación antiherética, antes y después de Honorio92. El edicto era taxativo y el punto de llegada de un proceso legislativo que había ido privando a la ley de los contenidos prescindibles y mantenía el esqueleto conceptual y penal. La estructura era la misma que se había conservado inalterada desde la ley de Honorio y distinguía, por una parte, al líder y por otra a sus encubridores. En el primer caso se tipificaba su delito: era turbator de la divina fe y, por ende, de la paz pública, perseguido in absentia por leyes y edictos, lo que aproximaba su conducta a la de un faccioso y ya Valentiniano I en 371 había establecido la vía punitiva contra este crimen93, Valentiniano II había aproximado a los autores de turbar la paz de la iglesia con sediciosos culpables de maiestas94 y Teodosio en 388 había prohibido debatir de religión en público y considerado a los culpables de esta pestífera perseueratio dignos de ser coaccionados mediante suplicio95. No obstante, el prefecto, en coherencia con el proceso legislativo previo que resume, mantiene la prohibición de habitatio en Roma para Celestio sin imponerle un destino forzoso. El suplicio se reservaba para sus apoyos. Hacer efectiva la pena de expulsión y el propósito fundamental de la ley para garantizar la paz religiosa y social, exigía hacer salir al líder de su escondite, por lo que la segunda parte del edicto se centra en la advertencia del castigo que merecerían quienes lo ocultasen. En este caso, el prefecto, en uso de sus atribuciones, amenazaba con la pena de suplicio y la proscriptio a los responsables (cum horridi sit posita poena supplicii, ac stylum necesse sit proscriptionis incurrere). La intensificación del castigo – las distintas formas de suplicio solían acabar en la muerte96 – era aportación propia, se corresponde 92 CTh 16,5,3 (372), 4 (378), 5 (379), 6 (381), 8 (381), 9 (382), 11 (383), 12 (383), 14 (388), 15 (388), 20 (391), 24 (394), 26 (395), 30 (402), 33 (397), 34 (398), 36 (399), 45 (408), 51 (410), 57 (415), 58 (415), 65 (428); 6,7 (413). 93 Coll. Avell. 12: Qui si ingrata pertinacia statutum mansuetudinis nostrae egrediendum putauerit, eundem non iam ut Christianum, quippe quem a communione religionis mentis inquietudo disterminat, sed ut hominem factiosum perturbatoremque publicae tranquillitatis legum et religionis inimicum iuris seueritas persequatur. Cf. Sulp. Sev., Chron. 2, 49, 1-5: uerum Ithacio Ithacius ab his quasi perturbator ecclesiarum reus postulatus, iussusque per atrocem exsecutionem deduci trepidus profugit ad Gallias. 94 CTh 16,4,1 (386): (…) si turbulentum quippiam contra nostrae tranquillitatis praeceptum faciendum esse temptauerint, ut seditionis auctores pacisque turbatae ecclesiae, maiestatis capite ac sanguine sint supplicia luituri. 95 CTh 16,4,2 (388). Cf. CTh 16,4,3 (392). La perturbación de la religión formaba parte del fondo retórico de cancillería con el que se censuraban conductas religiosas desviadas y el mismo Honorio había utilizado esta fórmula para referirse a la situación creada en Constantinopla como consecuencia del affaire del Crisóstomo: Coll. Avell. 38,7,15-7: Nam quis esse possit expers doloris, qui se meminit Christianum, tantam subito perturbationem religionis inductam ut omnem catholicae fidei statum necesse sit fluctuare? 96 Denise Grodzynski, ‘Tortures mortelles et catégories sociales. Les Summa Supplicia dans le droit romain aux IIIe et IVe siècles’, en Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporels et peine

24

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

con la calificación jurídica de la conducta de Celestio y el apremio del comes, pero no era una pena frecuente en la legislación antiherética previa97, aunque la cancillería de Honorio había ordenado la fustigación de Joviniano y el castigo físico, junto al exilium a perpetuidad, en el llamado edicto de unión contra los donatistas98. La pena iba dirigida contra el conductor o procurator de los loca o praedia donde se hubiese practicado el rebautismo, ignorándolo sus propietarios. El contenido, escueto y muy técnico del texto, se avenía con la forma de un edicto del prefecto urbano, pero también con su autor, cuya fama no se resintió por no ejecutar el praeceptum de Constancio. La exposición pública mediante propositio causó el efecto buscado, pues Celestio abandonó Roma por Oriente y se instaló en Éfeso. Diez años después, Volusiano llegaba a ser prefecto del pretorio de Italia (428-429). Son conocidos los trabajos prosopográficos dedicados por Chastagnol al senador Volusiano99. Hijo del prefecto urbano de 391, Ceionio Rufo Albino100, Volusiano era pagano, amigo de Rutilio Namaciano, próximo al autor de la Historia Augusta101 y corresponsal de Agustín102. Antes de desempeñar la prefectura urbana entre el 4 de noviembre de 417 al 24 de diciembre de 418, había sido comes rei priuatae en 408103 tras la caída de Estilicón104, procónsul de África105, y quaestor sacri palatii en una fecha indeterminada que suele situarse antes de 412106. Es éste desempeño el que nos interesa. De acuerdo con las funciones reconocidas a los quaestores desde de mort dans le monde Antique (Paris, Roma, 1984), 361-403; Jean P. Callu, ‘Le jardin des supplices au Bas Empire’, en ibid. 313-59. 97 CTh 16,5,9 (382); 16,7,3 (383); 16,5,25 (395); 16,5,36 (399). 98 CTh 16,6,4 (405): (…) impliciti sceleris auctores cohercitos plumbo exilium … accipiet. Paul Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne, depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion árabe, VI (Paris, 1922), 121-2 suponía que la medida se había aplicado a Primiano, el sucesor de Parmeniano como obispo donatista de Cartago, pero los indicios para sostenerlo son débiles. Cf. Aug., Ep. 88.10. Liber Genealogus 627. Cf. Alan Dearn, ‘Persecution and Donatist Identity in the Liber Genealogus’, en H. Amirav, B. ter Haar Romeny (eds), From Rome to Constantinople. Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron (Leuven, 2007), 127-35. Cf. otras leyes de Honorio en las que se impone la pena de suplicio: 16,5,44 (408); 16,5,48 (410); 16,6,6 (413). 99 A. Chastagnol, Les fastes (1962), 276-79; id., ‘Le sénateur Volusien et la conversion d’une famille de l’aristocratie romaine au Bas-Empire’ (1956), 241-53; cf. Peter Brown, ‘Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy’, Journal of Roman Studies 51 (1961), 1-11. 100 PLRE I, Albinus 15, 37-8. 101 Bruno Pottier, ‘La biographie d’Alexandre Sévère dans l’Histoire Auguste, un miroir des princes Honorius et Arcadius’, en Christel Freu, Sylvain Janniard, Arthur Ripoll (eds), ‘Libera curiositas’. Mélanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité tardive offerts à Jean-Michel Carrié (Turnhout, 2016), 8. 102 Aug., Epp. 132; 135; 137; V. Mel. Gr. 50. 103 CTh 5,16,31 (29 noviembre 408), J.F. Matthews, Western Aristocracies (1975), 285. 104 M. McEvoy, Child Emperor (2013), 189. 105 Aug., Epp. 135-8. 106 Rut. Nam., De red. suo 1, 171-2: Huius facundae commissa palatia linguae: primaevus meruit principis ore loqui.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

25

mediados del s. IV107 había colaborado en la redacción de las leyes, conocía por tanto la legislación antiherética y la distancia entre la carga retórica de su contenido y su efectiva ejcución108. Esta experiencia previa explica que hubiese elevado informes al comes sobre el deterioro de la situación en Roma buscando el respaldo de Constancio para sus actuaciones. Teniendo en cuenta la implicación de Constancio en la implementación de la ley, una vez informado de las dificultades surgidas en Roma gracias a Volusiano, y las peculiaridades señaladas en la carta – la recepción de las insinuationes, el plural mayestático, el vocativo parens carissime et amantissime referido a Volusiano, la promesa de mejora en la reputación –, es probable que fuese Constancio el responsable de la ley de 30 de abril de 418109. Encontramos otros argumentos para sostener esta hipótesis. A él se dirigió el sucesor de Volusiano en la prefectura urbana Símaco110 a comienzos de 419 para pedir su intervención en las disputadas elecciones papales que siguieron a la muerte de Zósimo el 26 de diciembre de 418 y que ocasionaron graves altercados en Roma111. Su propósito era preservar la convivencia pacífica sin desórdenes. Sin embargo, en este caso, en una primera fase, el prefecto había informado a Honorio de los disturbios populares y comunicado su preocupación por la alteración de la paz en la ciudad y había obtenido respuesta imperial112. De hecho, en la respuesta del comes Constancio a Símaco, muy distinta de la enviada a Volusiano, se refiere a la necesidad de obedecer los preceptos imperiales mencionando de manera expresa al inuictissimus princeps, la augusta clementia y su maiestas, sin arrogarse el protagonismo de las decisiones tomadas y limitándose a ordenar su ejecución. La ausencia de cualquiera de estas alusiones en la epístola del comes a Volusiano abunda en nuestra hipótesis a favor de Flavio Constancio como promotor de la ley en su condición de cabeza de la corte de Rávena desde 411. No hay que buscar la voz del comes en la ley, 107

Jill Harries, ‘The Roman Imperial Quaestor from Constantine to Theodosius II’, JRS 78 (1988), 148-72. 108 T. Honoré, Law in the Crisis (1998), 234-6, sugiere, de acuerdo con criterios estilísticos no definitivos, que pudo ser el quaestor W10 responable de las leyes entre el 13 de septiembre y el 25 de noviembre de 408 y sitúa su proconsulado en África en 409. 109 Esta idea también ha sido sugerida por Geoffrey D. Dunn en el Abstract de un paper titulado ‘Flavius Constantius’ Letter to Volusianus’, no publicado en el momento de redacción de este artículo. Cf. https://up-za.academia.edu/GeoffreyDunn. 110 PLRE II, Aurelius Anicius Symmachus 6, 1043-4. 111 Coll. Avell. 29, Relatio de Symmachus a Constantius, 23 de marzo 419; 30, respuesta del comes al prefecto no datada; 32, de Symmachus al patricio, no datada. Sobre el cisma creado entre los partidarios de los candidatos rivales Eulalius y Bonifatius cf. Heinrich Chantraine, ‘Das Schisma von 418/419 und das Eingreifen der kaiserlichen Gewalt in die römische Bischofswahl’, en Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift für K. Christ (Darmstadt, 1988), 79-94; Geoffrey D. Dunn, ‘Imperial Intervention in the Disputed Roman Episcopal Election of 418/419’, Journal of Religious History 39 (2015), 1-13. 112 Enviadas a Honorio: Coll. Avell. 14, 28 diciembre 418; 16, 8 de enero de 419; respuestas imperiales Coll. Avell. 15, 3 de enero de 419; 18, 15 de enero de 419.

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

26

pero sí sus preocupaciones e intereses. Él no escribió la ley. La redacción habría corrido a cargo del quaestor sacri palatii, cuyo nombre para 418 es desconocido113 en colaboración con los scrinia palatinos en las que se componían y conservaban leyes previas de tenor similar, lo que explica las coincidencias estructurales y estilísticas comentadas. La norma habría sido debatida en el consistorium antes de recibir la suscriptio del emperador114. Pero hay una coincidencia entre la ley y la epístola, que, en este caso, pudo dictar personalmente Constancio115, que refuerza la hipótesis de que fue el inspirador de la primera, máxime si tenemos en cuenta el escaso tiempo transcurrido entre la emisión de la ley y el envío de la epístola: tanto en la ley como en la epístola el motivo mayor de intervención imperial era la discordia y división cívica a que habían dado lugar las disputas originadas por los sacrílegos y sus seguidores. En la ley se dedican los parágrafos 1 y 3, es decir, casi la mitad de la carta y la proporción es significativa, a describir, de manera enfática y reiterativa cómo la noua uersutia había perturbado la simplicitas catholica, la quies caelestis fidei, la beatissimae ecclesiae tranquilitas, destruido los consensos (communiter approbata destruere), provocando la controversia entre los seguidores de unos y otros (alius aliud ancipit interpretatione sectantibus) y la consiguiente división en partes de la comunidad (scissis in partes studiis asserendi)116. En la epistula de Constancio, como se ha señalado, la topografía fundamental del disenso era Roma. Por otra parte, al comienzo de la epístola de Honorio dirigida a Aurelio de Cartago el 9 de junio de 419, pidiendo su colaboración para la extinción de la que se denomina haeresis en África, se resume el iter legislativo previo, aludiendo a la ley de 30 de abril de 418 y la epístola de Constancio a Volusiano como si conformasen una unidad y ambas se ponen bajo la inscriptio de Honorio y Teodosio, como exigía el protocolo (Dudum quidem fuerat constitutum ut Pelagius atque Celestius … Sed quia obstinati criminis pertinax malum, ut constitutio geminaretur, exegit)117. Un apunte más. La intervención de Constancio, como demuestra la epístola, estaba inspirada no por un antipelagianismo militante, sino desde la óptica del interés estratégico que tenía poner fin a los conflictos religiosos dentro de una 113

T. Honoré, Law in the Crisis (1998), 242-3. Sobre el procedimiento, CJ 1,14,8 (446). La importancia de Rávena como fábrica de leyes ha sido tratada por Simon Corcoran, ‘Roman law in Ravenna’, en Judith Herrin, Jinty Nelson (eds), Ravenna, its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange (London, 2016), 163-97. 115 Cf. S. Corcoran, ‘State correspondence’ (2014), 186-92. 116 Cf. R. Villegas, ‘El rescripto antipelagiano’ (2010), 179-87; M. Marcos, ‘Anti-Pelagian Dossiers in Late Antique Canonical Collections’ (2013), 325. 117 Coll. Quesnell. 5,1: Dudum quidem fuerat constitutum ut Pelagius atque Celestius infandi dogmatis repertores ab urbe Roma, uelut quaedam catholicae ueritatis contagia, pellerentur, ne ignorantium mentes scaeua persuasione peruerterent (…) Sed quia obstinati criminis pertinax malum, ut constitutio geminaretur, exegit. 114

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

27

encomienda política más amplia y coherente con su status en la corte, sin que se le pueda atribuir un política religiosa coherente y planificada. La pacificación y preservación del orden interno en Roma, Italia y África formaban parte de sus fines e intereses como militar y hombre de poder en el decisivo año de 418, cuando la amenaza bárbara seguía vigente en Hispania, con vándalos asdingos y suevos instalados todavía en suelo peninsular, la ubicación de los visigodos en Aquitania seguía requiriendo atención para mantenerlos alejados de las ciudades galas con salida al Mediterráneo118 y Britania, fuera del control imperial desde la usurpación de Marco en 406 y objeto de una incursión sajona119, había hecho necesario el envío de un comes Britanniarum120. Su misión mayor era restaurar el orden político y administrativo romano en la prefectura de las Galias. Orosio, que hace de Flavio Constancio el verdadero actor del principado de Honorio121, después de glosar ampliamente su decisiva actuación contra los usurpadores y pese a estar condicionado por la interpretación providencialista del pasado, sólo a modo de epílogo y brevemente elogia su condición de adiuuans imprescindible de Honorio en el restablecimiento de la paz y la unidad católicas en África122, a propósito del cisma donatista, en colaboración con el tribunus Marcelino, por otra parte, amigo de Volusiano123. La dimensión esencialmente política de las intervenciones de Flavio Constancio en los asuntos eclesiásticos de la Galia entre 411 y 417 como parte de sus intereses y prioridades ha sido suficientemente destacada por Dunn124. El nombramiento de Patroclo125 para la sede Arles en 412 obedecería no a la iniciativa de Constancio, sino a los planes del candidato, que habría hecho uso de sus contactos con el general para hacer de Arles la primera iglesia en la región y 118 Cf. Vincent Burns, ‘The Visigothic Settlement in Aquitania: Imperial Motives’, Historia 41 (1992), 362-73. 119 Chron. Gall. A. CCCCLII, 62. 120 Cf. sobre estas cuestiones W. Lütkenhaus, Constantius III (1998), 130-55; M.A. McEvoy, Child Emperor (2013), 197-215. 121 Cf. Peter Van Nuffelen, Orosius and the Rhetoric of History (Oxford, 2012), 165. 122 Oros., Hist. 7, 42, 16: merito sane, quia in his diebus praecipiente Honorio et adiuuante Constantio pax et unitas per uniuersam Africam Ecclesiae catholicae reddita est et corpus Christi, quod nos sumus, redintegrata discissione sanatum est; imposita exasecutione sancti praecepti Marcellino tribuno… 123 Aug., Ep. 132 y 136,1. Madeleine Moreau, Le dossier Marcellinus dans la correspondance d’Augustin (Paris, 1973), 140; Éric Rebillard, ‘Augustin et le rituel épistolaire de l’élite sociale et culturelle de son temps. Éléments pour une analyse processuelle des relations de l’évêque et de la cité dans l’Antiquité tardive’, en L’évêque dans la cité du IVe au Ve siècle. Image et autorité (Roma 1998), 127-52, 147. 124 Cf. Geoffrey D. Dunn, ‘Flavius Constantius and Affairs in Gaul between 411 and 417’, JAEMA 10 (2014), 1-2, donde comenta pormenorizadamente las fuentes que sostienen su argumentación. 125 Sobre Patroclo, cf. Ralph W. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul (Washington, DC, 1989), 27-43; Michael E. Kulikowski, ‘Two Councils of Turin’, JThS 47 (1996), 159-68.

M.V. ESCRIBANO PAÑO

28

superar la oposición de una parte del episcopado galo a sus aspiraciones. Tampoco mostró Constancio especial empeño en los asuntos eclesiásticos galos entre 412 y 417, ocupado como estaba en negociar la liberación de Gala Placidia y en controlar la amenaza visigoda en Hispania y Galia126. En su actuación política, usurpadores y bárbaros habían gozado siempre de prioridad. No obstante, conseguir la paz religiosa en la prefectura de las Galias, era parte inexcusable, aunque subordinada, de la misma estrategia. Al ámbito militar y político se adscribe también la misión que Constancio encomendó al comes Hispaniarum Asterio en Hispania en 419/420127. El encargo era someter a los contingentes bárbaros que aún permanecían en Galecia128. Su intervención en el conflicto entre sus familiares y el monje Fronto, que los acusaba de criptopriscilianistas, según se narra en la epístola 11* del laico Consencio a Agustín de Hipona129, fue circunstancial, pero decisiva, pues consiguió que sus allegados, sin duda sospechosos de compromiso con la herejía, fuesen exculpados por los obispos reunidos en Tarragona al efecto y el acusador, Fronto, desautorizado130. La actuación del comisionado de Constancio en este episodio abundaría en la idea de que los asuntos eclesiásticos no ocupaban el primer lugar en la agenda del general de Honorio, pero el éxito de su misión militar aconsejaba cerrar un frente de conflicto religioso en la estratégica Tarraconense y obtener la alianza de los obispos, por otra parte bien dispuestos a complacer al representante del poder imperial. También en este caso la lucha contra la herejía pasó a una posición subsidiaria en aras de intereses mayores.

126

Cf. tesis opuesta en David Frye, ‘Bishops as Pawns in Early Fifth-Century Gaul’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42 (1991), 349-61. 127 PLRE II, Asterius 4, 171. 128 La fecha es controvertida y oscila entre 419 y 420. Cf. debate sobre la datación de la epístola de Consencio en Michael E. Kulikowski, ‘The Career of the comes Hispaniarum Asterius’, Phoenix 54 (2000), 123-41, 135-39, para quien su cometido principal sería acabar con la segunda usurpación de Máximo, el rebelde hecho emperador por Geroncio en 409, cuando éste se alzó contra Constantino III, y refugiado junto a los bárbaros en 411, tras la derrota de Geroncio (Oros., Hist, 7, 42, 5). Sobre la misión de Asterio, Ep. 11*,7,3. 129 Johannes Divjak (recensuit), Sancti Aurelii Augustini opera. Epistulae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, CSEL 88 (Vindobonae, 1981), 51-70. 130 Cf. Josep Amengual i Batle, ‘Informacions sobre el priscillianisme a la Tarraconense segons l’ep. 11 de Consenci (any 419)’, Pyrenae 15-6 (1979), 319-38; Anne M. La Bonnardière, ‘Du nouveau sur le priscillianisme (Ep. 11*)’, en Claude Lepelley (ed.), Les lettres de Saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak (Paris, 1983), 205-14; Madeleine Moreau, ‘Lecture de la Lettre 11* de Consentius à Augustin. Un pastiche hagiographique?’, en ibid. 215-23; Jules Wankenne, ‘La correspondance de Consentius avec saint Augustin’, en ibid. 225-42; Luís Agustín García Moreno, ‘Nueva luz sobre la España de las invasiones de principios del s. V. la epístola XI de Consencio a S. Agustín’, en M. Merino (ed.), Verbo de Dios y palabras humanas (Pamplona, 1988), 153-74; Raymond Van Dam, ‘Sheep in Wolves Clothing: The Letters of Consentius to Augustine’, JEH 37 (1985), 515-53; Michael E. Kulikowski, ‘Fronto, the Bishops, and the Crowd: Episcopal Justice and Communal Violence in fifth-Century Tarraconensis’, EME 11 (2002), 295-320.

Honorio, Flavio Constancio y la legislación anti-pelagiana de 418

29

Conclusión La fábrica de leyes fue un proceso complejo bajo Honorio, que sólo tenía 10 años en 395, e intervinieron muchas manos en su elaboración e implementación. En este trabajo se han analizado las formas y fases que asume la confección y elaboración de una ley, así como los funcionarios implicados en su implementación a partir de una parte de la documentación conservada en la Collectio Quesnelliana referida al pelagianismo. El análisis de los elementos formales de la epístola del patricius y comes Flavio Constancio al prefecto urbano Volusiano en el otoño del 418, las circunstancias que rodearon su comunicación, las coincidencias entre el contenido de la ley de 30 de abril de 418 y los intereses políticos del que era figura dominante en Rávena en ese momento y los antecedentes y paralelos de sus intervenciones en cuestiones eclesiásticas, pueden apoyar la hipótesis de su autoría del denominado rescriptum antipelagiano de abril de 418 en la Quesnelliana. El tiempo transcurrido entre la ley matriz (abril de 418) y el edicto de Volusiano (finales de 418) es indicativo, por una parte, de los tiempos legislativos y, por otra, de las dificultades para hacer efectiva la ley y de la urgencia de Flauio Constancio por hacer de Roma una ciudad libre de heréticos, no tanto por inclinaciones religiosas personales, cuanto por razones de interés social y político por el mantenimiento de la paz cívica en la ciudad y en los medios eclesiásticos. Este propósito formaba parte de la política tradicional de la corte del hijo del cristianísimo Teodosio y estaba ya presente en la deportación de Joviniano y la expulsión de sus seguidores en 398131, sin duda el precedente más claro de la norma.

131

Sobre la ideología de la exclusión espacial de los heréticos, que recorre la legislación imperial desde Constantino, cf. M.V. Escribano Paño, ‘In aliis locis uiuant: la topografía de los heréticos en Codex Theodosianus 16,5’ (2019), 22-42.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine (c. coll. 21.3) Jérémy DELMULLE, Paris, France

ABSTRACT In his treatise Contra collatorem (c. coll. 21.3), published in 432/3 AD, Prosper of Aquitaine lists ten anti-Pelagian works written by Augustine, which he advises his adversaries and other readers to turn to, in order to better understand the unity and continuity of Augustine’s thinking on grace, free will and predestination. The aim of the present paper is to try to understand what guided Prosper in the choice of these ten titles and what his knowledge of this anti-Pelagian corpus might have been. By comparing the Contra collatorem list with the other lists of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works already available at that time (in Augustine’s Retractationes or Possidius of Calama’s Indiculus) and by taking a look at Prosper’s many direct sources, it can be argued that Prosper had a first-hand knowledge of all the works he cited. Did this anti-Pelagian corpus already exist as such before Prosper, or did Prosper forge it himself? Even if this list seems to have had almost no impact after Prosper’s time, it certainly provides a very valuable testimony with regard to the question of the first diffusion of Augustine’s works in the years immediately following the death of their author.

1. Introduction The condemnation by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD of Nestorian heresy also sounded the definitive death knell – if I may say so – for another heresy: Pelagianism.1 Many times, indeed, polemists had stressed the strong kinship between Pelagius’ ideas and those of Nestorius. The decisions taken by the Council Fathers thus came, in their minds, as a confirmation of the victory of the doctrine on grace defended by Augustine, who died a few months earlier.2 1 I would like to thank Raúl Villegas Marín for his invitation to participate in the panel he organized and for his remarks. My thanks also go to Martine Dulaey and Shari Boodts for their review and their comments on a previous version of this article. 2 The Pelagian question was also the subject of several discussions during the council: see first and foremost Marie-Théophane Disdier, ‘Le pélagianisme au concile d’Éphèse’, Échos d’Orient 163 (1931), 314-33; Jean Plagnieux, ‘Le grief de complicité entre erreurs nestorienne et pélagienne. D’Augustin à Cassien par Prosper d’Aquitaine ?’, Mémorial Gustave Bardy = REAug 2.1-4 (1956), 391-402; Jakob Speigl, ‘Der Pelagianismus auf dem Konzil von Ephesus’, AHC 1 (1969), 1-14; Lionel Wickham, ‘Pelagianism in the East’, in Rowan Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989), 200-13.

Studia Patristica CXX, 31-53. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

32

J. DELMULLE

However, in some parts of Gaul, the same people who were delighted with the outcome of the Ephesian Council were at the same time very concerned about the troubling surge in their regions of some apparently Pelagian positions: a few years earlier, a new controversy had indeed erupted in Marseilles and in Provence, which continued to raise the same problems on grace and free will.3 This explains why, even after Ephesus and at least until 432 AD, one could still feel the need to keep reading and explaining the treatises Augustine composed on these questions, essentially on the occasion of the Pelagian controversy.4 But what exactly was known about Augustine’s polemical production against the Pelagians in Southern Gaul in these decades? Which of the master’s works were likely to be reused by his continuators to oppose the new arguments put forth by the Provençal monks? There are no evident clues to answer this question. But there exists a very interesting testimony on this subject which, with the notable exception of Otto Wermelinger,5 has so far attracted little attention from scholars: I refer to a list of titles of Augustine’s works against the Pelagians, which Prosper of Aquitaine offers to his readers in his Contra collatorem, written just some months after the Council of Ephesus. It is this text that I propose to study in the pages to come, in order to compare it with other contemporary sources and to try to determine what Augustinian works were really available in Southern Gaul in the first half of the decade of the 430s AD.

2. Prosper’s ‘bibliography’ in c. coll. 21.3 In his Contra collatorem, composed in 432/3 AD, Prosper of Aquitaine vehemently attacks the doctrine put forth by John Cassian in his thirteenth Collatio ‘On the Protection of God’, which he considers to be an unfair and harsh criticism of Augustine’s latest works on grace and free will. While his treatise is based almost exclusively on a meticulous examination of his opponent’s opuscule, Prosper also uses arguments that cannot, for obvious reasons, be based directly on Augustine’s authority – which was not fully recognized among the 3 For a general overview of this post-Pelagian controversy and its different phases, see Donato Ogliari, Gratia et certamen: The Relationship Between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the So-Called Semipelagians, Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 169 (Leuven, Paris, Dudley, MA, 2003); Rebecca Harden Weaver, Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy, Patristic Monograph Series 15 (Macon, GA, 1996). 4 The year 432 AD is precisely the date that Otto Wermelinger chose as the end of the Pelagian controversy in his seminal book: Rom und Pelagius. Die theologische Position der römischen Bischöfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411-432, Päpste und Papsttum 7 (Stuttgart, 1975). 5 O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 248 and note 158; the author proposes a first assessment on Augustinian works available in Gaul.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

33

Provençal monks –, but rather on the authority of the councils and popes of Rome – which was also claimed by the opponents.6 However, Augustine gets a privileged place in what appears to be an additional part of the treatise (ch. 21), in which Prosper traces the history of pontifical interventions during the Pelagian controversy, obviously to encourage the newly elected pope, Xystus III, to imitate his predecessors.7 This appeal to the pope is strongly supported by the quotation of a whole passage from the letter Augustine had written to the same Xystus when he was still a simple priest, to warn him against the temptations of Pelagianism.8 In this last chapter, indeed, in which Prosper recalls the salient features of the pontificate of the recently deceased Pope Celestine (c. coll. 21.2), the author gives the floor to the late pope himself by reproducing a long passage from the letter Apostolici uerba, sent in 431 AD to the Gallic clergy in response to the request made to him in Rome by Prosper and his companion Hilary, who were concerned about the debates that were taking place in the monastic circles of Marseilles and other places in Provence.9 Apparently, this letter was received differently in Marseilles circles, and the unfailing praise that Prosper wants to see in it did not seem so to everyone. The main reason is that, when Celestine recommended Augustine’s writings as those of one of the most authoritative Christian thinkers (inter magistros optimos), he did not specify which works he was referring to in particular. According to Prosper, the Provençal opponents wanted to take advantage of this silence to make it appear that the pope exclusively recommended the works composed during the Pelagian controversy, and that he did not include the last ones, which were at the heart of the post-Pelagian controversy (De gratia et libero arbitrio, De correptione et gratia and the De praedestinatione sanctorum et de dono perseuerantiae).10 This is the reason 6 See Jérémy Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine contre Jean Cassien. Le Contra collatorem, l’appel à Rome du parti augustinien dans la querelle postpélagienne, Textes et Études du Moyen Âge 91 (Barcelona, Roma, 2018). The edition I quote is Prosperi Aquitani Opera, I: Liber contra collatorem, ed. Jérémy Delmulle, CChr.SL 68 (Turnhout, 2021). 7 Cf. Prosper, c. coll. 21.4 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 84): Confidimus Domini protectione praestandum ut, quod operatus est in Innocentio, Zosimo, Bonifacio, Caelestino, operetur in Xysto et in custodia Dominici gregis haec sit pars gloriae huic reseruata pastori. About this chapter, see mostly O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 246-9 and Mark Vessey, ‘Opus Imperfectum: Augustine and His Readers, 426-435 A.D.’, VChr 52.3 (1998), 264-85, 275-6. 8 Augustine, ep. 194.1.2, quoted by Prosper in c. coll. 21.4 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 84); see J. Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine (2018), 74-5. 9 Celestine, epist. 21 (= J3 845).2 (PL 50, 528A-30B). On the mission of Prosper and Hilary to Pope Celestine in Rome, see R. Harden Weaver, Divine Grace (1996), 120-1 and J. Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine (2018), 44-6. 10 Prosper, c. coll. 21.3 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 82): Contra istam clarissimae laudationis tubam, contra istam sacratissimi testimonii dignitatem, audet quisquam malignae interpretationis murmur emittere et perspicuae sincerissimaeque sententiae nubem obliquae ambiguitatis obtendere, ut scilicet quia in epistola papae librorum pro quibus actum est non expressus est titulus, hinc eos appareat non probatos et istam in sanctum Augustinum laudationem pro anteriorum

34

J. DELMULLE

why, in c. coll. 21.3, Prosper completes the quotation from Celestine’s letter by providing a list of anti-Pelagian works written by Augustine that remains somewhat problematic. His clear objective is to demonstrate that, despite the pope’s ambiguous silence, it is easy to understand that the Apostolic See recognized the authority of Augustine’s last writings because, in his opinion, Augustine kept defending the same positions in matters of grace and predestination throughout his career. Here is what he writes (followed by the indication of the works to which he refers):11 Vt itaque omittamus ea uolumina in quibus ab exordio episcopatus sui, multo prius quam impugnatores gratiae exsurgerent, pro gratia disputauit, (1) legantur tres ad Marcellinum ipsius libri. (2) Ad sanctum Paulinum Nolanum episcopum epistola retractetur. (3) Ad beatissimum quoque apostolicae sedis tunc presbyterum Xystum, nunc uero pontificem, emissae paginae recurrantur. (4) Ad sanctum Pinianum, (5) ad Valerium comitem, (6) ad seruos Christi Timasium et Iacobum, distinctim edita uolumina reuoluantur. (7) Sex libri priores contra Iulianum, (8) unus ad sanctum Aurelium Carthaginis episcopum de gestis Palaestinis, (9) alius ad Paulum et Eutropium sacerdotes contra Pelagii et Caelestii quaestiones et (10) ad beatae memoriae papam Bonifacium libri quatuor explicentur. (1) De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo paruulorum (CPL 342). – (2) Epistula 186. – (3) Epistula 194 (and 191?). – (4) De gratia Christi et de peccato originali (CPL 349). – (5) De nuptiis et concupiscentia (CPL 350). – (6) De natura et gratia (CPL 344). – (7) Contra Iulianum libri sex (CPL 351). – (8) De gestis Pelagii (CPL 348). – (9) De perfectione iustitiae hominis (CPL 347). – (10) Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum (CPL 346).

Pretending to arbitrarily stop his list there to avoid extending it indefinitely (in his omnibus operibus multisque aliis, quae enumerare longum est), Prosper assumes that, because of the unity of his master’s doctrine, one cannot dare, as his detractors do, criticize a development present in one of these treatises without risking falling under the condemnation of the pope, who, by “authorizing” part of Augustine’s works, did authorize all other works on the same topic.12 scriptorum meritis fuisse collatam? On the ambiguity of Celestine’s response, see Alexander Y. Hwang, Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace: The Life and Thought of Prosper of Aquitaine (Washington, 2009), 157 note 71, who summarises the opinions of previous scholars. 11 Prosper, c. coll. 21.3 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 82-3). The identification of the works is given according to the references of the Clavis Patrum Latinorum; a concordance had already been proposed by O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 248 note 158 and A.Y. Hwang, Intrepid Lover (2009), 164 note 108, both of whom, however, considered the entry (3) to refer only to ep. 194, but it is likely, or at least possible, that Prosper here refers to the two letters from Augustine to Xystus (see infra, note 13). 12 Prosper, c. coll. 21.4 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 83): Ac si in his omnibus operibus multisque aliis, quae enumerare longum est, idem doctrinae spiritus, eadem praedicationis forma praecessit, agnoscant calumniatores superfluo se obicere quod his libris non speciale neque discretum testimonium sit perhibitum, quorum in cunctis uoluminibus norma laudatur. Apostolica enim sedes quod a praecognitis sibi non discrepat cum praecognitis probat et quod iudicio iungit

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

35

If one now focuses on the bibliographic list itself, it becomes clear that this passage is not without some stylistic concerns. First of all, there is a certain variety in the vocabulary used to describe the works: uolumina / libri; epistola / paginae.13 In addition, the ten titles Prosper mentions are in fact distributed in five sentences, the last four of which, at least, are associated with each other by the repetition of cursus velox clausulae.14 This metric and rhythmic underlining has the advantage of highlighting this list of titles, and obviously does not take anything away from the importance of this passage as a historical testimony. Whereas in his previous Epistula ad Rufinum Prosper had confined himself to an emphatic allusion to Augustine’s numerous treatises on the matter,15 here he provides a bibliography in due form, but which does not claim to be exhaustive. As Prosper’s objective is to prove to his opponents that Augustine has always been constant in his conception of grace, he only makes mention of the works composed against the Pelagians, or at least during the Pelagian controversy, and does not have to cite the contemporary writings which are precisely the subject of the polemic.16 Moreover, as he points out at the beginning of his enumeration, he also omits the opuscules written “from the beginning of his episcopate” – including, among others, at least the De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum.17 laude non diuidit. Qui ergo hos proxime editos libros refutant anterioribus acquiescant et his quae pro gratia Christiana prius sunt scripta consentiant. Sed non faciunt; sciunt enim omnia Pelagianis esse contraria et nihil sibi posse competere ad consequentium resolutionem, si confiteantur in praecedentibus consistere ueritatem. See Georges de Plinval, ‘Prosper d’Aquitaine interprète de saint Augustin’, RecAug 1 (1958), 339-55, 347. 13 Gabriele Thome, in Thesaurus linguae Latinae 10.1 (Berlin, New York, 1982-97), s.v. pāgina, 84-91, 89 (B.2.b), who quotes this passage as an example of plurale tantum use of the term, rightly notes that Prosper uses two different words to designate two letters of the same length (viz. epp. 186 and 194); therefore, one may wonder whether pagina here can not be equivalent to one letter: it is indeed possible that Prosper refers to both epp. 191 and 194. 14 I.e. clausulae pp4p-type: epístola retractétur, páginae recurrántur, uolúmina reuoluántur, quátuor explicéntur. See my adnotatio critica ad loc. in CChr.SL 68. 15 Prosper, epist. 2.3.4 (PL 51, 78B-9A): Has autem versutias … beatissimus quoque Augustinus … copiose et pulchre, in multis voluminum disputationibus destruxit; epist. 2.4.5 (ibid. 80A): Nec dubitant, si quam hinc moverint quaestionem, … centenis sibi beatissimi Augustini voluminibus obviandum. 16 While O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 248 note 158, regards this absence as evidence of “compromise” on Prosper’s part, I would rather consider that it fits entirely with Contra collatorem’s polemical strategy. 17 It is in the same terms that he refers to this book in resp. ad Gen., resp. 1-3 (PL 51, 189C): in ipso episcopatus sui exordio, a sanctae memoriae Simpliciano Mediolanensi antistite, de Jacob electione et de Esau rejectione consultum; the more plausible source for the two passages is Augustine, praed. sanct. et perseu. 1.4.8, 2.20.52 and 2.21.55 (PL 44, 966 and PL 45, 1026.27). Moreover, it is unlikely that Prosper would include among the first works composed during the episcopate the De libero arbitrio, which the Retractationes allowed him to date very precisely before this period: begun in 388 AD, the work was completed after Augustine’s ordination as a priest in 391 AD; cf. Aug., retr. 1.9(8), see Gustave Bardy, ‘La date du “De libero arbitrio”’,

36

J. DELMULLE

The ten titles listed by Prosper offer a very representative overview of the whole controversy, from the reactions to the first questions raised by Caelestius’ teachings in Carthage in the early 410s AD to the scholarly dispute between Augustine and Julian of Aeclanum ten years later. It should also be pointed out that, while some letters, spread as treatises, are found alongside the works themselves, none of Augustine’s numerous anti-Pelagian sermons is mentioned18 – as if the reading of the sermons was less useful to gain access to unambiguous theological contents… It is necessary for us to question the nature and status of this, so to speak, “Augustinian anti-Pelagian bibliography”. Are these Augustine’s works that Prosper had read directly when he composed his Contra collatorem?19 Or did he only have second-hand knowledge of them? To settle this question is important, on the one hand, to understand Prosper’s real familiarity with the content of Augustine’s polemical works during the post-Pelagian controversy and to better interpret his own positions, but also, more generally, to know what works of Augustine could be available in Southern Gaul so soon after the death of the bishop of Hippo. Indeed, Prosper’s testimony is likely to provide interesting elements on the first diffusion of Augustine’s works, in relation to the question of the possible transfer of Augustine’s library from Hippo to Rome after his death. In an article published twenty years ago, Jean-Paul Bouhot indeed assumed, with very stimulating arguments, that the survival of such a large part of Augustine’s works had been made possible by the move of the entire cathedral library of Hippo (then under Vandal domination) to Rome in the early 440s AD.20 However, his attractive reconstruction includes some corollary considerations that are somehow excessive on what in Italy and Gaul one could know about Augustine’s works before that time. In his reconstruction, the author uses Prosper precisely as an argument to show that, in his early works, all related to the post-Pelagian controversy and composed while he was manifestly in Marseilles, Prosper seems to include very few literal borrowings from Augustine, and that he seems to have “suddenly” had massive access to Augustine’s works at the time when he composed his Liber sententiarum, which is almost unanimously dated to Prosper’s “Roman period”, and generally even to the end of his life note complémentaire 16, in Les Révisions, Bibliothèque augustinienne 12 (Paris, 1950), 567-8 – its absence is all the more significant because he had precisely been the subject of the Pelagian protests (see A.Y. Hwang, Intrepid Lover [2009], 166-7 and note 122). 18 Taking into account only the sermons now preserved, there are more than fifty of them, according to the census made by Anthony Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum during the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights?, Brill’s Series in Church History 59 (Leiden, Boston, 2013), 80-93. 19 As G. de Plinval, ‘Prosper d’Aquitaine’ (1958), 341 note 8, seems to suggest. 20 Jean-Paul Bouhot, ‘La transmission d’Hippone à Rome des œuvres de saint Augustin’, in Donatella Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda and Jean-François Genest (ed.), Du copiste au collectionneur. Mélanges d’histoire des textes et des bibliothèques en l’honneur d’André Vernet, Bibliologia 18 (Turnhout, 1998), 23-33.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

37

(in the years 450s AD?);21 Prosper’s “discovery” of Augustine’s work, he concludes, could only have been made in or after the time when, around 440 AD, Prosper became the secretary of Pope Leo the Great in Rome. But the fact is that, on the one hand, the date claimed for the composition of the Liber sententiarum is far from certain, and some have recently suggested that the composition of the anthology should even be placed in the 430s AD, and therefore when Prosper was still active in Gaul;22 on the other hand, quite significantly, Bouhot has ignored the passage from the Contra collatorem under consideration here, which could help to answer the question in a more nuanced way. 3. The previous lists: the Indiculum of Hippo, through Augustine’s Retractationes and Possidius’ Indiculus What other bibliographic tools could a reader of the 430s AD use to find out which books Augustine had written against the Pelagians and, if so, to seek to obtain them? Two of these documents contemporary to Prosper have survived. These are the notices written by Augustine himself in his Retractationes concerning his anti-Pelagian treatises, and one section of Possidius of Calama’s Indiculus of Augustine’s works, which is specifically devoted to his anti-Pelagian writings.23 Both of them going back, according to the last analysis, to the Indiculum of the books of the library of Hippo, itself made around 420 AD, they provide a most appropriate tool to acquire exhaustive knowledge of the bishop’s polemical production. a) Augustine’s Retractationes The Retractationes are the only completed part of a global revision project of his whole written work that Augustine undertook at the end of his life. Only the “treatises” he wrote before and during his episcopacy, excluding his sermons and letters, have been reviewed and described by him in an almost chronological order.24 21 Ibid. 28-9 and 33. This traditional dating of the Liber sententiarum comes from Louis Valentin, Saint Prosper d’Aquitaine. Étude sur la littérature ecclésiastique au Ve siècle en Gaule (Paris, Toulouse, 1900), 192-5 and Maïeul Cappuyns, ‘Le premier représentant de l’augustinisme médiéval, Prosper d’Aquitaine’, RTAM 1 (1929), 309-37, 334 note 77, silently followed by A.Y. Hwang, Intrepid Lover (2009), 198-205. 22 This is the hypothesis defended by Michele Cutino in his (forthcoming) critical edition of the Liber epigrammatum. 23 On the various bibliographic tools which could be used to reconstitute either the corpus of Augustine’s works or the content of his library or of the Hippo cathedral library, see François Dolbeau, ‘Brouillons et textes inachevés parmi les œuvres d’Augustin’, SEJG 45 (2006), 191-221, 193-5. 24 For an overall presentation of the project and the work, see Goulven Madec, Introduction aux “Révisions” et à la lecture des œuvres de saint Augustin, Collection des Études Augustiniennes.

38

J. DELMULLE

Although his anti-Pelagian struggle first took place, by his own acknowledgement, in oral form, Augustine explicitly marks the beginning of his altercation with the Pelagians as the publication of his De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo paruulorum, dated 411/2 AD (retr. 2.33[59]).25 In his assessment, he mentions in total seven works directly related to the teaching of Pelagius or Caelestius. In addition to his first personal intervention in the De peccatorum meritis, which does not directly target the persons accused, several treatises are explicitly written against Pelagius’ writings (De natura et gratia; 2.42[68]) or against the decisions taken at the synod of Diospolis (De gestis Pelagii; 2.47[73]); others were written after the official condemnation of 418 AD and were addressed to third parties: one against Pelagius and Caelestius sent to correspondents in Palestine, Albania, Pinianus and Melany (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali; 2.50[76]), another written to Valerius, to correct allegations of Pelagius and Caelestius and then Julian (De nuptiis et concupiscentia; 2.53[79]), another to Pope Boniface (Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum; 2.61[87]); a last one, finally, is mentioned, which was composed after the defeat of Pelagius and Caelestius against their continuator Julian of Aeclanum (Contra Iulianum; 2.62[88]).26 Augustine also indicates in his review other works composed at the same time and in the same vein, but which do not mention the Pelagians by name (e.g. De praesentia Dei = ep. 187; 2.49); another work, finally, the De perfectione iustitiae hominis, although openly anti-Pelagian, is not retained by Augustine, possibly because he considered it to be a letter rather than a treatise.27 b) Possidius of Calama’s Indiculus When Possidius wrote his Vita Augustini, in the mid-430s AD, he devoted several paragraphs to Augustine’s struggle against the Pelagians, whom he calls “the new heretics of our time” (uit. 18.1-5), but never mentioned any title of Série Antiquité 150 (Paris, 1996), 17-24; for some problems with the chronological order, see in particular ibid. 150-7 and the summary table immediately after, 159-65. 25 Cf. Augustine, retr. 2.33(59) (ed. A. Mutzenbecher, CChr.SL 57, 116-7): Venit etiam necessitas quae me cogeret aduersus nouam Pelagianam heresim scribere, contra quam prius, cum opus erat, non scriptis sed sermonibus et conlocutionibus agebamus, ut quisque nostrum poterat aut debebat. 26 On the place of the anti-Pelagian treatises in the Retractationes, see G. Madec, Introduction (1996), 105-14. 27 However, its absence remains “difficult to explain”, since all the manuscripts that transmit the De perfectione consider it as a treatise and not as a letter: see G. Bardy, in Les Révisions (1950), 38 note 2 and Adolar Zumkeller, ‘Entstehungsgeschichte der Schrift “Die Vollendung der menschlichen Gerechtigkeit”’, in Aurelius Augustinus, Schriften gegen die Pelagianer, II (Würzburg, 1964), 17-26, 17-9.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

39

any work composed by Augustine during this period. He makes only a short, general allusion to Augustine’s many writings composed on that occasion,28 and dwells only briefly on the measures and documents issued from Rome to local Churches (especially that of Africa) by Popes Innocent and Zosimus, and by Emperor Honorius.29 It is in the Indiculus annexed to the Vita Augustini of Possidius – which, as Possidius himself points out, is its natural complement30 – that one can find an authorized census of Augustine’s productions contra Pelagianistas. While the Vita may not have been completed until the mid-430s AD, the creation of this bibliographical instrument precedes its composition by a few years, making it a completely contemporary undertaking with respect to Prosper’s list. Indeed, since it modifies a former Indiculum of the library of Hippo, the first nucleus of which must date back to about 420 AD and which was then completed after 426 AD, Possidius’ catalogue offers a stratified overview of the literary production of the bishop of Hippo, updated after the saint’s death.31 The complex chronology of this catalogue is of particular interest for the “Contra Pelagianistas” section (indic. [VII]) as it concerns an issue still in progress at the time 28 Possidius, vita Aug. 18.1 (ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen, cf. infra, 174): Adversus Pelagianistas quoque, novos nostrorum temporum haereticos et disputatores callidos, arte magis subtili et noxia scribentes et, ubicumque poterant, publice et per domos loquentes, per annos ferme decem elaboravit, librorum multa condens et edens et in ecclesia populis ex eodem errore frequentissime disputans. For more on this section, see Erika T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama: A Study of the North African Episcopate at the Time of Augustine, The Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2008), 50-4, as well as the copious annotations of several editors or translators: A.A.R. Bastiaensen, in Vita di Cipriano. Vita di Ambrogio. Vita di Agostino, introd. Christine Mohrmann, ed. and comm. Antoon A.R. Bastiaensen, trad. Luca Canali and Carlo Carena, Vite dei santi 3 ([Milano], 1975), 400-6 and Elena Zocca, in Possidio, Vita di Agostino. Catalogo di tutti i libri, sermoni e lettere del vescovo Sant’Agostino, Letture cristiane del primo millennio 45 (Milano, 2009), 220-9. 29 Speaking here of a “catalogue of documents” (like E.T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama [2008], 50), is a bit of an exaggeration if one compares these lines with what Prosper does at the same time in c. coll. 5.3 (on the latter dossier, see J. Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine [2018], 20816). Besides, Possidius says little more than what Augustine already mentioned in retr. 2.50(76) about the De gratia Christi et de peccato originali (he only adds an allusion to the imperial rescript of Honorius in vita Aug. 18.4). 30 Cf. Possidius, vita Aug. 18.10 (ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen [1975], 178): statui Deo praestante in huius opusculi finem etiam eorumdem librorum, tractatuum et epistularum indiculum adiungere. 31 See François Dolbeau, ‘La survie des œuvres d’Augustin. Remarques sur l’Indiculum attribué à Possidius et sur la bibliothèque d’Anségise’, in D. Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda and J.-F. Genest (eds), Du copiste au collectionneur (1998), 3-22, 7-9, and id., ‘Indiculum, -us’, AugustinusLexikon, 3.3-4 (Basel, 2006), 571-81, who solves several questions left unanswered by Goulven Madec, ‘Possidius de Calama et les listes des œuvres d’Augustin’, in Jean-Claude Fredouille, Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, Philippe Hoffmann and Pierre Petitmengin (eds), Titres et articulations du texte dans les œuvres antiques. Actes du Colloque International de Chantilly, 13-15 décembre 1994, Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 152 (Paris, 1997), 427-45. For the material appearance of the Indiculum, see the hypothesis of François Glorie, ‘Augustinus, De Trinitate. Fontes – Chronologia’, SEJG 16 (1965), 203-55, in particular 215-6 and 235-55.

J. DELMULLE

40

of the classification around 420 AD.32 I reproduce here the entire section and identify each of the entries:33 [VII.] CONTRA PELAGIANISTAS. 1. De baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum libri duo, et epistula ad ipsum de peccatorum meritis et remissione. 2. De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum liber unus. 3. De natura et gratia liber unus. 4. Ad episcopos Eutropium et Paulum de perfectione iustitiae hominis liber unus. 5. Contra gesta Pelagii liber unus. 6. Contra Pelagium et Caelestium de gratia Christi et de peccato originali libri duo, ad Pinianum, Albinam et Melaniam. 7. Contra quaestiones Pelagianistarum liber unus. 8. Ad Valerium, de nuptiis et concupiscentia libri duo. 9. Ad papam Bonifatium contra supra scriptos libri quattuor. 10. Contra Iulianum libri sex. [ET EPISTULAE.] 11. Ad Xystum presbyterum [Urbis] epistulae contra supra scriptos duae. 12. Ad Mercatorem epistula contra eosdem una.

[CPL 342] [CPL 343] [CPL 344] [CPL 347] [CPL 348] [CPL 349] [see infra] [CPL 350] [CPL 346] [CPL 351]

[Epp. 191, 194] [Ep. 193]

*** 13. Tractatus de baptismo parvulorum. 14. Ad Valentinum monachum de gratia et libero arbitrio liber unus. 15. Item ad quem supra, de gratia et correptione liber unus. 16. Item contra secundam Iuliani responsionem inperfectum opus.

[S. 294] [CPL 352] [CPL 353] [CPL 356]

The structure of this section is quite clear. First, it contains ten entries (1-10) corresponding to treatises composed between 411 and circa 420 AD, which are indicated in an order that should reflect the order in which the volumes were in the library and which is also, as it seems, strictly chronological.34 Then there 32

See F. Dolbeau, ‘La survie’ (1998), 7-8. Ed. in Andreas Wilmart, ‘Operum S. Augustini elenchus a Possidio eiusdem discipulo Calamensi episcopo digestus post Maurinorum labores novis curis editus critico apparatu numeris tabellis instructus’, in Miscellanea agostiniana. Testi e studi pubblicati a cura dell’Ordine eremitano di S. Agostino nel XV centenario dalla morte del santo dottore (Roma, 1931), II 149-233, 171-3. 34 Should the fact that this primitive list includes a mention of the Contra Iulianum as manifestly complete (in six books) encourage us to postpone the generally accepted dating for the Hippo Indiculum to 421, even 422 AD? 33

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

41

are two entries (11-12) containing three letters that are also contemporary with the controversy, followed by a one-item section of tractatus (13). Finally, these titles are completed by four additions, i.e. works composed after 425 AD, during the last phase of the controversy, against Julian, or during the postPelagian controversy.35 One should not be surprised by the absence in this list of the sermons, with only one exception (nr. 13),36 even though Possidius insists, in uit. 18.1, on the frequency of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian preaching.37 The main reason is because many of the anti-Pelagian speeches pronounced by Augustine are listed elsewhere, in the section specifically dedicated to the whole corpus of sermons (tractatus diuersi; indic. X6).38 The identification of one entry in particular (nr. 7: Contra quaestiones Pelagianistarum liber unus) left editors and scholars with some uncertainty.39 André Wilmart proposed, with doubts however, to understand that title as referring to Augustine’s ep. 157 to Hilary of Syracuse.40 But three arguments go against this identification: if, indeed, the length of the letter can justify its designation as a liber and if Augustine does answer to a request by his Sicilian correspondent, in no case can the Pelagian positions he refutes be considered as quaestiones nor his correspondent as a Pelagian; such a title is not attested for this letter in either the direct or indirect tradition;41 moreover, the date of this letter (before July 415; probably in 414) would break the chronological order of the section (being placed between 418 and 420/1 AD).42 Another proposal for identifying the item with the pseudo-Augustinian Hypomnesticon, which Possidius could 35

See again F. Dolbeau, ‘La survie’ (1998), 7; id., ‘Indiculum, -us’ (2006). This oddity, noticed by G. Madec, ‘Possidius de Calama’ (1997), 440, can be explained by the aim of Possidius to bring together in a thematic section pieces that would have had their place in the part dedicated to the tractatus (indic. X6): see François Dolbeau, ‘Le sermonnaire augustinien de Mayence (Mainz, Stadtbibliothek I 9) : analyse et histoire’, RBen 116.1-2 (1996), 5-52, 49. On the content of the sermon and its place (along with the s. 293) in the Pelagian controversy, see A. Dupont, Gratia (2013), 203-37. 37 See supra, note 28. 38 Ed. A. Wilmart, ‘Operum S. Augustini elenchus’ (1931), 191-207. 39 G. Madec, ‘Possidius de Calama’ (1997), 440 does not report any difficulties for this entry. 40 A. Wilmart, ‘Operum S. Augustini elenchus’ (1931), 219; identification reproduced by Wilhelm Geerlings, Possidius, Vita Augustini, ed. Wilhelm Geerlings, Augustinus Opera – Werke (Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich, 2005), 159. Neither Boniface Ramsey, in Revisions (Retractationes), including an appendix with the Indiculus of Possidius, trans., notes and introd. Boniface Ramsey, ed. Roland Teske, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century I.2 (New York, 2010), 176, nor E. Zocca, in Possidio, Vita (2009), 328 do offer any identification. 41 See A. Goldbacher, CSEL 44, 449-88. The title to which Eugippius refers is ‘Ex epistula responsionis ad consulta Hilarii’ (Eugippius, exc. Aug. CCXCVI [ed. P. Knöll, CSEL 9.1, 955]). 42 On Hilary, see C. and L. Pietri (dir.), Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne (313-604), Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 2 (Rome, 1999-2000), I 986-7 (‘Hilarius 3’). The terminus ante quem corresponds to Orosius’ departure for Palestine, since he brought a copy to Jerome on this occasion with another one of the De peccatorum meritis, as Jerome himself points out (dial. 3.19). A fourth argument, less decisive, is that the work is already listed in indic. X3.3. 36

42

J. DELMULLE

have found in the Hippo library bearing no author’s name, and which he could have wanted to attribute to Augustine, is also not acceptable, because the dating of the latter treatise, now better established between 430 and 435 AD, is not compatible with the date acknowledged for the update of the Indiculum of Hippo.43 By contrast, it is possible, finally, to understand this entry in Possidius’ catalogue differently by comparing it with Prosper’s own list. The latter, in fact, mentions the De perfectione iustitiae hominis with a tripartite title which indicates its topic (de perfectione iustitiae hominis), its addressees (ad Paulum et Eutropium sacerdotes) and its polemical object (contra Pelagii et Caelestii quaestiones): the title in indic. VII.7 could therefore be a doublet of VII.4 or, better, a complement to the same entry VII.4 in the original library Indiculum, which would have been transcribed into Possidius’ Indiculus in the wrong position, after VII.5-6.44 4. Independence of Prosper’s list from the other two What links, if any, do these three lists have to each other? The respective dependency relationships of the Retractationes and Possidius’ Indiculus with the former Indiculum of Hippo, which was used both by Augustine to prepare his Retractationes and by Possidius to draw up his catalogue, has been convincingly demonstrated.45 So it remains for us to try to determine whether, for the list of the Contra collatorem, Prosper depends on one of his two predecessors. Supporters of the hypothesis that Prosper had access to Augustine’s main works only from his arrival in Rome in 440 AD should, in fact, explain how the same author was able to write this bibliographical guide as early as the years 432/3 AD. 43 This was the hypothesis formulated in the seventeenth century by the French Jesuit Jean Garnier in his edition of the works of Marius Mercator: see his ‘Dissertatio VI. Pars prima. De scriptis a defensoribus fidei adversus hæresim Pelagianam ante mortem sancti Augustini’ (Marii Mercatoris Augustino æqualis Opera quæcunque extant [Parisiis, 1673], reproduced in PL 48, 535C-86B, 586A). The date used today for the Hypomnesticon was defended by John Edward Chisholm, The Pseudo-Augustinian Hypomnesticon Against the Pelagians and Celestians, I, Paradosis 20 (Fribourg, 1967), 24. 44 The Maurists had already proposed the idea that VII.7 is a doublet of VII.4: see PL 46 (Paris, 1842), 8-9 note 6; they were followed by Ángel C. Vega, in Opuscula sancti Possidii episcopi Calamensi. Vita sancti Augustini et indiculum librorum eius (El Escorial, 1934), 60 note 1. One could even hypothesize that these words are a personal addition of Possidius in the Indiculus: in this regard, it should be noted that the authenticity of this title is not certain, since the qualifier Pelagianista is extremely rare in Augustine (he only uses it in s. 183.1 and 12; ed. S. Boodts, CChr.SL 41Bb, 722 and 729), but it seems much more familiar to Possidius, who uses it several times in the Vita (vita Aug. 18.1; 18.7; ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen [1975], 174 and 176); it is also the noun that serves as the title of the Indiculus’ section VII. 45 See F. Dolbeau, ‘La survie’ (1998), 7-9.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

43

It is acknowledged that Prosper had access to a copy of the Retractationes early on, since he is able to quote this work in 430/1 AD for his correspondents in Genoa;46 in the letter Hilary of Marseilles sent to Augustine in 428 AD, at the same time as Prosper, he explicitly asked the bishop of Hippo to send him the book as soon as it would be published, and one can imagine that Augustine responded favorably to this request and that this book reached them as early as the year 428 AD, or at the latest in the following year, at the same time as the De praedestinatione sanctorum et de dono perseuerantiae which was addressed to them.47 With regard to Possidius’ Indiculus, the question is more difficult: it is highly likely that the Indiculus and the Vita were published jointly, and that the latter was not published until the second half of the 430s AD;48 but it is always possible to imagine that Prosper, who was aware, through the Retractationes, of the existence of the Indiculum of Hippo, may have sought to obtain a copy of it in previous years. However, a synoptic comparison of the three lists clearly shows that Prosper’s list cannot depend, at least not entirely, on the Retractationes, nor on Possidius’ Indiculus, and therefore it is also unlikely that it could be derived more directly from the Indiculum of Hippo:49 Prosp.

title

CPL

retr.

date

Possid.

1

pecc. mer.

342

2.33(59)

411/2

VII.1

2

ep. 186

262

—

417

X5.38

3

epp. 194 (+ 191?)

262

—

418/9

VII.11

4

gr. et pecc. or.

349

2.50(76)

418

VII.6

5

nupt. et conc.

350

2.53(79)

420/1

VII.8

46

Prosper, resp. ad Gen., resp. 1-3 (PL 51, 190A): Hoc autem se in libro Retractationum secundo suo opere studiose recoluisse. A few lines earlier (PL 51, 189C), an allusion to the De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum also seems to depend in part on the Retractationes: the passage reproduces some elements from retr. 2.1(27).1; see however supra (p. 35) for the possibility of first-hand knowledge of the work. For the dating of the Responsiones ad excerpta Genuensium in 430/1 AD, see M. Cappuyns, ‘Le premier représentant’ (1929), 317 note 22 and 322-6 and A.Y. Hwang, Intrepid Lover (2009), 17. 47 Hilary of Marseilles, inter Augustine, ep. 226.10 (ed. A. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, 479): Libros, cum editi fuerint, quos de uniuerso opere moliris, quaeso habere mereamur. 48 The manuscript tradition of the Indiculus is inseparable from that of the Vita; see Altmut Mutzenbecher, ‘Bemerkungen zum Indiculum des Possidius. Ein Rezension’, REAug 33.1 (1987), 128-31, 129-30. The date of composition and publication of the Vita Augustini is not certain: E.T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama (2008), 20 note 11, sticks to a range between 432 and 439 AD. 49 In the following table, references to the Retractationes are made according to the numbering of Altmut Mutzenbecher’s edition: Sancti Aurelii Augustini Retractationum libri II, CChr.SL 57 (Turnhout, 1984); for the works listed in the Retractationes, the concordance with the entries of Possidius’ Indiculus and the numbers of the Clavis Patrum Latinorum are already given in Mutzenbecher’s edition (‘Concordantia I’, 206-8).

J. DELMULLE

44 6

nat. et gr.

344

2.42(68)

415

VII.3

7

c. Iul.

351

2.62(88)

421/2

VII.10

8

gest. Pel.

348

2.47(73)

416

VII.5

9

perf. iust.

347

—

415

VII.4 (+ 7?); X3.21

10

c. ep. Pel.

346

2.61(87)

420/1

VII.9

It is actually impossible for Prosper to have compiled his list exclusively from the information provided by the Retractationes, which he had known for several years, since his list also mentions two letters as well as the De perfectione iustitiae, not recorded by Augustine. Nor can his list be entirely superimposed over that of the Indiculus: if it is true that all the works mentioned by Prosper are also found in Possidius, it is not clear why some titles, also mentioned by Possidius, seem to be ignored by Prosper;50 moreover, the titles under which Possidius and Prosper cite several works differ significantly. Prosper’s list certainly does not claim to be a scrupulous bibliographic statement, and not all titles are to be taken for granted: they are integrated into a development which, as has been said, is stylistically elaborated; moreover, the designation of some people is, so to speak, “updated” and obviously does not correspond to the title as it should have been in the original work (Boniface is called beatae memoriae; the name of Xystus is adapted to his new function: tunc presbyterum, nunc uero pontificem). But the titles that Prosper gives seem to reflect a personal knowledge of some works, or at least bibliographical details that the consultation of Possidius could not have provided: a. Prosper specifies (5) the title of comes for Valerius, recipient of the De nuptiis et concupiscentia, which the Indiculus did not give but which he could reconstruct from retr. 2.53(79); b. By contrast, he is the only one of the three to mention (6) the De natura et gratia not under this title but under the name of its addressees, Timasius and Iacobus: here again, one cannot in all rigor conclude too hastily to a direct knowledge of the work, because Prosper could well have found the information in other works by Augustine in which the De natura et gratia is mentioned, as gest. Pel. 23.47 and 24.48, ep. 177.6 or ep. 19*.3; c. As far as the De gestis Pelagii is concerned, Prosper cites it, unlike the Retractationes and the Indiculus, under the title De gestis Palaestinis (8), which is not even attested in the (poor and late) direct tradition, but is certainly not erroneous, since it corresponds exactly to the title under which Augustine cites this work in his De peccato originali51 and to that of a Greek translation of the work attested as early as the beginning of the 50 Among the titles listed by Possidius, at least three are not mentioned by Prosper: De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum liber unus (indic. VII.2), a letter to Marius Mercator (VII.12) and the s. 294 (VII.13). 51 Augustine, gr. et pecc. or. 2.14.15 (ed. K.F. Urba and J. Zycha, CSEL 42, 176): Quod autem scitis et quod in eo etiam libro posui, quem de gestis Palaestinis ad uenerabilem senem nostrum

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

45

sixth century;52 it might therefore be worth to ask whether Prosper knew the De gestis Pelagii directly in a (perhaps primitive?) state or if he only quotes this title from De peccato originali; d. Finally, the precision sex libri priores (7) used to designate the Contra Iulianum makes it clear that, even if he does not advise reading them or even if he has never had them in his own hands, Prosper is aware of the existence of some libri posteriores, which can only be the six books of the Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum.53

To sum up, it seems obvious that, based solely on Augustine’s Retractationes and the late treatises in his possession (De gratia et libero arbitrio, De correptione et gratia, De praedestinatione sanctorum et de dono perseuerantiae), Prosper could never have known so much detail. To explain his apparent indepth knowledge of Augustine’s polemical writings, it would be necessary to assume – this is the most economical solution – that he also had at least in his hands a copy of the De gestis Pelagii. Moreover, a thorough examination of Prosper’s own works composed during these same years (before 433 AD) seems to prove that this author made direct use of several other treatises, in the Contra collatorem but also in his earlier writings. I confine myself here to the least questionable testimonies:54 e. In epist. 1.3 (= Aug., ep. 225.3), written in 428 AD, an allusion that Prosper makes to Augustine about the Contra Iulianum implies a careful reading at least of book IV of this work.55

Aurelium scripsi. Cf. also gr. et pecc. or. 2.8.9 (ibid. 172): quid ergo de Palaestina synodi gestis; 2.9.10 (ibid.): eorundem gestorum Palaestinorum … commemorationem fecissemus. 52 By the Vatopedi florilegium (ms. Hagion Oros, Μονὴ Βατοπαιδίου, 236), in which an extract from the De gestis is entitled as follows (fol. 122r): Αὐγουστίνου ἐπισκόπου Ἱππονένσου τῆς Ἀφρικῆς περὶ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων τῶν πραχθέντων κατὰ τὴν Παλαιστίνην ἕνεκεν Πελαγίου καὶ Κελεστίου; see Giulio Malavasi, ‘The Greek Version(s) of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii’, ZAC 21.3 (2017), 559-72, 565, and the article by the same author in the present volume: ‘The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources from the Council of Ephesus (431) to Photius’, p. 117-33, 127. 53 Moreover, in 433 at the latest, in the entry of his Chronicon which he dedicates to Augustine’s death, he explicitly mentions that the latter was then composing new books against Julian, left unfinished; see Prosper, chron. 1304 (ed. Th. Mommsen, MGH.AA 9, 473): Aurelius Augustinus episcopus per omnia excellentissimus moritur V. kl. Sept., libris Iuliani inter impetus obsidentium Wandalorum in ipso dierum suorum fine respondens et gloriose in defensione Christianae gratiae perseverans. 54 It is, of course, always possible to multiply an author’s potential sources from an assessment of loci similes. But most of the parallels proposed so far by the editors or translators of some of Prosper’s works (especially the Epistula ad Rufinum or the Carmen de ingratis) are quite distant, and at least non-literal, echoes of Augustine’s doctrinal positions that cannot be linked to one passage in particular. 55 Prosper, epist. 1.3 (= Augustine, ep. 225.3) (PL 51, 69D; ed. A. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, 458-9): Quicquid etiam in libris contra Iulianum ab ipso sub hac quaestione obiectum potentissime debellasti.

46

J. DELMULLE

The next three are concentrated in the Contra collatorem: f. As said above, Prosper quotes verbatim in c. coll. 21.4 a substantial passage from the ep. 194 to Xystus;56 g. The first lines of the same ch. 21, as well as the introduction of the entire treatise (c. coll. 1.1), appear in reality to be an imitation and adaptation, for Pope Xystus, of the considerations Augustine addressed to Xystus’ predecessor, Boniface, in the opening of his Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum;57 h. Finally, the overall structure of the Contra collatorem, which is based on the definition of twelve propositions in the adversary’s argumentation which the author applies himself to refuting, seems to be very strongly inspired by that of the De perfectione iustitiae hominis with which it shares several common points.58

In total, therefore, of the ten titles in the list of the Contra collatorem, Prosper seems to have had at least five at his disposal at the time of writing his treatise against John Cassian: certainly the ep. 194 (3 = f), the six books Contra Iulianum (7 = e), the De perfectione iustitiae hominis (9 = h) and the Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum (10 = g), and most likely the De gestis Pelagii (8 = b-c). This cluster of clues is important, and should be taken into account in order to understand the rest of the list, and it is therefore legitimate to wonder whether, as early as 432 AD, Prosper had access to the other works in the list too, especially since the presence of two more works from this list is attested in Southern Gaul at the very same time. The availability in Provence, during the first decades of the fifth century, of the De peccatorum meritis (1) is ensured by the fact that it was first mentioned, as early as 417 AD, by Claudius Postumus Dardanus, praetorian prefect of Gaul (after the transfer of the prefecture from Trier to Arles) in his lost letter to Augustine;59 several passages, then, were excerpted by Vincent of Lérins in his Excerpta around 434 AD.60 Also the ep. 186 (2) was read among Provençal monks before 430 AD.61 56 Cf. Augustine, ep. 194.1.2 (ed. A. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, 177-8) and Prosper, c. coll. 21.4 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 84); on the rhetorical and polemical impact of this quotation for Prosper’s project of persuading the papacy, see J. Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine (2018), 74-5 and 80-1. 57 Cf. Augustine, c. ep. Pel. 1.1.2 (ed. K.F. Urba and J. Zycha, CSEL 60, 424) and Prosper, c. coll. 1.1-2 and 21.1 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 5-7; 79-80); see J. Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine (2018), 77-9. 58 See J. Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine (2018), 105-8. 59 Cf. Augustine, ep. 187.7.22 (ed. A. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, 100): cum enim commemorasses legisse te librum meum de baptismo paruulorum. See O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 248 and note 159. 60 Vincent of Lérins, exc. V and VII (ed. R. Demeulenaere, CChr.SL 64, 214 and 219-20). 61 Cf. Augustine, praed. sanct. et perseu. 2.21.55 (PL 45, 1027): ipsam epistolam, quam jam contra Pelagianos ad sanctum Paulinum Nolanum episcopum feci, cui epistolae contradicere modo coeperunt. See O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 248 and note 160.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

47

5. Does the order of titles reveal a direct knowledge of the works? Another problem with Prosper’s list is the order in which Augustine’s antiPelagian works are mentioned. Prosper’s order does not correspond in any way to that of the Indiculum of Hippo – which is a further proof of his independence. Contrary to what might be implied by Prosper’s initial allusion to Augustine’s earlier writings on the matter and his apparent desire to place his master’s latest productions in a precise chronology, the order followed by Prosper does not correspond either to the chronological order of the writings.62 Should we think that the author’s intention was to place these works in their chronological succession but that he was wrong about the dating? The fact he had undoubtedly known the Retractationes for years prevents us from thinking so, and invites us to explain with another reason the organization he alone gives to this corpus. Could we think that in drawing up this list Prosper wanted to offer his readers a sort of thematic reading programme? Was it supposed to supply readers with an Augustinian handbook as a propaedeutics to questions of theological anthropology? Another hypothesis, put forward by Otto Wermelinger, would be that Prosper wanted to bring together at the beginning of his list the three most controversial works by Augustine and then list other titles in an order that remains unclear to us.63 A more practical and economical hypothesis would be that this order reflects the one in which Prosper had these works in his library, and it would therefore be proof that it is linked to real readings. This is the interpretation that has also been proposed for a similar list of Cyprian of Carthage’s writings given by his biographer Pontius.64 Such a solution is very tempting, but generally hard to prove, and one could hope to find some material proof by looking in the manuscript tradition for the same sequence of works. But to arrive at certainties from a simple list and for such a long period of time is all the more difficult because Pontius’ Vita and the Contra collatorem had themselves a fairly wide handwritten diffusion and, consequently, it is not impossible that, through reading them, medieval copyists or readers had the idea of making a volume of Opera omnia or selecta by precisely following the recommendations made by these authors. As far as Prosper is concerned, we are lucky to have an additional piece of argument, provided by his Liber sententiarum. As stated before, this work is 62

As already noted by O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 248. Ibid. 64 See in particular Cuthbert H. Turner, ‘Two Early Lists of St. Cyprian’s Works’, CR 6.5 (1892), 205-9 and Maria Boccuzzi, ‘I fondamenti materiali della tradizione degli Opuscula di Cipriano: la tarda antichità’, S&T 16 (2018), 155-207 + 3 pl., 174-82 (with previous bibliography: 176 note 75). My thanks to Laetitia Ciccolini for pointing me to these publications. 63

J. DELMULLE

48

generally dated much later (440-451 AD?), but it presents some points of contact with the list in the Contra collatorem which will provide answers to several of our questions. In a work in preparation,65 I defend the hypothesis that Prosper’s anthology, whose structure has long posed difficulties of interpretation,66 has reached us in a completely altered state and that its original composition was in fact much more linear and followed the order of the works as they appeared in the source manuscripts used by Prosper to compile it. It so happens that in the Liber sententiarum there is a small section consisting of excerpts from Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works, which is composed of ten extracts (extr. CCCIX-CCCXVIII) taken from six different works:67 sent.

title

P.’s list

CCCIX-CCCX

ep. 186

2

CCCXI

ep. 194

3

CCCXII

gest. Pel.

8

CCCXIII-CCCXVI

c. ep. Pel.

10

CCCXVII

gr. et lib. arb.

—

CCCXVIII

praed. sanct.

—

[+ XLVIII

nat. et grat.

6]

Even if Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works occupy a rather discreet place within the Liber sententiarum, it is intriguing to note that in the structure of the anthology, and therefore in the volumes used to make it, there are two groups of two works that follow one another in the same order as the one in which they appeared in the list of the Contra collatorem, whereas their order is not explained either by the other bibliographic tools available at the time or by the material location of the originalia in Hippo library. Therefore, there would be an additional argument for hypothesizing that the list in c. coll. 21.3 reflects the order in which Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works were found in Prosper’s library or in the library he frequented in Marseilles, already in 432/3 AD. This hypothesis would not in itself be extraordinary, nor would it imply the existence of a huge library: statistical research, carried out on all the extant 65 ‘Recherches sur la première transmission du Liber sententiarum et du Liber epigrammatum de Prosper d’Aquitaine’ (in preparation). 66 See, among others, Rudolf Lorenz, ‘Der Augustinismus Prospers von Aquitanien’, ZKG 73.3-4 (1962), 217-52, 218-9, and Michele Cutino, ‘Les florilèges des sentences de Prosper d’Aquitaine. Une sélection théologiquement orientée’, in Jérémy Delmulle, Gert Partoens, Shari Boodts and Anthony Dupont (eds), Flores Augustini: Augustinian Florilegia in the Middle Ages, Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 57 (Leuven, 2020), 31-45, 35-37. 67 Ed. in Prosperi Aquitani Opera, II: Liber sententiarum, ed. Aldo Ceresa Gastaldo, CChr. SL 68A (Turnhout, 1972), 334-7.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

49

manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts dating from the fifth century, suggests that all the texts listed in the Contra collatorem, probably copied in uncial manuscripts, should occupy at most five or six volumes.68 6. From Hippo to Marseille, through Rome? By way of conclusion, what lessons can one learn from our study of Prosper’s list? A careful study of the content and composition of this list has enabled us to establish that Prosper must have already known many of Augustine’s antiPelagian works well before the time he moved to Rome, that is from the early 430s AD. It would therefore be appropriate to take this data into account in order to reassess Prosper’s sometimes exacerbated “Augustinianism”: while it may be true that Prosper conveys a doctrine which sometimes differs from that of his master by some systematisations or hardenings, it is certainly, so to speak, “in full knowledge of the facts”, and that it is not necessarily the discovery of other Augustinian works in Rome that led our author, afterward, to soften his theological positions… The aforementioned scepticism of some authors and their conclusions about Prosper’s late “discovery” of a significant number of Augustinian works69 can be explained, in fact, by a certain illusion that Patristic florilegia in general can provoke on scholars who seek to reconstruct on the basis of the selected excerpts the sources used by compilators. In other words, if Prosper quotes Augustine so extensively in his Liber sententiarum from 440 onwards, it is not because he has just got access to a vast collection of Augustinian works; it is principally because it is at this time that he compiles a florilegium, maybe the literary form of quotation par excellence. Most of the works he excerpted on this occasion were already known to him about ten years earlier, but the nature of the works he composed at that time, in the midst of a huge controversy, did not require him to reproduce full passages from his Augustinian sources, which no doubt he also exploited at the time. Beyond Prosper’s personal case, the testimony of the Contra collatorem allows us to understand that the diffusion of Augustine’s works in the Northern 68 This estimate is based on the use of the data of the Codices Latini Antiquiores volumes (now online: https://elmss.nuigalway.ie/): of about 150 manuscripts supposed to date from before the middle of the fifth century, ninety-two are in uncials. It is harder to determine the size and volume of these manuscripts, but an average of about 150-200 words per page seems to be a good average among Augustine’s fifth-sixth century uncial manuscripts: see, for the high average, the example of the ms. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 210, and for the low average, the statistics given by Pierre Petitmengin, ‘Cinq manuscrits de saint Cyprien et leur ancêtre’, RHT 2 (1972), 197-230, 210-1 (based on a counting by quires). 69 See supra, p. 36-7.

J. DELMULLE

50

Mediterranean before the supposed move of the Hippo library to Italy was much more extensive than one might think. While it is likely that the library was rescued and that many of Augustine’s works ended up in Rome, perhaps as early as the middle of the fifth century, it seems that it can no longer be argued that “by the time Augustine died, a tiny part of his abundant literary production had crossed the Mediterranean”.70 And this is particularly true in a region as spiritually and intellectually dynamic as Provence. In this respect, it seems that two main centers of reception of Augustine’s thought and works can be distinguished: that is to say, Marseilles for theology, essentially for questions of grace and predestination, as confirmed by the direct and indirect testimonies of Prosper and some of his adversaries;71 and the island of Lérins, above all for the exegetical works, as evidenced by the many borrowings from Augustine Eucherius of Lyons made at the same time,72 but also for the theological works, whose Christological positions were of primary interest to Vincent of Lérins in his Excerpta, compiled around 434 AD.73 It then remains to determine how these works could reach the ports of Southern Gaul so quickly. Although direct relations between North Africa and Southern Gaul should allow the transport of books as well as merchandise without any difficulty,74 it is nevertheless necessary to recognize in the diffusion of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings a fairly important role for Rome and for the Apostolic See. It is not doubtful that the main writing phase of the Contra collatorem 70

J.-P. Bouhot, ‘La transmission’ (1998), 24. For Prosper, see supra, p. 36-7. According to O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), 248 note 163, Prosper’s quotation from ep. 194.1.2 in c. coll. 21.4 seems to mean that Augustine’s letter to Xystus was as badly received in Gaul as it was in Hadrumetum. Lastly, two other Augustinian works should be added: In Iohannis euangelium tractatus and ep. 137 were known to John Cassian, who included two excerpts from them in his patristic anthology of his De incarnatione contra Nestorium (c. Nest. 7.27; ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 17, 385-6). 72 See Martine Dulaey, ‘La bibliothèque de Lérins dans les premières décennies du Ve s. d’après l’œuvre d’Eucher de Lyon’, Augustinianum 46.1 (2006), 187-230; ead., ‘Augustin en Provence dans les premières décennies du Ve s. : le témoignage des Formulae d’Eucher’, in Comunicazione e ricezione del documento cristiano in epoca tardoantica. XXXII Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 8-10 maggio 2003, Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 90 (Roma, 2004), 121-46; ead., ‘Eucher de Lyon, lecteur d’Augustin : le témoignage des Instructiones’, REAug 66.1 (2020), 139-64. 73 Vincent’s Excerpta testify to a vast knowledge of Augustine’s treatises, especially theological works: Contra Maximinum Arrianum, De consensu euangelistarum, De doctrina Christiana, Enchiridion, De Trinitate, etc. See Paul Mattei, ‘Vincent de Lérins et son œuvre d’excerpteur. Essai de mise au point’, in J. Delmulle, G. Partoens, S. Boodts and A. Dupont (eds), Flores Augustini (2020), 11-30, in particular 29-30 (‘Tableau n° 2’). 74 On trade exchanges between cities on the African coast and Provence, and in particular Marseilles, in the first half of fifth century, see Simon T. Loseby, ‘Marseille: A Late Antique Success Story?’, JRS 82 (1992), 165-85, 172-3 and 185, table 2; Michel Bonifay and Claude Raynaud, ‘Échanges et consommation’, in Marc Heijmans and Jean Guyon (eds), Antiquité tardive, haut Moyen Âge et premiers temps chrétiens en Gaule méridionale. Seconde partie: monde rural, échanges et consommation = Gallia 64 (2007), 93-161, especially 100-1 and 105. 71

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

51

takes place after the mission of Prosper and Hilary to Celestine in Rome, and that the bibliographic list discussed here is included in a section of the treatise strongly marked by a Roman imprint. A detail in this same chapter c. coll. 21.3 may be of some importance in this respect. Regretting that the pope did not explicitly mention the works of Augustine whose doctrine he validated, Prosper adds: “The Apostolic See approves at the same time as what it has known, that which is not different from what it has known, and does not separate in its praise what it unites in its judgment.”75 The first precision appears to suggest that Pope Celestine was quite familiar with Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works. Here is the reasoning: if the pope has validated these writings of Augustine (which have just been listed), then he ipso facto validates the latest writings, which are at the center of the discussion, and which defend exactly the same ideas. One can imagine that, if the pope had examined the last four treatises and approved them, Prosper would have said so in a less convoluted way… In fact, the anti-Pelagian dossier holds a special place in Augustine’s works: several of the treatises in question were addressed directly to the pope (Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, addressed to Boniface) or to the Roman clergy (ep. 194 to Xystus), and the works composed by both parties had necessarily to be examined in Rome in the pope’s entourage before the events of 418 AD, and again in the following decade.76 There is therefore every reason to believe that copies of Augustine’s main treatises against Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian were accessible in the Latran at a time close to their publication. And it is also thought that during his embassy in Rome in 431 AD, Prosper had access to a rich documentation, probably preserved in the pontifical scrinium and unavailable elsewhere, gathering part of the correspondence of the Roman bishops with the African episcopate and the texts produced by the pontifical chancellery on the occasion of the condemnation of 418 AD.77 If the hypothesis I have just 75

Prosper, c. coll. 21.3 (ed. J. Delmulle, CChr.SL 68, 83): Apostolica enim sedes quod a praecognitis sibi non discrepat cum praecognitis probat et quod iudicio iungit laude non diuidit. Prudentius De Letter’s translation in Prosper of Aquitaine, Defense of St. Augustine, Ancient Christian Writers 32 (Westminster, London, 1963), 136, taken over by A.Y. Hwang, Intrepid Lover (2009), 164 (“books submitted to its judgment”) is less neutral: it assumes that Prosper himself submitted a set of books to the pope, which is highly improbable. 76 On the question of the presence in Rome of the works composed during the Pelagian controversy and the frequent exchanges between African bishops and the Apostolic See, see, in addition to O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (1975), Laurence Dalmon, Un dossier de l’Épistolaire augustinien : la correspondance entre l’Afrique et Rome à propos de l’affaire pélagienne (416-418) : traduction, commentaire et annotations, Studia Patristica Supplement 3 (Leuven, Paris, Bristol, CT, 2015). 77 Prosper exploits all of these documents in 432/3 AD against John Cassian (c. coll. 5.3), and he will reuse them later in the decade (around 439?) to compile his Sedis apostolicæ episcoporum auctoritates (PL 51, 205A-212B): see J. Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine (2018), 208-16. On the purpose and dating of Auctoritates, see also Raúl Villegas Marín, ‘En polémica con Julián de Eclanum. Por una nueva lectura del Syllabus de gratia de Próspero de Aquitania’, Augustinianum 43.1 (2003), 81-124.

52

J. DELMULLE

proposed is correct and if Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works were available in Rome at that time, it would be all the more likely that Prosper took advantage of this same trip to Rome to realize copies of some of Augustine’s works of which he had not yet been informed, and that he took them with him when he returned in Provence and then exploited and cited them in his Contra collatorem.78 I conclude with two additional questions and one additional hypothesis: First question: Has Prosper’s list ever been used? It is surprising, for example, that it did not give the idea to some Carolingian or later scholar to compose a volume or series of volumes containing the entire corpus, which could have been very useful in other controversies on grace and free will. A survey carried out in the manuscript tradition shows that, apart from one or two texts that seem to have circulated together from a very early period, this corpus does not seem to have survived Late Antiquity. But for all that, the reading advice given by Prosper could inspire one or other ancient scholar: for example, Raúl Villegas Marín has just proposed a stimulating link between this bibliography and an anti-Pelagian section of Eugippius of Castellum Lucullanum’s collection of Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini.79 But not everyone could have libraries as rich in Augustine’s writings as Eugippius; which leads me to my second question: given what has been said about the quite scattered dissemination of Augustine’s works during this early period, was it even possible for Prosper’s first readers, at least those who did not belong to the pope’s entourage in Rome, to refer materially to volumes of the works indicated? The most likely answer is no. Hence my hypothesis: can it be imagined that, wishing to make the main ideas of these ten Augustinian treatises accessible to his readers, Prosper saw fit not to circulate all these texts, but a selection of extracts from these treatises? Prosper’s Liber sententiarum is famous, but it is known that he also compiled another work of excerption, now lost, from the De Trinitate. Could he not have used the same process on the questions of grace, which were the ones that occupied him most during the 78 In some cases, the arrival in Provence of works attested to an earlier period in Italy could also be explained by the networks of aristocratic amicitia between the two regions: this could be the case of the ep. 186 to Paulinus of Nola, since it is known that Paulinus maintained an epistolary relationship with Eucherius of Lyons (cf. Paulinus, ep. 51); the archdeacon and future Pope Leo, to whom Cassian dedicated his Contra Nestorium and to whom Prosper would soon be close, could also have played a role in the diffusion of certain works. I thank Raúl Villegas Marín for this suggestion. 79 Cf. Eugippius, exc. Aug. CCLXXX-CCXCVII (ed. P. Knöll, CSEL 9.1, 897-959). See Raúl Villegas Marín, ‘The Anti-Pelagian Dossier of Eugippius’ Excerpta ex Operibus Sancti Augustini in Context: Notes on the Reception of Augustine’s Works on Grace and Predestination in Late Fifth – Early Sixth-Century Rome’, in J. Delmulle, G. Partoens, S. Boodts and A. Dupont (eds), Flores Augustini (2020), 91-106, 104-5.

A List of Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works by Prosper of Aquitaine

53

first fifteen years of his career, and on which he composed most of his personal works? No such Late-Antique collection on this subject has been preserved, but some evidence left by early florilegists, such as the Venerable Bede, suggest that such collections existed;80 there is a high probability that they were composed at a time when the questions were still vivid, i.e. in the fifth century, and that they have some connection with the activity of some of Augustine’s defenders during the post-Pelagian controversy…

80 See Nicolas De Maeyer, Iuxta vestigium Patrum. The Venerable Bede’s Collectio ex opusculis sancti Augustini in Epistolas Pauli apostoli: A Study of its Structure, Sources, and Transmission, with a Critical Edition of its Commentary on Romans (fr. 1-125), PhD Dissertation (Leuven, 2019), I 302-13.

‘I cut its neck with its own sword’: Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus Richard FLOWER, Exeter, UK

ABSTRACT The anonymous Praedestinatus is a fifth-century Latin text sometimes attributed to Arnobius the Younger. Written soon after the death of Augustine of Hippo, it presents a response to that bishop’s views on predestination, which are ostensibly disassociated from him and presented as the work of an imposter writing under his name. Augustine’s position is labelled as the heresy of the ‘Praedestinati’, who become the ninetieth and final sect in the heresiology that comprises the first book of the Praedestinatus. This article explores how the author of this work weaves a very particular account of the history of the Church and its battle against heresy in order to position himself and his theological allies as the heirs and defenders of this orthodox legacy. Moreover, it also considers the text’s subversive engagement with heresiology, especially Augustine’s own De haeresibus, as a means of classifying and combatting religious deviance and a tool for constructing personal authority. Through close analysis of the Praedestinatus’ rhetoric and reworking of its sources, this article argues that the text is not simply a deceitful confection of plagiarism and invention. Instead it can be read as a clever manipulation of the growing phenomenon of heresiological literature and an attempt by the author to challenge the authority of his predecessors and arrogate it to himself.

Here begins the epitome of the ἐκδικήσις of Hyginus against the heresiarchs, and of the categorici of Epiphanius against the sects, and of the descriptions of Filastrius, who, transferring them into Latin speech from Greek, produced them when the Arians were condemned. First Hyginus, after him Polycrates, Africanus, Hesiod, Epiphanius, Filastrius, these men revealed diverse heresies at diverse times.1

1 Praedestinatus 1 Title: incipit epitoma ἐκδικήσεως Hygini contra haeresiarches et categoricorum Epiphanii contra sectas et expositionum Philastri, qui hos transferens in latinum sermonem de Graeco cum Arriani damnarentur edidit. prior Hyginus, post hunc Polycrates, Africanus, Hesiodus, Epiphanius, Philaster, hi diuersis temporibus diuersas haereses detexerunt. All quotations from the Praedestinatus are from Arnobii Iunioris. Praedestinatus qui dicitur, ed. Franco Gori, CChr.SL 25B (Turnhout, 2000). All translations in this article from this and other texts are my own, unless stated otherwise.

Studia Patristica CXX, 55-77. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

R. FLOWER

56

This introduction appears immediately after the preface of an anonymous fifth-century work now known as the Praedestinatus and acts as a description of the first of the three books into which the text is divided. As the preceding preface had just outlined, its author was disturbed that some wicked men had been spreading a new heresy that preached the concept of predestination, thereby causing people to neglect both virtuous actions and the sacraments and priestly authority of the Church.2 Moreover, the members of this latest heretical sect had been trying to lend greater authority to their dangerous writings by falsely attributing them to the revered bishop and theologian Augustine of Hippo, who had died in 430.3 The author of this work, however, declares that he is now going to uncover their deceit through his tripartite work of scholarship. Book 1 of the Praedestinatus is a heresiology, an ordered catalogue of all the heretical sects from the biblical figure of Simon Magus, the opponent of the apostle Peter in Acts, down to the present day, and concludes with the heresy of the ‘Praedestinati’ in the ninetieth chapter. Book 2 is said to reproduce a treatise written by these new heretics, which is said to have been circulating under the name of Augustine, and which is also described as having been condemned by Celestine I of Rome: ‘When this book was offered to him at some point, the highest priest Celestine of most blessed memory regarded it as such a curse that he ordered it to be condemned in perpetual silence’.4 The reference to the death of Celestine, which occurred in 432, also provides a terminus post quem for the text’s composition, with Franco Gori arguing for its completion before 449 and probably during the 430s.5 Book 3 of the work is then taken up with a refutation of the beliefs of the heretics, particularly in the form that they had been expressed in Book 2, thereby ensuring that their own false claims are exposed to scrutiny and comprehensively defeated. Taken as a whole, therefore, the work is presented as being able to play a vital role in protecting the Church from the sect’s concealed poison. It engages with a tradition of anti-heretical discourse that was already well established in Christian literature by this time. In particular, Book 1, as a heresiology, follows in the footsteps of a number of such works composed in the preceding decades, most prominently the Panarion, or Medicine Chest, of Epiphanius of Salamis from the late 370s, the Diversarum hereseon liber of Filastrius of Brescia, which built on Epiphanius’ work around a decade after him, and the De haeresibus of Augustine of Hippo, who used Epiphanius and 2

Praedestinatus Preface 1. Praedestinatus Preface 2. 4 Praedestinatus Preface 3: hunc librum aliquando sibi oblatum beatissimae memoriae summus pontifex Caelestinus ita exsecrationi habuit ut eum perpetuo iuberet damnari silentio. 5 F. Gori, Praedestinatus qui dicitur (2000), xiii. For a survey of other scholarship placing its composition in the 430s, see Francis X. Gumerlock, ‘Arnobius the Younger against the “Predestined One”: was Prosper of Aquitaine the predestinarian opponent of Arnobius the Younger?’, Augustinian Studies 44 (2013), 249-63, 252. 3

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

57

Filastrius as his major sources. The first book of the Praedestinatus follows these texts in presenting a list of heretical beliefs, organised in a broadly chronological manner, and highlighting influences and relationships between the various sects, which are simultaneously distinguished from each other and united in their opposition to the Church and its orthodoxy. It is the nature of the text’s engagement with its prominent predecessors, and its self-conscious articulation of its complicated and subversive relationship with the established genre of heresiology, that forms the focus of this article. * * * As has long been recognised, the Praedestinatus is far from being a straightforward defence of orthodoxy against heresy. The ‘heresy’ of the ‘Praedestinati’, ostensibly being dissociated from Augustine by our outraged author, actually represents some of the bishop’s own views regarding predestination, albeit expressed with the type of distortion and exaggeration which was a common feature of heresiological discourse. It is therefore clear that, while claiming to be defending Augustine from any link with heresy, the text actually seeks to attack his views on predestination and to support an anti-Augustinian or ‘antipredestinarian’ theological position that has traditionally been labelled, somewhat unhelpfully, as ‘semi-Pelagian’.6 Moreover, as the text is anonymous, the identity of its author has been the subject of a significant amount of debate in modern scholarship. The most popular suggestion has been to attribute it to Arnobius, the named author of the Commentarii in Psalmos, usually referred to as ‘Arnobius the Younger’ in order to distinguish him from the early fourthcentury apologist Arnobius of Sicca. Dom Germain Morin, writing in the early twentieth century, identified him as the author of a number of surviving anonymous works, and Morin’s conclusion that he wrote the Praedestinatus has been followed by Franco Gori in both his study of the text and his critical edition.7 This hypothesis has not, however, stood unchallenged, with Lukas Dorfbauer questioning Morin’s argument that all these texts were written by the same author.8 Norman James has recently built on this analysis, although still maintaining 6 On this term, see Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford, 2018), 225-7, as part of a broader discussion of the labels ‘Pelagian’ and ‘Pelagianism’. 7 Germain Morin, Études, textes, découvertes: contributions à la littérature et à l’histoire des douze premiers siècles (Maredsous, Paris, 1913), I 309-439, esp. 315-24, arguing that the Praedestinatus was written by the same author as the Commentarii in Psalmos and the Conflictus Arnobii cum Serapione. For summaries of these discussions and alternative suggestions concerning the authorship of the text, together with defences of Morin’s conclusions and lists of scholars who have agreed with him, see Franco Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane: l’eresiologia contro l’agostinismo (Rome, 1999), 5-8; F. Gori, Praedestinatus qui dicitur (2000), vii-xii. 8 Lukas J. Dorfbauer, ‘Neues zu den Expositiumculae in Evangelium Iohannis evangelistae Matthaei et Lucae (CPL 240) und ihrem vermeintlichen Autor “Arnobius Iunior”’, Revue Bénédictine

58

R. FLOWER

that the Praedestinatus and Commentarii in Psalmos are the products of the same author.9 Using a variety of evidence, he has provided new arguments to revive and expand an earlier hypothesis that the Praedestinatus was actually written by Julian of Eclanum, the fierce opponent of Augustine’s concept of predestination, and has suggested that Julian chose the pseudonym of ‘Arnobius’ for his Commentarii in Psalmos to evoke the figure of Arnobius of Sicca.10 It is not my intention to contribute to this ongoing discussion here, as the question of the authorship of the text is not especially germane to my argument. I do, however, believe that it is no longer possible to refer with the same certainty to the figure of ‘Arnobius the Younger’ and so within this article I shall refer to him simply as ‘our author’. Moreover, even if the Praedestinatus could be securely assigned to any identifiable individual, the fact that it appears to have been circulated anonymously, rather than under any name – real or fictional – may also be of significance for its literary purpose. Related to this is also the question of Book 2 of the work, which is purportedly a text written by a follower of the heresy of the ‘Praedestinati’. Amongst all the debate regarding the authorship of the remainder of the text, there is, however, now broad agreement that this supposed predestinarian treatise is actually a forgery by our author, created to allow him to refute their views, much like the statements placed in the mouths of the fictionalised opponents who often populate the pages of ancient dialogue literature.11 In fact, the text presents questions concerning authenticity and authorial honesty that extend far beyond the hostile paraphrasing of an opposing theological position for the sake of refutation. As is made clear in the quotation from the title of Book 1 that opens this article, this first part of the Praedestinatus is presented primarily as a work of translation, compilation and epitome. Our author portrays himself as drawing on the Greek and Latin heresiological writings of several notable and authoritative predecessors within the genre to produce a list of ninety different heresies, the last and most recent of which is the ‘Praedestinati’. In reality, however, this is, at least according to modern standards, a staggering example of plagiarism, since the first eighty-eight sects 124 (2014), 65-102, 261-97, with this analysis featuring prominently in the second part of the article. 9 Norman W. James, ‘Who was Arnobius the Younger? Dissimulation, deception and disguise by a fifth-century opponent of Augustine’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 69 (2018), 243-61. 10 N.W. James, ‘Who was Arnobius the Younger?’ (2018), with the suggestion about the pseudonym at 260 n. 77. F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), viii, lists other scholars who have previously attributed part or all of the work to Julian or one of his followers, beginning with Hans von Schubert in Der sogennante Praedestinatus: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pelagianismus (Leipzig, 1903). 11 See, for example, F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 89-90; David Lambert, ‘Augustine and the Praedestinatus: heresy, authority and reception’, Millennium 5 (2008), 147-62, 154-5; F.X. Gumerlock, ‘Arnobius the Younger against the “Predestined One”’ (2013), 250-1; N.W. James, ‘Who was Arnobius the Younger?’ (2018).

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

59

are taken in very large part from Augustine’s own De haeresibus, which the bishop had completed shortly before his death in 430. A number of changes and additions have been made to the text, including stating each heresy’s numerical place within the list, and some of these alterations represent subtle changes to the original text’s meaning and emphasis, as will be discussed later. Nonetheless Augustine’s words are often reproduced almost verbatim, as is evident, for example, from a comparison of the opening lines of the descriptions of the sect of the Ophites from the two works: The Ophites have been named from the serpent, for the serpent is called ὄφις in Greek. But they think that it is Christ; and they even have an actual snake trained to lick their bread, and so for them it is like sanctifying the Eucharist.12 The seventeenth heresy is of the Ophites. They have been named from the serpent, for the serpent is called ὄφις in Greek. Therefore they have a snake trained to lick their bread with its tongue, and so to be like it is sanctifying the Eucharist. They call their snake Christ.13

Despite the obvious dependence on Augustine’s work, there is no acknowledgement of this literary debt at any point in the Praedestinatus, although, as has already been seen in the title of Book 1, our author was keen to stress his credentials as a researcher in the field, listing a number of sources that he had supposedly consulted in composing the catalogue: Hyginus, Polycrates, Africanus, Hesiod, Epiphanius and Filastrius. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever read the works of the figures mentioned here, or of any heresiologist apart from Augustine. The names of the fourth-century heresiologists Epiphanius of Salamis and Filastrius of Brescia are almost certainly taken from Augustine, who acknowledges them as his main sources for the De haeresibus.14 Most of the other people mentioned appear to be references to the second- and third-century Christians Hyginus of Rome, Polycrates of Ephesus and Sextus Julius Africanus, although no anti-heretical writings by any of these figures are attested elsewhere and it is likely that such works never existed.15 The remaining character, Hesiod, is most probably intended to be the otherwise unknown Hesiod, bishop of Corinth, who, in chapter 49 of the text, is also 12 Augustine, De Haeresibus 17: Ophitae a colubro nominati sunt, coluber enim Graece ὄφις dicitur. hunc autem Christum arbitrantur; sed habent etiam uerum colubrum assuetum eorum panes lambere, atque ita eis uelut eucharistiam sanctificare. All quotations from this work are taken from the edition in Augustinus: De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum liber unus, ed. Roel vander Plaetse and Clemens Beukers, CChr.SL 46 (Turnhout, 1969), 283-345. 13 Praedestinatus 1.17: septima decima haeresis Ophitarum. hi a colubro nominati sunt. coluber enim, graece ὄφις dicitur. habent ergo colubrum assuetum eorum panes lingua lambere, atque ita esse uelut eucharistiam sanctificare. quem colubrum suum Christum appellant. 14 Augustine, De Haeresibus 57, 80. 15 See H. von Schubert, Der sogennante Praedestinatus (1903), 46; F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 11; F. Gori, Praedestinatus qui dicitur (2000), vi; D. Lambert, ‘Augustine and the Praedestinatus’ (2008), 150-1.

60

R. FLOWER

credited by our author with being the first person to oppose the early-fourthcentury heretic Arius and his followers. As has been recognised for more than a century, he is one of a number of churchmen named in this text, including Euphranon, bishop of Rhodes, and Perigenes of Argos, who are almost certainly fictional, while a number of real historical figures are also credited here with actions and writings which are almost certainly invented.16 The text contains a cornucopia of fake references, fake texts and fake authors, all concealing the real source: Augustine. These aspects of the text are all well established and widely discussed in scholarship, including the excellent study and critical edition of the text by Franco Gori, who provides important analysis of the theological details of the work.17 This article focuses more specifically on the language and rhetoric of Book 1, particularly its preface, to explore how it constructs a lineage of orthodox and, importantly, ecclesiastical heresiology and positions itself and its author with regard to it. This exploration of the Praedestinatus forms part of a wider project examining the relationship between late-antique heresiology and classical technical literature, especially encyclopaedic and medical writings, in order to analyse similarities in their rhetoric of comprehensiveness, expertise and authority. This article will therefore be looking at some similarities between our author’s presentation of his own scholarly practice and that of earlier texts within this tradition. The Praedestinatus is an anti-Augustinian work of forgery and deception, but it is not merely an example of ‘unscrupulous and unskilful invention’.18 Rather, it represents a fascinating engagement with the methods and rhetoric of heresiological literature, as seen in Epiphanius’ influential Panarion and the works of his Latin successors Filastrius and Augustine. It is the last of these figures who is the most important for our author, since the bishop of Hippo is the elephant in the room, the man whose text is being repurposed, whose authority is being questioned and whose theology is being attacked. Gori has argued that the Praedestinatus represents a new direction for heresiology, taking a descriptive, academic genre and turning it into a means to actively identify and fight heresy.19 While such a characterisation of this 16 H. von Schubert, Der sogennante Praedestinatus (1903), 52-4; Alexander Faure, Die Widerlegung der Haeretiker im I. Buch des Praedestinatus (Göttingen, 1903), esp. 46 summarising the unreliability of any quotations or ideas attributed to these figures; Henry Wace and William C. Piercy (eds), A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies (London, 1911), 856; F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 14-5. 17 F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999); id., Praedestinatus qui dicitur (2000). 18 Henry Wace and William C. Piercy (eds), A Dictionary of Christian Biography (1911), 856. 19 F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 16: ‘Cosí il catalogo delle eresie, che nella tradizione era considerato un genere storico, cioè una forma narrativa della storia del pensiero cristiano, in praedest. 1 acquista per la prima volta una nuova connotazione di genere, diventando criterio per riconoscere l’eresia presente e anche strumento per combatterla’.

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

61

particular text and its purpose is certainly persuasive, my view is that this function was already at the heart of previous examples of such literature, with the outwardly descriptive tone of authors such as Epiphanius concealing a prescriptive aim of delegitimising particular contemporary beliefs and pushing them outside the bounds of acceptable orthodoxy.20 Rather than repurposing heresiology, the Praedestinatus reproduces, exaggerates, even plays with the generic conventions of such texts with the same aim: to steer its readers into accepting an idiosyncratic articulation of Christian history and doctrine. * * * One of the most noted aspects of the text’s narration of Christian history is the prominence of the Church as an institution, with the overthrow of many individual heretics attributed to a range of prominent ecclesiastical figures, as seen already with the shady character of Hesiod of Corinth. Some of these are apostles, such as Peter and Paul; some are famous figures from the later history of the Church, such as Clement of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage and Ephrem Syrus; and, as has already been mentioned, some are invented characters, such as Euphranon, bishop of Rhodes, and Perigenes of Argos, who are nonetheless given episcopal rank.21 Even for the real people in this list, there is frequently no external evidence for their alleged opposition to any of these heretical sects.22 This aspect of the text also represents a notable point of departure from Augustine: he had followed tradition and Filastrius in attributing the defeat of Simon Magus to the apostle Peter, but had not generally named the enemies of individual heresies elsewhere in the work.23 These biographical additions in the Praedestinatus are sometimes made directly to the source text without much elaboration. For example, Augustine’s notice for the sect of the Angelici, which appears in chapter 39 of the De haeresibus, simply reads ‘the Angelici are disposed towards the worship of angels; Epiphanius declares that they have now become completely extinct’.24 In chapter 39 of the Praedestinatus, a little 20 For a more detailed discussion of this idea, see Richard Flower, ‘Genealogies of unbelief: Epiphanius of Salamis and heresiological authority’, in Christopher Kelly, Richard Flower and Michael Stuart Williams (eds), Unclassical Traditions. Volume II: Perspectives from East and West in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 2011), 70-87. 21 Praedestinatus 1.1 (Peter), 1.6 (Paul), 1.8 (Paul), 1.9 (Paul), 1.14 (Clement), 1.19 (Perigenes of Argos), 1.24 (Euphranon of Rhodes), 1.38 (Cyprian of Carthage), 1.57 (Ephrem Syrus). These merely represent a small sample of such attestations throughout the work. 22 See, for example, H. von Schubert, Der sogennante Praedestinatus (1903), 51-4, including his remarks, at 53, that the author sometimes appears to take a famous name from Christian history and assign that person, almost at random, to an episcopal see or geographical location, a clerical position or a role in combatting a particular heresy. 23 Augustine, De haeresibus 1. 24 Augustine, De haeresibus 39: Angelici, in angelorum cultum inclinati, quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur.

62

R. FLOWER

more information is given about the supposed beliefs of the group, although the conclusion of the entry is clearly modelled very closely on Augustine’s words, but with an important, fictional supplement: ‘Epiphanius declares that they have now become completely extinct, having been defeated by Theophilus, bishop of Apamea’.25 Such claims appear for almost all the heresies in the first two-thirds of the list, and nearly every figure given responsibility for defeating a heresy is described as an apostolus, episcopus, presbyter or antistes, while some other dangers are said to have been counteracted by synods, giving their location and sometimes even the number of bishops in attendance, such as the gathering of twenty bishops in Achaea which condemned Aetius and Eunomius.26 While combatting heresy is made into a fundamentally ecclesiastical activity, the role of the Church at Rome itself is particularly stressed. As Hans von Schubert already noted more than a century ago, bishops of the city are referred to more frequently than those from anywhere else, with ten of them making an appearance in the catalogue.27 Moreover, the first two heresies, of the Simonians and the Menandrians, are described as having been defeated, respectively, by the first two bishops of Rome, Peter and Linus. It is also striking that the distribution of Roman bishops throughout the work is very uneven. The early part of the heresiology contains a number of examples, almost all drawn from the first and second centuries (Peter, Linus, Clement, Alexander and Soter, all appearing in the first third of the catalogue, together with the third-century Sixtus II soon afterwards).28 After these figures, however, no more bishops of the city are mentioned until near the end of the work, when, in chapters 82, 85, 88 and 89, the much more recent figures of Anastasius, Damasus, Innocent and Celestine appear. The reason for this could potentially lie with an uneven knowledge of the subject on the part of our author, but this is less likely if Gori is correct in his view that the text was written at Rome by an author who knew the city well.29 Moreover, the final bishop of Rome to appear in the list, Celestine, is described in chapter 89 as having played a role in condemning the eastern heresy of the Nestorians. This sect is one of only two additions made by our author to the eighty-eight found in Augustine’s De haeresibus, the other 25 Praedestinatus 1.39: hos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur uictos a Theophilo Apamaeo episcopo. No such comment about the role of a ‘Theophilus of Apamea’ is to be found in Epiphanius. 26 Praedestinatus 1.54. 27 H. von Schubert, Der sogennante Praedestinatus (1903), 54. See also F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 13-4. 28 Praedestinatus 1.1, 1.2, 1.14, 1.16, 1.26, 1.38. 29 F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 5-6, following the earlier argument of Morin, with relevant evidence from the text itself cited in n. 5. See also N.W. James, ‘Who was Arnobius the Younger?’ (2018), 260, on the detailed knowledge of the martyrs of Rome and its environs displayed in the Commentarii in Psalmos. This location is also suggested by the text’s emphasis on the ecclesiastical history of Rome.

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

63

being the ‘Praedestinati’ in the final chapter. As was discussed earlier, Celestine is also invoked in the preface to the Praedestinatus as having condemned this last group as well, by supposedly rejecting their treatise that was circulating under the name of Augustine.30 The placement of these bishops at these moments within the text does, therefore, neatly allow the history of the Roman see to bookend this narrative of the fight against heresy: just as in the apostolic age when Simon Magus and Menander emerged, the most recent holders of the office, especially Celestine, are still now in the vanguard of defending the faith against its newest threats. This catalogue of enemies and defenders of the faith does, therefore, lead up to the ninetieth and final heresy, that of the ‘Praedestinati’, and turns the attention back on the writer of the Praedestinatus himself. This occurs to some extent within the heresiology itself in Book 1, with our author becoming the latest in the long line of orthodox figures from the preceding eighty-nine chapters, aligning him with the Church and, in particular, the Church at Rome. In addition, this characterisation continues after the end of that final chapter, since Books 2 and 3 of the work constitute an extended refutation of the sect’s supposed beliefs and thus the justification for their inclusion within the preceding catalogue. As Franco Gori has remarked, our author ‘knows himself to be the final link in this heresiological tradition, which in his own time uncovers and fights the final heresy’.31 Augustine similarly invoked ecclesiastical authority for his own De haeresibus when he explained to Quodvultdeus, a deacon at Carthage who had repeatedly requested that he write such a text, why he did not engage in extensive refutation of the heresies as each appeared in his catalogue. Instead, he elected to rely on the authority of the Church as an institution, and of himself as a representative of it, declaring that ‘it is unnecessary to ask what the Catholic Church believes in opposition to these ideas, which you thought I ought to explain, since for this it is sufficient to know that she does oppose them and that no one ought to believe in any of them’.32 Unlike Augustine, however, our author could not rely on his fame and ecclesiastical standing to establish his credentials, especially if, as seems very likely, his text circulated anonymously. Nonetheless he does align himself and his project closely with the concerns and interests of the Church itself. As well as including the repeated references to ecclesiastical figures and their roles in 30

Praedestinatus Preface 3. F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 15: ‘Arnobio sa di essere l’ultimo anello di questa tradizione eresiologica, che al suo tempo scopre e combatte l’ultima eresia’; see also the remarks at 61-2. D. Lambert, ‘Augustine and the Praedestinatus’ (2008), 152, expresses a similar idea: ‘Arnobius has depicted a tradition of opposition to heresy into which his own selfportrayal as the champion of orthodoxy against the heresy of predestination fits perfectly’. 32 Augustine, De haeresibus Epilogue 3: quid enim contra ista sentiat catholica ecclesia, quod a me dicendum putasti, superfluo quaeritur, cum propter hoc scire sufficiat eam contra ista sentire, nec aliquid horum in fidem quemquam debere recipere. 31

R. FLOWER

64

fighting heresy during the preceding four centuries, he also discusses the particular threat posed to the Church and its clergy by the ‘Praedestinati’. The members of this latest sect are described as infiltrating the faithful and are called ‘enemies of the Church and most deceitful foes’, since ‘with the darts of their writers they have wounded the limbs of our immaculate mother Church’.33 While this represents generic language for criticising heresy, our author also makes more specific accusations, based on the view that the concept of predestination denies any role for human action or agency in salvation. This not only removes incentives to perform good works or act in a moral fashion but also, significantly, is presented as making the clergy irrelevant: ‘Who, holding this belief, would wish to bow his head to the blessings of priests and would believe that he could be helped by their prayers and offerings? For if these things begin to be believed to neither help the willing nor hinder the unwilling, all activities of the priests of God will cease, and all the arguments of counsellors will seem to be empty frauds’.34 The whole history of heresy had been a tale of repeated attacks on the Church, and the ‘Praedestinati’ were revealed as the latest – and possibly the most insidiously dangerous – of all the groups to take the field in this diabolical war. Anyone who opposed them was therefore cast as unambiguously on the side of God and his ecclesiastical forces, regardless of whether the heretics claimed to be churchmen themselves. * * * The authority of the Praedestinatus as a reliable account of, and remedy for, all forms of heresy is also constructed through its appropriation and exaggeration of elements of Augustine’s De haeresibus. Along with embellishing the text with references to various members of the Church who supposedly opposed different heresies, our author also incorporates a number of other emendations and supplements into the source material, including, in several places, more details about the beliefs of individual sects and how to refute them. Gori has analysed the theological content of many of these changes, revealing how they emphasise or create similarities of belief between earlier heresies and the ‘Praedestinati’, in order to demonstrate that this new sect deserves to be regarded as the heir to a litany of widely-condemned groups.35 It is a common feature of heresiological rhetoric to try to persuade the audience to accept new 33

Praedestinatus Preface 1: inimici ecclesiae et hostes dolosissimi; Preface 2: scriptorum suorum iaculis membra immaculatae matris nostrae ecclesiae uulnerarent. 34 Praedestinatus Preface 1: quis hanc fidem habens sacerdotum benedictionibus caput inclinare desideret, et eorum sibi precibus et sacrificiis credat posse succurri? si enim haec nec prodesse uolentibus, nec obesse nolentibus incipiant credi, cessabunt omnia dei sacerdotum studia, et uniuersa monitorum adminicula uana uidebuntur esse figmenta. 35 F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 16-48. As Gori’s analysis shows, this also sometimes included attributing particular beliefs or quotations to earlier ecclesiastical

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

65

additions to the ranks of the heretics by presenting numerous unambiguously unorthodox sects or beliefs and then constructing genealogies that link them to more recent and controversial foes. As Gori has shown, the Praedestinatus includes some particularly subtle examples of this practice in its reworking of the De haeresibus, and there is therefore no need to replicate his excellent discussion here. Instead of examining any of these passages in particular detail, the remainder of this article will focus on how the supplements to Augustine’s text make use of other rhetorical techniques of heresiological literature to undermine the revered bishop. In particular, fake authorities, references and details, which are already in evidence in the list of heresiologists in the title of the catalogue, are employed throughout to allow the author to claim to be surpassing the knowledge and expertise of other authors in the field, especially Augustine. Scholarly competitiveness was a common feature of ancient technical and encyclopaedic literature, including emphasising the extensive research that had gone into the production of a work.36 This is particularly evident in the Natural History of Pliny the Elder, whose preface and Book 1 are dominated by comments on earlier authors and extensive enumeration of all the different sources that have been used to create the work, thereby producing, in Mary Beagon’s words, ‘a cumulative sense of incontestable superiority’.37 This tendency was also prominent in the fourth and fifth centuries in the developing quasi-scientific field of heresiology: Epiphanius discusses, and sometimes quotes from, a variety of different authorities, presenting his own Panarion as the most comprehensive guide to heresy ever written. Augustine similarly talks about his use and assessment of source material, describing how he drew primarily upon his favoured source, Epiphanius of Salamis, for the first fifty-seven chapters of his work, before, in the following twenty-three, turning to Filastrius for information on heresies which were not found in Epiphanius.38 After these two major heresiologies had been figures when, in fact, they appear to be derived from other ‘Pelagian’ theologians, especially Julian of Eclanum. 36 On competitive attitudes towards earlier authors within a particular field, see, for example, Tore Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions (Stockholm, 1964), 97; Jason König and Greg Woolf, ‘Introduction’, in Jason König and Greg Woolf (eds), Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Cambridge, 2013), 1-20, 7-8. 37 Mary Beagon, ‘Labores pro bono publico: the burdensome mission of Pliny’s Natural History’, in J. König and G. Woolf (eds), Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance (2013), 84-107, 87. On this aspect of Pliny’s text, see also Sorcha Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History (Oxford, 2003), 22-3; Thorsten Fögen, ‘Scholarship and competitiveness: Pliny the Elder’s attitude towards his predecessors in the Naturalis historia’, in Markus Asper (ed.), Writing Science: Medical and Mathematical Authorship in Ancient Greece (Berlin, 2013), 83-107. 38 See Richard Flower, ‘Augustine’s De haeresibus and competitive heresiology’, in Susanna Elm and Christopher Blunda (eds), The Late (Wild) Augustine (Paderborn, 2021) for a more expansive version of the brief discussion of Augustine’s De haeresibus in this section.

66

R. FLOWER

exhausted, in chapters 81 and 82 Augustine added the Luciferians and Jovinianists, about whom, he states, he had found information in ‘another book’, while chapter 83 describes the Arabici, which he had learned about from Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History. The final five chapters of the De haeresibus then describe heretics that Augustine had encountered himself, rather than in books: the Helvidians, Paternians, Tertullianists, Abeloites and, finally, Pelagians, against whose beliefs and writings he had himself played a leading role. In his epilogue, Augustine then reassures his audience that they can rely on his diligent research: ‘None of those whose works on this subject I read listed all heresies. For I found some in one which I did not find in another, and again some in the second which the first did not list. But I listed more than them because I collected from all of them, although I did not find all heresies in each one, and I even added to them those which I recalled, but did not find in any of the books’.39 Augustine therefore proclaims his unparalleled knowledge of the subject by judging Epiphanius and Filastrius to be the two best existing authorities while simultaneously enumerating their shortcomings in both coverage and classification. His own combination of knowledge, research and first-hand experience therefore enables him to produce a heresiology which can surpass these earlier attempts. In a number of its alterations and supplements to its source material, the Praedestinatus engages competitively with this competitive aspect of Augustine’s work, throwing in the names of literary authorities in a game of academic one-upmanship. Our author copies some of the references to sources in the De haeresibus, such as claiming to be using Epiphanius and Filastrius, and so plagiarises and appropriates Augustine’s statements about his own research.40 For instance, in chapter 57 of the De haeresibus, after describing the Massalians, Augustine states that he has reached the end of Epiphanius’ material and so, for the following chapters, ‘I will therefore now add those which Filastrius listed, but Epiphanius did not list’.41 At the same point in the Praedestinatus, however, after similarly describing having reached the conclusion of Epiphanius’ work, our author states that Filastrius had already uncovered information about other heresies and so ‘now by plucking individual heresies from his books we display them in public’.42 Not only does this present an invented tale of scholarly endeavour, since our author probably never read a word of 39 Augustine, De haeresibus Epilogue 1: nullus eorum quorum de hac re scripta legi omnes posuit. quando quidem inueni apud alium quas apud alium non inueni, et rursus apud istum quas ille non posuit. ego autem propterea plures quam ipsi posui quia collegi ex omnibus quas omnes apud singulos non inueni, additis etiam his quas ipse recolens apud ullum eorum inuenire non potui. 40 This is not, however, applied consistently throughout the work. For example, in chapter 80 there is no mention of having now finished with Filastrius, unlike in the De haeresibus, nor is there any reference to the anonymous other text that Augustine used for his chapters 81 and 82. 41 Augustine, De haeresibus 57: nunc ergo addo quas Filaster posuit, nec posuit Epiphanius. 42 Praedestinatus 1.57: ex eius libris discerpendo solas haereses in medium exhibemus.

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

67

Filastrius’ work, it also characterises him as both careful in his selection of only the most relevant material and also diligent in his concern for the welfare of the general public, as he is now bringing the results of his research into obscure sources to a much wider audience so that they can benefit many more people. Moreover, his invention of false heresiologies, such as those attributed to Hyginus and Africanus, as well as the false heresiologist Hesiod of Corinth, allows him to surpass Augustine’s own display of scholarship by citing authorities that the bishop of Hippo did not, and could not, consult. The most striking example of this exaggeration of research is to be found in chapter 83 of the Praedestinatus, which, like its counterpart in the De haeresibus, concerns the sect of the Arabici, which Augustine had introduced into heresiology for the first time after finding them in neither Epiphanius nor Filastrius. In his own chapter 83, Augustine describes his careful checking of Eusebius for information about any groups that had not already appeared in his other sources: ‘When I scrutinised the history of Eusebius, which Rufinus translated into Latin and also supplemented with two additional books about the subsequent period, I did not find any other heresy which I had not read about in them, except one which Eusebius places in his sixth book, relating that it existed in Arabia. Since he does not describe the founder of these heretics, we can name them Arabici’.43 Although this group had appeared in earlier literature, it was Augustine who could claim responsibility for first bringing them into the classificatory purview of heresiology itself. For this reason, like the discoverer of a new species of animal in the modern world, he exercised his right to name it when he included it in his catalogue. Even though this is already a forceful statement of heresiological scholarship and discovery, in adapting Augustine’s text for chapter 83 of the Praedestinatus, our author stresses even more his own supposedly extensive research: ‘our historian Eusebius places the eighty-third heresy in his sixth book, and Epiphanius does not describe it anywhere, nor do Polycrates, Africanus or Hesiod, who described all heresies in the Greek language and wrote many volumes of books. As I said, Eusebius describes in his sixth book that they are in Arabia, but since he does not state the founder of these heretics, we can name them Arabici’.44 This obviously draws very heavily on Augustine’s text, including the detail about finding the heresy in the sixth book of Eusebius, who is here 43

Augustine, De haeresibus 83: cum Eusebii historiam perscrutatus essem, cui Rufinus a se in Latinam linguam translatae subsequentium etiam temporum duos libros addidit, non inueni aliquam haeresim quam non legerim apud istos, nisi quam in sexto libro ponit Eusebius, narrans eam exstitisse in Arabia. itaque hos haereticos, quoniam nullum eorum ponit auctorem, Arabicos possumus nuncupare. The relevant passage can be found at Eusebius, HE 6.37. 44 Praedestinatus 1.83: octogesimam et tertiam haeresim in sexto libro historiographus noster ponit Eusebius, quam nec Epiphanius alicubi memorauit nec Polycrates nec Africanus nec Hesiodus, qui Graeco sermone uniuersas haereses describentes uolumina multorum condidere librorum.

68

R. FLOWER

claimed as ‘our Eusebius’. Strikingly, however, Augustine’s comment that he had been using Rufinus’ Latin translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, as opposed to the original Greek text, has been removed. Augustine may not have been particularly comfortable with reading Greek, but our author claims to have faced no such linguistic shortcomings, thereby implicitly critiquing Augustine’s scholarship and presenting his own research skills as superior. This point is then emphasised further through the addition of the information that the Arabici were also absent from other heresiologies, repeating most of his list of writers of the subject which had appeared in the title of this catalogue and explicitly remarking that they had written in Greek. In the preface of the work, shortly before naming them, he also claims that he had read ‘writings of orthodox Greeks fighting against sects of heretics, and we write out in full all heresies individually in sequence, although cursorily’.45 These statements thus reinforce the presentation of our author as accessing material that was beyond the reach of Augustine and so exalt the Praedestinatus as the product of more extensive and painstaking research than its unnamed rival, the De haeresibus. Just as he stole so much of Augustine’s text, he was also stealing his crown as the most scholarly and comprehensive heresiologist to date. It is therefore unsurprising that he also appropriates the claim to be adding to the sum of heresiological knowledge in this chapter, stating that it is thanks to his own diligent work that now ‘we can name them Arabici’. As well as emphasising the extent of his reading and his discovery of new material, our author also constructs himself the persona of a heresiological expert through his careful sorting and classification of his subject matter. This practice had already begun to be established by his immediate predecessors in the field, with Epiphanius engaging closely with the conventions of classical scientific literature in his Panarion in a variety of ways, including by carefully dividing up heresies and distinguishing them from each other.46 This rhetoric of classification by division was widespread in earlier texts: for example, the medical author Galen described observing minute differences in a patient’s pulse to determine their ailment, while the Hellenistic naturalist Nicander of Colophon explained how to tell apart similar-looking spiders and so understand which were dangerous and which were harmless.47 Epiphanius, by providing in sexto itaque, ut dixi, libro narrat Eusebius esse in Arabia haereticos, quorum quia auctorem non memorat, nos possumus eos nuncupare Arabicos. 45 Praedestinatus Preface 4: sane Graecorum nos legisse catholicorum scripta contra haereticorum sectas dimicantia idcirco memoramus, et omnes haereses singillatim per ordinem, licet strictim, perscribimus. 46 On Epiphanius’ rhetoric and its similarities to earlier works, including Galen’s medical treatises and Nicander’s Theriaca, see Richard Flower, ‘Medicalizing heresy: doctors and patients in Epiphanius of Salamis’, Journal of Late Antiquity 11 (2018), 251-73. 47 On Galen’s discussion of different types of pulse, see Tamsyn Barton, Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics and Medicine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor, MI, 1994),

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

69

individual descriptions for eighty individual sects, both argues that they all belong to the observable, discrete phenomenon of ‘heresy’ and also presents himself as a reliable authority who can use his expertise to recognise similarities and differences that are imperceptible to less knowledgeable observers. In a particularly esoteric act of disambiguation, he separates out two sects, both called ‘Origenists’, and assigns them to chapters 63 and 64 of Panarion, explaining that the former is an obscure group while the latter comprises the followers of the famous third-century theologian. Origen, like a number of the other individuals and sects who appear in the Panarion, was far from universally condemned as a heretic when Epiphanius wrote in the 370s, but his inclusion in this apparently authoritative list, alongside many uncontroversial villains, concealed the polemical nature of the accusation. This concern with classification is also evident in Augustine, who followed Epiphanius in both methodology and material, seeking to outdo his predecessor. While the Panarion contains eighty sects, the section of the De haeresibus which draws on it only has fifty-seven, as Augustine omitted Epiphanius’ twenty pre-Christian groups and also chose to either combine or separate some of the others ‘recording two in one where I was able to find no difference between them; and similarly, where he wished to make one from two, I placed them individually under their own numbers’.48 Epiphanius had carefully categorised heresy into eighty forms, but Augustine now revised and corrected this to produce a much smaller total from the same raw material. He did, however, retain the distinction between the two types of Origenists, each named after a different Origen, placing them in chapters 42 and 43, as well as reproducing Epiphanius’ descriptions of them.49 In the Praedestinatus, our author follows Augustine closely, including naming Epiphanius as his source for these two sects in his own chapters 42 and 43. In the second of these, however, he deviates from Augustine to defend the reputation of the famous Origen against some of the accusations that appear in the De haeresibus by arguing that the heretical material found in Origen’s writings 152-63. Nicander talks about various types of spiders at Theriaca 715-58 (ed. Floris Overduin, Nicander of Colophon’s Theriaca: A Literary Commentary [Leiden, 2015]), commenting on the harmless ones at line 737. 48 Augustine, De haeresibus 57: duas in unum referens ubi nullam differentiam potui reperire; et rursus ubi ille ex duabus unam facere uoluit, sub numeris suis singulas posui. 49 Augustine’s supposed quotations from Epiphanius are actually translations of the relevant entries in the Anacephalaeoses, an extremely abridged summary of the Panarion which came to circulate independently of it and which was used by Augustine as his source for the De haeresibus. As far as can be divined from Augustine’s own testimony in the De haeresibus and his exchange of letters with Quodvultdeus in Epp. 221-4, he appears to have believed that this was an authentic work by Epiphanius and may not have been aware of the much more extensive Panarion. On Augustine’s knowledge of Epiphanius, see Gustave Bardy, ‘Le “De Haeresibus” et ses sources’, in Miscellanea Agostiniana, 2 vol. (Rome, 1931), 401-4.

70

R. FLOWER

did not represent his beliefs accurately, but had actually been inserted maliciously by a Bithynian heresiarch named Ampullianus, another otherwise unattested character.50 As Gori has remarked, there are therefore three Origens present in the Praedestinatus: the obscure one from chapter 42 and then both a true and a false version of the famous Origen, existing side-by-side in the writings attributed to him in chapter 43.51 This transformation of the source material is, however, more than just a defence of the Alexandrian theologian against accusations of heresy. The Praedestinatus’ act of disambiguation engages with the existing heresiological discourse of careful distinguishing phenomena on the basis of the author’s expertise. Despite critiquing Epiphanius’ classification of sects elsewhere in his work, Augustine had specifically attributed the separation of the two sets of Origenists to him when he chose to accept them into his own work, citing a translation of Epiphanius’ own words in a manner that was unusual in the De haeresibus. Our author, however, goes further, plagiarising the references to Epiphanius but pointing out the error in his work. This allows him to engage directly and competitively with a heresiological tradition, correcting Epiphanius explicitly and Augustine implicitly, as their two Origens have now become three thanks to his own superior scholarship and comprehension of the matter. To back up his assertions, he invokes the authority of Pamphilus of Caesarea, here described as a martyr, bishop and teacher of ‘healthy doctrine’, as someone who understood the real teachings of Origen, and so explains how these adulterations of Origen’s work can be recognised: ‘But he who is of good judgment, and has clear eyes of the mind, sees these evils added into the minor works of Origen and recognises them, just as if he were to see white rags, or those of some other colour, sewn onto a scarlet blanket’.52 The skilful, knowledgeable expert can, therefore, easily unpick these obvious and out-of-place additions, leaving the precious object pure and unsullied. As with any other heresiological text, the reader is also faced with a challenge: whether to follow the version of reality presented here and be recognised as a person of good judgment, with clear eyes of the mind, or whether to go against this and risk being exposed as an ignorant and incompetent interpreter of texts or, even worse, as a heretic. Moreover, by implication, some of those who have studied this topic before, including Augustine himself, are presented as having failed in this task and having thus condemned Origen erroneously through a lapse in judgement and scholarship. They may not have acted out of any malice, but nonetheless if they were capable of making a mistake 50 See F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 32-6, for discussion of both this passage and the treatment of Origen in the Praedestinatus more generally, including Rufinus’ use of this claim concerning the contamination of Origen’s writings. 51 F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 34. 52 Praedestinatus 1.43: sed qui sani sensus est, et habet mentis splendidos oculos, sic uidet addita in Origenis opusculis mala ista atque cognoscit, sicut si in stragulo coccineo pannos albos aut cuiusque alterius coloris cernat assutos.

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

71

such as this, the accuracy of their other views about theology might also need to be re-examined from a more critical position. This emphasis on being able to identify and distinguish truth and falsehood, orthodoxy and heresy, despite outward appearances, is, of course, central to the message of the text as a whole. This is evident both in its ostensible purpose – revealing that predestination is a heresy and is being falsely attributed to Augustine by unscrupulous figures – and also in its actual attack on Augustine himself, who, despite his revered status, has erred in both his cataloguing of heretics and his opinion regarding this particular theological issue. The very first words of the preface invoke the biblical metaphor of the wolf in sheep’s clothing and instruct the reader to be cautious and critical in any encounter with a text, even (or perhaps especially) when it purports to be from a learned and authoritative figure: ‘Whenever the words of teachers reach you, O lover of God, one must at once recall the precepts of the Lord, in which he deigns to order us to beware of those who come to us in sheep’s clothing, lest under this covering [tegmen] the hidden raging of wolves invades the sheep-like simplicity’.53 Shortly afterwards, the supposed heretical tract of the ‘Praedestinati’, condemned by Celestine and reproduced in Book 2 of this work, is described as having been concealed by the heretics who ‘have placed a catholic title above the lintel of their book. This book, as though a stinking sepulchre, is indeed whitewashed outside with the name of Augustine, but inside it truly swarms with the worms of the dead’.54 This theme of disguise and deceptive appearances is therefore stressed from the very beginning, before the reader has encountered the heresiological catalogue itself, let alone the words of the heretics and their refutation which appear in the following books. Although the authority of the Church is being emphasised in the preface, at the same time the audience is being exhorted not to place their trust in outward forms, but instead to pry beneath the surface and seek out the truth before deciding who truly belongs within the ranks of the faithful. The task of the heresiologist is therefore presented not merely as one of description or even of combatting heresy, but of unmasking and discovery, revealing how the supposedly orthodox are actually heretical and, perhaps, vice versa. This is particularly evident in our author’s frequent use of the verb detegere (‘to uncover/reveal’) to describe his own activity as a heresiologist, which involves looking beneath the tegmen (a related term) in a manner that others would, or could, not do. Detegere and its cognate noun detectio appear six 53 Predestinatus Preface 1: quotiescumque ad te, o amator dei, uerba doctorum attingunt, illico sunt domini praecepta memoranda quibus iubere dignatur ut attendamus ab his qui ueniunt ad nos in uestitu ouium, ne sub hoc tegmine luporum rabies occultata ouilem simplicitatem inuadat, referring to Matthew 7:15. 54 Predestinatus Preface 3: catholicum supra liminare libri sui titulum posuerunt. qui liber, uelut sepulcrum fetens, a foris quidem Augustini nomine dealbatur, intus uero scaturit uermibus mortuorum.

R. FLOWER

72

times in the preface alone to describe his own activity in exposing the heretics, before being deployed again immediately afterwards for the actions of his list of earlier heresiologists: Hyginus, Polycrates, Africanus, Hesiod, Epiphanius and Filastrius.55 From the very beginning of the work, therefore, uncovering becomes the vital characteristic of both heresiology as a genre and also of this particular example that follows in the footsteps of revered predecessors. The verb then appears several times elsewhere in the catalogue to describe the revealing of heretics at various points in time, including through his own work and that of other figures who fought heresy, such as Clement of Rome and the presbyter Polycarp.56 It also reoccurs right at the end of the ninetieth and final chapter, where our author describes how he and his fellow orthodox Christians have sometimes been the objects of malicious accusations of heresy by the heretics themselves and ‘therefore, because of their action we have revealed all heresies, narrating from Simon [Magus] up to this point, to prove that we are in agreement with the one catholic faith’.57 The unmasking of heresy is explicitly stated to be a defensive move at least as much as an offensive one. One of our author’s other uses of detegere comes in the preface while explaining why it is necessary to lay out and then refute the entirety of the treatise falsely attributed to Augustine by the ‘Praedestinati’: ‘but wherever the words of this same book are, they are exposed by the images lying behind the lines. Although these betray themselves spontaneously to readers on account of the very perversity of it, we have, however, acted so that truth might be distinguished from falsehood, not only by rational words, but also by roaring nonsense’.58 Like the heretical interpolations in the works of Origen, the true meaning of this dangerous text should be obvious to readers, but, as a trained expert, he here fulfils a vital duty for mankind: he handles the dangerous material of the treatise within the controlled environment of the Praedestinatus and ensures that it plays a key role in the uncovering of its own falsehood. This rhetoric of detectio is, however, one aspect of the Praedestinatus that has not simply been carried over from Augustine. Detegere makes only one appearance in the De haeresibus and, while the relevant passage does relate a story about the uncovering of heretics, Augustine himself is not 55

Detego: Praedestinatus Preface 2 (twice), 3 (twice), 4 and Book 1 Title; detectio: Preface 4. Clement: Praedestinatus 1.14; Polycarp: 1.31; our author: 1.86. The past participle detectus is also used for the uncovering of the beliefs and crimes of Marcionites in 1.21, Manichaeans in 1.46, Jovinianists in 1.82 and Paterniani in 1.85. The related verb retego also makes a single appearance, in chapter 1.57, to describe Filastrius’ own heresiological activity. 57 Praedestinatus 1.90: eorum ergo ob causam omnes haereses a Simone memorantes huc usque deteximus, ut probemus nos soli fidei catholicae esse corcordes. 58 Praedestinatus Preface 3: ubicumque autem eiusdem libri sunt dicta, lineis a tergo uersuum iacentibus deteguntur. quae licet pro ipsa sui peruersitate ultro se legentibus prodant, tamen egimus ut ueritas a mendacio non solum uerbis rationalibus, sed etiam alogiis increpantibus discernatur. 56

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

73

involved in the proceedings.59 Its prominent deployment within the Praedestinatus thus presents this project as a revision, or maybe even a correction, of Augustine’s articulation of what it meant to write such a work of heresiology. Our author characterises himself as a skilful and sophisticated interpreter of material, able to get beyond the outward appearance of a text or a person and uncover the truth that lies within it. Appearing in both the preface itself and the list of earlier heresiologies that appears immediately afterwards, its prominent use portrays the act of detection as the main purpose of the orthodox heresiological tradition, from which Augustine’s De haeresibus is a conspicuous absence. * * * The Praedestinatus is, therefore, a critical engagement with Augustine’s heresiology, carried out through a skilful manipulation of this encyclopaedic genre itself. It plays with recognisable sources of heresiological authority – ecclesiastical tradition, extensive research, scholarly competitiveness – and exaggerates them to establish its own superiority over its predecessor. Moreover, as the reader progresses towards the end of the Praedestinatus’ heresiological catalogue, it is notable that the practice of naming famous churchmen who opposed particular heresies becomes less common, apart from for recent Roman bishops, leading up to the ninetieth heresy, whose refutation is then taken up in the remaining two books of the work. As such, the Praedestinatus moves, across its pages, from relying on the authority of the deeds and words of earlier revered Christians towards taking its place as the latest in their line. In fact, our author expresses this idea clearly in his preface, where he weaves together two different strands of anti-heretical activity – the ecclesiastical opponents of heresy named in his chapters and the supposed heresiologists who are his sources – and then unites and absorbs them into his own expert persona: We reveal all the heresies that started from Simon [Magus], and we accuse them, condemn them and show that they are defeated as much by reason as by authority. Therefore in the uncovering of falsehood and in the defence of truth we have followed the footsteps of the orthodox … In this manner Clement the Roman bishop, the disciple of Peter, most worthy martyr of Christ, taught that the heresy of Simon, along with Simon himself, was defeated by the apostle Peter.60 59

Aug., De haeresibus 46.9, about Manichaeans at Carthage, which is also the source of the appearance of detectus in chapter 46 of the Praedestinatus. It also makes no appearance in Aug., Epp. 221-4, where Augustine and Quodvultdeus discuss the composition and purpose of this work. 60 Praedestinatus Preface 4: omnes a Simone coeptas haereses detegimus, arguimus, condemnamus, et tam ratione quam auctoritate superatas ostendimus. in detectione igitur falsitatis et in defensione ueritatis catholicorum sumus secuti uestigia … Clemens itaque Romanus episcopus, Petri discipulus, Christi dignissimus martyr, Simonis haeresim a Petro apostolo cum ipso Simone superatam edocuit.

74

R. FLOWER

According to this narrative, as well as being significant figures in the history of the Church, Peter was the first man to combat heresy and Clement the first to narrate such a battle. They therefore become the original paradigms for our author’s activities and the starting points of his genealogies of opposition to unorthodox belief. As the author of this latest anti-heretical work, he casts himself as the heir to both Roman bishops, performing their related roles simultaneously by being both heresy-hunter and heresiologist. By his own time, however, the situation had become more complicated, with so many different forms of heretical sect to identify and oppose, as well as so much accumulated literature created for this purpose. Over the preceding four centuries, the labours of Clement’s heresiological imitators had resulted in a bewildering array of material that required expert interpretation: ‘All the blessed, orthodox men followed him [Clement], and each in his own time recorded the rise, struggle and demise of each and every heresy, through very many books and many thousands of lines, which we, epitomising them, with the Lord’s help have enclosed in this one little book. These blessed works, which achieve the resolution of their cares through this work of ours, will speak for us’.61 Our author is thus cast not merely as the latest orthodox defender against heresy, but as the distillation of this great tradition of anti-heretical crusaders who had uncovered deceptive wickedness since the beginnings of Christianity, as the figure in whose work all other heresiologies would find the completion of their labours. Moreover, expanding on the examples set by his revered ancestors from the apostolic age, he carries out this sacred scholarly duty not merely against one opponent, but for the entire history of heresy. Augustine’s De haeresibus had, of course, attempted something very similar, albeit with less professed confidence, by listing eighty-eight heresies from Simon Magus down to the Pelagians, in whose condemnation he had played a major part himself. In appropriating this material and providing it with a much stronger (and significantly fictionalised) literary genealogy, our author makes the story of heresy now culminate in the ‘Praedestinati’, the newest offspring from a pernicious family tree of threats to the true faith. He himself becomes the champion who defeats the latest danger and, importantly, also the heresiological scholar who records this victory for posterity. In this respect, as in so many others, Augustine’s De haeresibus is a strange absent presence, constantly challenged, constantly reused and repurposed to create a resolutely anti-Augustinian tract. Francis Gumerlock has argued that the unnamed target of both the Praedestinatus and the Commentarii in Psalmos should be identified as Prosper of Aquitaine, a view also endorsed by Norman 61 Praedestinatus Preface 4: hunc secuti sunt sancti quique orthodoxi uiri, et suo quisque tempore uniuscuiusque haeresis ortum et certamen et exitum, per plurimos libros, et multa milia uersuum conscripserunt, quae nos epitomantes, iuuante domino, hoc uno libello conclusimus. orabunt pro nobis sancta studia, quae ad requiem curarum suarum per hunc nostrum laborem attingunt.

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

75

James.62 This hypothesis may be correct, with Prosper as the proximate, living object of criticism, but nonetheless the deceased Augustine remains the ultimate target. Although the Praedestinatus’ textual debt to the De haeresibus is never acknowledged, the bishop of Hippo is, of course, prominently present in the work from the very beginning, albeit not in the role of heresiologist. He is the great churchman whose name and authority have allegedly been hijacked by the ‘Praedestinati’; as is stated in both the preface and the final chapter of Book 1, the whole text is ostensibly intended to rescue him (along with our own author) from any association with heresy, since the supposed theological treatise by this group, ‘falsely’ attributed to Augustine, is reproduced in Book 2 and refuted in Book 3. Significantly, this treatise, secretly composed for this purpose, is not merely the target of the Praedestinatus but also plays a central role in it. Rather than extracting individual phrases from it to create his critique, our author explicitly remarks that his chosen approach is to expose the text it in its entirety, ‘not pulling this book to shreds, but writing it out whole at the start from beginning to end’.63 This pseudo-Augustinian heretical tract is thus presented as integral to its own defeat, with the wholesale reproduction of its content being deemed necessary for its refutation. This concept is expressed even more explicitly elsewhere in the preface, using a famous biblical episode as a vivid illustration: ‘since against the book, which lays out traps for the mother Church, I seize the weapons of the divine mouth and, confident in the Lord, I cut its neck with its own sword, like that of Goliath. It will be gloomy, just as a mouse will be betrayed by its own evidence, when it will have revealed itself as a Philistine by its own murmur. But everyone who is not a foreigner will rejoice with me’.64 The story of David and Goliath also recurs at the very end of the heresiology in chapter 90, with the ‘Praedestinati’ being said to ‘hold the camp of Goliath established in the battle line of the foreigners’, while ‘we’ are identified as ‘Hebrews’ and our author 62 F.X. Gumerlock, ‘Arnobius the Younger against the “Predestined One”’ (2013); N.W. James, ‘Who was Arnobius the Younger?’ (2018), 246-7. 63 Praedestinatus Preface 3: quem librum non discerpentes, sed integrum eum ab initio usque ad finem praescribentes. 64 Praedestinatus Preface 2: cum contra librum matri ecclesiae tendentem insidias diuini oris arma corripio et, ut Goliae, ex suo sibimet gladio, confidens in domino, eius ceruicem abscido. qui tristis fuerit, suo quasi mus prodetur indicio, cum sui murmure Philistaeum se esse detexerit. mecum autem gratulabitur omnis qui allophylus non est. In my translation of the second sentence, I have assumed that the subject remains the book itself, although it could also be taken to be its author. The term translated as ‘foreigner’ both here and below is allophylus, a transliteration of a Greek term used in the Septuagint version of this story to refer to the Philistines (e.g. 1Kings 17:4, when the character of Goliath is introduced). It is quite rare in Latin texts of this period and is not employed in the Vulgate, although it is also used to mean ‘Philistine’ in the narration of the David and Goliath story at Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon 1.34.3. It also makes an appearance at Commentarii in Psalmos 143.35 in a quotation from Psalm 144:7 (143:7 LXX) concerning the fight against Goliath. The relevant phrase reads de manu allophylorum, as opposed to the Vulgate text de manu filiorum alienorum.

R. FLOWER

76

once again assumes the role of David.65 Franco Gori, in noting its repeated use, regards it as simply an appropriate image for victory against a great heresy, including some biblical re-enactment as a lens through which to understand current events and identify the heroes and villains.66 Any failure on the part of the audience to ‘rejoice’ and accept this version of events also casts them as siding not with David and the Hebrews, but with the Philistines. There is, however, a distinctive twist to the tale here. Not only does it reinforce the message that the heretics’ own work is being used against them, but the nature of the fight is quite different from that seen in the scriptural archetype. Rather than just being about defeating a powerful enemy, this battle involves first discovering that he is an enemy (with yet another use of detegere), using his own words to reveal that he is actually a Philistine. This point is further stressed through the inclusion of the phrase ‘just as a mouse will be betrayed by its own evidence’ (suo quasi mus prodetur indicio). In his edition of the text, Gori remarks that this is a prouerbium and directs the reader towards Jerome’s Letter 133.11.67 It would appear to be a version of an ancient proverb about the shrew (sorex) whose indicium, referring to its squeaking, gives it away and so leads to its death. Its most famous appearance is in Terence’s play The Eunuch, but it is also referred to in later works, including Augustine’s De ordine.68 The form in which it appears in Terence, as well as in those quoting him, is nonetheless specifically about the sorex (‘shrew’), rather than the mus (‘mouse’), and also uses the verb perire (‘to perish’) rather than prodere (‘to betray’).69 In contrast, however, when the proverb appears in the letter of Jerome referred to by Gori, the phrase is suo quasi mus prodetur indicio, identical to the wording in the Praedestinatus. In this epistle, Jerome is concerned with attacking Pelagianism and employs the heresiological method of linking it to other established heresies, before stating that if the ‘teacher of this perverse dogma’ were to attempt to reply to these accusations, he would 65

Praedestinati 1.90: habeant illi castra Goliae in allophylorum acie constituta. F. Gori, Il Praedestinatus di Arnobio il Giovane (1999), 62: ‘l’evocazione del duello fra Davide e Golia, che al presente si ripete con Arnobio nelle vesti di un nuovo Davide che batte il grande eretico e avversario della Chiesa del suo tempo’. 67 F. Gori, Praedestinatus qui dicitur (2000), 9. 68 Terence, Eunuchus 1024: egomet meo indicio miser quasi sorex hodie perii. In the commentary on this play attributed to Donatus, the entry for this line explains that the shrew is not easily captured, unless it makes a sound at night, and so for this reason the phrase has come to be used proverbially for someone who betrays themselves by their own words. Augustine has Licentius quote this at De ordine 1.3.9, mentioning that it comes from Terence; see also De ordine 1.5.42. Ausonius, in the preface to his Griphus ternarii numeri addressed to Symmachus, also says utinamque latuisset neque indicio suo tamquam sorex periret in a display of false modesty about his little book. 69 One small exception could be said to be [Donatus], Commentum Terentii on Eunuchus 1024, where the proverb is said to be used for those qui ipsi se produnt, although this is a gloss on the phrase rather than the phrase itself and is still resolutely about the shrew. 66

Tradition, Subversion and Heresiological Authority in the Praedestinatus

77

betray himself like the unfortunate rodent.70 It is possible that the proverb circulated widely in this form and that it is merely the result of chance that these are the only surviving attestations of it, but the exact correlation in these two discussions of the same issue suggests that our author is here specifically taking up an opponent’s phrase and pressing it into service for his own ends, rather like Goliath’s sword. Moreover, this biblical image fits most clearly not with a single phrase from Jerome but with the De haeresibus itself, which sits silently at the heart of the Praedestinatus’ heresiology. David Lambert remarks that ‘the deep irony of his use of a work by Augustine to provide his raw material is apparent to the modern reader, though it would probably be anachronistic to see this as part of his own intention’.71 In fact, however, the preface’s remarks about the role played by the treatise with Augustine’s name attached to it, reproduced whole and used to defeat itself, could be applied to the De haeresibus just as easily as to the forged text in Book 2. Furthermore, this interpretation is strengthened by Gori’s identification of theological amendments that emphasise links between earlier heresies in the catalogue and the views of the ‘Praedestinati’. By accepting Augustine’s list of eighty-eight sects but then drawing out strands from them that supposedly feed into Augustine’s own predestinarian views, the De haeresibus is presented as already containing the refutation of its author’s own erroneous theology, if only someone has the skill to glimpse ‘the images lying behind the lines’. Rather than being an anachronism, such a reading seems eminently appropriate for a text in which nothing is ever quite what it seems: its catalogue is crammed with invented characters, events, authorities and quotations; Book 2 is labelled as being by Augustine and revealed to be by the ‘Praedestinati’, but is actually by our author; Book 1 is labelled as being by our author, drawing on a rich, bilingual tradition of heresiology, but is, to a large extent, actually by Augustine; and the preface repeatedly exhorts the audience not to trust the appearances of people or texts and to read between the lines. The Praedestinatus is subversive, even playful, towards both the De haeresibus and heresiological discourse more generally, demonstrating how easily it can be falsified, parodied, flipped to oppose itself. It might even be read as a form of learned literary joke, albeit one with the serious aim of undermining its theological opponents, most notably the revered bishop of Hippo himself. The image of David and Goliath, of the tiny upstart triumphing over the much larger champion, is therefore entirely apt for our author’s appropriation and redeployment of Augustine’s De haeresibus and of the bishop’s own heresiological and ecclesiastical authority: like King David, the author of the Praedestinatus turns the weapon back against its famous owner and uses it to strike him down. 70 71

Jerome, Ep. 133.11. D. Lambert, ‘Augustine and the Praedestinatus’ (2008), 153-4.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin: The Legacy of Augustine’s Liturgical Argument in the Early Medieval West Matthieu PIGNOT, FNRS/Université de Namur, Belgium

ABSTRACT In the wake of the Pelagian controversy, Augustine of Hippo repeatedly referred to liturgical practices as arguments to promote his views on original sin. A particularly prominent argument in his polemical writings, repeated with great insistence in his controversy against Julian of Eclanum, is that the rites of exorcising and blowing at infants at baptism would provide proof of the necessity of cleansing them from original sin. This paper traces the destiny of this argument after Augustine’s death. First, it demonstrates how it was soon reused by Prosper of Aquitaine in his Auctoritates de gratia Dei, which were later transmitted together with Celestine’s Letter 21, and borrowed and copied in a number of Western sources, in particular in the letter of the Deacon Peter and other Scythian monks to African bishops exiled in Cagliari in the early sixth century, in a late antique Latin pseudo-Chrysostom homily from the Morin collection and in Bede’s commentary on First Samuel. Second, it shows the use of Augustine’s argument in renewed debates against allegedly Pelagian views in the works of pope Gelasius I, and in a synthesis on the catechumenate written by the deacon John in a letter sent to the aristocrat Senarius. This article sheds light on Augustine’s legacy and the signifiance of his intermediary Prosper of Aquitaine, and leads us to reflect on the continuity of debates on infant baptism and original sin long after the official condemnation of Pelagianism.

A. Augustine’s use of baptismal exorcism in the Pelagian controversy (411430) It is a well-known* fact that with the development of the Pelagian controversy starting in the early 410s, Augustine repeatedly used liturgical arguments to counter his opponents, and demonstrate the need for grace and for infants to * Research for this article was carried at the Université de Namur, first as a Marie Curie COFUND ‘Move-In Louvain’ postdoctoral fellow, then as a ‘Chargé de Recherches FNRS’. For further discussion and bibliography on pre-baptismal exorcism in Augustine and its earliest reception, see Matthieu Pignot, The catechumenate in late antique Africa (3rd-6th century), SVigChr 162 (Leiden, Boston, 2020), esp. chap. 2, 5 and 6. Abbreviations of Augustine’s works are taken from Augustinus-Lexikon (Basel).

Studia Patristica CXX, 79-100. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

80

M. PIGNOT

be cleansed from original sin.1 Arguing on the basis of the liturgical practice of the Church provided him with a strong argument of authority in these polemics, particularly in discussions pertaining to Christian initiation. Augustine already made use of liturgy, and more precisely of the rituals of initiation before 411, in his anti-Donatist polemics. In the footsteps of Optatus of Milevis, he extended the polemic over rebaptism to include the pre-baptismal rites, accusing Donatists of wrongly readmitting converts to the catechumenate and exorcising them, practices which for Optatus and Augustine were unacceptable as they meant that converts were merely considered as pagans, although Catholics and Donatists were supposed to share the same liturgical practices.2 When confronted with the new challenges of the Pelagian controversy, Augustine transferred and refined the argumentative techniques drawing on the performance of rites of the catechumenate that he had employed against the Donatists. He developed a number of interrelated arguments. Augustine resorted to the Lord’s Prayer petition asking for the daily forgiveness of sins to demonstrate that every man, even after baptism, needs forgiving grace.3 Concerning original sin and infant baptism, the bishop of Hippo referred to the combined rites of exorcism (exorcizare) and exsufflation (exsufflare) – which means to blow at one’s face to expel the devil – performed on little children.4 Augustine noted that the fact that these rites were performed on them was proof of their 1 See in particular Karl Federer, Liturgie und Glaube. “Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi” (Freiburg, 1950), 19-41; Albert Vinel, Le rôle de la liturgie dans la réflexion doctrinale de saint Augustin contre les Pélagiens (Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, PhD. Thesis, 1986); Albert Vinel, ‘L’argument liturgique opposé par saint Augustin aux Pélagiens’, QuLi 68 (1987), 209-241; Daniel Van Slyke, ‘Augustine and catechumenal “exsufflatio”: an integral element of Christian initiation’, Ephemerides liturgicae 118 (2004), 175-208; Andrew C. Chronister, Doctor traditionum: Augustine and appeals to tradition in the Pelagian controversy, unpublished PhD dissertation (Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 2016), 144-210. 2 See for instance Optatus, Contra Donatistas II, 24.3: Invenistis fideles novos fecistis cathecuminos agnoscite vos animas evertisse, variant attested in the oldest known manuscript of the treatise and clearly to be preferred to the edited text, see the apparatus of Carl Ziwsa, CSEL 26 (Vienna, 1893), 61 and Mireille Labrousse, SC 412 (Paris, 1995), 292-3; Augustine, Ep. 35, 3: Persuadetur eis, ut ad lavacrum alterum veniant atque, ut id accipere mereantur, paganos se esse respondeant, ed. Alois Goldbacher, CSEL 34 (Vienna, 1898), 29; C. Cresc. II, 5.7: […] apud nos iam baptizatum nec coepisse dicunt esse christianum, cum tamquam paganum exsufflant, cum catechumenum faciunt, ut praeparent deinde retinguendum vel potius extinguendum […]. Cur quod idem est exsufflatur, cur quod non diversum est iteratur?, ed. Michael Petschenig, CSEL 52 (Vienna, 1909), 365-7. 3 Augustine, Uirg. 48.48: Alioquin hanc orationem catechumeni potius usque ad baptismum orare deberent. Cum vero eam baptizati orant, praepositi, et plebes, pastores et greges, satis ostenditur in hac vita, quae tota temptatio est, neminem se tamquam ab omnibus peccatis immunem debere gloriari, ed. Joseph Zycha, CSEL 41 (Vienna, 1900), 294; see also In Ps. 142, 6 and S. 181, 5.7. On this polemical argument see Anthony Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum during the Pelagian controversy (Leiden, 2012), 297-441. 4 While adult baptism was more common at Augustine’s time, children could also be initiated as notably clear from the references here discussed.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

81

need to be purified from original sin in baptism, often with reference to Colossians 1:13 (‘For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins’).5 Although only employed frequently in Augustine’s later years, the first mention of this argument is found in the first book of the De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, thus in 411-412, at the beginning of the controversy. Augustine notes: What shall I say about the very form of the sacrament ? I wish that some of those who think differently would bring a little one to me for baptism. What does my exorcism do for the child, if it is not held in servitude to the devil ?6

While the core of the argument appears at the very beginning of the controversy, Augustine was to develop it further only later, now insisting not only on the exorcism but also on the gesture of blowing at infants before baptism. He started using this argument very frequently from 418 onwards, first in the second book of the De gratia Christi et de peccato originali: Moreover they themselves do not dare to reject the sacraments of the Church which she celebrates with the authority of such an ancient tradition, though they suppose that they are administered as a pretense rather than as a reality in the case of children. These sacraments of the holy Church indicate quite clearly that little ones, even those who have just been born, are freed from slavery to the devil by the grace of Christ. Even apart from the fact that they are baptised for the forgiveness of sins by a rite that is not false, but true, they are first exorcised; then, the power of the enemy is expelled, and they respond by the words of their sponsors that they renounce that power. By all these sacred and evident signs of hidden realities we see that they pass from the worst captor to the best redeemer who assumed for our sake our weakness and bound the strong one in order that he might steal his possessions (cf. Matt. 12:29). For the weakness of God is not merely stronger than human beings (cf. 1Cor. 1:25), but stronger than angels. God, then, sets free both the great and the small; in both of them he shows us what the truth said through the apostle, for he has snatched from the power of darkness, not merely adults, but also children, in order to bring them into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col. 1:13).7 5

See note 8 for references. Augustine, Pecc. mer. I 34.63: Quid de ipsa forma sacramenti loquar? Vellem aliquis istorum, qui contraria sapiunt, mihi baptizandum parvulum afferret. Quid in illo agit exorcismus meus, si in familia diaboli non tenetur?, ed. Carl F. Urba and Joseph Zycha, CSEL 60 (Vienna, 1913), 63-4; Roland Teske, The Works of Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Century, I/23 (New York, 1997), 71. 7 Augustine, Gr. et pecc. or. II 40.45: Denique ipsa ecclesiae sacramenta, quae tam priscae traditionis auctoritate concelebrat, ut ea isti, quamuis in parvulis existiment simulatorie potius quam ueraciter fieri, non tamen audeant aperta inprobatione respuere, ipsa, inquam, sanctae ecclesiae sacramenta satis indicant paruulos a partu etiam recentissimos per gratiam Christi de diaboli seruitio liberari. Excepto enim quod in peccatorum remissionem non fallaci, sed fideli mysterio baptizantur, etiam prius exorcizatur in eis et exsufflatur potestas contraria, cui etiam uerbis eorum a quibus portantur se renuntiare respondent. Quibus omnibus rerum occultarum 6

82

M. PIGNOT

The same argument is then employed frequently, particularly in the controversy against Julian of Eclanum – more than twenty times in total.8 Scholars have emphasised how Augustine actually employed this ad nauseam as a frequent leitmotiv to demonstrate that infants bear original sin and situate it in the broader context of Augustine’s use of the liturgy in the polemic.9 The objective of this article is not to dwell on Augustine’s use of the argument, which has been well studied, but to follow its destiny in the centuries after Augustine’s death. I aim to explore how Augustine’s argument influenced later discussions of infant baptism among scholars that may have directly accessed, read and debated Augustine, particularly in late-fifth and early sixth-century Italy. However, before turning to this evidence, it is essential to note that the argument would have probably had only limited reach if it had not been spread through a famous intermediary: Prosper of Aquitaine. B. The reception of Augustine’s argument (5th to 9th c.) I. Prosper of Aquitaine’s Auctoritates (ca. 439) 1. Identifying borrowings from Augustine A few years after Augustine’s death, between 435 and 442, perhaps in 439, Prosper of Aquitaine wrote the Praeteritorum Sedis Apostolicae episcoporum auctoritates de gratia Dei as a series of pronouncements of the Apostolic see against Pelagianism. Later, these were connected to pope Celestinus’ Epistle 21 (known as Apostolici verba) to which they became attached (chapters 4 to 13 in our editions).10 This work is presented as a compilation of papal statements on sacratis et evidentibus signis, a captivatore pessimo ad optimum redemptorem transire monstrantur; qui pro nobis infirmitate suscepta, alligavit fortem, ut vasa eius eriperet (cf. Matt. 12:29): quia infirmum Dei non solum est hominibus (cf. 1Cor. 1:25), verum et angelis fortius. Liberans itaque Deus pusillos cum magnis, in utrisque ostendit quod locuta est per Apostolum Veritas. Non enim solos aetate maiores, sed etiam pusillos eruit a potestate tenebrarum, ut transferat in regnum Filii caritatis suae (Col. 1:13), ed. Joseph Zycha, CSEL 42 (1902), 203; R. Teske, The Works of Saint Augustine, I/23 (1997), 458. 8 Augustine, Ep. 194, 10.46; Nupt. et conc. II 26, 50; Symb. cat. I 2, and particularly C. Iul. I 4.14, 5.19; III 3.8, 3.9; III 5.11; VI 5.11; C. Iul. imp. I 50, 117; II 120, 181; III 82, 182; IV 7, 77; IV 120; VI 23. On exorcism alone and more generic references: Augustine, C. Iul. III 9.18; C. Iul. imp. I 56-57, 60; II 135, 173, 224; III 14, 52, 146, 164, 199, 208; IV 108; V, 9. See a discussion of this in Gerard M. Lukken, Original sin in the Roman liturgy (Leiden, 1973), 198-200; Mickaël Ribreau, Bibliothèque Augustinienne 25A, note complémentaire ‘Rites du souffle et exorcisme’ (forthcoming). 9 See studies quoted in notes 1 and 8. 10 Prosper, Praeteritorum Sedis Apostolicae episcoporum auctoritates de gratia dei (PL 51, 206-12) = (Celestinus), Ep. 21, 4-13 (JK 381 and 87; J3 845), PL 50, 531-7 and PL 45, 1757-60; all with a number of variants; Inc.: In praevaricatione Adae omnes homines; from now on abbreviated as Auct.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

83

grace and indeed it compiles anti-Pelagian statements of popes Innocent I and Zosimus, but also canons of the council of Carthage of 418. While it omits the controversial name and authority of Augustine of Hippo, it was not aimed at finding a middle position between Augustine’s late stances and his opponents from Southern Gaul – as older scholarship argued – but rather, clearly drawing on Augustine’s works, the Auctoritates were meant to further refute Julian of Eclanum – as well shown by Villegas Marín.11 Prosper deeply appropriated Augustine’s liturgical arguments – notably developed in his controversy against Julian – and brought them to a new level.12 As scholars have emphasised, in chapters 8 and 9 of the Auctoritates, Prosper employed Augustine’s argument – notably found in his Ep. 217 – that prayers made for each category of people (pagans, catechumens, penitents, faithful) are proofs of the fact that purification from sin is needed and only granted by the grace of God (with reference to Col. 1:13) and not simply thanks to individual effort.13 11 For more on the context of composition, author, date and content, see Louis Valentin, Saint Prosper d’Aquitaine. Étude sur la littérature latine ecclésiastique au cinquième siècle en Gaule (Paris, Toulouse, 1900), 738-45; Maïeul Cappuyns, ‘L’origine des Capitula pseudo-célestiniens contre le semi-pélagianisme’, Revue Bénédictine 41 (1929), 156-70; Raul Villegas Marín, ‘En polémica con Julián de Eclanum: por una nueva lectura del Syllabus de gratia de Próspero de Aquitania’, Augustinianum 43 (2003), 81-124; Alexander Hwang, Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace. The Life and Thought of Prosper of Aquitaine (Washington, DC, 2009), 220-8; Jérémy Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine contre Jean Cassien. Le Contra collatorem, l’appel à Rome du parti augustinien dans la querelle postpélagienne (Barcelona, Rome, 2018), 209 n. 181 (date) and 212-6 (for contacts with the Contra collatorem and the use of material from the papal chancery). While Cappuyns suggested a dating between 435 and 442, Hwang placed the work between 450 and 455 (after De vocatione gentium); more recently, Villegas Marín and Delmulle prefer 439. 12 Prosper, Auct. 8 (= Ep. 21, 11): Praeter beatissimae et apostolicae sedis inviolabiles sanctiones, quibus nos piissimi patres, pestiferae novitatis elatione dejecta, et bonae voluntatis exordia, et incrementa probabilium studiorum, et in eis usque in finem perseverantiam ad Christi gratiam referre docuerunt, obsecrationum quoque sacerdotalium sacramenta respiciamus, quae ab apostolis tradita, in toto mundo atque in omni catholica Ecclesia uniformiter celebrantur, ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, PL 51, 209. Prosper’s phrase ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi was later rendered in the well-known but misleading phrase lex orandi, lex credendi; see further on the history of this phrase and its roots in Prosper: K. Federer, Liturgie (1950), 9-18; Paul De Clerck, ‘“Lex orandi, lex credendi”: Sens originel et avatars historiques d’un adage équivoque’, QuLi 59 (1978), 193-212, esp. 203-4, translated as ‘“Lex orandi, lex credendi”: The Original Sense and Historical Avatars of an Equivocal Adage”, SL 24 (1994), 178-200; Paul De Clerck, ‘Lex orandi, Lex credendi. Un principe heuristique’, La Maison-Dieu 222 (2000), 61-78, esp. 65-70; Daniel Van Slyke, ‘Lex orandi lex credendi: Liturgy as locus theologicus in the Fifth Century?’, Josephinum Journal of Theology 11/2 (2004), 130-51; Maxwell E. Johnson, Praying and Believing in Early Christianity: The Interplay between Christian Worship and Doctrine (Collegeville, MN, 2013), 1-23. Van Slyke, esp. 136-44, questions the assumption of previous scholarship that the prayers mentioned by Prosper need to be understood in a liturgical context and shows that Prosper’s statement does not contrast liturgy and belief but rather follows in the steps of Augustine to promote his doctrine of grace. 13 Prosper, Auct. 8-9 (= Ep. 21, 11-2): Cum enim sanctarum plebium praesules mandata sibimet legatione fungantur apud divinam clementiam, humani generis agunt causam, et tota

84

M. PIGNOT

What is less often emphasised, however, is that for the purpose of his broader demonstration, in chapter 9, Prosper also borrowed Augustine’s argument based on exorcisms and exsufflations performed on infants, extending it to include iuvenes who seek baptism: The ceremonies which Holy Church follows uniformly the world over for the administration of baptism we should not consider as meaningless display. When either infants or youths come to the sacrament of regeneration, they do not go to the fountain of life before the unclean spirit was expelled from them by the exorcisms and the ritual exsufflations of the clergy. This rite is meant to show how the Prince of this World is cast out (John 12:31), how the strong is first bound and then his goods are robbed (Matt. 12:29), transferred into the ownership of the Conqueror who led captivity captive (Eph. 4:8) and gave gifts to men (Ps. 67:19).14

Within a greater development, the clear connection to Augustine’s argument in this passage has to be underlined. Among a number of parallels, Prosper may have in particular borrowed from the already quoted passage of Augustine’s De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, which is particularly close, with the same references to exorcisms and exsufflations and quotations of Col. 1:13 and Matt. 12:29.15 However, Prosper’s borrowing is not limited to this text but shows the appropriation and reformulation of Augustine’s argument, probably on the basis of a wider number of texts.16 In Augustine’s already mentioned Ep. 217, 3.9-11, but also Ciu. XX 8.1 and C. Iul. imp. VI 20, the same argument is found with the same use of Matt. 12:29 (the latter also including a quotation of Col. 1:13), but without reference to the exorcisms, which are mentioned a little later in C. Iul. imp. VI 23. The association of Eph. 4:8 and Ps. 67:19 is also found in secum Ecclesia congemiscente, postulant et precantur ut infidelibus donetur fides […] ut denique, catechumenis ad regenerationis sacramenta perductis, coelestis misericordiae aula reseretur. Haec autem non perfunctorie neque inaniter a Domino peti, rerum ipsarum monstrat effectus: quandoquidem ex omni errorum genere plurimos Deus dignatur attrahere, quos erutos de potestate tenebrarum, transferat in regnum filii charitatis suae (cf. Col. 1:13) et ex vasis irae faciat vasa misericordiae (cf. Rom. 9:22), PL 51, 209-10. See K. Federer, Liturgie (1950), 34-41; P. De Clerck, ‘“Lex orandi, lex credendi”’ (1978), 203-4. See also similar thoughts in Prosper, Pro Augustino responsiones ad capitula objectionum gallorum calumniantium, Sententia super IX, PL 51, 172 and Prosper, De vocatione gentium 12, PL 51, 664-5. 14 Prosper, Auct. 9 (= Ep. 21, 12): Illud etiam quod circa baptizandos in universo mundo sancta Ecclesia uniformiter agit, non otioso contemplemur intuitu. Cum sive parvuli, sive juvenes ad regenerationis veniunt sacramentum, non prius fontem vitae adeunt, quam exorcismis et exsufflationibus clericorum spiritus ab eis immundus abigatur; ut tunc vere appareat, quomodo princeps mundi hujus mittatur foras (Jn. 12:31), et quomodo prius alligetur fortis, et deinceps vasa ejus diripiantur (cf. Matt. 12:29), in possessionem translata victoris, qui captivam ducit captivitatem (Eph. 4:8) et dat dona hominibus (Ps. 67:19), PL 51, 210; Peter De Letter, Ancient Christian Writers 32 (New York, 1963), 184 adapted. Among the above quoted studies, only R. Villegas Marín, ‘En polémica con Julián’ (2003), 91-4 and D. Van Slyke, ‘Lex orandi’ (2004), 144-6 mention that Prosper borrowed this from Augustine. 15 Augustine, Gr. et pecc. or. II 40.45 (see note 7). 16 As underlined by R. Villegas Marín, ‘En polémica con Julián’ (2003), 94-5 and n. 43.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

85

Augustine’s In ps. 67, 25-6 and Trin. XV 19.34, both written during the Pelagian controversy. Moreover, Delmulle’s article in this volume on Prosper’s booklist of Augustinian works shows that a number of other works containing Augustine’s argument and references to exorcisms performed on infants were known to him and at his disposal already in the early 430s: Pecc. mer., Ep. 194, Nupt. et conc. and C. Iul. Indeed, the quoted passage (and in particular the biblical quotations) also shows connections to Prosper’s Contra collatorem, already drawing on Augustine’s ideas and arguments.17 2. The diffusion of Prosper’s Auctoritates through canonical collections Beyond Prosper’s borrowing of Augustine, the Auctoritates were instrumental for the widespread reception of Augustine’s argument in late antiquity and the early middle ages. This will be shown through the exploration of sources discussed in the next sections, which may all have been influenced by Prosper’s Auctoritates : for some it will appear clearly, for others only tentative hypotheses can be made. Without Prosper’s mediation, it is uncertain how far Augustine’s argument would have been diffused. Only the earliest sources, Gelasius and John could have drawn their arguments directly from Augustine, as I will emphasise. Moreover, the Auctoritates themselves owe their diffusion to the fact that they became attached to pope Celestinus’ Letter 21. This led to their inclusion in major late antique canonical compilations, starting from the second recension of Dionysius’ collection, from the sixth and early seventh century and the related Hispana collection.18 In fact, it is through Dionysius’ collection in its various forms that the Auctoritates have come down to us and available editions are based on its witnesses.19 Later, Dionysius’ collection was used for 17 As shown by Cappuyns, ‘L’origine’ (1929), 167-8. See Prosper, Contra collatorem 13, 3 (PL 51, 248), and also, although in a different context: Prosper, Responsiones ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum 1 and 12 (PL 51, 178 and 184) discussed by R. Villegas Marín, ‘En polémica con Julián’ (2003), 94 n. 42. Another parallel is mentioned by D. Van Slyke, ‘Lex orandi’ (2004), 145 n. 56: Epistula ad Demetriadem de vera humilitate 11 (of uncertain authorship, perhaps Prosper, see Clavis Patrum Latinorum 529). 18 For Cappuyns, ‘L’origine’ (1929), 156 both the letter of the Scythian monks and Hormisdas, discussed below, would have used Dionysius’ collection, which he dated in the period 498-514. On the process see Dominic Moreau, ‘Non impar conciliorum extat auctoritas. L’origine de l’introduction des lettres pontificales dans le droit canonique’, in Janine Desmulliez, Christine Hoët-Van Cauwenberghe and Jean-Christophe Jolivet (eds), L’étude des correspondances dans le monde romain de l’Antiquité classique à l’Antiquité tardive: permanences et mutations. Actes du XXXe Colloque international de Lille (20-21-22 novembre 2008) (Villeneuve-d’Ascq, 2008), 487506 (esp. 498-503). Awaiting new critical editions, see for the decretals in the Dionysiana: Guillaume Voel and Henri Justel, Bibliotheca iuris canonici veteris, Tom. I (Paris, 1661), 190-274 reprinted in PL 67, 231-316 and for the Hispana Francisco Antonio González, Collectio canonum Ecclesiæ Hispanæ, 2 vol. (Madrid, 1808-1821), reproduced in PL 84, 93-848. See the ongoing project of editions (Digital Carolingian Canon Law) at http://ccl.rch.uky.edu. 19 As underlined by Cappuyns, ‘L’origine’ (1929), 156.

86

M. PIGNOT

the compilation of Cresconius Africanus’ Concordia canonum, put together in the seventh century. Both collections transmit Celestinus’ Letter 21 Apostolici verba together with the Auctoritates of Prosper attached to it under Celestinus’ name.20 Similarly, the chapters 8-9 of the Auctoritates are copied among the anti-Pelagian chapters of the augmented version of Gennadius’ Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum probably put together in the ninth century.21 It is unclear when Prosper’s Auctoritates became attached to Celestine’s decretal, but the evidence which will be explored here tends to suggest that it was already the case in the early sixth century. The diffusion of the Auctoritates through canonical compilations should be kept in mind when exploring late antique and early medieval texts drawing on Augustine’s argument, often through the Auctoritates. While it is most uncertain for the early borrowings from the late fifth and early sixth century, it seems probable that later sources only had access to the Auctoritates (and thus Augustine’s argument) through the mediation of canonical collections. II. Gelasius After Prosper, the first clear use of Augustine’s argument is found in a letter of Pope Gelasius I (492-496) sent to the bishops of Picenum on 1 November 493.22 20 Dionysius, Collectio decretorum, Decreta Coelestini papae (PL 67, 269-74) = Cresconius Africanus, Concordia canonum, 288-98 (296-8 for the Auctoritates), Klaus Zechiel-Eckes, Die Concordia canonum des Cresconius. Studien und Edition, Teil 2 (Frankfurt am Main, 1992), 782-97. A recent overview in Michel-Yves Perrin, ‘La Concordia Canonum de Cresconius: un réexamen’, in Rita Lizzi Testa and Giulia Marconi (eds), The Collectio Avellana and Its Revivals (Cambridge, 2019), 487-505. On the incorporation of decretals in Cresconius’ collection see K. Zechiel-Eckes, Die Concordia, Teil 1 (1992), 17-20. 21 Liber ecclesiasticorum dogmatum 30-2 (PL 58, 987-8 = PL 83, 1234; F. Oehler, Corpus haereseologicum, I [Berlin, 1856], 342-3). The Liber, as is the case in borrowings discussed in sections IV and V below, leaves out the introductory words of chapter 8 from Praeter beatissimae, but here only up to referre docuerunt. As summarised by Jean-Paul Bouhot, ‘La tradition manuscrite du “De fide” de Bachiarius’, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes 25 (1979), 73-84 (esp. 74-9) there are three versions of the Liber, and our passage is only included in the augmented version (C). For Bouhot, the text printed in the seventeenth century (the editions quoted above) is artificial as it is not found in any manuscript; it would be based on manuscripts of version B1, augmented with the interpolations found in a still unpublished version C1. This version C1, adding anti-Pelagian interpolations to the original Liber, may have been put together in the ninth century in the circle of Florus of Lyons, in the context of the revival of polemics on grace and predestination. The repertories (Clavis Patrum Latinorum 958a; Roger Gryson, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’Antiquité et du haut Moyen Âge, Tome I [Freiburg, 2007], 509) record the augmented version under the name of a Spanish seventh-century bishop Brachiarius, although this hypothesis of authorship is most doubtful, see Jean-Paul Bouhot, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 25 (1979), 377-9 (Bulletin Augustinien pour 1978, n. 305). 22 Gelasius, Ep. 6 (= JK 621); numbering according to Andreas Thiel (ed.), Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelag. II, volume 1 (Brumberg, 1867-1868), 325-35.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

87

Gelasius rebuked his fellow bishops for their lack of action against Pelagian ideas that were apparently still strong in the region, more than sixty years after Augustine’s controversy with Julian. Gelasius particularly wrote against an old man named Seneca who is said to hold ‘pelagian views’, to have received support of local bishops and to have publicly attacked Augustine and Jerome.23 Gelasius’ letter aims to reject the three main principles held by his opponent: 1. Infants are not created sinful in the womb of their mother otherwise God is unjust 2. Infants who die without baptism cannot be damned 3. Salvation can be obtained through free will and one’s own ability After refuting the first point by reaffirming the doctrine of original sin, Gelasius focuses on the second by showing the difference between original sin and one’s own sins. Gelasius argues on the basis of John 6:54 – as Augustine often did in his anti-Pelagian polemics – stating that infants need to take part in the Eucharist and they require baptism to obtain eternal life. It would be unjust for God to exclude infants were they not bearing original sin.24 To further demonstrate this point, Gelasius then adds Augustine’s argument based on exorcisms. Infants only need to be cleansed from original sin and that is the reason why they undergo the exorcisms: Hence, while he [the infant] is not bound by any guilt coming from his own actions, there is no other reason why he is soiled, except because of a corrupted birth. And if 23 Gelasius, Ep. 6, 3: Oblatus est enim nobis miserabilis senex Seneca nomine, qui non modo totius sanctae eruditionis alienus sed ipsius quoque intelligentiae communis prosus extraneus, in Pelagianae voraginis coeno, sicut de quibus in Apocalpysi legimus, velut una ranarum imprudenter immersus, inque illa faece horribiliter volutatus, nullatenus inde qualiter emergere posset inveniens […]; 4: Quapropter de innumeris blasphemiarum generibus, quas auctores Pelagianae haeresis ediderunt, tria, quae sii praecipue hic senex lugendis adscivit, credidimus non tacenda, ut reserata manifestius panderentur et Deo destruente facilius viderentur eversa; 9: Quapropter nimis incusamus fratres et coepiscopos nostros, maxime per Piceni provincias Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes, qui non solum ineptissimi senis abjectaeque personae pravum non deterruere colloquium, verum etiam suo nutrivere consensu. […] Adhuc majus scelus accrescit, ut sub conspectu et praesentia sacerdotum beatae memoriae Hieronymum atque Augustinum, ecclesiasticorum lumina magistrorum, musca moritura, sicut scriptum est, exterminans oleum suavitatis (Eccl. 10:1), lacerare contenderet, ed. A. Thiel, Epistolae (1868), 325-6 and 333. This letter remains little studied; for the context, see Serafino Prete, ‘La lettera di Gelasio I ai vescovi del “Picenum” sul Pelagianesimo (1 nov 493)’, Studia Picena 43 (1976), 9-28 and ‘Seneca’ in Charles Pietri and Luce Pietri (eds), Prosopographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire : 2. Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne, 313-604, Tome II (Paris, 2000), 2024-5. 24 Ep. 6, 5 : Ipse Dominus Jesus Christus coelesti voce pronuntiat: Qui non manducaverit carnem Filii hominis et biberit sanguinem ejus, non habebit vitam in semetipso (cf. Jn 6:54): ubi utique neminem videmus exceptum, nec ausus est aliquis dicere, parvulum sine hoc sacramento salutari ad aeternam vitam posset perduci ; sine illa autem vita in perpetua futurum morte non dubium est. Cur igitur infans hac sorte concluditur, si nullam habet omnino peccatum? Magisque videbitur, quod absit, injustus Deus, si illic infligatur poena, ubi nulla sit culpa, ed. A. Thiel, Epistolae (1868), 329-30. See in particular Augustine, Pecc. mer. I 20.26-7; 23.33-4; C. ep. Pel. I 22.40; C. Iul. III 1.4; C. Iul. imp. III 38; Ep. 186, 8.28.

88

M. PIGNOT

he is not cleansed by taking part to the Christian mystery, he cannot attain eternal life. This is why infants are blown at and catechised.25

Gelasius continues quoting Col. 1:13 and then returns to the argument based on John 6:54 to argue that baptism is needed because of original sin only.26 Since Augustine so frequently used this argument, and because it was later adopted and spread through Prosper’s Auctoritates, but also because Gelasius’ discussion only mentions this argument in passing, it is difficult here to point to a specific text that Gelasius might have borrowed from. The pope may simply here borrow the frequent argument which any reader of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian polemics after 418 could not have failed to notice, although knowledge of Prospers’ passage cannot be excluded. It is striking that to refer to exorcisms performed on infants Gelasius combines exsufflare, not with exorcizare as Augustine consistently did (followed by Prosper), but with catechizare, a verb meant to refer to oral instruction. As Gelasius speaks about infants and refers back to Augustine’s argument, it seems that he understood catechizare as synonymous to exorcizare, or at least as closely related to the exorcisms performed before baptism. Gelasius’ use needs not to be interpreted as a radical alteration of Augustine’s argument or as further proof of “medieval ritualisation” of catechesis, now merely consisting in exorcisms performed on infants – as older scholarship often stated for early medieval initiation.27 It is more accurate to say that the action of catechizare, instructing, was understood as parallel and fully complementary to exorcisms, and, as the godparents were assisting infants in baptism and able to hear it, instruction was an integral part of the ritual sessions. Gradually, from the time of Gelasius at least, it was therefore increasingly employed to designate the initiation of candidates before baptism when exorcisms were performed – notably in the rubric introducing the pre-baptismal exorcism formulae for Holy Saturday in the old Gelasian sacramentary, a major witness to the liturgy of early medieval Rome.28 The discussion of our next source, similarly pointing 25 Gelasius, Ep. 6, 5: Unde quum de propriis actibus nullo reatu teneatur obstrictus, nihil restat, nisi ut sola sit vitiosa nativitate pollutus; et si non fuerit mysterii Christiani participatione mundatus, ad vitam non potest pervenire perpetuam. Hinc est, quod exsufflantur et catechizantur infantes, ed. A. Thiel, Epistolae (1868), 330. 26 Gelasius, Ep. 6, 5-6. 27 See for instance Victor Saxer, Les rites de l’initiation chrétienne du IIe au VIe siècle. Esquisse historique et signification d’après leurs principaux témoins (Spoleto, 1988), 590-1 and 634-6. For a more detailed discussion of scholarship see M. Pignot, The catechumenate (2020), Introduction and ch. 6. 28 Old Gelasian Sacramentary XLII: Mane reddunt infantes symbulum. Prius catacizas eos, inposita super capita eorum manu, his verbis: ‘Nec te latet Satanas, inminere tibi poenas, inminere tibi tormenta, imminere tibi diem iudicii, diem supplicii, diem qui venturus est velut clibanus ardens, in quo tibi atque universis angelis tuis aeternus veniat interitus. Proinde, damnate, da honorem deo vivo et vero, da honorem Iesu Christo filio eius, et spiritui sancto, in cuius nomine atque virtute praecipio tibi ut exeas et recedas ab hoc famulo dei, quem hodie dominus deus

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

89

to catechesis in connection to exorcisms, within an anti-Pelagian polemic, will help further understanding this. III. The deacon John In the decades after Gelasius’ death in 496, the use of Augustine’s argument can be further traced in a letter written by a certain Roman deacon John, replying to a lost letter of a vir illustris named Senarius, an Italian court official active in the 500s and 510s.29 The letter should be dated after 1 September 509, when Senarius is granted senatorial status (vir illustris) through letters of King Theoderic (493-526 AD).30 John has probably to be identified with the deacon and friend of Boethius who reviewed and transcribed Boethius’ works in the 510s31 and perhaps also with the future pope John I (523-526). If this is the case, the letter can be dated before 523, but there is no way of demonstrating this identification.32 The discussion of John’s borrowing of the liturgical argument can perhaps provide further clues to date the letter, as we will see. John’s letter is a major source for our knowledge of the catechumenate and more broadly early medieval liturgy in Rome, and as such has received considerable attention from scholars.33 However, John’s use of Augustine’s argument has neither been noticed nor discussed. noster Iesus Christus ad suam sanctam gratiam et benedictionem fontemque baptismatis dono vocare dignatus est’, ed. Leo C. Mohlberg, Liber sacramentorum romanae aeclesiae ordinis anni circuli (Cod. Vat. Reg. lat. 316/Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/56) (Rome, 1960), 67. In the formula used to instruct a pagan becoming a catechumen (Old Gelasian Sacramentary LXXI), catechizare is related to instruction: Gentilem hominem cum susceperis, in primis catacizas eum divinis sermonibus et das ei monita quemadmodum post cognitam veritatem vevere debeat. Post haec facis eum caticuminum: exsufflas in faciem eius et facis ei crucem in fronte; inponis manum super caput eius his verbis, ed. L.C. Mohlberg, Liber (1960), 93. 29 Ep. ad Sen. 1: Domino merito inlustri semperque magnifico filio Senario, Iohannes diaconus. Sublimitatis vestrae paginam filio nostro spectabili viro Renato deferente suscepimus, ed. André Wilmart, Analecta reginensia. Extraits des manuscrits latins de la reine Christine conservés au Vatican (Vatican City, 1933), 170. On Senarius see Andrew Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411-533 (Cambridge, 2003), 190-219 (with bibliography). 30 Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 3 (to Senarius) and 4 (to the Senate). 31 On the relations between Boethius and John see Edward K. Rand, ‘Der dem Boethius zugeschriebene Traktat de fide catholica’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supplementband 26 (Leipzig, 1901), 407-61, 442-6. 32 See ‘Iohannes 26’, in C. Pietri and L. Pietri, Prosopographie, Tome I (Paris, 1999), 1074-5. 33 See in particular (among many): Albert Dondeyne, ‘La discipline des scrutins dans l’Église latine avant Charlemagne’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 28 (1932), 751-87, 751-9; Antoine Chavasse, ‘Le carême romain et les scrutins pré-baptismaux avant le IXe siècle’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 35 (1948), 325-81; V. Saxer, Les rites (1988), 589-95; Giuseppe Sobrero, Anonimo Veronese. Omelie mistagogiche e catechetiche. Edizione critica e studio (Rome, 1992), 188-95; Giuseppe Cavallotto, Catecumenato antico. Diventare cristiani secondo i padri (Bologna, 1996), 224-36; A. Gillett, Envoys (2003), 214-8.

90

M. PIGNOT

John starts his letter noting that Senarius asked him to write something and to transcribe works for him (dirigi transcripta).34 John also remarks that a sound answer requires time to consult the books of the forefathers (maiorum volumina), which provide necessary aid to guide his answer.35 The deacon concludes the prologue noting that he will not follow the order of Senarius’ questions but instead divide the topic as he sees fit.36 All of Senarius’ questions focus on liturgical practices performed during the Lenten and Easter periods. While Senarius expected an explanation on the meaning of some rites or technical words used, his interest in the letter primarily rested in the reasons for the liturgy in place in Rome. John’s answer focuses on a defence of Roman practices on the basis of the Bible and the writings of the forefathers (maiores).37 The discussion of baptismal exorcism comes in John’s answer to Senarius’ question about the catechumenate. John notes : You ask me to tell you why before a man is baptised he must first become a catechumen (catechumenus fiat); or what the meaning is of the word or of the word “catechising” (catechizatio); in what rule (regula) of the Old Testament it is set out; or whether indeed the rule is a new one, deriving rather from the New Testament. Also you ask what a scrutiny (scrutinium) is, and why infants are scrutinised (scrutinentur infantes) three times before Easter: and what purpose is served by this care and preoccupation with these scrutinies (scrutaminis), etc.38

John starts his reply with a recapitulation of the history of mankind, the fall through original sin and the captivity endured at the hands of the devil. In this context, aiming at showing the need for ritual cleansing due to original sin, John explains the necessity of a pre-baptismal initiation with particular reference to exorcisms, thus relaying Augustine’s argument: 34 John, Ep. ad Sen. 1: Nam, ut vestrae loquuntur litterae, quaedam vobis scribi, quaedam dirigi transcripta voluistis; sed in transcribendo curam nostram utcumque notariorum labor adiuvit, in his vero quae scribenda sunt multum fateor laboris indicitis, et supercadere hoc mensuram meam adducta fronte respondeo, ed. A. Wilmart, Analecta (1933), 170-1. 35 John, Ep. ad Sen. 1: “Postremo otiosum tempus res postulat ut maiorum volumina recensentibus quid de una quaque re dici debeat illorum tuta iuvamine procedat oratio, ed. A. Wilmart, Analecta (1933), 171. 36 John, Ep. ad Sen. 1: Illud interea prudentiae vestrae praedico quia inquisitionum ordo non ita ut vestra legitur pagina consequetur, sed, ut se unaquaeque suggesserit, absolutione congrua terminabitur, ed. A. Wilmart, Analecta (1933), 171. 37 John employs the term quite frequently: Ep. ad Sen. 1 (maiorum volumina), 11 (maiores nostri, maioribus tradita, maiorum ratio), 13 (maioribus tradita), 14 (a maioribus dictum est), see A. Wilmart, Analecta (1933), 171, 177-8. 38 John, Ep. ad Sen. 2: Requiro – inquis – a vobis quare, antequam baptisma quis consequatur, catechumenus fiat, vel quid sibi habeat hoc vocabulum aut haec catechizatio, aut qua regula in veteri testamento praemissa sit, aut certe si novella regula est et magis a novo testamento sumpsit exordium; simul etiam scrutinium quid sit aut quare tertio ante pascha scrutinentur infantes, aut quid sibi haec destrictio vel sollicitudo scrutaminis vindicet, et cetera, ed. A. Wilmart, Analecta (1933), 171; Edward C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy (London, 1960), 144 adapted.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

91

I am confident that you are sufficiently versed in such matters as to know that the whole human race, while still so to speak in its cradle, should properly have fallen in death through the waywardness of the first man: and no rescue was possible except by the grace of the Saviour; who although he had been begotten of the Father before the worlds yet for our salvation did not disdain to be born in time, man of a virgin mother alone. There cannot therefore be any doubt that before a man is reborn in Christ he is held close in the power of the devil: and unless he is extricated from the devil’s toils, renouncing him among the first beginnings of faith with a true confession, he cannot approach the grace of the saving laver. And therefore he must first enter the classroom of the catechumens. Catechesis is the Greek word for instruction. He is instructed through the Church’s ministry, by the blessing of one laying his hand [upon his head], that he may know who he is and who he shall be: in other words, that from being one of the damned he becomes holy, from unrighteousness he appears as righteous, and finally, from being a servant he becomes a son […]. He receives therefore exsufflation and exorcism, in order that the devil may be put to flight and an entrance prepared for Christ our God: so that being delivered from the power of darkness he may be translated to the kingdom (Col. 1:13) of the glory of the love of God: so that a man who till recently had been a vessel of Satan becomes now a dwelling of the Saviour.39

It is striking that John justified the catechumenate starting with a reference to original sin and the need for grace, thus taking the opportunity of Senarius’ question to put forward anti-Pelagian views. While the prologue on original sin and the captivity of mankind finds several parallels in anti-Pelagian polemics, notably in Augustine, Prosper, Leo the Great, and the Praedestinatus, the reply to Senarius’ question clearly adopts Augustine’s argument when it explains the necessity of pre-baptismal purification through the rites of exorcism and 39 John, Ep. ad Sen. 3: Studium vestrum nosse confidimus quia omne genus humanum in ipsis, ut ita dicam, mundi cunabulis praevaricatione primi hominis in morte fuerit iure conlapsum, nec ab ea posse redimi nisi affuerit gratia salvatoris, qui, dum ante saecula genitus esset ex patre, propter nos homo ex sola matre fieri non est dedignatus in tempore. Non est ergo dubium quod, priusquam aliquis renascatur in Christo, diabolicae potestate teneatur adstrictus, cuius laquaeis nisi inter ipsa primitus fidei rudimenta veraci professione renuntians exuatur ad salutaris lavacri gratiam non accedit; et ideo hunc oportet prius cathecumenorum auditorium introire. Catechisis enim graece instructio dicitur. Instruitur namque aecclesiastico ministerio per benedictionem inponentis manum, ut intellegat quis sit qui ne futurus sit, hoc est quia ex damnabili sanctus fiat, ex iniusto iustus appareat, ad postremum filiuus fiat ex servo […]. Exsufflatus igitur exorcizatur, ut, fugato diabolo, Christo domino nostro paretur introitus, et a potestate, erutus tenebrarum, transferatur in regnum gloriae caritatis dei, ut qui dudum vas fuerat satanae fiat nunc domicilium salvatoris. Exsufflatur itaque, quia talis dignus est ignominia desertor antiquus; exorcizatur autem, id est coniuratur, ut exeat et recedat, illius agnoscens adventum cuius erectam in paradisi felicitate imaginem prava suasione deiecerat. Accipit etiam cathecuminus benedictum sal in quo signatur, quia, sicut omnis caro sale condita servatur, ita sale sapientiae et praedicationis verbi dei mens fluctibus saeculi madida et fluxa conditur, ut ad soliditatem stabilitatis atque permansionis digesto paenitus corruptionis humore divini salis suavitate perveniat. Hod ergo ait frequens impositio manus et in reverentia trinitatis invocata super caput eius tertio benedictio conditoris, ed. A. Wilmart, Analecta (1933), 171-2; E.C. Whitaker, Documents (1960), 144-5.

92

M. PIGNOT

exsufflatio with the quotation from Col. 1:13.40 Again it is not possible to point to a specific text of Augustine behind the borrowing; while John may well have read Augustine’s works, it is perhaps also likely that he resorted to Prosper’s Auctoritates, as this text was already attached to pope Celestinus’ decretal in the 510s. IV. Deacon Peter and other Scythian monks (ca. 519) Indeed, the above-mentioned passages of the Auctoritates 8-9 borrowing from Augustine’s liturgical argument were excerpted in a letter sent from Rome around 519 by the deacon Peter and other Scythian monks to the African bishops exiled in Cagliari, in an attempt to rally them to their cause.41 The monks precisely quoted Prosper’s Auctoritates which they already read as a decretal of Celestinus. I put here the original passages of the letter in bold and identify the borrowed passages in brackets: His congrue beatissimus caelestinus in epistula ad gallos data: cum enim, inquit, sanctarum plebium praesules mandata sibi legatione funguntur apud diuinam clementiam, humani generis agunt causam, et tota se cum ecclesia congemiscente postulant et precantur ut infidelibus donetur fides, ut idololatrae ab infidelitatis suae liberentur erroribus, ut iudaeis, ablato cordis uelamine, lux ueritatis appareat, ut haeretici catholicae fidei perceptione resipiscant, ut schismatici spiritum rediuiuae caritatis accipiant, ut lapsis paenitentiae remedia conferantur, ut denique catechumenis ad regenerationis sacramenta perductis, caelestis misericordiae aula reseretur. Haec autem non perfunctorie neque inaniter a domino peti rerum ipsarum monstrat effectus, quandoquidem ex omni errorum genere plurimos dignatur attrahere, quos eruens de potestate tenebrarum, transfert in regnum filii caritatis suae, et ex uasis irae facit uasa misericordiae. Quod adeo totum diuini operis esse sentitur, ut haec efficienti deo gratiarum semper actio laudis que confessio pro illuminatione talium uel correctione referatur. (= Prosper, Auctoritates 8, leaving out the first lines from Praeter beatissimae to statuat supplicandi) Rursus post pauca: his ergo (inquit) ecclesiasticis regulis et ex diuina sumptis auctoritate documentis, ita adiuuante domino confirmati sumus, ut omnium bonorum affectuum atque operum, et omnium studiorum omnium que uirtutum, quibus ab initio fidei ad deum tenditur, deum profiteamur auctorem; et non dubitemus ab ipsius gratia omnia hominis merita praeueniri, per quem fit ut aliquid boni et uelle incipiamus et 40 The reference to the praevaricatio primi hominis (or Adae) is most common in Augustine in his debate with Julian (C. Iul. imp. I 71-2; II 85, 105, 187, 193, 214; III 56, 173, 177-8, 185-6, 187, 205, 207 etc.) and in Praedestinatus II 6; III 27-8; Prosper, Contra collatorem 5, 3; 9, 2 and 5; 10, 1; 14, 2. For homo […] fieri non est dedignatus in tempore see Leo the Great, Sermo XXII, 1 repeated in the Tomus ad Flavianum (= Leo, Ep. 28). For ex sola matre fieri see for instance Augustine, S. 289. See more generally Augustine, Ep. 157, 3. 41 On the Theopaschite controversy and these monks see Dominic Moreau, ‘Les moines scythes néochalcédoniens (de Zaldapa?). Étude préliminaire à une prosopographie chrétienne du Diocèse des Thraces’, добружа 32 (2017), 187-202, esp. 191-6.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

93

facere.Quo utique auxilio et munere dei non aufertur liberum arbitrium, sed liberatur, ut de tenebroso lucidum, de prauo rectum, de languido sanum, et imprudenti sit providum. (= Prosper, Auctoritates 9 leaving out the beginning (quoted above) from Illud etiam quod circa baptizandos to dona hominibus, and the end, from tanta enim est to nos a malo) Terminat autem idem magister hanc ipsam epistulam, atque concludit ita, dicens: quia ad confitendam gratiam dei, cuius operi ac dignationi nihil penitus subtrahendum est, satis sufficere credimus, quidquid secundum praedictas regulas apostolicae sedis nos scripta docuerunt, ut prorsus non opinemur catholicum, quod apparuerit praefixis sententiis esse contrarium. (= Prosper, Auctoritates 10, leaving out the first sentence from Profundiores vero to habemus astruere)42

The borrowing gives the main thoughts of Prosper’s broader passage. However, it has to be noted that the letter precisely leaves out the sentences in which Prosper mentioned the exorcisms performed on infants. These quotations from Prosper in Peter’s letter are the first dated proof of the circulation of Prosper’s Auctoritates under the name of pope Celestinus. It would make sense that John’s letter also borrowed from it, and perhaps particularly if this text was understood by him too to be written by the pope of Rome. This at least fits particularly well with the dating of John’s letter in the 510s and perhaps in particular close to Peter’s letter. Both letters show that Prosper’s text was readily available in Rome and had become the authoritative statement against Pelagian views. Further evidence for the spread of the Auctoritates is provided by pope Hormisdas in a letter sent to the bishop Possessor in summer 520 regarding Faustus of Riez’s works, referring to the Auctoritates kept in Rome.43 V. Latin Pseudo-Chrysostom (Morin Collection) Another, probably later, example of such targeted borrowing of the portion on the liturgy is found in a different context, in the Latin pseudo-Chrysostom Morin sermon collection. This collection of sermons is difficult to date and localise before a more extensive study is carried on the manuscript transmission, contents and reception of the collection. However, on the basis of preliminary studies, its origin is generally thought to be late antique, perhaps 42 Peter (and others), Epistula Petri diaconi et aliorum qui in causa fidei Romam directi fuerant 27 = Fulgentius, Ep. 16, 27, see Jean Fraipont (ed.), CChr.SL 91A (Turnhout, 1968), 551-62, 561-2 (reply at 563-615) and François Glorie (ed.), CChr.SL 85A (Turnhout, 1978), 157-72, 171-2. 43 Hormisdas, Ep. 124, 5 (= JK 850): De arbitrio tamen libero et gratia Dei quid Romana hoc est catholica sequatur et servet Ecclesia, […], tamen et in scriniis ecclesiasticis expressa capitula continentur, ed. A. Thiel, Epistolae (1868), 930-1, noted by Raul Villegas Marín, ‘The Anti-Pelagian Dossier of Eugippius’ Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini in Context: Notes on the Reception of Augustine’s Works on Grace and Predestination in Late Fifth-Early Sixth-Century Rome’, in Jérémy Delmulle, Gert Partoens, Shari Boodts and Anthony Dupont (eds), Flores Augustini. Augustinian Florilegia in the Middle Ages (Leuven, 2020), 91-106.

94

M. PIGNOT

from Africa or southern Italy.44 The collection is composed of thirty sermons, first edited amongst the works of John Chrysostom in a number of sixteenthcentury editions and lastly reprinted in the Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum by Jean-Paul Bouhot on the basis of the Paris edition (Claude Chevallon, 1536) as ‘Collectio Morin’.45 Bouhot’s edition and the repertories wrongly count thirty-one homilies, dividing homily 22, entitled ‘De Adam et Heva’, in two parts as homilies 22-3 with the same title (Inc.: Deus institutor mundi, omnia ex nihilo faciens and Inc.: Deus noster faciens hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam (Gen. 1:26), dedit praeceptum in creatura). However, this is transmitted in manuscripts as a single text, and the two parts are perhaps better described as 22A and 22B. What is considered as homily 23 by Bouhot (here named 22B) is an interpolation to the homily which consists of a compilation of earlier sources, as already noted by Lambert and Bouhot.46 The text of 22B can be divided in three parts: 1. The first, except a few lines of introduction, contains an extract from Augustine’s Contra Iulianum V 3.12 (here in small characters) 2. The second part, which may also draw from one or more earlier sources that I have not been able to identify (more likely), or be the work of the compiler 3. The third part, which provides an extract from Prosper’s Auctoritates 8-10 (here in small characters, with the portion including the mention of exorcisms in bold), leaving out the beginning of 8 from Praeter beatissimae to statuat supplicandi: Deus noster faciens hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam (Gen. 1:26) dedit praeceptum in creatura: id est, in arbore, eligens ut per transgressionem 44 See in particular: Germain Morin, ‘Étude sur une série de discours d’un évêque (de Naples?) du VIe siècle’, Revue Bénédictine 11 (1894), 385-402; id., ‘Un essai d’autocritique’, Revue Bénédictine 12 (1895), 385-96, 390-1; id., Études, textes, découvertes (Maredsous, 1913), 37-8; Mutien Lambert, Une collection homilétique du sixième siècle (Italie du sud). Contribution à l’étude de l’Histoire de la Catéchèse d’Adultes (unpublished dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain, 1968), 16-24 ; Jean-Paul Bouhot, ‘La collection homilétique pseudo-chrysostomienne découverte par Dom Morin’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 16 (1970), 139-46 ; François Dolbeau, ‘Une collection méconnue de Sermons sur les psaumes’, in Anthony Dupont, Gert Partoens and Matthias Lamberigts (eds), Tractatio scripturarum. Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons (Turnhout, 2012), 9-39 esp. 26-8. For an overview of the items of the collection see R. Gryson, Répertoire, Tome II (2007), 592-3 (listed wrongly as JO-N following the earliest, now obsolete, attribution of the collection to a bishop of Naples named John); François Leroy, ‘Compléments et retouches à la 3e édition de la Clavis Patrum Latinorum. L’homilétique africaine masquée sous le Chrysostomus Latinus, Sévérien de Céramussa et la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 99 (2004), 425-34, esp. 431. Only the two homilies on the creed have since been critically edited (corresponding in Gryson to JO-N 27 and 29). 45 PLS 4 (1967), 741-834. 46 M. Lambert, Une collection (1968), 6-7 and 21 n. 5; J.-P. Bouhot, ‘La collection’ (1970), 142-4.

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

95

in creaturam peccaret, qui sine mandato in creatorem offenderet. Et sicut angelus qui sine praecepto elatus cecidit, ita et homo si praeceptum non acciperet, aeque et ipse diceret, Pono sedem meam in Aquilonem et ero similis altissimo et caderet irreparabiliter (Is. 14:14). Praevidit per omnia deus, quanta habuit facere bona de transgressione primi hominis. De ipso ergo peccato transgressionis pullulant omnia peccata. Cum ergo dicitur homo tradi desideriis suis (cf. Rom 1:27), ex ipsa propagine fit reus: quia desertus a deo, cedit cupiditatibus, atque consentit, vincitur, capitur, trahitur, possidetur. A quo enim quis devictus est, huic et servus addictus est (2Pet. 2:19); et fit ei peccatum consequens praecedentis poena peccati. An non est peccatum et poena poeccati, ubi legitur: dominus enim immisit eis spiritum erroris, ut faciant quae non conveniunt, sicut seducitur ebrius (Is. 19:14)? An non est peccatum, poena peccati, ubi deus dicit propheta, quid errare fecisti nos de via tua, obdurasti corda nostra, ut non timeremus te (Is 63:17)? An non est peccatum et poena peccati, ubi dicitur deo, ecce tu iratus es, et nos peccavimus: propterea erravimus, et facti sumus sicut immundi omnes (Is. 64:5-6)? An non est peccatum, et poena peccati, ubi legitur de gentibus, quas debellavit Iesus Nave, quia per dominum factum est confirmari cor eorum, ut obviam irent ad bellum Israel, ut exterminarentur (cf. Jos. 10:8-26)? An non est peccatum, et poena peccati, quod non audivit Roboam rex plebem bene monentem (cf. Jos. 11:10)? Quia sicut scriptura loquitur erat conversio a domino, ut statueret verbum suum quod ei locutus est in manu prophetae (3Kgs. 12:15). An non est peccatum, et poena peccati in quo scriptum est, Amasiam regem Iuda noluisse audire regem Israel bene monentem, ne procederet ad bellum (cf. 2Chron. 25:7)? Sic enim legitur. Et non audivit Amasias, quia a deo erat ut tradetur in manus eius, quoniam quaesierat deum Edom (2Chron. 25:20). Et multa alia commemorare possumus, in quibus liquido apparet, occulto dei iudicio fieri perversitate cordis, ut non audiant quod verum dicitur, et inde peccetur, et sit ipsum peccatum precedentis et poena peccati. Nam credere mendacio, et non credere veritati, utique peccatum est. Venit tamen ab ea caecitate cordis, quia occulto iudicio dei (sed tamen iusto) etiam poena peccati monstratur, quale est illud, quod ad Thessaloniceneses scribit Apostolus, pro eo quod dilectionem veritatis non receperunt, ut salvi fierent: et ideo mittit illis deus operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio (2Thess. 2:10). Ecce peccati poena peccatum est, utrumque claret, breviter dictum est, aperte dictum est. Ab eo dictum est, cuius alia verba in veritatis sententiam frustra haeretici retorquere conantur (= Augustine, C. Iul. 5, 3.12 in full).

Ergo ideo praedicat ecclesia catholica ubique diffusa debere parvulos baptizari propter originale peccatum, quia filios procreare ex praecepto dei venit: cupiditas vero quae facit filios procreare, ex poena peccati venit. Ideoque ille clamabat sanctissimus, et bene clamabat: In iniquitatibus conceptus sum (Ps. 50:7): quia sine cupiditate nullus hominum concipitur. Bona sunt ergo coniugia et sancta, et a deo ordinata ut crescant homines, et multiplicentur, et impleant terram. Sed quia ipsa conceptio sine carnis cupiditate non fit, ideo dixi de transgressione peccati: venio in originale cupiditatis, ut baptismum parvulorum abluat omne originale peccatum. Accepta ergo gratia, crescit cum hominibus compunctus: demonstrante gratia, ex lumine sapientiae efficitur homo castus. Pugnat contra cupiditates carnis, pugnat contra transgressionem Adae: quia spiritus concupiscit adversus carnem, caro adversus spiritum (Gal. 5:17). Haec enim invicem

96

M. PIGNOT

adversantur. Et ne in ipsa vita bona extollatur genus humanum, et propriis viribus victoriam sibi vendicet, in eo quod superat affectus carnis aeque redarguit Apostolus, dicens, Gratia salvi estis per fidem, et hoc non ex vobis, sed donum dei est. Non ex operibus, ne forte quis extollatur (Eph. 2:8). Aeque alio loco dicit, Quid habes, quod non accepisti? Itaque et si accepisti, quid gloriaris, quasi bene vivens non acceperis (1Cor. 4:7)? Nam quis castum se gloriatur habere cor, aut mundum se esse a peccatus? Et si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habebamus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est (1John 1:8). Quia quod ipse dominus dicit, Sine me nihil potestis facere (John 15:5). Aeque dixit, Nemo venit ad me, nisi pater traxerit eum (John 6:44). Item dixit, Non omnes capiunt verbum, sed quibus donatum est (Matt. 19:11): aeque dixit, Fonteor tibi domine pater coeli et terrae, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis. Ita pater quia sic fuit placitum ante te (Matt. 11:25-6). Item dixit, Vobis datum est nosse mysterium regni dei, illis autem non est datum (Mk. 4:11). Sed ne aliquis dicat, quod non accepi, quid a me exigit deus? Non habet excusationem, quia omnis accipiens gratiam, iam in eadem gratia accipit et lumen. Quod si male fecerit, assignet sibi: si autem bene fecerit, assignet deo, a quo venit omne donum optimum, et lumen perfectum (Jam. 1:17). Cum enim plebis sacerdotes per mandata sibimet data, legatione funguntur, apud divinam clementiam, humani generis causam, totamque secum ecclesiam aggregantes, atque congemiscentes postulant et praecantur, ut infidelibus donetur fides, ut ab idololatria et impiis erroribus liberentur, ut Iudaeis ablato cordis velamine, lux veritatis appareat, ut haeretici catholicae fidei perceptione resipiscant, ut schismatici spiritum redivivae charitatis accipiant, ut lapsis poenitentiae remedia conferantur: catechumenis ad regenerationis sacramenta perductis, coelestis misericordiae aula referetur: Haec non inaniter a domino peti, rerum ipsarum monstrat effectus: quandoquidem ex omni errorum genere plurimos dignatur deus attrahere, quos erutos de potestate tenebrarum transfert in regnum filii charitatis suae (Col. 1:13): et ex vasis irae facit vasa misericordiae (cf. Rom. 9:22): quod adeo totum divini operis esse sentitur, ut haec efficienti deo gratiarum semper actio, laudisque confessio pro talium correctione referatur. Illud etiam quod circa baptizandos in universo mundo sancta ecclesia sive sint parvuli, sive iuvenes uniformiter agit, non ocioso contemplemur intuitu. Quod cum ad regenerationis veniunt sacramentum, non prius fontem vitae ingrediuntur, quam exorcismis et exufflationibus clericorum spiritus ab eis immundus abigatur, et deinceps vasa eius eripiantur, in possessionem translata illius victoris, qui captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus (Eph. 4:8). His ergo ecclesiasticis regulis et divina sumptis authoritate documentis, ita adiuvante domino, confirmati sumus, ut omnium bonorum effectuum atque operum, et omnium studiorum, omniumque virtutum, quibus ab initio fidei ad deum tenditur, Deum profiteamur authore, et non dubitemus ab ipsius gratia omnia hominis merita praevenire: per quem item fit, ut aliquid boni et velle inveniamur, et facere (cf. Phil. 2:13). Quo utique auxilio et munere dei non aufertur liberum arbitrium: sed liberatur, ut de tenebroso lucidum, de pravo rectum, de languido sanum, de imprudente fit providum. Tanta enim est erga omnes bonitas dei, ut nostra velit esse merita, quae sunt ipsius dona. Et pro his quae largitus est, aeterna praemia sit daturus. Agit quippe in nobis ut quod vult et velimus, et agamus. Nec ociosa in nobis

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

97

esse patiatur, quae exercenda, non negligenda donavit; ut et nos cooperatores gratiae dei simus, et in his quae in nobis ex nostra viderimus remissione languere, ad filium solicite recurramus, qui sanata omnes languores nostros (Is. 53:4 and Matt. 4:23) et redimet de interitu vitam nostram (cf. Ps. 102:3, 4), cui quotidie dicimus, Ne inducas nos in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo (Matt. 6:13). Profundiores vero difficilioresque partes incurrentium quaestionum quas latius pertractarunt, qui haereticis restiterunt, non necesse habemus astruere: quia ad confidentam gratiam dei cuius operis digni, nihil penitus subtrahendum est. Satis sufficere credimus, quicquid secundum praedictas regulas apostolica scripta nos docuerunt, ut prorsus non opinemur catholicum, quod apparuerit praefixis sententiis esse contrarium.47 (= Prosper, Auctoritates 8-10)

While he leaves out the beginning of chapter 8 of the Auctoritates, precisely the passage also omitted by the deacon Peter, the author of this cento otherwise quotes the full passage, including the mention of exorcisms. Both Prosper’s and Augustine’s passages are used to complement the homily on Adam and Eve, reject ‘Pelagian’ views and promote infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins. It appears clearly that there are numerous variants between the transmitted text of the Auctoritates (through canonical collections) and this excerpt. It is not possible, due to the lack of critical editions of Augustine’s C. Iul., of the Auctoritates and of the pseudo-Chrysostom collection, to be more precise about the sources of the borrowings in the sermon, whether it is from the direct tradition of the works or through later compilations. In the case of the Auctoritates, the latter hypothesis still seems more likely because of its early diffusion under the name of Celestinus and its inclusion in canonical collections; this would tend to situate the interpolation in the sixth century at the earliest, probably later, but certainly by the ninth century when the earliest preserved manuscript of the collection (already including this interpolation) was copied.48

VI. Bede Reaching the late seventh and early eighth century, Bede’s commentary on the first book of Samuel49 provides another important witness of the reception of Prosper’s passage, which he could have drawn from a number of sources, as clear from the already identified borrowings. It is noteworthy that, 47

Homily 23 (= 22B), PLS 4 (1967), 798-801. Paris, BNF, lat. 13347, f. 146v-151v and 56r-145v. In this manuscript our homily 22A+B is numbered 22 and entitled Sermo expositus in Adam et Evam. It consists of a single text found at f. 103v-110v, with part B at f. 107r-110v. A new edition of the Morin collection is planned at Sources Chrétiennes by Francesca Barone and Domenico Ciarlo. 49 On the authenticity of the work see Michael Gorman, ‘The Canon of Bede’s Works’, Revue Bénédictine 111 (2001), 399-445, esp. 402 (the work is listed by Bede in the appendix to his Ecclesiastical History). 48

M. PIGNOT

98

as in the case of Gelasius, he substitutes exorcizare with catechizare, but independently from Gelasius. Rather, Bede briefly but rather faithfully follows the Auctoritates. The borrowing is found in the middle of the commentary on the first book of Samuel (1Sam. 17:53 = 3Kgs. 17:53), where the aftermath of the battle between David and Goliath is described. For Bede, the fight symbolises fighting against the devil in the context of initiation. This interpretation is not new as the biblical story was a popular baptismal symbol and it is for instance also exploited in connection to the signing of foreheads – a major initiation ritual – in Augustine.50 For Bede, the Hebrews attacked the Philistines’s camp as catechists purify candidates, snatching them from the devil and making them Christian. I provide here both Bede’s and Prosper’s passages: Et revertentes filii israhel postquam persecuti fuerant philistheos invaserunt castra eorum. Recti ordinis est ut doctores veritatis prius ab auditorum praecordiis omnem spiritum immundum exsufflando et cathecizando abigant et sic eos qui fuerant castra daemonum sed facti iam sunt possessio spiritalis israhel societati forti sanctorum mysteriis salutaribus imbuendo aggregent.51 Cum sive parvuli, sive juvenes ad regenerationis veniunt sacramentum, non prius fontem vitae adeunt quam exorcismis et exsufflationibus clericorum spiritus ab eis immundus abigatur. (Prosper, Auctoritates 9)

As parallels highlighted in bold show, Bede closely follows his source. However, it has to be noted that in contrast to the other examples previously discussed, here there is no connection to a polemical, anti-Pelagian context, although Bede borrowed from a heavily polemical passage. The borrowing simply obliterates the polemical nature of Prosper’s quotation, as Bede extracted it for its reference to rites of initiation, fitting his interpretation of the biblical episode. This gives clues about another trend of the reception of Augustine’s and Prosper’s passages: readers used these authorities as sources about the performance of rites of initiation of infants, particularly the practices of exorcising 50

See Augustine, In ps. 143, 2; S. 32, 12-3; S. 335K (= Lambot 21), 5. Bede (?), In primam partem Samuhelis 3, 17 (ed. David Hurst, CChr.SL 119 [Turnhout, 1962], 162). On this little-studied treatise see Adalbert de Vogüé, ‘Les plus anciennes exégèses du Premier Livre des Rois: Origène, Augustin et leur épigones’, Sacris Erudiri 29 (1986), 5-12; George H. Brown, ‘Le commentaire problématique de Bède sur le premier livre de Samuel’, in Stéphane Lebecq, Michel Perrin and Olivier Szerwiniak (eds), Bède le Vénérable. Entre tradition et postérité (Villeneuve d’Ascq, 2005), 87-96 (available on the Internet: http://books.openedition. org/irhis/316); id., ‘Bede’s Neglected Commentary on Samuel’, in Scott DeGregorio (ed.), Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede (Morgantown, 2006), 121-42; id., ‘Bede’s Style in his Commentary On I Samuel’, in Alastair Minnis and Jane Roberts (eds), Text, Image, Interpretation: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature and its Insular Context in Honour of Éamonn Ó Carragáin (Turnhout, 2007), 233-51 (with translated extracts at 247-51). The first full translation of this work has just been published: Scott DeGregorio and Rosalind Love, Bede: On First Samuel (Liverpool, 2019). 51

Baptismal Exorcism as Proof of Original Sin

99

and blowing at them to expell the Devil before baptism. Although attached to Celestinus’ decretal in order to refute Pelagian views, Prosper’s Auctoritates thus also became a useful source for the liturgy. This corresponds to a widespread way of reading the passage in Carolingian times. After Bede, late antique discussions of baptismal exorcism employing Augustine’s argument become major sources for Carolingian thinkers, notably at the time of Charlemagne’s inquiry on baptism. While this aspect would require a separate inquiry and cannot be presented here, it is still worth mentioning that we find quotations of Prosper’s passage mentioning the exorcisms, Augustine’s sermon De symbolo ad catechumenos and John the deacon’s letter to Senarius – at times combined – in a number of Carolingian texts on baptism – notably Alcuin’s letters, pseudo-Alcuin’s Confessio Fidei, Maxentius of Aquileia’s response to Charlemagne enquiry – which all derive, according to Bouhot, from an eighth-century florilegium on baptism.52

III. Conclusion To conclude this brief overview, the study of the reception of Augustine’s argument shows how Augustine’s views, beyond readers of his own works, were able to reach a much wider audience, mainly thanks to Prosper, his influential intermediary. While it is plausible to suggest that Roman clergymen like Gelasius and John the Deacon had direct access to Augustine’s works and read them in late fifth- and early sixth-century Rome, Prosper’s use of the liturgical argument made Augustine’s ideas reach a much broader audience. In turn, Prosper’s Auctoritates were able to gain such prominence because they were 52

Jean-Paul Bouhot, ‘Un florilège sur le symbolisme du baptême dans la seconde moitié du siècle’, Recherches Augustiniennes 18 (1983), 151-82 (attempted reconstitution of the florilegium at 162-72); Ps-Alcuin, Confessio Fidei III, 31 (PL 101, 1076 quoting the passage on exorcisms in Auct. 9); Alcuin, Ep. 134 and 137 (MGH, Epistolae Karolini aevi [II], Alcuini sive Albini epistolae [Berlin, 1895], 202 and 214, making use of the florilegium primo paganus quoting from John’s letter); Maxentius of Aqulieia, Epistula ad Carolum Magnum (MGH, Epistolae Karolini aevi [II], Epistolae variorum Carolo Magno regnante scriptae 27 [Berlin, 1895], 537 = PL 106, 51) quoting the passages on baptismal liturgy in Auct. 8-9 and combining them with Augustine’s Symb. cat. These are only a few examples: many such texts compiling earlier sources on baptism are presented and published in Jean-Paul Bouhot, ‘Explications du rituel baptismal à l’époque carolingienne’, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes 24/3-4 (1978), 278-301; id., ‘Un florilège’ (1983); Susan A. Keefe, Water and the Word. Baptism and the Education of the Clergy in the Carolingian Empire, volume II (Notre Dame, IN, 2002). Unfortunately, although Keefe perused several manuscripts for her editions, she did not make full use of Bouhot’s suggestions and did not identify the sources used in each text and the relationship between texts. Beyond readers interested in liturgical practice, the polemical nature of Prosper’s passage could still be exploited in the revival of polemics over grace and predestination in Carolingian Europe: besides the already mentioned Liber dogmatum, Prosper’s sentence on exorcisms is also extracted (under the name of Celestinus) in Hincmar of Rheims’ polemical work De praedestinatione 22 (PL 125, 197). VIIIe

100

M. PIGNOT

attached to Celestinus’ decretals and thus became the words of the bishop of Rome and part of canonical collections. Neither Prosper, Gelasius, nor John pointed at Augustine as the author of the liturgical argument. As scholars increasingly start to emphasise, and notably in the papers included in this volume, the diffusion of Augustine’s ideas in later centuries is significant but required early intermediaries to reach a long term impact. Moreover, it appears clearly that the late fifth and early sixth century is a turning point for the reception of Augustine’s (and Prosper’s) ideas and renewed discussions on grace and free will. These discussions take place at the time of another significant enterprise, Eugippius’ compilation of a large collection of excerpts from Augustine’s works, which include a substantial section on initiation and another bringing together a selection of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian arguments.53 Gelasius’, John and Peter’s letters all originate from Rome in the same period and need to be understood in this broader context. Tracing the reception of Augustine’s argument and his intermediary thus offers a littleexplored perspective to assess his influence on later debates. It more broadly highlights the persistence of the debates triggered at Augustine’s time in the first two centuries after Augustine’s death and the official condemnation of Pelagianism. Later, in the eighth century and in the Carolingian period, Augustine’s argument remained relevant, even if mainly as a useful source for the practice of infant baptism.

53 As argued by R. Villegas Marín, ‘The Anti-Pelagian Dossier’ (forthcoming). On initiation see Eugippius, Excerpta CLXXXVI. 204: Ex libro de catecizandis rudibus. Quod antiquos iustos caput christus velut manum praemiserit nasciturus (= Augustine, Cat. rud. 3.6-4.7) to CCXXII. 240: Ex epistula ad Seleucianam. An Apostoli fuerint baptizati (= Augustine, Ep. 265, 1-5), following Knoll’s numbering in CSEL 9/1 (Vienna, 1885), 630-712.

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons, de Léon le Grand à Grégoire le Grand Mickaël RIBREAU, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3, Paris, France

ABSTRACT It is a question of examining whether Pelagius, Celestius, or more generally the stakes of the Pelagian controversy are explicitly mentioned in the sermons of Leon the Great, Quodvultdeus of Carthage, Eusebius Gallicanus, Caesarius of Arles and Gregory the Great. It turns out that in Caesarius of Arles and Leon the Great there is no explicit mention, which may surprise, even though the two authors present a vision of Augustinian grace. The absence of mention of the adversary tends to depolemize the Augustinian conceptions. On the other hand, in Eusebius Gallicanus, Gregory the Great or Quodvultdeus of Carthage Pelagius, even Celestius, are mentioned. Why do these different authors refer to an ancient controversy, in particular at the time of Gregory the Great? The answers depend on the different authors. In Quodvultdeus, the mention of Pelagius allows the bishop to follow in the footsteps of the bishop of Hippo and to forge an Augustinian ethos which ensures his legitimacy in the face of the Arians in power. Likewise, for Gregory the Great, it is a question, in front of a literate public, of presenting himself as the successor of Augustin. The question is more complex for Eusebius Gallicanus. No doubt the text is addressed to clerics who are aware of these doctrinal questions. However, the study of grace in the sermons of Eusebius Gallicanus shows a distance from the Augustinian doctrine and a clear proximity to that of Faustus of Riez, who could be the author of these sermons.

Depuis plusieurs années, l’attention des chercheurs s’est portée sur la place des controverses doctrinales dans les sermons adressés au peuple. Il s’agit alors de montrer comment des débats théologiques, qu’un lecteur contemporain pourrait considérer comme trop difficiles voire obscurs, ont pu intéresser et toucher les populations, malgré l’hétérogénéité de leur culture. Des chercheurs, comme M.-Y. Perrin1, ont ainsi montré comment les prédicateurs dans leurs sermons construisaient « l’éthos hérésiologique » des fidèles afin de les prévenir contre les dangers d’une doctrine jugée hérétique. A. Dupont a étudié dans divers livres 1 Michel-Yves Perrin, ‘“The Blast of the Ecclesiastical Trumpet”. Prédication et controverse dans la crise pélagienne’, dans Les controverses religieuses. Entre débats savants et mobilisations populaires, dir. Piroska Nagy, Michel-Yves Perrin et Pierre Ragon (Rouen, 2011), 17-32; Civitas confusionis. De la participation des fidèles aux controverses doctrinales dans l’Antiquité Tardive (début du IIIème siècle – circa 430) (Paris, 2017).

Studia Patristica CXX, 101-116. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

102

M. RIBREAU

ou articles2 le traitement de la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons d’Augustin. En effet, non seulement l’évêque d’Hippone traite des sujets qu’il examine dans ses libri ou ses lettres contre Pélage et ses partisans, mais il nomme ces derniers, en particulier Pélage, dans le sermon Dolbeau 30 par exemple3. M.-Y. Perrin et A. Dupont ont ainsi pu montrer la proximité des libri et des sermons consacrés à la controverse pélagienne. Cette dernière était si présente en Afrique que Pélage et les pélagiens sont mentionnés, de façon surprenante, du vivant d’Augustin, dans les sermons donatistes du sermonnaire de Vienne4. Si certains chercheurs ont pensé qu’il s’agissait d’une interpolation, J. Myers a estimé que le sujet était d’une actualité telle en Afrique à l’époque que cette mention n’était pas surprenante; elle témoignerait d’une familiarité avec des débats théologiques. Un évêque donatiste, comme l’auteur de ce sermon, ne pouvait méconnaître l’activité d’Augustin contre Pélage et ses partisans, même si l’auditoire pouvait ne pas être très intéressé par la controverse pélagienne en elle-même. Cependant, J. Meyers s’est récemment rétracté, et considère, comme l’avaient déjà souligné plusieurs critiques, qu’il s’agit d’une interpolation5. Nous nous sommes demandé si les prédicateurs postérieurs à Augustin parlaient de Pélage, ou, s’ils n’en parlaient pas, s’ils reprenaient les grandes lignes 2 Anthony Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum During the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights ? (Leiden, 2012). 3 Augustin, Sermon Dolbeau 30, 6: Verumtamen, quia solemus ei tamquam seruo dei familiariter scribere, ut ipse nobis, priore anno, cum filius meus presbyter Orosius, qui nobis cum est ex Hispania seruus dei, isset ad orientem cum litteris meis, scripsi per eundem ad eundem Pelagium, non eum notans litteris meis, sed exhortans audiret a presbytero quod mandaui. (…) 7: Iste enim adtulit mihi ipsius Pelagii quendam breuem libellum contra quae illi obiciebantur, non quasi partem gestorum, sed ab eo factam et compositam defensionem, |sicut se forte etiam gestis episcopalibus defenderat, quae nondum, sicut dixi, in nostras manus peruenire potuerunt. 183, 13: Iste autem Pelagius et ceteram carnem omnis infantis carni Christi conatur aequare. Non est, carissimi. Non pro magno commendaretur in Christo similitudo carnis peccati, nisi omnis cetera caro esset caro peccati. Quid ergo prodest quia dicis Christum in carne uenisse et omnium infantium carni eum conaris aequare? Et tibi hoc dico quod Donatistae: Non est ipse. Ecce uideo ecclesiam matrem testimonium reddentem ipsis uberibus suis. Accurrunt matres cum paruulis filiis, ingerunt Saluatori saluandos, non Pelagio damnandos. Mater quaelibet mulier pietate currens cum paruulo filio dicit: «Baptizetur, ut saluetur.» Pelagius contra: «Quid saluatur?». 4 Jean Meyers, ‘Vingt-deux sermons donatistes du temps d’Augustin encore trop méconnus: les “inédits” de la catéchèse de Vienne révélés en 1994 par François-Joseph Leroy. À propos d’un nouveau projet du GRAA’, Commentaria classica 6 (2019), 131-45. 5 Lors d’une journée d’étude, en juin 2019; il se rallie ainsi notamment à A. Schindler, ‘Du nouveau sur les Donatistes au temps de saint Augustin’, dans Augustinus Afer. Saint Augustin: africanité et universalité. Actes du colloque international d’Alger-Annaba, 1-7 avril 2001, dir. Pierre-Yves Fux et al. (Fribourg, 2003), 152; Alden L. Bass, Fifth-Century Donatist Catechesis: An Introduction to the Vienna Sermon Collection ÖNB m.lat. 4147, Ph.D. diss. (Saint Louis University, 2014), 46-7; Maureen A. Tilley, ‘Donatist Sermons’, dans Preaching in the Latin Patristic Era: Sermons, Preachers, Audiences, dir. Anthony Dupont et al. (Leiden, 2018), 385 et E. Zocca, ‘Etica binaria ed esegesi nell’Omiliario di Vienna’, in prochain volume du GRAA à paraître sur les sermons donatistes de la catéchèse de Vienne.

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons

103

de la controverse pélagienne. Si la récolte s’est avérée plutôt maigre, elle nous a cependant invité à deux interrogations: comment expliquer l’absence de la mention de Pélage ou de ses partisans chez des auteurs où on se serait attendu à les trouver; et comment expliquer la présence, surprenante de ses personnages chez des prédicateurs moins attendus. Nous nous intéresserons à cinq auteurs, deux papes, deux auteurs gaulois et un africain : Léon le Grand, Grégoire le Grand, Quodvultdeus de Carthage, Eusèbe Gallican, Césaire d’Arles et Grégoire le Grand. Nous suivrons l’ordre chronologique. Avant d’entamer notre examen, on peut d’emblée noter que si les auteurs de « traités » ou de lettres, comme Vincent de Lérins6, Orose7, Prosper8, Marius Mercator9, Arnobe le Jeune10, Fauste de Riez, mentionnent Pélage, Célestius et Julien d’Eclane, dans les sermons Pélage seul est mentionné, de même Augustin dans les sermons n’évoquaient pas Julien d’Eclane, mais seulement Pélage et Célestius, les Pélagiens et les célestiens. Julien nous conduit à l’examen du premier auteur: Léon le grand I. Léon le grand: une absence surprenante Léon le Grand fut, en effet, impliqué par les dernières démarches de Julien d’Eclane, exilé en Orient, qui souhaitait être réhabilité11. Il obtint un refus de la part du pape. Quodvultdeus de Carthage, dans le livre des promesses, mentionne ainsi l’action de Léon: In italia quoque, nobis apud campaniam constitutis, dum uenerabilis et apostolico honore nominandus papa Leo manichaeos subuerteret et contereret pelagianos et maxime iulianum ambientem, quidam florus nomine, spiritu seductionis adreptus, uirtutem et meritum sibi sancti sossi martiris adsignans, haud procul a neapolitana ciuitate in subuersionem animarum quaedam promitteret faceret que inlicita, a germano uenerabilis nostriani episcopi etherio presbytero simul cum clericis praedictae ecclesiae detentus et coercitus, digne a praefatae prouinciae liminibus pulsus est12.

Le pape mentionne ainsi son action contre Julien dans ses lettres13, mais jamais il ne l’évoque dans ses sermons. Pélage, Célestius, Julien sont absents des sermons de Léon. 6

Commonitorium, 33. Liber apologeticus contra Pelagianos, 4, 5; 19, 3. 8 Contra collatorem, 11, 2. 9 Dans son Commonitorium de Caelestio en particulier. 10 Praedestinatus, I, 88. 11 Sur ce sujet, voir Joseph Lössl, Julian von Aeclanum. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinem Werk, seiner Lehre und ihrer Überlieferung (Leiden, 2001), 286-91. 12 Livre des promesses, Dimidium temporis, 6, 12. 13 Lettres 2, et 18. 7

104

M. RIBREAU

Cependant, dans ses sermons, Léon le Grand, comme Augustin, souligne la nécessaire humilité de l’homme devant la grandeur de la grâce, qui dépasse l’intelligence humaine14 et s’oppose à « la poussière des opinions terrestres »15. La grâce est ineffable16; il évoque les « mystères de la grâce »17. De même qu’Augustin, Léon le Grand estime que la perfection des saints n’est possible que par la grâce de Dieu18. L’homme ne doit pas se glorifier en lui-même, mais en Dieu, puisqu’il ne peut agir sans l’aide de la grâce de Dieu, nécessaire à son progrès19. La grâce est accordée indépendamment des mérites de l’homme, qui n’a donc pas à se glorifier20. Elle vient en aide à la nature humaine rendue faible par le péché du premier homme21. La grâce est ainsi opposée à la nature humaine22. Le don de la grâce contrebalance ainsi le libre arbitre défaillant d’Adam qui a écouté le diable: le Christ, nouvel Adam, vient ainsi racheter la faute23. L’homme doit suivre la grâce; il faut obéir et se soumettre à Dieu24. Si ces thèmes sont développés chez Paul, ils sont pourtant abondamment développés par Augustin dans ses livres écrits en réaction à Pélage et ses disciples du De peccatorum meritis et remissione au Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum. De même que chez Augustin, Jacob est un exemple de la grâce de Dieu, qui l’a préféré à son frère ainé25. Cependant, la prédestination n’est pas développée par Léon le Grand, alors qu’elle est évoquée, certes peu, chez 14 5 (25), 4; 5. Le premier chiffre donné est celui des Sources Chrétiennes (volumes 22bis, 49bis, 74bis, et 200 par Robert Dolle [Paris, 1964; 1969; 1976; 1973]); le second celui de la Patrologie Latine, t. 54. Pour une présentation du corpus homilétique de Léon le Grand, voir Bronwen Neil, ‘Leo Magus’, dans Preaching in the Latin Patristic Era (2018), 327-46. 15 6 (26), 2. 16 9 (29). 17 14 (33), 5. 18 26 (39), 6: Ad quam perfectionem qui studium suum gratia dei adiutus intenderit, hic sanctum ieiunium fideliter peraget, hic a fermento malitiae ueteris alienus ad beatum pascha perueniet, et per nouitatem uitae, diuinae pietatis munere, consortium merebitur glorificationis aeternae, per christum dominum nostrum. 19 42 (55), 5: Quo desiderio quisquis gratiadei adiutus impletur, et de profectu suo non in se sed in domino gloriatur, hic legitime honorat paschale sacramentum; voir également 19 (38), 3 (Léon y évoque le problème des saints qui s’enorgueillissent de leurs bonnes œuvres, et que n’abandonnent pas le secours de la grâce). 20 14 (33), 1. 21 7 (27), 6. 22 22 (2), 5: Tibi enim quondam abiecto, tibi extruso paradisi sedibus, tibi per exilia longa morienti, tibi in cinerem et puluerem dissoluto, cui iam non erat spes ulla uiuendi, per incarnationem uerbi potestas data est, ut de longinquo ad tuum reuertaris auctorem, recognoscas parentem, liber efficiaris ex seruo, de extraneo proueharis in filium, ut qui ex corruptibili carne natus es, ex dei spiritu renascaris, et obtineas per gratiam quod non habes per naturam. 23 8 (28), 3; 82 (12) 1: Ad quam utique nos cotidie reparat gratia saluatoris, dum quod cecidit in Adam primo, erigitur in secundo. 51 (64): Quoniam, sicut apostolus ait, ubi abundauit peccatum, superabundauit et gratia. 24 6 (26), 4. 25 10 (30), 4.

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons

105

Augustin. Léon n’utilise que l’expression de « providence de la grâce »26. De même qu’Augustin, il évoque des projets cachés de Dieu, comme la fuite de la famille de Jésus en Egypte27, ou comme l’étoile qui a guidé les mages28. Enfin, de même qu’Augustin, Léon le Grand oppose la loi et la grâce29. La doctrine présentée par Léon le Grand dans ses sermons est très proche de ce que l’on peut trouver chez Augustin. Tous ces éléments ont été traités abondamment par l’évêque d’Hippone contre les pélagiens dans ses libri ou ses sermons, mais ils sont ici traités sans aucune charge polémique: Léon le grand présente ici les grands traits de la pensée augustinienne sans évoquer ni l’évêque d’Hippone, ni ses adversaires. Pélage et ses partisans sont certes absents, mais la présence importante de la grâce marque cependant une réelle influence d’Augustin; ce que l’on comprend d’autant mieux si Prosper est l’auteur des sermons de Léon, comme le pense N. James30. Ici Léon le Grand (ou Prosper) présente une vision dépourvue de polémique de la théologie augustinienne. Ne pas mentionner les adversaires tend ainsi à montrer qu’elle ne répond pas à des adversaires; ne pas mentionner Augustin montre également qu’il ne s’agit pas de la théorie d’un homme, fût-il évêque, mais qu’il s’agit bien de théologie chrétienne, communément acceptée. Ne pas mentionner l’adversaire permet ainsi de considérer comme proprement chrétien ce que l’évêque d’Hippone, notamment en réaction contre Pélage et ses partisans, a pu forger, ou du moins expliciter. En outre, l’auditoire, vraisemblablement romain, des sermons de Léon, peut aussi ne pas connaître les tenants et les aboutissants de la controverse pélagienne (contrairement aux milieux provençaux, ou africains). II. Quodvultdeus de Carthage: l’héritage augustinien Le deuxième auteur que nous voudrions étudier est un correspondant d’Augustin, quand il était diacre: Quodvultdeus de Carthage. Exilé en Campanie, Quodvultdeus de Carthage fut témoin des démarches des pélagiens et des refus de Léon vers 440, comme nous l’avons déjà indiqué31. 26

88 (18), 2: His autem conuersionibus, dilectissimi, per prouidentiam gratiae dei addita sunt sancta ieiunia, quae in quibusdam diebus ab uniuersa ecclesia deuotionem obseruantiae generalis exigerent. 27 13 (32), 1. 28 16 (35), 2. 29 90 (20), 1: Dispensationes misericordiae dei, quas saluator noster pro humani generis reparatione suscepit, ita sunt, dilectissimi, diuinitus ordinatae, ut euangelium gratiae uelamen legis tolleret, non instituta destruere. 30 Norman W. James, ‘Leo the Great and Prosper of Aquitaine: a Fifth Century Pope and his adviser’, Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993), 554-84. 31 Voir à ce sujet Giorgio Otranto, ‘Da Giuliano di Eclano ad Eugippio: la Campania tra eresia e ortodossia’, Vetera christianorum 40 (2003), 207-24; David Van Slyke, Quodvultdeus of Cathage. The Apocalyptic Theology of a Roman Africain in Exile (Strathfield, 2003), 44-5; Antonio

106

M. RIBREAU

S’il mentionne à plusieurs reprises Pélage ou l’hérésie pélagienne dans le livre des promesses32, il les évoque également dans ses sermons. Quodvultdeus y évoque à plusieurs reprises des hérésies, en particulier les manichéens et les ariens, rencontrant une actualité en Afrique, mais aussi les pélagiens. Dans le sermon 5, il évoque la doctrine perverse des hérétiques pélagien33. Dans le sermon 6, de ultima quarta feria, (6, 1-2) il évoque les écoles hérétiques et associe la fraus des manichéens, la nequitia des pélagiens et l’orgueil des ariens34. Il compare également, dans le sermon 7 le venin des manichéens au dogme nouveau des Pélagiens35. L’expression nouum dogma n’est pas sans faire penser à Augustin, qui présentait les pélagiens comme des noui haeretici36. Comme dans le sermon 183 d’Augustin, Quodvultdeus donne un catalogue d’hérétique qui s’en prennent au Christ: les donatistes, les maximianistes, les manichéens, les pélagiens, les ariens. Dans le sermon 11, de tempore barbarico, V. Nazzaro, ‘Quodvultdeus of Carthage: un vescovo dell’Africa vandalica a Napoli’, dans Atti delle VII giomate di studio sull’età romanobarbarica. Società multiculturali nei secoli VIX: scontri, convivenza, integrazione nel Mediterraneo occidentale, dir. Marco Rotoli (Naples, 2000), 33-51. Nous utilisons l’édition de René Braun, CChr.SL 60 (Turnhout, 1976). Pour une présentation de l’œuvre homilétique de Quodvultdeus, voir Geoffrey Dunn, ‘Rhetoric in the Patristic Sermons of Late Antiquity’, dans Preaching in the Latin Patristic Era (2018), 117-20. 32 Quodvultdeus, Liber promissionum et praedictorum Dei, II, 6: Pelagiani uero omni ex parte leprae macula turpantur dum capiti et corpori nebulas suae peruersae doctrinae infundere contendunt: capiti, quod deus ante peccatum mortalem hominem fecerit, qui mortem non fecit nec laetatur in perditione uiuorum; creauit enim ut essent omnia; corpori, quod gratia dei necessaria homini non sit, quod christus gratis mortuus sit, quod unum baptisma in minoribus maioribus que diuisum sit, cum unum consecratum sit in remissionem omnium peccatorum. II, 6: Cum uero haec noster sacerdos inspicit uarias que dirimit plagas, utrum sit tetra in manichaeis an rubea in arrianis an in pelagianis alba uel uaria, – quoniam oportet, ait paulus, et haereses esse ut probati manifesti fiant in uobis –, quamdiu in his uariis erroribus uelut in leprae maculis animae detinentur, castra eos, ut dictum est, dominica non admittit. Dimidium temporis, 6: In italia quoque, nobis apud campaniam constitutis, dum uenerabilis et apostolico honore nominandus papa leo manichaeos subuerteret et contereret pelagianos et maxime iulianum ambientem, quidam florus nomine, spiritu seductionis adreptus, uirtutem et meritum sibi sancti sossi martiris adsignans, haud procul a neapolitana ciuitate in subuersionem animarum quaedam promitteret faceret que inlicita, a germano uenerabilis nostriani episcopi etherio presbytero simul cum clericis praedictae ecclesiae detentus et coercitus, digne a praefatae prouinciae liminibus pulsus est. 33 5, De cantico novo, 8, 1: Alia quoque spelunca latronum non bonorum, haereticorum pelagianorum, et demonstranda est et cauenda: haec est enim eorum peruersa doctrina. 34 Ecce dum te quaero ubi pascas, ubi cubes in meridie, – meridies africa est, quae in solis occasu est, et tamen quia ab ortu solis usque ad occasum laudatur nomen tuum, et sunt qui te praedicant non caste, quaerentes quae sua sunt, non quae tua sunt –, dum te quaero in meridie, id est in africa, ecce greges sodalium tuorum, scholae pessimae haereticorum, fraus manichaeorum, nequitia pelagianorum, superba congregatio arrianorum, insultant uelut opertae, id est uelut incognitae, et dicunt mihi: quem quaeris? 35 7, De cataclysmo, 5, 9: Manichaeorum uenenum aspidis subrepserat: contritum est, consumptum est; pelagianorum nouum dogma, a ministris diaboli tanquam magis pharaonis excitatum, illi nostro serpenti certamen indixit: conteritur, consumitur. 36 Voir à ce sujet notre article ‘Nouveauté hérétique, nouveauté chrétienne; une situation paradoxale chez Augustin?’, Revue de l’histoire des religions 237 (2020), 44-6.

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons

107

1, 3, 3, Quodvultdeus explique que seul Dieu peut être parfait; les hommes peuvent être bons, mais sans être parfaits. Il évoque ainsi Pélage le male iustificator qui proposerait la perfection37. Quodvultdeus est profondément marqué par Augustin. Ses sermons reprennent ainsi des expressions, ou des éléments d’argumentations que l’on rencontre dans les sermons d’Augustin. Quodvultdeus s’inscrit ainsi, en Afrique, dans les pas de son illustre ainé. Il en reprend par ailleurs les éléments principaux de la doctrine de la grâce. Il évoque le don de la grâce nécessaire pour croire en Dieu et le comprendre38; il distingue les époques sous la loi et sous la grâce39; il traite de la grâce du Christ qui libère40, qui rachète l’obligatio41; pour Quodvultdeus, la grâce est l’antidote contre le venin du serpent42. Plus qu’une actualité de l’hérésie pélagienne, le contexte africain et l’héritage augustinien explique sans doute la mention des Pélagiens, d’autant plus que Quodvultdeus, comme Augustin, construit de véritables catalogues d’hérétiques dans ses sermons43. Quodvultdeus se forge un véritable éthos augustinien. Cela est d’autant plus important dans une Afrique vandale arienne. Se montrer augustinien revient à affirmer la validité de sa foi face à des hérétiques qui sont au pouvoir. III. Le cas problématique d’Eusèbe Gallican Pélage est nommé dans un sermon d’Eusèbe Gallican44. Si les chercheurs s’accordent à penser que l’auteur de ses sermons n’est nullement Eusèbe et qu’il pourrait s’agir d’un recueil de sermons issus de plusieurs auteurs, vraisemblablement gaulois, l’attribution reste cependant incertaine. Pour plusieurs chercheurs depuis G. Morin45, comme F. Leroy et F. Glorie46, ou R. Villegas Marin47, 37

3, 3. 2, 2; 2, 4; 6, 1. 39 2, 6; 3, 9. 40 2, 10. 41 4, 3. 42 8, 2. 43 A.V. Nazzaro, ‘Quodvultdeus of Carthage’ (2000), 49 souligne l’importance du modèle augustinien 44 Nous utilisons l’édition de F. Glorie, CChr.SL 101, 101A, 101B (Turnhout, 1970-1971). Pour une présentation du corpus, voir Lisa Bailey, ‘ Preaching in Fifth-Century Gaul. Valerian of Cimiez and the Eusebius Gallicanus Collection’, dans Preaching in the latin Patristic Era (2018), 262-9. 45 Germain Morin, ‘La collection gallicane dite d’Eusèbe d’Emèse et les problèmes qui s’y rattachent’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1935), 92-115. 46 Jean Leroy, L’œuvre oratoire de s. Fauste de Riez. La Collection Gallicane dite d’Eusèbe d’Emèse, thèse présentée devant la faculté de théologie catholique (Strasbourg, 1954), que suit Franco Glorie, dans son introduction au CChr.SL 101, x-xvii. 47 Dans une journée d’étude consacrée aux sermons anonymes latin, organisée le 6 mai 2019, à l’université de Namur, par Matthieu Pignot. 38

108

M. RIBREAU

Fauste de Riez pourrait être l’auteur d’au moins une partie des sermons. Nous reviendrons sur ce point. Dans l’homélie 17, 5 consacrée à Pâques, Pélage est cité: Quidquid adhuc de hac duplici specie inquirere debeas, ipso domino attestante cognosce: nisi, inquit, manducaueritis carnem filii hominis et biberitis sanguinem eius, non habebitis uitam in uobis48. Quod testimonium contra pelagii blasphemias euidentissimum atque ualidissimum est, qui asserere arrepta impietate praesumit: ‘non propter uitam, sed propter regnum caelorum, baptisma paruulis conferendum’. Sub his enim dei uerbis, quibus euangelista pronuntiat: non habebitis uitam in uobis, aperte intellegenda est: omnis anima munere baptismi uacua, non solum gloria carere, sed uita.

Ici l’auteur du sermon évoque les blasphèmes de Pélage et donne une citation de ce dernier, selon laquelle le baptême des enfants est justifié non pas pour la vie sur terre, mais pour la vie dans le royaume des cieux. L’auteur évoque ici l’un des points de départs du débat entre Augustin et Pélage: la raison d’être du baptême des enfants, notamment le De peccatorum meritis et remissione. Si l’on n’a pas pu identifier la citation de Pélage, elle s’inscrit cependant dans un panorama argumentatif et théologique bien connu, notamment par Augustin. Le verset de Jean utilisé par Eusèbe Gallican contre Pélage est cité par Augustin49. Dans ce sermon consacré à Pâques, l’auteur juxtapose des remarques sur le rôle du Christ et, dans le paragraphe qui nous intéressent, sur l’eucharistie et le baptême. On peut remarquer que l’évocation de Pélage est très rapide et peu développée. Dans l’ensemble du sermon 17, les développements exégétiques ou argumentatifs sont peu nombreux. L’impression d’ensemble est celle d’une juxtaposition de remarques plus ou moins savantes, dans lesquelles une part très mince est réservée à l’auditoire, qui est quasiment absent, si ce n’est par des secondes personnes du singulier collective50, comme dans notre passage. La question se pose de savoir à qui ces homélies, et en particulier cette homélie, s’adressent: s’agit-il d’une homélie au peuple, réellement prononcées et prises en notes, d’un brouillon d’homélie51, ou de réflexions d’un abbé, ou d’un évêque à sa communauté monastique (comme dans les premières Enarrationes in psalmos d’Augustin par exemple52). La question de l’auditoire n’est pas anodine: les chercheurs s’accordent en effet à dater les homélies de l’Eusèbe gallican de la seconde moitié du Vème siècle, soit près de 30 ans après la condamnation 48

Jn 6:54. De peccatorum meritis et remissione, I, 24, 34. 50 Voir notre article ‘Une écoute individuelle en contexte collectif. Étude de la seconde personne du pluriel et de la seconde personne du singulier dans quelques sermons d’Augustin’, Revue d’histoire des religions 4 (2016), 505-32. 51 Jean-Pierre Weiss, ‘La descente du Christ aux Enfers et le thème de la lumière dans les Homélies pascales du Pseudo-Eusèbe le Gallican’, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 101 (2000), 339, qualifie les homélies « d’atelier de confection ». 52 Voir Martine Dulaey, ‘Les Premiers commentaires des Psaumes d’Augustin’, dans Augustin, Les commentaires des Psaumes, Ps. 1-16, dir. Martine Dulaey (Paris, 2009), 38-40. 49

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons

109

de Pélage. En quoi le peuple pouvait-il être toucher par ces sujets ? La mention très rapide de Pélage laisse cependant penser, s’il ne s’agit pas de brouillon, que le sujet devait être suffisamment connu pour être évoqué simplement. Nous inclinons à penser que ce sermon s’adresse plutôt à des clercs, auxquels leur supérieur s’adresserait. S’il s’agit de la seule mention de Pélage dans le recueil, le thème de la grâce est cependant important. On constate la même ambiguïté que chez Fauste de Riez: en effet si Eusèbe Gallican, comme Fauste, évoque les « blasphèmes » de Pélage et le condamne sans ménagement, cependant la doctrine de la grâce présente, si elle n’est pas pélagienne, n’est pas strictement augustinienne, puisqu’elle accorde au libre arbitre, à l’effort de l’homme une place bien plus grande que chez l’évêque d’Hippone. On constate tout d’abord des reprises d’éléments augustiniens. Par exemple, l’auteur distingue loi et grâce53; il évoque la grâce du baptême54. Les dons de la grâce sont supérieurs à ceux de la nature55; cependant l’auteur insiste sur le fait que l’on ne peut accorder par la grâce ce que l’on ne trouve dans la nature (ce qui ne se rencontre par exactement chez Augustin)56. L’homme doit ainsi préparer son esprit à la grâce57, alors que pour Augustin c’est la grâce qui prépare l’esprit58. Eusèbe Gallican associe étroitement grâce et œuvres propres, qui manifestent cette grâce, l’auteur ne dit pas que la grâce est indispensable 53 5, 3: Operante ergo christo in cana galilaeae, uinum fit, id est: recedit lex, gratia succedit; umbra remouetur, ueritas repraesentatur; carnalia spiritalibus comparantur; in nouum testamentum, obseruatio uetustatis transfertur, sicut beatus apostolus dicit: vetera transierunt et ecce facta sunt noua. 5, 4: Vetus testamentum, quod iudaei obseruant, uanescit in littera; nouum, quod ad nos pertinet, saporem uitae reddit in gratia. 5, 6: Tu seruasti uinum bonum, tamquam si diceret: « meliora sunt, domine, gratiae instituta quam legis ». 16, 5: Coruscante igitur gratia, ecclesia aedificatur, synagoga destruitur. 54 11, 6: Incassum te exstinguere eorum memoriam credidisti, quorum gloriam propagasti: dispergis sanctorum puluerem fluenti rhodano ne resurgat, sed aquis resurrectio non consumitur quae per gratiam regenerationis etiam aquarum munere celebratur; adorandas reliquias rhodano tradis: hoc facit uis fluminis in corporis resolutione, quod temporis. 15, 5: Abstulit sine dubio renascentis gratia libertatis, antiquae opprobrium seruitutis; iam nec obnoxii esse possunt primae origini, secunda natiuitate nati. 20, 5: Si ergo, carissimi, per gratiam baptismi et indulgentiam peccatorum, agnouimus iam in praesenti quandam animarum resurrectionem, in futurum credamus etiam corporum. 55 21, 1: Et ideo legimus: quia melior est misericordia tua super uitas; meliores enim sunt dies quibus ad aeternam uitam renascimur, quam illi quibus in hac temporali procreamur: siquidem maior sunt dona gratiae quam naturae. 56 34, 6: Non potest conferre per gratiam, quod non habet per naturam. 57 53, 3: Vnde oportet nos: in animalibus nostris, spiritalis cultura fructificet; mentem diuinae gratiae praeparandam, uitiorum exstirpatione mundare curemus: circumcidere mores, excidere passiones; eradicare iniquitatem, plantare iustitiam; effodere iram, fundare patientiam; amputare inuidiam, inserere beneuolentiam; et huiuscemodi uirtutibus agrum cordis quasi quibusdam bonae frugis fecundare seminibus. 58 Voir à ce sujet A. Sage, ‘Praeparatur uoluntas a Domino’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 10 (1964), 1-20.

110

M. RIBREAU

pour les œuvres, mais que les deux vont de pair59. La grâce n’aurait pas suffi à Paul; son propre labor et sa vigilance étaient nécessaires60. L’auteur associe ainsi le studium du croyant à la grâce61. De façon surprenante, l’auteur associe grâce et mode de vie: Tabulae autem nostrae, carissimi, fides nostra est, in paginis cordis inscripta; libertas nostra, dei gratia est conuersatio nostra est62. (…) Si post dei misericordiam, profectum homini non adscribis, nec poteris imputare defectum! Totum, inquit, gratiae dei est63.

L’association de la grâce et du mode de vie n’est pas sans faire penser aux débats entre Augustin et Pélage, ce dernier, ainsi que ces partisans, en particulier Julien, insistant très fortement sur la conuersatio64. Pour Pélage, la conuersatio est le signe visible d’une conuersio, c’est pourquoi elle doit être sancta65 ou noua66. Le mode de vie devient le critère de définition du chrétien, l’extériorité, la visibilité de sa démarche lui permettront de mériter le nom de christianus. Julien met en valeur la nécessité d’une bonne conuersatio, continuité d’une nobilitas67. Augustin s’oppose à une telle vision. Le propos de ce sermon est donc ici très peu augustinien. De même dans le sermon sur la dédicace d’une Église, est évoqué un hérétique qui estimerait que le labor n’est pas nécessaire en raison de la grâce: Dicit haereticus: «Totum gratiae dei est, nihil laboris humani»68. Cet haereticus n’est pas sans faire penser à Augustin tel qu’il apparaît sous la plume de Julien en particulier, mais aussi sous la plume des moines provençaux ou africains. Ces moines ne pourraient affirmer qu’Augustin est hérétique, mais il est difficile de ne pas y voir une évocation d’Augustin ici, du moins une évocation de la caricature de l’évêque d’Hippone. 59 2, 2: Sicut in die honeste ambulemus; et sint lucernae in manibus nostris, id est: luceat gratia in operibus nostris. 60 8, 2: Ecce beatus paulus, iam christi habitaculum, iam uas electionis effectus, intellegit sibi non sufficere solam gratiam nisi gratiae adiungat sollicitudinis uigilantiam et laboris industriam: iam quidem fiducialiter proclamabat: an experimentum eius quaeritis, qui in me loquitur christus?, et tamen, ut spiritalibus resistere possit inimicis, continuatis studet corpus uallare ieiuniis – sed et hoc ipsum, ut christus in eodem loqui possit, non aliter quam ieiuniorum sanctificatione promeruit; 9, 3: Sed opus est: quod tribuit gratia, custodiat diligentia, et quod sine labore acquiritur, cum labore seruetur. 61 19, 7: Quod si homo dei tantum intuitu et non etiam suo studio liberetur: numquid offerenda erat gratia redemptionis ingrato? 62 Sermones extrauagantes, 8, 7. 63 Sermo in dedicatione ecclesiae, 3, 5. 64 Sur conuersatio comme mode de vie, voir art. ‘Conuersatio’, TLL, 852-3; C. Mayer, art. ‘Conuersatio’, Augustinus-Lexikon, I, 1277. 65 Pélage, Ad Demetriaden, 13, PL 30, 28C. Sur l’idéal pélagien de sanctitas, propre au chrétien, voir Sebastian Thier, Kirche bei Pelagius (Berlin, 1999), 102 sqq. 66 Pélage, Ad Demetriaden, 17, PL 30, col. 31; 24, col. 38. 67 Cf. In Amos, I, 3, CChr.SL 88, 273. 68 3, 5.

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons

111

Ce bref examen de la grâce dans le recueil d’Eusèbe Gallican, n’est pas sans faire penser à Fauste de Riez69. En effet, ce dernier condamne fermement les blasphemiae de Pélage70, mais il insiste à plusieurs reprises, en particulier dans le De gratia sur l’association entre le labor ou le studium du chrétien et la grâce71. Il s’oppose fermement à l’idée que la grâce suffirait. Il évoque ainsi deux erreurs opposées: celle qui consisterait à ne croire qu’au seul labor, position pélagienne, et l’inverse qui consisterait à ne se fier qu’à la grâce, position plus proche de la position augustinienne, du moins de sa caricature72. Il propose donc une alliance des deux73. Si Fauste ne va pas jusqu’à qualifier la position augustinienne d’hérétique, elle est cependant une erreur. 69 Sur Fauste, voir Roberto Barcellona, Fausto di Riez interprete del suo tempo. Un vescovo tardoantico dentro la crisi dell’impero (Soveria Mannelli, 2006), en particulier 35-100. 70 Lettre 1, 1: Anathema ergo illi, qui inter reliquas Pelagii inpietates hominem sine peccato nasci et per solum laborem posse saluari damnanda praesumptione contenderit et qui eum sine gratia dei liberari posse crediderit; De gratia, prol.: Verum quia Pelagius nudum laborem inportunius exaltat et humanam demens infirmitatem sine gratia sibi posse sufficere stulte credidit, impie praedicauit elationis turrem in caelum conatus erigere, blasphemias eius breui sermone praestringere et confutare necessarium iudicauimus, ne forte is, qui donum laboris, id est praeceptum iubentis excludit, asserentibus nobis, quod dei misericordia fide et operibus promerenda est, catholicam uocem ad Pelagii sensum discretionis nescius adplicaret et omissa uia regia in dexteram cadens in sinistram declinare nos crederet, et, dum de labore seruo gratiae loquimur, offendiculum ante pedes caeci opposuisse uideremur. 71 De gratia, I, 6: Et ideo nefarios sensus suos uel ex parte aliqua in medium proferre curabimus, ut sollicitus quisque cognoscat multo aliud esse salutari gratiae officium laboris adiungere, aliud uero nudum absque patrocinio gratiae laborem temeritate una cordis asserere. 72 De gratia, I, 7: Hoc itaque loco gemini inter se conluctantur errores, quorum unus solam gratiam, alter solum laborem relicto tramite atque mensura ueritatis insinuat. I, 7: quorum unus, id est solius gratiae praedicator prima quidem fronte uenenum suum sub specie pietatis occultat, alter, id est laboris assertor protinus extantem tumorem inproba elatione manifestat; I, 7: Ille gratiam loquitur, hic laborem. I, 17: Addunt etiam: si autem gratia non ex operibus, alioquin gratia iam non est gratia. 73 De gratia, I, 8: Si ergo partibus proprietates suas reddas et Christum deum simul atque hominem credas et asseras, perinde est ac si gratiam cum labore coniungas et ab adiutorio dei conatum hominis non repellas ita tamen, ut adnitentis deuotioni elationis culpam penitus non admisceas, quia, quantum detrimenti est non laborare, tantum periculi de labore praesumere. I, 15: nam qui negat gratiae adsociandum famuli laboris conatum, subtrahit homini seruitutis officium. De gratia, I, 31: Itaque inter ista, qui dicit solam gratiam sine exercitio operis et laboris posse sufficere, nonne tibi uidetur in hanc blasphemiae uocem alienata mente prorumpere: nemo uigilet, nemo ieiunet, nemo luxuriae inpugnationem abstinentiae contritione castiget, nemo bellum uitiis mortificatione exterioris indicat, nemo interioris curae plagas salutifera afflictione contendat, nemo libidini contradicat, nemo criminibus remedia per laborem maceratae carnis inquirat, nemo hostem inlecebris obscenae uoluptatis armatum crucis uiribus repercutiat, sed contra ignea inimici iacula nudum pectus exponat, nemo debita aeternae morti obnoxia elimosynarum sacrificiis redimat, nemo per opera misericordiae atque iustitiae curam uulneribus ferat, sed integra ea ad diem iudicii per se ferat?. De gratia, I, 33: Intellege contrario te spiritu aduersus sanctum spiritum loqui, qui legis et prophetarum sacramenta, qui euangelicae ueritatis oracula mundo in adiutorium dedit et praecepta diuina per laboriosae seruitutis officia gratia cooperante seruantibus regnum caeleste promisit. I, 38: ecce mortuus uiuificatur et perditus inuenitur, sicut et

112

M. RIBREAU

En conclusion sur Eusèbe Gallican, on peut souligner que l’attribution des homélies, ou du moins d’une partie d’entre elles, à Fauste de Riez est confirmée par le bref examen du traitement de la grâce et la désignation de la conception augustinienne, du moins d’une caricature, comme une erreur. Si le thème de la prédestination, important dans le De gratia, n’est pas présent dans les sermons, on peut cependant souligner que la mention de Pélage se comprend d’autant mieux s’il s’agit bien de Fauste de Riez, qui connaissait très bien les œuvres d’Augustin contre Pélage et ses partisans, ainsi que certains écrits de Pélage. L’examen du traitement de la grâce présente sinon des familiarités certaines avec Fauste de Riez, du moins des proximités évidentes avec le milieu provençal, qualifié hâtivement de « semi-pélagien ». Si Fauste est bien l’auteur de ces homélies dont l’auteur est appelé Eusèbe Gallican, on comprend mieux la mention de Pélage. En effet, si Fauste s’adresse à des clercs, à des moines provençaux, la connaissance de la controverse pélagienne, et des réactions d’Augustin est évidente. IV. Césaire d’Arles : une absence surprenante Si la présence de Pélage dans une homélie de l’Eusèbe Gallican surprend, son absence chez Césaire d’Arles est très étonnante74. En effet, dans aucune de ses homélies, Césaire ne nomme Pélage et ses partisans, ou n’évoque leurs doctrines. Plus largement, comme l’a bien montré J. Delmulle75, dans ses écrits, il évoque le souvenir d’hérésies plus anciennes, mais sans les nommer; il utilise ainsi le terme générique: les hérétiques. Césaire connaissait, comme l’a montré G. de Plinval, la lettre à Démétriade, comme en témoigne plusieurs sermons76; mais il était surtout très familier des œuvres écrites par Augustin contre Pélage et ses partisans. Comme Léon le Grand, Césaire traite des grands thèmes augustiniens liés à la grâce, mais sans réactiver la charge polémique, comme l’opposition entre la grâce et la loi77, la mulier euangelica, quae amissam in domo dragmam, id est rem uel cuiuscumque muneris uel salutis lucerna inquirit accensa et ad gratiae oleum adponit studium suum et cum dei adiutorio iungit se requirentis intentio ac sic, quod intus perdiderat, intus inuenit. 74 Nous utilisons l’édition de Germain Morin, CChr.SL 103-104 (Turnhout, 1953). Pour une présentation des sermons de Césaire, voir Nicolas De Maeyer et Gert Partoens, ‘Preaching in sixth-Century Arles. The Sermons of Bishop Caesarius’, dans Preaching in the Latin Patristic Era (2018), 198-231. 75 Jérémy Delmulle, ‘Césaire d’Arles et le “post-pélagianisme” gaulois’, dans Les cahiers de Césaire d’Arles. t. 1: Œuvres conciliaires (Venelles, 2020), 229-41. 76 Cf. J. Delmulle, ‘Césaire d’Arles et le “post-pélagianisme” gaulois’ (2020), 233: ‘Le texte qu’on lit aujourd’hui sous le n° 20 du corpus homilétique de Césaire n’a de césarien que la structure. Il s’agit d’un « extrait » (excarpsum, selon le titre du ms. Pal. lat. 216 de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, qui nous l’a transmis), que Césaire a découpé ou fait découper dans le traité De uita Christiana de l’évêque breton Fastidius, vraisemblablement un disciple direct de Pélage’. 77 107, 3; 107, 3; 109, 1; 172, 3.

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons

113

grâce du baptême78, l’idée selon laquelle la grâce rachète la faute d’Adam79, la grâce comme aide, que l’on doit demander par la prière80, l’opposition entre mérite et grâce81, l’opposition entre grâce et nature82. Tous ces thèmes sont présents dans les sermons, mais sans qu’un adversaire soit mentionné. Comme le note J. Delmulle83, le sermon 226 est particulièrement intéressant. Il s’agit d’extraits d’un sermon, perdu, d’Augustin, auquel Césaire a ajouté deux paragraphes personnels. Il y rassemble toutes les citations scripturaires qui avaient l’objet de débat au début de la controverse (comme Ga 6:3; 1Co 2:12; Jean 15:5, etc.). Césaire donne ainsi une sorte de condensé de l’argumentation scripturaire; ce qui montre qu’il connaissait parfaitement l’argumentation élaborée par Augustin contre Pélage et ses partisans. L’absence de la mention de Pélage, et même d’Augustin dans les sermons qui traitent de la grâce alors même que Césaire utilise des extraits des œuvres d’Augustin pour asseoir les positions défendues au Concile d’Orange en 529 peut s’expliquer de deux manières. D’une part, plus de 100 ans après, qu’était le pélagianisme ? existait-il encore des chrétiens qui se réclamaient de Pélage ou de Célestius ? Ce problème concernait-il autant le peuple qu’à l’époque d’Augustin ? Est-ce que cela ne touchait pas davantage les clercs, nourri des œuvres d’Augustin notamment ? En outre, si Augustin restait un modèle, le concile d’Orange cependant a atténué certaines positions et retenues un augustinisme médian84. Comme nous avons pu le voir chez Léon le Grand, ne pas mentionner l’adversaire permet de retirer toute charge polémique et ainsi d’évacuer des points de doctrine jugés problématiques comme la prédestination. Si la doctrine de la grâce présentée par Césaire est bien augustinienne, l’évêque d’Arles a cependant souhaité évacuer tout élément contextuel qui rappellerait de façon trop précise la figure d’Augustin contre les pélagiens, car cette figure restait problématique. V. Grégoire le grand: un exposé pédagogique Nous évoquerons enfin un pape, Grégoire le Grand85. Alors que dans ses homélies, le pape s’intéresse surtout à la simonie, ou à l’hérésie en général, 78

81, 2; 88, 1; 94, 3; 94, 4; 116, 5; 129, 5. 81, 4; 108, 4; 114, 3; 119, 3. 80 102, 7; 111, 5. 81 121, 8. 82 112, 4. 83 J. Delmulle, ‘Césaire d’Arles et le “post-pélagianisme” gaulois’ (2020), 234-5. 84 Voir à ce sujet, Ralph W. Mathisen, ‘Caesarius of Arles, Prevenient Grace, and the Second Council of Orange’, dans Grace for Grace: The Debates after Augustine and Pelagius, dir. Alexander Y. Hwang, Brian Matz et Augustine M.C. Casiday (Washington, 2014), 208-34. 85 Nous utilisons l’édition de Charles Morel, SC 327 (Paris, 1986). Pour une présentation de l’œuvre homilétique de Grégoire, voir Bruno Judic, ‘Preaching according to Gregory the Great’, dans Preaching in the Latin Patristic Era (2018), 232-52. 79

114

M. RIBREAU

dans l’homélie 9 sur Ezéchiel, préchée fin 593, Grégoire le grand évoque Pélage et Célestius, dans un passage qui traite de la grâce86: il ne les nomme cependant qu’ à la fin d’un long développement consacré à la grâce. Ce développement est présenté comme étant une digression, au premier abord non polémique, alors qu’il repose sur une formule de Pélage: posse in natura, velle in arbitrio, esse in effectu. Dès le début du commentaire du verset d’Ezéchiel (« Il me dit: Fils d’homme, tiens toi debout sur tes pieds, et je te parlerai. Et l’Esprit entra en moi, après qu’il m’eut parlé, et il me mit debout sur mes pieds »; Ez 2:1), Grégoire écrit: Ecce divina vox iacenti propheta iussit ut surgeret. Sed surgere omnino non posset, nisi in hunc omnipotentis Dei spiritus intrasset, qui ex omnipotentis Dei gratia ad bon opera conari quidemn possumus, sed haec implere non possumus, si ipse adiuuat qui iubet.

Il y a une constante opposition entre l’homme qui ne peut pas et Dieu qui est tout puissant. La grâce de Dieu est aussi caractérisée par sa toute puissante, et c’est uniquement par ce biais que l’homme peut à son tour devenir puissant. Grégoire poursuit: Sed sciendum est quia mala nostra solummodo nostra sunt; bona autem nostra, et omnipotentis Dei sunt, et nostra, qui ipse aspirando nos praeuenit ut uelimus, qui adiuuando subsequitur ne inaniter uelimus, se possimus implere quae uolumus.

Pour Grégoire, Dieu intervient donc plusieurs fois sur notre volonté: il nous inspire de vouloir le bien, mais aussi nous donne le pouvoir de faire ce bien que nous voulons. Puis le pape conclut: Praeueniente ergo gratia et bona uoluntate subsequente, hoc quod omnipotentis Dei donum est fit meritum nostrum.

Ainsi, la grâce et la bonne volonté sont dons de Dieu par laquelle l’homme agit. Grégoire clôt ce développement par ces mots: His igitur breuiter contra Pelagium et Caelestium dictis (…).

De façon surprenante Grégoire cite Pélage, mais aussi Célestius, qui n’est quasiment jamais nommé après Augustin, en particulier dans des sermons. On peut remarquer que la mention de Pélage et de Célestius vient clore un exposé doctrinal parfaitement conforme à ce que l’on peut lire chez Augustin. De la même manière, dans les autres homélies de Grégoire, qu’il s’agisse de celles sur Ezéchiel ou sur les Évangiles, le traitement de la grâce suit tout à fait Augustin87. C’est la mention de Pélage et Célestius qui surprend ici. Alors que 86

Homélie sur Ezéchiel, 9, 2. Grégoire évoque l’action de la grâce chez les Saints (Homélie sur Ezéchiel, 1, 8), le don de la grâce (Homélie sur Ezéchiel, 1, 8; 12), la nécessité de la grâce pour accomplir des œuvres bonnes (Homélie sur Ezéchiel, 1, 9; 2, 1; 31). Pour Grégoire, la grâce précède la volonté (Homélie sur 87

Pélage, Célestius et la controverse pélagienne dans les sermons

115

Léon ou Césaire d’Arles, reprennent les idées augustiniennes, mais ôtent la charge polémique, Grégoire réactive cette charge polémique, plus de 150 ans après les faits. Grégoire est ici profondément marqué par les écrits d’Augustin, en particulier le De gratia christi et de peccato originali qui nourrissent son texte. On peut imaginer que les fidèles qui écoutent les homélies sur Ezechiel, venant en semaine et suivant une sorte de cycle de prêche sur un même livre biblique, sont assez cultivés et lettrés pour que la pensée d’Augustin leur soit familière88. Grégoire reprend en effet plusieurs expressions des paragraphes 5 et 6 du livre I du De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, qui cite des passages du Pro libero arbitrio de Pélage. De même qu’Augustin, Grégoire, cite Phil. 2:12. Il ne s’agit pas tant d’évoquer ici le pélagianisme, qui n’a plus de réelle existence à la fin du 6ème siècle que de faire appel à une culture augustinienne que pourra apprécier un auditoire averti, vraisemblablement un public de clercs. La mention de Pélage permet à Grégoire de se présenter comme héritier de la pensée augustinienne. Comme chez Quodvutdeus de Carthage Grégoire construit un éthos augustinien et transmet cet héritage augustinien à son auditoire. La spécificité de l’auditoire explique ainsi la mention de Pélage et de Célestius. Mais ce ne sont pas tant eux qui importent que leur principal adversaire, Augustin. Nous voudrions souligner quatre points. Nous avons pu examiner des zones géographiques précises: la Gaule, dans laquelle l’enseignement augustinien sur la grâce fut contesté, l’Italie, foyer de rébellion face à la condamnation de Pélage et Célestius, et l’Afrique, dans laquelle l’autorité d’Augustin fut importante. La controverse pélagienne n’est connue chez ses différentes auteurs qu’à travers les écrits d’Augustin, sermons ou libri. Ils n’ont vraisemblablement pas eu accès aux œuvres de Pélage. Les auteurs se positionnent ainsi par rapport à Augustin, reprennent ou ne reprennent pas les arguments de l’évêque d’Hippone. Se pose en outre la question de l’auditoire. Combien de temps Pélage et Célestius ont-ils été connus en particulier par le peuple ? En effet, l’absence de mention de Pélage ou Célesitus peut s’expliquer par un auditoire, large et non de clercs, qui n’étaient plus impliquées par des controverses qui n’étaient plus d’actualité (comme chez Léon ou Césaire). La mention chez Quodvultdeus se comprend dans un cadre africain, dans un temps relativement proche des prédications et de l’action d’Augustin. Enfin, chez Eusèbe Gallican ou Grégoire, le public, constitué vraisemblablement de clercs – ce qui se comprend bien si Ezéchiel, 1, 9; 2, 3) et le libre arbitre (Homélie sur Ezéchiel, 1, 9); elle permet d’aimer Dieu (Homélie sur Ezéchiel, 2, 5); Grégoire évoque la grâce du rédempteur (Homélie sur Ezéchiel, 2, 7; Homélie sur les Évangiles, 2, 39) et le jugement secret de la grâce (Homélie sur les Évangiles, 2, 31). 88 Comme le montre C. Morel, dans son introduction, SC 327, p. 13. L’auditoire comprenait beaucoup de moines, ou des membres du clergé de Grégoire.

116

M. RIBREAU

l’on regarde la rhétorique mis en œuvre dans ces sermons – explique la mention de Pélage ou de Célestius. Enfin, cette étude souligne la complexité de l’héritage augustinien. L’évêque d’Hippone est à la fois très présent dans ces différents sermons, et en même temps, il n’est pas mentionné. C’est une façon de se dépouiller d’une charge polémique, embarrassante, mais aussi des éléments de la doctrine de la grâce, comme la prédestination, qui ont été mal acceptées, et qui sont très liées à Augustin. En outre, les sermons d’Eusèbe Gallican (ou plutôt de Fauste de Riez) montre l’opposition implicite à l’évêque d’Hippone, auquel on ne s’oppose pas frontalement, mais qui demeure un adversaire. Dans les sermons, Augustin est tout donc à la fois une autorité que l’on ne peut toujours citer et une autorité à laquelle on ne s’oppose qu’implicitement.

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources from the Council of Ephesus (431) to Photius Giulio MALAVASI, Porto Mantovano, Italy

ABSTRACT In the present article, the sources on the Pelagian controversy found in the Byzantine world from the council of Ephesus to Photius will be reviewed and analysed. The first part of the article concerns specifically the council of Ephesus, in particular the charge of hosting members of the Pelagian movement. The second part will deal with the sources that mention Pelagius, Caelestius or Julian of Aeclanum from the aftermath of the council of Ephesus up to the patriarch Photius with the aim of understanding the memory preserved by the Byzantine world and assessing the degree of knowledge of the Pelagian controversy among Byzantine theologians. The initial favour that some Eastern bishops showed towards members of the Pelagian movement, for instance John of Jerusalem, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, was completely forgotten from the sources of the following centuries and the only image of Pelagius and his followers in Greek Christianity was that of a heresy to be condemned and inserted in heresiological catalogs. Also, the knowledge of the theological issues discussed during the Pelagian controversy was almost lost during the centuries after the council of Ephesus, except some partial noticeable exceptions.

The aim of this article is to present and analyse the traces left by the Pelagian controversy in the Byzantine world from the council of Ephesus to Photius. The first part of the article concerns specifically the council of Ephesus, in particular the charge of hosting members of the Pelagian movement. The second part will deal with the sources that mention Pelagius, Caelestius or Julian of Aeclanum from the aftermath of the council of Ephesus up to the patriarch Photius with the aim of understanding the memory preserved by the Byzantine world and assessing the degree of knowledge of the Pelagian controversy among Byzantine theologians. Byzantium preserved a memory, though weak, of this controversy, but these sources have never been organized or analyzed.1 1 Several articles have dealt with the presence of Augustine in the Byzantine World, but to my knowledge it still lacks a comprehensive research on the reception of the Pelagian controversy. On Augustine, see Michael Rackl, ‘Die griechischen Augustinusübersetzungen’, in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle: Scritti di storia e paleografia 1: Per la storia della teologia e della filosofia, Studi e Testi 37 (Rome, 1924), 1-38; Giovanni Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti: per la storia della teologia e delle letteratura

Studia Patristica CXX, 117-133. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

118

G. MALAVASI

The present research does not intend to be exhaustive, due to the length of the chronological period and the huge amount of primary sources, but it aims to be a first attempt to study these sources. 1. The council of Ephesus Theodosius II summoned the council of Ephesus on 19 November 430, in order to solve the increasing theological divergences between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria.2 Ephesus is the city chosen for the gathering of the whole Christian world: bishops are asked to start their travellings after Easter of the following year (19 April 431), since the beginning of the coucil is planned for Pentecost (7 June 431). However, the council of Ephesus was a gathering of mainly Eastern bishops, with only three delegates from the bishop of Rome (the bishops Arcadius and Proiectus and the presbyter Philip) and the deacon Bessula, sent by Capreolus of Carthage, to represent the African Church. Candidianus, the comes domesticorum, is entrusted with the task of granting the regular development of the council, intromissions in the conciliar discussions were prohibited.3 bizantina del secolo XIV, Studi e Testi 56 (Vatican City, 1931), 28-32 and 156-71; Berthold Altaner, ‘Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Photius’, Historisches Jahrbuch 71 (1951), 37-76; Eligius Dekkers, ‘Les traductions grecques des écrits patristiques latins’, Sacris Erudiri 5 (1953), 193-233; Aidan Nichols, ‘The Reception of St Augustine and his Work in the Byzantine-Slav Tradition’, Angelicum 64 (1987), 437-52; Alfons Fürst, ‘Augustinus im Orient’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 110 (1999), 293-314; Josef Lössl, ‘Augustine in Byzantium’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 51 (2000), 267-95; Barbara Crostini, ‘Byzantine World (to 1453)’, in Karla Pollmann (ed.), The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine (Oxford, 2013), II 726-34. 2 For a general presentation on the events of this Council, see Carl J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux. Nouvelle traduction française corrigée et augmentée par H. Leclercq (Hildesheim, New York, 1973), II 287-377; Christiane Fraisse-Coué, ‘Il dibattito teologico nell’età di Teodosio II: Nestorio’, in Charles Pietri and Luce Pietri (eds), Storia del Cristianesimo. Religione-Politica-Cultura. Volume II: La nascita di una cristianità (250-430), Italian edition by Angelo Di Bernardino (Rome, 2000), 485-510, and George A. Bevan, The New Judas. The Case of Nestorius in Ecclesiastical Politics, 428-451 CE, Late Antique History and Religion 13 (Leuven, Paris, Bristol, CT, 2016), 149-204. The sources of the council of Ephesus are edited in the first two volumes of the Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum - Concilium Universale Ephesenum, ed. Eduard Schwartz (Berlin, Leipzig, 1927), henceforth abbreviated as ACO. For a useful guide to consult these volumes, see Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450), Sather Classical Lectures 64 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 2006), 235-41. An English translation will be published in the series Translated Texts for Historians, in the meantime, it could be useful to consult the translation present in André-Jean Festugière, Ephèse et Chalcédoine. Actes des Conciles (Paris, 1982). 3 On the managing of the council of Ephesus by Theodosius II, see Colm Luibhéid, ‘Theodosius II and Heresy’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 16 (1965), 13-38, 16-23; Susan Wessel, ‘The Ecclesiastical Policy of Theodosius II’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 33 (2001), 285308, 286-301, and Thomas Graumann, ‘Theodosius II and the Politics of the First Council of

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

119

The late arrival of John of Antioch together with the other Eastern bishops,4 offered to Cyril the opportunity to open the council without his adversaries, and to condemn Nestorius in the first session.5 However, once arrived, John gathered a parallel council in which Cyril and his followers were condemned.6 In the meantime, the Roman legates arrived at Ephesus, so that the Cyrillian party could hold further sessions, in which Nestorius’ deposition is confirmed, and the deposition of Cyril is cancelled. Further meetings were held in the summer of 431, but not even with the arrival of John, the comes sacrarum largitionum, sent by Theodosius II to help Candidianus, a solution between the two parties was found. The emperor decided to continue the discussion far from Ephesus, at Chalcedon. After an inital support in favor of the Eastern party, Theodosius decided in favor of Cyril and his party.7 Ephesus’, in Christopher Kelly (ed.), Theodosius II. Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge Classical Studies (Cambridge, 2013), 109-29. 4 The presence of the bishops at Ephesus can be inferred from the list of signatures at the end of every session, see Anna Crabbe, ‘The Invitation List to the Council of Ephesus and Metropolitan Hierarchy in the Fifth Century’, The Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981), 369-400. These same sources have been used to study the changing composition of the two parties: Richard Price, ‘Politics and Bishops’ Lists at the First Council of Ephesus’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 44 (2012), 395-420. 5 For an analysis of this session, see André de Halleux, ‘La première session du concile d’Éphèse (22 Juin 431)’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 69 (1993), 48-87, who concludes that, contrary to the imperial order of a careful examination of the theological issue, Nestorius was condemned without a proper debate. See also Joseph Famerée, ‘Éphèse et Nestorius: un malentendu christologique. L’apport du P. A. de Halleux’, Revue théologique de Louvain 39 (2008), 3-25, 10-5. The most relevant documents for the Christological controversy were read during this session, including the creed of Nicea, the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, the second letter of Nestorius to Cyril and the letter of condemnation of Celestine I. On the importance of reading the official documents, see Thomas Graumann, ‘Reading the First Council of Ephesus (431)’, in Richard Price and Mary Whitby (eds), Chalcedon in Context. Church Councils 400-700, Translated Texts for Historians, Contexts 1 (Liverpool, 2009), 27-44. It is necessary to highlight that the acts of the sessions of the council of Ephesus are documents, that, in the intentions of their redactors, reproduce the conciliar debates. However, it is apparent that a redactional activity deeply rewrote these documents, see Thomas Graumann, ‘Protokollierung, Aktenerstellung und Dokumentation am Beispiel des Konzils von Ephesus (431)’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 42 (2010), 7-34. 6 It has been recently suggested by Donald Fairbairn, ‘Allies or Merely Friends? John of Antioch and Nestorius in the Christological Controversy’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58 (2007), 383-99, that Nestorius’ defence by John of Antioch was limited to the political struggle, while from a theological perspective John, probably inconsciously, at least in the starting phase of the controversy, would have been in contrast with Nestorius and closer to Cyril’s position. I am not convinced with this hypothesis and some doubts have been cast also by G. Bevan, The New Judas (2016), 142-3. 7 It seems that this volte-face was helped by money and gifts to important imperial functionaries by Cyril, see Ramon Teja, ‘La estrategia de la corrupción: “el oro de la iniquidad” de Cirilo de Alejandría en el concilio de Éfeso (431)’, Cristianesimo nella Storia 33 (2012), 397-423. F. Millar, A Greek Roman Empire (2006), 192-234, has carefully shown that in the empire of Theodosius decisions were taken mainly after the agreement between the Emperor and important imperial functionaries, as in the case of the condemnation of Nestorius.

120

G. MALAVASI

1.2. The condemnation of Pelagianism The first aspect treated in this article concerns the condemnation of Pelagianism at Ephesus.8 The first reference to Pelagius and Caelestius is a report of the Cyrillian council to Theodosius II, dated 1 July 431,9 after the first session of the Cyrillian council and the first reunion of the party of John of Antioch,10 but before the arrival of the Roman legates. In this report to the Emperor, the party of the defenders of Nestorius is described as headed by John of Antioch with other 37 bishops, and among their members some are involved in the Pelagian errors, while others have been already deposed.11 The document is rather vague, and it does not name the supposed Pelagians who would stand in the party of John, but it is important to underline that this charge is brought by the Cyrillians against Nestorius’ supporters before the arrival of the Roman legates. This means that information about the presumed supporters of Pelagius circulated within the Cyrillian party even before the arrival of the Roman legates. We know, in fact, that Cyril was aware of the Pelagian controversy and of the presumed collaboration between Nestorius and Caelestius, as discussed below. After the arrival of the Roman legates, the charge of hosting members of the Pelagian movement appears in other documents of the Cyrillian party. In the acts of sessions IV and V of the Cyrillian party (16-17 july 431) there is an explicit reference to the doctrine of Pelagius and Caelestius.12 In these sessions, Cyril of Alexandria states his orthodoxy condemning a long list of heretics, including Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Sabellius, Photinus, Paul the Manichaean and the blasphemies of Nestorius. The last condemnation is that of the doctrines of Caelestius and Pelagius.13 In the same session, John is 8 On this topic, see, in chronological order M.Th. Disdier, ‘Le pélagianisme au concile d’Éphèse’, Échos d’Orient 30 (1931), 314-33, 327-33; Jakob Speigl, ‘Der Pelagianismus auf dem Konzil von Ephesus’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 1 (1969), 1-14, 9-13; Mathijs Lamberigts, ‘Les évêques pélagiens déposés, Nestorius et Ephèse’, Augustiniana 35 (1985), 264-80, 274-80; Guido Honnay, ‘Caelestius, Discipulus Pelagii’, Augustiniana 44 (1994), 271-302, 296-7; Josef Lössl, Julian von Aeclanum Studien zu seinem Leben, seinem Werk, seiner Lehre und ihrer Ueberlieferung, Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements 60 (Leiden, 2001), 311-9; Mathijs Lamberigts, ‘Julian of Aeclanum’s Search for Rehabilitation with Nestorius, Ephesus, Celestine, Sixtus and Leo the Great’, in Sabino Accomando and Rocco Ronzani (eds), Giuliano d’Eclano e l’Hirpinia Christiana. II Convegno internazionale, Mirabella Eclano 23-25 settembre 2010 (Manocalzati, 2012), 151-66, 157-62. 9 Relatio Cyrillianorum ad Theodosium et Valentinianum, in ACO I, 1, 3, 84. 10 Relatio Cyrillianorum ad Theodosium et Valentinianum, in ACO I, 1, 3, 84, 3. 11 Ἀπολειφθῆναι παρὰ Νεστορίωι καὶ τῶι εὐλαβεστάτωι ἐπισκόπωι Ἰωάννηι τῶι Ἀντιοχείας τριάκοντα καὶ ἑπτὰ μικρῶι πρός […] τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ δογμάτων διαστροφῆι ὡς Πελαγιαν ύς τε ὄντας καὶ ἐναντία τῆς εὐσεβείας φρονήσαντας, Relatio Cyrillianorum ad Theodosium et Valentinianum, in ACO I, 1, 3, 84, 4. 12 Gesta Ephesina Actiones IV et V, in ACO I, 1, 3, 87-90. 13 Τοὺς φρονοῦντας τὰ Κελεστίου ἤτοι Πελαγίου, Gesta Ephesina Actiones IV et V, in ACO I, 1, 3, 89.

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

121

excomunicated together with his followers. In a letter addressed to Theodosius II, in which the deposition of John of Antioch is notified, the party of Cyril, composed by 210 bishops, is compared to the party of the Eastern bishops, reduced to only 30 bishops, including deposed bishops and followers of the heresy of Caelestius.14 There is a further document of the Cyrillian party that deserves careful consideration. It is a letter written, probably, towards the end of July, surely after the deposition of John by the Cyrillians (16-17 July 431).15 In this letter, two passages are worth considering. In the first, it is stated that among the party of John, gathered for the first time on 26 June, there were also Pelagians and Caelestians.16 In the second, it is stated that acts were read in the council concerning the deposition of Pelagians and Caelestians, namely Caelestius, Pelagius, Julian, Persidius, Florus, Marcellinus and Orontius.17 It is not clear when these acts were read, but it is likely that it happened in the last sessions cited, namely sessions IV-V of 16-17 July. Maybe the document mentioned was brought by the legates of the bishop of Rome. It is interesting to note that besides Pelagius and Caelestius, also Julian and some of his followers were mentioned. Differently from the previous vague allusions to Pelagians and Caelestians, in this case the information about the presumed followers of Pelagius exiled in the East are decisively more precise, probably due to the presence of the Roman legates. At the end of July it comes to Ephesus an imperial letter, written on 29 June, brought by John, the comes sacrarum largitionum, sent to help Candidianus and arrived at Ephesus between 22 July and 13 August. In this letter, addressed both to the Eastern bishops and to the Cyrillians, the Emperor accepted all the depositions.18 However, the Emperor reproaches to all the bishops gathered at Ephesus the divison between two parties. To this letter, the Cyrillian party rapidly replied complaining of the fact that in the imperial letter their name was associated with the name of the followers of John of Antioch and of the Caelestians who are with him, since the same letter was sent to both parties.19 14 Οἳ δὲ καὶ τῆς Κελεστίου κακoδοξίας εἰσίν, Epistula ad Imperatores de Orientalibus, in ACO I, 1, 3, 92. 15 Epistula ad Caelestinum Papam, in ACO I, 1, 3, 82, 8-10. 16 Σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ καὶ Πελαγιανοὶ καὶ Κελεστιανοί, Epistula ad Caelestinum Papam, in ACO I, 1, 3, 82, 7. 17 Ἀναγνωσθέντων δὲ ἐν τῆι ἁγίαι συνόδωι τῶν ὑπομνημάτων τῶν πεπραγμένων ἐπὶ τῆι καθαιρέσει τῶν άνοσίων Πελαγιανῶν καὶ Κελεστιανῶν, Κελεστίου Πελαγίου Ἰουλιανοῦ Περσιδίου Φλώρου Μαρκελλίνου Ὀρεντίου, Epistula ad Caelestinum Papam, in ACO I, 1, 3, 82, 13. 18 Sacra directa per Iohannem comitem concilio, in ACO I, 1, 3, 93. 19 Τοὐς ἀποστατήσαντας ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου τοὺς περὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ἀντιοχείας καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῶι Κελεστιανοὺς καὶ καθηιρημένους τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἐγκταμῖξαι ὀνόμασι καὶ μίαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς τε κἀκείνους σάκραν δαιπέμψασθαι, Relatio synodi Cyrillianorum ad imperatores, in ACO I, 1, 3, 94.

122

G. MALAVASI

The impossibility to find a solution at Ephesus forced Theodosius II to summon the representatives of the two parties at Chalcedon, probably at the beginning of September. For the Cyrillian delegates instructions were drafted to be followed during the meetings. They must avoid the communion of John of Antioch not only because he refused to depose Nestorius, but also because deposed bishops and Caelestians can be found among his followers.20 Together with this reserved letter of instruction, the Cyrilian representatives have also a letter for Theodosius II, in which it is stated once again the small number of the party of John of Antioch, reduced to 30 bishops, including Caelestians and deposed bishops.21 In the circular letter in which the conciliar decisions were spread, there are references to Caelestius. John and his followers were not only defenders of Nestorius, but also of Caelestius.22 For this reason, the bishops who have followed or follow the doctrines of Caelestius are condemned,23 as well as the clerics who do the same.24 As shown above, we have a huge documentation from the Cyrillian party in which the presumed link between the defenders of Nestorius and the members of the Pelagian movement is highlighted. If we consider the party of John of Antioch, it is possible to find only one document in which this same charge against the Cyrillians is present. It is a lettter sent by the Eastern bishops to Rufus of Thessalonica to obtain his support.25 It is not possible to date this letter with precision, but it was written after the debates of Chalcedon, in an advanced phase of the council, close to his closure.26 In this letter, the Eastern bishops inform Rufus that Cyril and his party would have welcomed also those who hold the positions of Caelestius and Pelagius, namely euchites, or enthusiasts, which are not in communion with their bishop or metropolite.27 20 Νῦν τοῖς Νεστορίου συναγωνίζεσθαι δόγμασι καὶ τινὰς τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς εἶναι Κελεστιανοὺς καὶ καθηιρημένους καὶ τὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης σύνοδον τολμῆσαι ὡς αἱρετικὴν διαβαλεῖν, Mandatum synodi Cyrillianorum episcopis Constantinopolim directis, in ACO I, 1, 3, 95, 34. 21 Τριάκοντα μικρῶι πλέον περὶ αὐτὸν συναθροίσας, ὧν οἳ μὲν Κελεστιανοί, οἳ δὲ καθηιρημένοι πρὸ πολλοῦ ἐτύγχανον, Relatio synodi eorundem ad imperatores per legatos, in ACO I, 1, 3, 108. 22 Τὰ Νεστορίου καὶ Κελεστίου φρονήματα, Synodi Epistula Universalis, in ACO I, 1, 3, 91, 1. 23 Εἴτε ὁ μητροπολίτης τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἀποστατήσας τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου προσέθετο τῶι τῆς άποστασίας συνεδρίωι ἢ μετὰ τοῦτο προστεθείη ἢ τὰ Κελεστίου ἐφρόνησεν ἢ φρονῆσει, οὗτος κατὰ τῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων διαπράττεσθαί τι οῦδαμῶς δύναται […] ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόποις καὶ τοῖς πέριξ μητροπολίταις τοῖς τὰ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας φρονοῦσιν ὑποκείσεται εἰς τὸ πάντηι καὶ τοῦ βαθμοῦ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐκβληθῆναι, Synodi Epistula Universalis, in ACO I, 1, 3, 91, 2. 24 Εἰ δὲ τινὲς ἀποστατήσαιεν τῶν κληρικῶν καὶ τολμήσαιεν ἢ κατ’ἰδίαν ἢ δημοσίαι τὰ Νεστορίου ἢ τὰ Κελεστίου φρονῆσαι, καὶ τούτους εἶναι καθηιρημένους ὑπὸ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου δεδικαίωται, Synodi Epistula Universalis, in ACO I, 1, 3, 91, 4. 25 Epistula mandatariorum Orientalium ad Rufum, in ACO I, 1, 3, 97. 26 See Epistula mandatariorum Orientalium ad Rufum, in ACO I, 1, 3, 97, p. 41. 27 Τοὺς γὰρ ὑπὸ διαφόρων διοικήσεων καὶ ἐπαρχιῶν γενομένους ἀκοινωνήτους εὐθὺς εἰς κοινωνίαν ἐδέξαντο, πρὸς τούτοις δὲ καὶ ἑτέρους ἐπὶ αἱρέσεσιν ἐγκαλουμένους καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

123

This letter is the only source produced by the Eastern party, as far as we know, in which the Cyrillians are charged of hosting members of the Pelagian movement. It is a rather late document in the context of the council of Ephesus, since its datation should be placed after many other documents of the Cyrillian party in which the same charge is brought against the Eastern bishops. Lamberigts has rightly observed that the charge of holding the Pelagian thesis or of hosting members of the Pelagian movement can be found in the writings of the party of Cyril of Alexandria against the party of John of Antioch and as well as in at least one document drafted by the party of John of Antioch. Therefore, according to Lambergits ‘il est donc trop commode de compter Julien et ses amis au nombre des partisans de Jean d’Antioche.28 I think it could be useful to add two further elements to these considerations. The first concerns the nature of the collections in which the documents analyzed above are preserved. These collections were formed during the council and further increased afterwards. They were created according to the propagandistic intentions of their authors.29 The Collectio Vaticana, in which all the documents analysed above are contained, has evidently a pro-Cyrillian character: the documents concerning the council of the Eastern bishops are few and, probably, added at a later moment when the polemic lowered the tones.30 Therefore the presence of only one document, furthermore a late one, in which the association between the Pelagians and the Cyrillians is brought forward by the Eastern bishops can not, alone, be used as proof to claim that this charge was not previously used by the Eastern bishops and reused by them only when charged by the Cyrillians of hosting members of the Pelagian movement. The documentation at our disposal, alone, does not have enough strength to allow us to draw similar conclusions. Indeed, it is possible, though not demonstrable, that this same charge was present also in other documents, now lost, drafted by the party of John of Antioch. However, if we consider a broader context, which anticipates the council of Ephesus, it seems that the preserved documentation, though incomplete and

φρονοῦντας Κελεστίωι καὶ Πελαγίωι (Εὐχῖται γάρ εἰσιν εἴτ’ οὖν Ἐνθουσιασταί, δι’ ὃ καὶ ἀκοινώνητοι ἦσαν τῶι τε διοικετῆι καὶ τῶι μητροπολίτηι), Epistula mandatariorum Orientalium ad Rufum, in ACO I, 1, 3, n. 97, p. 42, ll. 4-7. On the supposed closeness between Pelagianism and Messalianism, see Andrew Louth, ‘Messalianism and Pelagianism’, SP 17 (1982), 127-35. On Messalianism, see Columba Stewart, ‘Working the Earth of the Heart’. The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford, 1991), 47-52, for the condemnation at Ephesus, and Manfred Hauke, ‘Die Taufgnade und die Wurzel des Bösen. Anmerkungen zur Verurteilung des Messalianismus auf dem Konzil von Ephesus’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 35 (2003), 307-21. 28 M. Lamberigts, ‘Les évêques pélagiens déposés’ (1985), 280. 29 T. Grauman, ‘Reading the First Council’ (2009), 28 and Evangelos Chrysos, ‘The Synodical Acts as Literary Products’, in L’icône dans la théologie de l’art (Chambésy, 1990), 85-93. 30 T. Graumann, ‘Reading the First Council’ (2009), 28.

124

G. MALAVASI

biased, reflects some features of the polemic of Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius and his allies. The charge of collusion between Nestorius and Caelestius is already present in a secret memorandum of Cyril to Posidonius31 and, maybe, also in a letter to Theodosius II quoted by Photius, discussed below, if it was written before the council of Ephesus. These elements, together with the sources analyzed above, show a certain degree of continuity in the anti-Nestorian polemical strategy of Cyril. It is not implausible that the Eastern bishops used this polemical association only a second time against their enemies. It is difficult to determine when this happened. As to the sources at our disposal, it is only possible to state that from the meeting of Chalcedon onwards the Eastern bishops charged Cyril and his party of being willing to host some Pelagians, but we can not exclude that also in previous phases of the council the Eastern bishops used such a polemical charge. A different problem, equally difficult to solve, is to assess the trustworthiness of these charges, namely if Caelestius or Julian of Aeclanum and his followers were really part of one of the two groups, or if they were actually present at Ephesus. To these problems, modern scholars have offered different solutions.32 It is apparent that both for Caelestius and for Julian of Aeclanum, expelled from Constantinople shortly before the council of Ephesus, this council must have represented an unrepeatable occasion to find a rehabilitation. We know that the conciliar sessions did not deal only with the issue of Nestorius, but there were also sessions on different issues. However, as far as we know, there was not a session explicitly dedicated to the Pelagian affair, but, as shown above, their case was at the centre of several discussions and charges between the Cyrillians and the Eastern bishops. Although it is not possible to take a position on this issue, nonetheless it is certain that the Pelagian movement, already a heresy, was massively present in the discussions of the council of Ephesus.

31

Cyril of Alexandria, Memorandum ad Posidonium, in ACO I, I, 7. In favour of their presence and of a relationship, more or less strong, with the party of John of Antioch, see M.Th. Disdier, ‘Le pélagianisme au concile d’Ephèse’ (1931), 327-9 and J. Spiegl, ‘Der Pelagianismus’ (1969), 11, ‘die Pelagianer müssen sich in der Nähe aufgehalten haben und Verbindung mit der Minderheitsynode des Johannes von Antiochien gehabt haben’; J. Lössl, Julian von Aeclanum (2001), 314-5 : ‘Ihm oder seinem Umkreis dürften in einer nicht mehr genauer bestimmbaren Form auch Caelestius und die pelagianischen Bischöfe angehört haben. Ob sie dabei nur pragmatisch motiviert, d. h. durch Nestorius’ Sympathie für ihr Anliegen ermutigt waren, oder auch bei der christologischen Kontroverse auf Nestorius’ Seite standen, ist hier keine relevante Frage’, see also 317-8. Doubts have been cast by M. Lamberigts, ‘Les évêques pélagiens déposés’ (1985), 280, ‘reste à savoir si Julien et ses amis furent présents à Ephèse. Nous avons déjà signalé qu’on ne peut les mettre ni au nombre des partisans de Cyrille, ni de ceux de Jean: tous les deux se prononcèrent contre eux en 431’; G. Honnay, ‘Caelestius’ (1994), 297, ‘whether Celestius was present in Ephesus, remains unknown’, and M. Lamberigts, ‘Julian of Aeclanum’s Search for Rehabilitation’ (2012), 161. 32

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

125

2. Byzantium and the memory of the Pelagian controversy The second section of this article deals with some Eastern sources that mention Pelagius, Caelestius or Julian of Aeclanum, in order to analyze the way in which Byzantium preserved a memory of the Pelagian controversy and the degree of knowledge of this theological controversy. Probably their first mention after the condemnation at Ephesus appears in a lost letter of some Armenian monks quoted by the deacon Pelagius in his In defensione trium capitulorum.33 The first and part of the second book of this work, in which the deacon Pelagius attacks the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr and Ibas of Edessa by Justinian I (553), are now lost. The second book opens with the quotations of some excerpts of a letter addressed to Cyril of Alexandria by some Armenian monks.34 The content of the letter, as far as it is possible to reconstruct, concerns the charge brought by the monks to Cyril, who, notwithstanding the condamnation of Pelagius and Caelestius at Ephesus, and having written a huge treatise against Theodore and Diodore, seems to be reticent to associate Theodore to the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius.35 Unfortunately, the fragmentary status of the letter and the fact that this treatise starts exactly with these quotations, without a proper contextualization, makes it difficult to formulate further hypotheses on this interesting text. Nonetheless, it is possible that this letter was part of the offensive born in Armenia against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. According to Winkler, this polemical campaign started in Armenia after the synod of Astisat (435/436), in which the Armenian church received and accepted the decisions of the council of Ephesus. From this moment onwards the Armenian church started a tough campaign against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia,36 within which, I think, it is possible to place also the letter quoted by the deacon Pelagius. This letter witnesses that the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius at Ephesus reached also Armenia, however, from the brief passage analyzed above, it is not possible to assess if also the theological doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were known by the Armenian monks. 33 On this work see the introduction in Robert Devreesse, Pelagii diaconi ecclesiae romanae in defensione trium capitulorum: texte latin du manuscrit Aurelianensis 73 (70). Édité avec introduction et notes, Studi e Testi 57 (Vatican City, 1932), the latin text is quoted from this edition and abbreviated as In defensione trium capitulorum. 34 Luise Abramowski, ‘Die Zitate in der Schrift “In Defensione Trium Capitulorum” des römischen Diakons Pelagius’, Vigiliae Christianae 10 (1956), 160-93, 161. 35 Nescimus enim quare in charta tantum conponit adversus Diodorum et Theodorum sacrilegos et ultra omnem impietatem euntes eos appellans, in consensu autem damnationis Pelagii et Caelestii Theodorum reticuit, Pelagius deacon, In defensione trium capitulorum II, 1. 36 Gabriele Winkler, ‘An Obscure Chapter in Armenian Church History (428-439)’, Revue des Études Armeniennes 19 (1985), 85-180, 143-60.

126

G. MALAVASI

Two further quotations appear in John Maxentius, a scythian monk and bishop, involved in the doctrinal controversy of the sixth century. The first one is in his Capitula contra Nestorianos et Pelagianos, a short text in which John Maxentius condemns twelve propositions, including three statements specifically related to the Pelagian controversy. In the first, he anathematizes those who state that sin is natural and comes from God,37 in the second those who deny original sin, as witnessed by Rom. 5:1238 and, finally, he condemns the positions of Pelagius and Caelestius, as they were fought in the writings of the Roman bishops (Innocent I, Bonifacius, Zosimus, Celestine I and Leo I), but also of Atticus of Constantinople and Augustine of Hippo.39 It is apparent that John Maxentius had a good knowledge of the writings of the main anti-Pelagian theologians and not only the writings of Augustine of Hippo. It is interesting to note that John Maxentius mentioned also the writing of Atticus of Constantinople. Unfortunately, we do not possess any writings by Atticus related to the Pelagian controversy, even if he was directly involved in this controversy. We know, in fact, that Atticus received a letter by Augustine of Hippo, letter 6*, on issues related to the Pelagian controversy, especially carnal concupiscence. The next quotation appears in his Libellus fidei, in which he claims that Pelagius, Caelestius and Theodore of Mopsuestia stand against original sin, since they consider this sin as natural.40 The idea of a contact between Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Pelagians was formulated for the first time by Marius Mercator, an anti-Pelagian theologian,41 and appears a second time in John Maxentius, who could have been influenced by Marius Mercator. In fact, 37

Si quis dicit naturale esse peccatum, peccati causam naturarum conditori dementer ascribens, anathema sit, John Maxentius, Capitula contra Nestorianos et Pelagianos, 10. The writings of John Maxentius are edited in Maxentii aliorumque scytharum monachorum necnon Ioannis Tomitanae urbis episcopi Opuscula, ed. Fr. Gloire, CChr.SL 85a (Turnhout, 1978). 38 Si quis non confitetur originale peccatum per praevaricationem Adae ingressum mundo – secundum apostoli vocem dicentis: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt –, anathema sit, John Maxentius, Capitula contra Nestorianos et Pelagianos, 11. 39 Item anathematizamus omnem sensum Pelagii et Caelestii et omnium qui illis similia sapiunt, suscipientes omnia quae in diversis locis contra ipsos acta sunt et scripta a praesulibus Apostolicae sedis – id est Innocentio, Bonifatio, Zosimo, Caelestino et Leone –, Attico etiam Constantinopolitano et Augustino Africanae provinciae episcopis, John Maxentius, Capitula contra Nestorianos et Pelagianos, 12. 40 Sicut Pelagii et Caelesti sive Theodori Mopsuesteni discipuli, qui unum et idem naturale et originale peccatum esse affirmare conantur, John Maxentius, Libellus fidei 16, 32. 41 On Marius Mercator’s anti-Pelagian activity, see the monographs by Serafino Prete, Mario Mercatore. Polemista antipelagiano, Scrinium Theologicum 11 (Torino, 1958), and Claudia Konoppa, Die Werke des Marius Mercator: Übersetzung und Kommentierung seiner Schriften, Europäische Hochschulschriften 23 (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), in which it is possible to find a German translation of his works. See also William C. Bark, ‘The Doctrinal Interests of Marius Mercator’, Church History 12 (1943), 210-6; A. Lepka, ‘L’originalité des répliques de Marius Mercator à Julien d’Éclane’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 27 (1931), 572-9, Giulio Malavasi, ‘Marius Mercator’s Enemies in Augustine’s Letter 193’, SP 74 (2016), 361-70 and Anthony

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

127

the research of Bark confirms that John Maxentius knew the treatises of Marius Mercator.42 Several pieces of evidence suggest that the compiler of the Collectio Palatina was very close to the entourage of John Maxentius, to whose authority he directly refers, calling him John, bishop of Tomi, namely John Maxentius. The Palatine collection, drafted at the beginning of the sixth century, gathers anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian writings, including Marius Mercator’s treatise Commonitorium lectori adversum haeresim Pelagii et Caelestii vel etiam scripta Iuliani in which the link is proposed between Theodore of Mopsuestia and Pelagius on the issue of original sin. The fact that this detail appears in a treatise of John Maxentius seems to be a further element to confirm the close link between Maxentius and the Collectio Palatina. A fragment of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii, in which the bishop of Hippo commented upon the acts of the synod of Diospolis, in which 14 Palestinian bishops declared Pelagius orthodox in 415, was quoted in an anonymous and still unedited florilegium. It is contained in codex Vatopedi 236 and it is entitled Πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων προυπάρκειν σωμάτων (foll. 113r-126v).43 The manuscript dates back to the eleventh or twelfth century and a useful description has been published by De Santos Otero.44 According to the research of Richard and Heimgartner, the florilegium contained in codex Vatopedi 236 is an abbreviated version of an archtype now lost, probably written in Palestine in the first third of the sixth century.45 The fragment quoted concerns the Origenian doctrine of apocatastasis, as found in De gestis Pelagii 3, 10, but for the purpose of the present article, the title given to Augustine’s work is more interesting. According to the author of the florilegium, Augustine’s quotation is excerpted from this work: Αὐγουστίνου ἐπισκόπου Ἱππονένσου τῆς Ἀφρικῆς περὶ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων τῶν πραχθέντων κατὰ τὴν Παλαιστίνην ἕνεκεν Πελαγίου καὶ Κελεστίου.46 In the title of work, as reported in this anonymous florilegium, the names of Pelagius and Caelestius appear. However, Celestius is not mentioned in the original title of Augustine’s treatise and he is named for the first time in De gestis Pelagii 11, 23, namely some paragraphs after the quotation present in our florilegium. This could mean that whoever added the title (the compilator himself or a previous translator) Dupont and Giulio Malavasi, ‘Marius Mercator and the Augustinian Concept of Carnal Concupiscence’, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques 64 (2018), 165-80. 42 William C. Bark, ‘John Maxentius and the Collectio Palatina’, Harward Theological Review 36 (1943), 93-107, 97-104. 43 The florilegium is still unedited, but the project of its edition has been announced by Martin Heimgartner, Pseudojustin – Über die Auferstehung. Text und Studie, Patristische Texte und Studien 54 (Berlin, New York, 2001), 234 n. 8. 44 Aurelio De Santos Otero, ‘Der Codex Vatopedi 236’, Kleronomia 5 (1973), 315-26. 45 Marcel Richard, ‘Nouveaux fragments de Théophile d’Alexandrie’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: Philologisch-historische Klasse 2 (1975), 57-65, 57, and M. Heimgartner, Pseudojustin (2001), 233-85. 46 Codex Vatopedi 236, f. 122r.

128

G. MALAVASI

had a wider knowledge of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii than what the fragment shows. Sophronius of Jerusalem’s Synodal letter (634) is the next source in which Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian of Aeclanum are mentioned. Soon after his election to the see of Jerusalem, Sophronius wrote and spread this letter to attest his orthodoxy. The text can be divided in two parts: a theological section and an heresiological one. In the second section, Sophronius lists the name of several heretics, probably following similar catalogs present in the patriarchate of Jerusalem.47 In this long list also Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian, the defenders of the same madness, appear.48 Pauline Allen, who has edited, translated and commented Sophronius’ letter, believes that Julian was an apollinarist heretic and that Pelagius and Caelestius were erroneously inserted. I am not convinced with this explanation and I believe that it is easier to conclude that the three heretics mentioned by Sophronius were the main leaders of the Pelagian movement. However, it is unlikely that Sophronius had an acceptable knowledge of the Pelagian controversy or of the theological positions of the Pelagian leaders mentioned in his letter. It is likely that all he knew was the names of Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian of Aeclanum and that they were part of the same heresy. As to the sources of Sophronius’ reference we are left with no answers. Nonetheless, the synodal letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem was quoted in its entirety also at the council in Trullo (692), sixty years after its redaction. It is only a citation during a council in which the Pelagian controversy was definitely not discussed or analysed, but it is a further mention in the Byzantine world. The next source is the treatise De receptione haereticorum written by Timothy of Constantinople, between the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh century. At the moment, a more precise datation is missing.49 In this treatise, whose aim is to establish the rules to be followed in case heretics intend to return to communion with the church, an entire paragraph is dedicated to Pelagius and Caelestius. Timothy states that they agree with the errors 47 Pauline Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-century Heresy. The Synodical Letter and Other Documents: Introduction, Texts, Translations and Commentary, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 2009), 62: ‘how much time was at his disposal between his election as patriarch and the dispatch of his synodika for compiling such extensive lists? It would be more likely that his model was a list of heresies to which he and others in the patriarchate of Jerusalem had access, which could be used for various purposes, being made relevant at the end to the author’s specific aim’. The text of Sophronius is quoted in the present article from Allen’s edition. 48 Πελάγιος, Κελέστιος, Ἰουλιανός, οἱ τῆς αὐτῆς μανίας ὑπέρμαχοι, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Synodical Letter II, 6, 1. 49 On the problems related to its dating, see Filippo Carcione, ‘Il “De iis qui ad ecclesiam accedunt” del presbitero costantinopolitano Timoteo. Una nuova proposta di datazione’, Studi e Ricerche sull’Oriente Cristiano 14 (1991), 309-20, 312 for the traditional dating. Carcione, however, believing that the work of Timothy depends on canon 95 of the council in Trullo on the readmission of the heretics, proposes to date this work after that council (692), 313-20.

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

129

of Nestorius, and he reports that this heresy was fought by Innocent I and Theophilus of Alexandria. It is apparent that Innocent I was one of the main enemies of Pelagius and Caelestius, but evidence are wanting for an antiPelagian activity of Theophilus, since the Pelagian controversy in the East officially started with the synod of Diospolis (415), three years after the death of Teophilus (412).50 Finally, Timothy reports that Pelagius and Caelestius are not clerics, but monks, who share the manichaean doctrines.51 As I have already shown elsewhere,52 Timothy, in writing this chapter, could be dependent on a collection of anti-Pelagian and anti-Nestorian works known by Photius and reviewed in his Bibliotheca codex 54, that will be analysed below. It is likely that this collection was gathered together during a Western synod held under Gelasius I and sent to Constantinople, where both Timothy and Photius read it. If this hypothesis is correct, Timothy had at his disposal a huge amount of primary sources on the Pelagian controversy. Augustine’s Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum has been quoted in Greek sources during the period analysed in this article. The first quotations are from the Lateran council (649), summoned by pope Martin I in order to condemn the monothelite heresy. Among the acts of this council, Augustine’s works are excerpted, including two citations from the fifth book of Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum.53 Both a Greek and a Latin version of the acts of this Council are preserved, but according to Riedinger the Latin version is a translation of the Greek one.54 In these acts, Augustine’s treatise against Julian of Aeclanum is presented as a treatise against Julian the Pelagian.55 Julian is recognized as a member of the Pelagian heresy, but from this extremely brief presentation it is not possible to conclude that whoever quoted Augustine’s treatise was aware of the historical and theological context in which Augustine’s treatise was drafted. In the preparation of this council, Maximus the confessor, exiled in the West probably from 626, had a role of paramount importance. His degree of involvement is not clear, namely whether he drafted together with his collaborators the synodal acts, or if he was simply the inspirator. However, as shown by 50

Agostino Favale, Teofilo d’Alessandria (345c.-412). Scritti, vita e dottrina (Turin, 1958), 174-5 n. 60: ‘è assai improbabile che Teofilo si sia occupato della nascente eresia pelagiana. Infatti l’opposizione a questa dottrina eterodossa ebbe inizio in Africa nel sinodo di Cartagine del 411, che scomunicò Celestio, […] Da questi dati risulta che la controversia pelagiana venne discussa in Palestina con possibili riflessi in Egitto soltanto nel 415, quando Teofilo era già morto da tre anni’. 51 The whole paragraph can be read in PG 86, 33A. 52 Giulio Malavasi, ‘The Greek version(s) of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 21 (2017), 559-72, 568-72. 53 It is Augustine, Opus imperfectum V, 53; V, 56, see ACO, Ser. 2, I, 348.34-351.4. 54 Rudolf Riedinger, ‘Die Lateranakten von 649, ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos Homologetes’, Byzantina 13 (1985), 517-34. 55 Κατὰ Ἰουλιανοῦ τοῦ Πελαγιανιστοῦ, in ACO Ser. 2, I, 348.

130

G. MALAVASI

Börjesson, Maximus had a direct knowledge of these acts, which are used in one of his works, written after the council, in which it is reported the debate with Theodosius of Caesarea. Among the topics used by Maximus to persuade his adversary on the existence of two wills in Christ, there is also the patristic florilegium contained in the acts of the Lateran council. This means that Maximus, at least, knew the passages of the works of Augustine quoted in the florilegium, including the Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum. Börjesson believes that Maximus’ knowledge of Augustine is wider than the fragments quoted, since it could be possible to infer the knowledge of the context from which the fragments have been excerpted. However, this hypothesis needs to be confirmed by further research.56 During the third Council of Constantinople (680-681), summoned to discuss the monothelite issue, fragments from Augustine’s Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum are quoted. These fragments are different from those quoted during the Lateran council.57 Even in this case the work of Augustine is presented as a treatise against the Pelagian Julian, but also in this case it is not possible to infer a knowledge, though minimal, of the Pelagian controversy.58 Photius is probably the most important source concerning the diffusion of the Pelagian and anti-Pelagian works in the East. Two chapters of his Bibliotheca are specifically dedicated to the Pelagian controversy: codex 53 and 54. The first one has been carefully studied by Aubineau, who has catalogued the works read by Photius.59 The first work is the acts of the Council of Carthage (418), from which the nine anathematisms are quoted.60 A letter of Theodosius II and Onorius to Aurelius of Carthage follows,61 then a letter of Constantius to Volusian, the prefect of Rome, on the expulsion of Caelestius,62 a letter of Leo I 56 Johannes Börjesson, ‘Maximus the Confessor’s Knowledge of Augustine: An Exploration of Evidence Derived from the Acta of the Lateran Council of 649’, SP 68 (2013), 324-36, and Johannes Börjesson, ‘Augustine on the Will’, in Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (Oxford, 2015), 212-34, 217-29. 57 In ACO, Ser. 2, II, I, 76-9, are quoted Augustine, Opus imperfectum V, 40; V, 53; V, 42; V, 56; V, 60. In ACO, Ser. 2, II, I, 248, is quoted Augustine, Opus imperfectum V, 40, quoted also in ACO, Ser. 2, II, I, 336. 58 Vedi ACO, Ser. 2, II, I, 78 and 336. 59 Michel Aubineau, ‘Photius, Bibliothèque: Codex 53, Sur les Pélagiens’, Revue de Philologie 41 (1967), 232-41, 235-9. The following quotations of Photius’ Bibliotheca are taken from Photius. Bibliothèque, ed. and trans. René Henry (Paris, 1959-1967), henceforth abbreviated as Bibliotheca. See also the recent Italian edition Fozio, Biblioteca, ed. Nunzio Bianchi and Claudio Schiano (Pisa, 2016). 60 Ἀνεγνώσθη βιβλίον ἡ κατὰ Πελαγίου καὶ Κελεστίου σύνοδος ἐν Καρταγένῃ συστᾶσα ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ, Photius, Bibliotheca 53. 61 Ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ Θεοδόσιος καὶ Ὁνώριος οἱ βασιλεῖς πρὸς Αὐρήλιον ἐπίσκοπον κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν, Photius, Bibliotheca 53. 62 Ἔγραψε μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ Πλακιδίας ἀνήρ, Οὐαλεντινιανοῦ δὲ τοῦ μικροῦ πατήρ, περὶ τοῦ ἐξορισθῆναι Κελέστιον τὸν αἱρετικόν. Ἔγραψε δὲ τὴν κατ’αὐτοῦ ψῆφον πρὸς Οὐολοσιανὸν ἔπαρχον πόλεως, Photius, Bibliotheca 53.

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

131

to the bishop of Aquileia, concerning some repented heretics,63 two letters of Celestine I, one to Nestorius and one to the bishops of Gaul in defense of Augustine’s orthodoxy,64 and, finally, the letter of Jerome to Ctesiphon.65 The following codex 54 seems to be a collection of documents quoted in a Western synod against the Pelagian and the Nestorian heresy, probably held by Gelasius I at the end of the fifth century.66 The documents quoted are: a lost letter of Cyril of Alexandria to the Emperor Theodosius II on the equality of the Pelagian and Nestorian errors, a copy of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii,67 one of the first, if not the first, treatise of Augustine translated into Greek,68 a work by Celestine I,69 a letter of Septimius of Altinum,70 the reply of Leo I and some works by Prosper of Acquitaine.71 Finally, an apology is quoted, now lost, of John Talaia72 to Gelasius I, in which the author condemned Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian of Aeclanum.73 Photius’ knowledge of the writings of the Pelagian controversy, as shown by the two chapters analysed above, is decisively huge, spanning from a treatise like the De gestis Pelagii, which was written before the official condemnation of Pelagius, to the apology of John Talaia, drafted at the end of the fifth century. However, it is necessary to add another source read by Photius. Codex 177 is dedicated to Theodore of Mopsuestia’s treatise against the Augustinian anti-Pelagian theology. This source is particularly important because, different from codex 53 and 54, Photius had the chance to read a work written from the perspective of those who lost the theological controversy. I have already shown that Theodore drafted this treatise under the influence of Julian of Aeclanum Ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ Λέων ὁ Ῥώμης περὶ τῶν ἐπιστρεφόντων Πελαγιανιστῶν, Photius, Bibliotheca 53. 64 Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Νεστόριον Κελεστίνου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης ἐπιστολῇ ἡ κατ’ αὐτῶν ἔγκειται διαβολή. Ἔγραψε δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς τοῖς ἐν Γαλλίαις ἐπισκόποις περί τε τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Αὐγουστίνου πίστεως, Photius, Bibliotheca 53. 65 Ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ Ἱερώνυμος πρεσβύτερος πρὸς Κτησιφῶντα, Photius, Bibliotheca 53. 66 E. Dekkers, ‘Les traductions grecques’ (1953), 209. 67 Οὕτως Αὐγουστῖνος ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Αὐρήλιον τὸν Καρταγένης πάπαν διέξεισι, Photius, Bibliotheca 54. 68 B. Altaner, ‘Augustinus in der griechischen Kirche’ (1951), 53-4 and 73-6. I have suggested the hypothesis that more than one and up to three Greek versions of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii were made in Late Antiquity, see G. Malavasi, ‘The Greek version(s)’ (2017), 562-8. 69 Κελεστῖνος ὁ ‘Ρώμης ὐπέρ τε τοῦ θείου ἀνδρὸς καὶ κατὰ τῶν ἀνακινούντων τὴν αἵρεσιν τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις γράφων ἐπισκόποις τήν κινουμένην πλάνην ἔστησε, Photius, Bibliotheca 54. 70 Ἀλλὰ Σέπτιμος ἐπίσκοπος γράψας πρὸς Λέοντα τὸν Ῥώμης, Photius, Bibliotheca 54. 71 Πρόσπερός τις ἄνθρωπος ὡς ἀληθῶς τοῦ θεοῦ, λιβέλλους κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐπιδεδωκὼς ἀφανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἀπειργάσατο, Photius, Bibliotheca 54. 72 On the biography of John Talaia, see Charles Pietri, ‘D’Alexandrie à Rome: Jean Talaïa, émule d’Athanase au Ve siècle’, in Alexandrina: hellenisme, judaïsme et christianisme à Alexandrie. Mélanges offerts au P. Claude Mondésert, Patrimoines (Paris, 1987), 277-95, 291-5. 73 Ἀναθεματίζει δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐν τῇ πρὸς Γελάσιον τὸν Ῥώμης ἀπολογίᾳ οὐ μόνον τὴν Πελαγιανὴν αἵρεσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ Πελάγιον καὶ Κελέστιον, καὶ ἔτι Ἰουλιανόν, Photius, Bibliotheca 54. 63

132

G. MALAVASI

and of his anti-Augustinian polemic.74 However, we have to exclude not only the possibility that Photius was aware of this dependancy, but also that he recognized the Pelagian controversy as the theological context in which Theodore wrote this treatise. In fact, Photius was not able to identify the adversary of Theodore, because his name was covered by a pseudonym. It is interesting to note that Photius did not find fault with Theodore’s critique of his adversary: the main aspects of the Augustinian theology were attacked by Theodore, including the doctrine of original sin and carnal concupiscence, and these attacks were approved by Photius. However, Photius believes that in some passages Theodore was close to the errors of Nestorius and Origen. In particular he criticizes Theodore’s position on the original mortal state of Adam, whose death would be introduced by God as a punishment for his sin only in appearence in order to make mankind hate sin.75 Furthermore, Photius disagrees also with Theodore’s position in favour of the apocatastasis.76 3. Conclusion In conclusion, it is apparent that the Pelagian controversy left its mark also in the Greek speaking world from Ephesus to Photius. The council of Ephesus can be considered as the final point of the Pelagian controversy: after the condemnation at this council, Pelagianism became a universally recognized heresy and in the following centuries, both in the West and in the East, it was considered as a heretical movement to be condemned. What happened in the East is a mirror of the resolute condemnation of Pelagianism in the West. The council of Ephesus, on this regard, represents a point of no return for the so called Pelagians: after several condemnations in the West, also the Greek church, or better the whole Church, condemned them. However, this is only the ending point of a theological controversy that needs to be considered in its own historical development. As I have shown in my doctoral dissertation, before the condemnetion at Ephesus, some Eastern bishops welcomed, at least partially and temporarily, members of the Pelagian movement.77 74 Giulio Malavasi, ‘The Involvement of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Pelagian Controversy. A Study of Theodore’s Treatise Against Those who Say that Men Sin by Nature and not by Will’, Augustiniana 64 (2014), 227-60. 75 Λέγειν αὐτὸν ἀπ᾿ἀρχῆς μὲν θνητὸν πεπλάσθαι τὸν Ἀδάμ, ἐνδείξει δὲ μόνον, ἵνα μισήσωμεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, σχηματίσαι οὕτω τὸν Θεὸν ὡς διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἀντὶ τιμωρίας ἐπιτέθειται ὁ θάνατος, Photius, Bibliotheca 177. 76 Ἤρξατο μέν, φησιν, ἐμφανίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὸν δεσπότην Χριστὸν οἰκονομίας καὶ ἐν ἀρραβῶνος ἡμῖν δίδοσθαι τάξει, δίδοται δὲ τελείως καὶ ἐπ᾿αὐτοῖς ἔργοις ἐν τῇ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἀποκαταστάσει, ὑπὲρ ἧς, ἵνα τύχωμεν, καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ τὰ βρέφη βαπτιζόμεθα, Photius, Bibliotheca 177. 77 Giulio Malavasi, La controversia pelagiana in Oriente, doctoral dissertation (Padova, 2017), 7-211.

The Pelagian Controversy in Eastern Sources

133

The first bishop in chronological order is John of Jerusalem, who welcomed and defended Pelagius during his sojourn in Palestine.78 The next one is Theodore of Mopsuestia who offered shelter to Julian of Aeclanum in the so-called second phase of the Pelagian controversy, when Pelagius left the foreground and Julian became the main adversary of Augustine.79 Finally, evidence points to a supportive collaboration between Nestorius and Caelestius, though the exact boundaries of this relationship are difficult to draw due to the lack of sources.80 Even if Pelagianism was condemned also in the East, we should always remember that before this condemnation, Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian of Aeclanum found shelter among Eastern bishops. As witnessed by the sources presented in the last section of this article, the memory of Pelagianism in the East is that of a heretical movement. The initial favour that some Eastern bishops showed towards members of the Pelagian movement was completely forgotten from the sources of the following centuries and the only image of Pelagius and his followers in Greek Christianity was that of a heresy to be condemned and inserted in heresiological catalogs. Also, the knowledge of the theological issues discussed during the Pelagian controversy was almost lost during the centuries after the council of Ephesus, except some partial noticeable exceptions.

78 Id., ‘John of Jerusalem’s Profession of Faith (CPG 3621) and the Pelagian Controversy’, SP 98 (2017), 399-408 79 Id., ‘The Involvement of Theodore of Mopsuestia’ (2014), 227-60. 80 Id., La controversia pelagiana (2017), 159-67.

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse: ‘Pelagianism’ in the British and Irish Sources Raúl VILLEGAS MARÍN, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain*

ABSTRACT References to Pelagianism in sources from, or relating to, Late antique and Early medieval Britain – from Prosper of Aquitaine’s Chronicle (430s) to Rhygyfarch’s Life of David (late 11th century) and Jocelin of Furness’ Life of Kentigern (late 12th century) –, as well as the use of Pelagius’ Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of Paul by Irish writers, have led some scholars to talk about a ‘Pelagian influence’ on the 5th to early 7th centuries ‘Celtic churches’ in Britain and Ireland. Nevertheless, leaving aside the vexed question of ‘Celtic Christianity’, the notion of a ‘Pelagian influence’ on the British and Irish churches also raises problems: what did this influence consist of? Did ‘Pelagianism / Pelagian’ mean the same to all the authors who made use of this heresiological category, from Prosper to Jocelin? This communication aims at providing a relational and contextual approach to the uses of ‘Pelagianism’ by these authors.

1. Introduction ‘This is the doctrine which the British serpent vomits forth with baneful speech – doctrine steeped in the venom of the Dragon of old’.1 In his 427 Carmen de ingratis, Prosper of Aquitaine opened with these verses a versified account of the teachings attributed to Pelagius. Prosper was not the first author to dwell on the ‘Britishness’ of the ‘Pelagian heresy’: Augustine, Orosius, Jerome, and Marius Mercator – among others – also mentioned the British origin of Pelagius. As it is known, the Christian heresiological rhetoric borrowed a good deal of ethnic arguments, prejudices, and stereotypes from classical literature: Justin and Tertullian, for instance, insisted on the Phrygian and Pontic origin of Montanus and Marcion, respectively, for polemical purposes.2 * Ramón y Cajal Researcher (RyC-2017-23402, Gobierno de España, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades). 1 Dogma quod antiqui satiatum felle draconis / pestifero uomuit coluber sermone Britannus (Prosper Aquit., ingr. v. 1-2; English translation by Charles T. Huegelmeyer, Carmen de ingratis s. Prosperi Aquitani. A Translation with an Introduction and a Commentary, The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 95 [Washington, DC, 1962], 42). 2 On this see, for instance, Raúl Villegas Marín and Carles Lillo Botella, ‘Ni hereje ni reformador: Marción en la definición de la ortodoxia cristiana prenicena’, in Gonzalo Bravo and Raúl

Studia Patristica CXX, 135-151. © Peeters Publishers, 2021.

136

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

The most famous uses of ethnic prejudices against Pelagius are Jerome’s prefaces to his Commentary to Jeremiah: Pelagius was Scottorum pultibus praegrauatus;3 he had a progeniem Scotticae gentis de Brittannorum uicina, qui iuxta fabulas poetarum instar Cerberi spiritali percutiendus est claua, ut aeterno cum suo magistro Plutone silentio conticescat.4 Passages like these, along with some other references to the presence of ‘Pelagianism’ in the British Isles, have led modern scholars to point to a particular link between this alleged ‘movement’ or ‘system of thought’ and British Christianity. In the conclusions of a famous article by John Morris, for instance, we read the following: ‘There is thus some evidence, external and linguistic, to argue that Pelagianism was predominantly British in origin and development; and that it became a majority trend in British Christianity, never successfully branded as heretical, leaving its imprint on Christian thought in Britain well on in the sixth century’.5 According to Morris, this ‘Pelagian trend’ in British Christianity is well exemplified by the ‘Celtic’ monks, whom he described as ‘intense individualists, who rejected the government of tyrannical unchristian secular rulers, and with them their kept bishops and corrupt priests. They admitted no sacerdotal authority between their own will and conscience and the will of God’.6 Morris was also convinced that the English and Irish missionaries spread this ‘Pelagianizing’ form of Christianity within the monasteries of Northern Europe, thereby sowing the seed that germinated into the Protestant Reformation. John Morris was not the first scholar to develop a theory on the connection between ‘Pelagianism’ and the Isles. In 1960, John Myres construed Pelagianism as the ideology which inspired an early fifth-century British revolt against the Roman imperial regime – with its associated ‘Augustinian’ orthodoxy. According to Myres, Augustine’s views on Human dependence upon God’s gratuitous and arbitrary grace somehow reflected the corruption inherent in the Imperial system, since in the Theodosian Code the term gratia has frequently the connotations of judicial favoritism and corruption.7 The academic reception of Myres and Morris’ highly speculative hypotheses was rather negative.8 In 1959, Arnold H.M. Jones had already warned against the temptation of interpreting ancient Christian heresies as nationalist or social González Salinero (eds), Ideología y religión en el mundo romano (Madrid, Salamanca, 2017), 69-86, 73-4. 3 Hieronymus, In Hierem. 1, prol. 4, ed. Siegfried Reiter, CChr.SL 74 (Turnhout, 1960), 2. 4 Id., In Hierem. 3, prol. 4, 220. 5 John Morris, ‘Pelagian Literature’, JTS 16 (1965), 26-60, 57. 6 Ibid. 7 John N.L. Myres, ‘Pelagius and the End of Roman Rule in Britain’, JRS 50 (1960), 21-36. 8 See, for instance, Wolfgang Liebeschuetz, ‘Did the Pelagian movement have social aims?’, Historia 12 (1963), 227-41; id., ‘Pelagian evidence on the last period of Roman Britain’, Latomus 26 (1967), 436-47.

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

137

movements.9 Yet, the hypothesis of a ‘Pelagian stream’ in Late antique and Early medieval British Christianity has found advocates in more recent scholarship.10 Michael W. Herren and Shirley Ann Brown, for instance, have argued for the existence on both sides of the Irish Sea of a ‘common Celtic Church’ highly influenced by ‘Pelagianism’.11 According to Herren and Brown, this ‘Pelagian influence’ would become apparent, for instance, in the lack of ornate Christian artifacts in Britain and Ireland from the middle of the fifth century until ca. 630, which, in their opinion, would be due to the ‘Pelagian emphasis’ on the imitation of Christ’s poverty – as exemplified by the treatise De diuitiis in the so-called ‘Corpus Caspari’.12 In 2002, Gerald Bonner summed up with his customary acuity the state-ofthe-art with regards ‘British Pelagianism’: ‘We have half-a-dozen pieces of direct information, all short, upon which it has been possible to erect edifices of speculation’.13 Bonner’s sound skepticism can perhaps be pushed further, as recent scholarship on ‘Pelagianism’ has shown that this heresiological category cannot be uncritically used as a historiographical concept.14 In the following, I 9 Arnold H.M. Jones, ‘Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?’, JTS 10 (1959), 280-98. 10 Myres and Morris’ views have found some echo in popular culture too. In the 2004 movie ‘King Arthur’ (dir. Antoine Fuqua, screenplay by David Franzoni), Pelagius is presented as the spiritual instructor of the young Arthur, the man who provided him with a strong sense of freedom and personal responsibility. The film suggests that Arthur behaves in line with the teachings of Pelagius when he shows respects towards the pagan beliefs of his fair knights; when he proclaims the inborn freedom of the colons who work the lands of a Roman senator; and when he repeatedly rejects any notion of destiny – in a veiled allusion to Augustine’s doctrine of predestination. Myres’ portrait of Pelagius as the representative of ancient Roman values (‘his views appealed especially to those familiar with the older classical tradition of the Roman virtues now largely forgotten except in circles which retained a veneration for the golden past’: J. Myres, ‘Pelagius’ [1960], 34) also finds an echo on the film in the scene where Arthur is told that ‘the Rome you talk of doesn’t exist, except in your dreams’. The anti-Pelagian Bishop Germanus of Auxerre, on the contrary, is presented by the film as an unsympathetic character – an agent of the corrupt Imperial establishment. 11 Michael W. Herren and Shirley A. Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity. Britain and Ireland from the Fifth to the Tenth Century, Studies in Celtic History 20 (Woodbridge, 2002), specially 69-101. On page 100, for instance, we read the following: ‘The influence of Pelagianism in the British Isles throughout the period we are considering was substantial – indeed, “defining”’. Nowadays, however, it is widely recognised that ‘Celtic Christianity’ is a problematic category – to say the least. See, for instance, Wendy Davies, ‘The Myth of the Celtic Church’, in Nancy Edwards and Alan Lane (eds), The Early Church in Wales and the West, Oxbow Monograph 16 (Oxford, 1992), 12-21, who states that the idea of an homogeneous ‘Celtic Church’ – opposed to an homogeneous ‘Continental Church’ – is ‘unhelpful’ and ‘harmful’. For a short overview of the most recent approaches to the ‘Problem of Celticity’, see Ronald Hutton, Pagan Britain (New Haven, London, 2014), 166-71. 12 M. Herren and S. Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity (2002), 189-91. 13 Gerald Bonner, ‘The Pelagian Controversy in Britain and Ireland’, Peritia 16 (2002), 14455, 145. 14 See, most recently, Winrich Löhr, Pélage et le pélagianisme, Conférences de l’École pratique des hautes études 8 (Paris, 2015), 171-214 (the chapter entitled ‘Qu’est-ce que le pélagianisme?’); Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford, 2018), who, in pages 305-6, sharply concludes:

138

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

intend to revisit briefly the dossier concerning ‘Pelagianism’ in Britain and Ireland taking a relational, contextual, and discursive approach to the alleged pieces of evidence for it.15 As I intend to show, these texts must be treated with a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’,16 bearing in mind that the Christian heresiological rhetoric was aimed at exercising control over Christian pluralism, taxonomizing its manifestations in order to eradicate them and to impose rules and notions of orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

2. ‘Pelagianism’ and the British Isles in the Late Antique sources, from Prosper of Aquitaine to Bede The earliest testimony to the spread of ‘Pelagianism’ in Britain is the entry for the year 429 in Prosper of Aquitaine’s Chronicle, according to which, in that year, Pope Celestine sent to Britain uice sua Bishop Germanus of Auxerre to counter the Pelagian proselytism of Agricola, the son of the Pelagian bishop Severianus.17 According to Prosper, Celestine sent Germanus to Britain at the request of the deacon Palladius (ad actionem Palladii diaconi);18 quite probably, this is the same Palladius who, in 431, was consecrated by Celestine as bishop to the Irish believing in Christ.19 Pope Celestine’s interventions in Britain and Ireland are also mentioned by Prosper in his Contra collatorem.20 Although ‘If historical accuracy is the aim, the word “Pelagianism” should not be used, either as a referent to an historical group or as a theological label, or as any other type of referent, because it is inherently misleading. The term should be abandoned altogether because it introduces a faulty paradigm into every sentence in which it is used’. 15 For the theoretical grounds of this approach, see Eduard Iricinschi and Holger M. Zellentin, ‘Making Selves and Marking Others: Identity and Late Antique Heresiologues’, in E. Iricinschi and H.M. Zellentin (eds), Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 119 (Tübingen, 2008), 1-27, 20. 16 I borrow the term from Judith M. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic. God and Scripture in the Second Century (New York, 2015), 9. 17 Prosper Aquit., Epit. Chron., a. a. 429, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA, 9, Chronica minora 1 (Berlin, 1892), 341-485, 472: Agricola Pelagianus, Seueriani Pelagiani episcopi filius, ecclesias Britanniae dogmatis sui insinuatione corrupit. Sed ad actionem Palladii diaconi, papa Coelestinus Germanum Antissiodorensem episcopum uice sua mittit, et deturbatis haereticis, Britannos ad catholicam fidem dirigit. 18 Palladius was probably a deacon to the church of Auxerre sent to Rome by Germanus to obtain Roman support to his mission in Britain. For an alternative identification, see Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, ‘Who was Palladius “First Bishop of the Irish”?’, Peritia 12 (2000), 205-37. 19 Prosper Aquit., Epit. Chron., a. a. 431, 473: ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a papa Coelestino Palladius, et primus episcopus mittitur. 20 Id., C. coll., 21, 2, ed. Jérémy Delmulle, CChr.SL 68 (Turnhout, 2020), 80-1: nec uero segniore cura ab hoc eodem morbo Britannias liberauit, quando quosdam inimicos gratiae solum suae originis occupantes, etiam ab illo secreto exclusit Oceani et ordinato Scotis episcopo, dum Romanam insulam studet seruare catholicam, fecit etiam barbaram Christianam.

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

139

Prosper of Aquitaine – a zealous advocate of Augustine’s views on grace, well informed about the theological issues of the Pelagian controversy – had met Pope Celestine in Rome shortly after 429, neither these two brief entries of his Chronicle – whose first edition was published in 433 –,21 nor the parallel passage in the Contra collatorem say anything about the content of this alleged ‘Pelagian’ propaganda in Britain. Constantius of Lyon’s Life of Germanus of Auxerre, on the other hand, relates two anti-Pelagian missions of Germanus to Britain, without mentioning Pope Celestine’s involvement in them. According to Constantius, the Britons who did not accept the Pelagian teaching sought help from the Gallic bishops, who gathered in a synod and chose Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes as their champions against the heresy.22 Constantius’ account seems plausible: Victricius of Rouen’s late fourth-century visit to Britain attests to the British ecclesiastical factions’ willingness to seek mediation from their colleagues in northern and central Gaul in case of conflict.23 This said, it is beyond doubt that Germanus requested – and obtained – from the Roman church some kind of support for his British campaign.24 As already noted, even if Constantius explicitly asserts that after their first visit to the island (VG 3, 12-8), Germanus and Lupus succeeded in suppressing the heresy,25 the Lyonese goes on asserting that the resurfacing of the heresy led some Britons to call Germanus – now assisted by bishop Severus26 – back to the island (VG 5, 25-7). The historicity of this second visit has been called

21

Steven Muhlberger, The Fifth-Century Chroniclers. Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gallic Chronicler of 452 (Leeds, 1990), 56. 22 Constantius, Vita Germ. 3, 12, ed. René Borius, SC 112 (Paris, 1965), 144: eodem tempore ex Brittaniis directa legatio Gallicanis episcopis nuntiauit Pelagianam peruersitatem in locis suis late populos occupasse et quam primum fidei catholicae debere succurri. Ob quam causam synodus numerosa collecta est, omniumque iudicio duo praeclara religionis lumina uniuersorum precibus ambiuntur, Germanus ac Lupus apostolici sacerdotes. 23 Victricius, laud. sanct. 1, ed. Jacques Mulders and Roland Demeulenaere, CChr.SL 64 (Turnhout, 1985), 69-93, 70-1: nam quod ad Britannias profectus sum, quod ibi moratus sum, uestrorum fecit exsecutio praeceptorum. Pacis me faciendae gratia consacerdotes mei salutares antistites euocarunt. 24 According to Thomas Charles-Edwards, Palladius’ mission to the Irish, closely connected to Germanus’ one in Britain, was instrumental to the Roman church’s claims of primacy and independence from the Imperial power. See Thomas M. Charles-Edwards, ‘Palladius, Prosper, and Leo the Great: Mission and Primatial Authority’, in David N. Dumville (ed.), Saint Patrick, A.D. 493–1993 (Woodbridge, 1993), 1-12. 25 Constantius, Vita Germ. 3, 18, 158: conposita itaque opulentissima insula securitate multiplici, superatisque hostibus uel spiritalibus uel carne conspicuis, quippe qui uicissent Pelagianistas et Saxones, cum totius merore regionis reditum moliuntur. 26 Constantius does not mention Severus’ see, but Bede identifies him with the bishop of Trier. Severus of Trier was a disciple of Lupus of Troyes: see Luce Pietri and Marc Heijmans (eds), Prosopographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire, 4. La Gaule chrétienne (314-614) (Paris, 2013) – hereafter, PCBE, 4 –, 1755, Severus 7.

140

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

into question.27 Indeed, since Constantius, writing between 475 and 480,28 seems poorly informed about the historical details of Germanus’ life, it is possible that he doubled the visits of Germanus to Britain with the aim of expanding the biographical skeleton for the selection of miracles which forms the core of the Vita. This said, there are no decisive arguments against the historicity of the second visit. Constantius’ narrative of Germanus’ missions to Britain is rich in hagiographical commonplaces and biblical references,29 providing virtually no reliable evidence either for the nature and content of the ‘Pelagian proselytism’ in Britain or for the arguments used by Germanus and his colleagues to oppose it. Constantius’ description of the Pelagians who attended the public debate with Germanus as ‘rich men dressed in gorgeous robes’ (procedunt conspicui diuitiis, ueste fultentes),30 for instance, is purely rhetorical and cannot be used as evidence for the social background of the ‘British Pelagians’. Yet, as we will see in section 4 of this article, some of Constantius’ hagiographical tales might shed some light on what the ‘Pelagianism’ faced by Germanus might have consisted of. Besides, the fact that Bede inserted Constantius’ narrative of Germanus’ missions in his Ecclesiastical History (first visit: Hist. Ecc. 1, 17-20; second visit, Hist. Ecc. 1, 21) explains the resurfacing of the ‘Pelagian heretic motif’ in many later sources. As it is well known, Bede did not miss any opportunity to outline the Britons’ proneness to fall into doctrinal deviance,31 and their Churchmen’s failure to adduce arguments capable of refuting the dogmas of heresies such as Pelagianism.32 Indeed, ‘Pelagianism’ resurfaces in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History in 640. In that year, we are told, the pope-elect John (IV) denounced a ‘Pelagian revival’

27 See Nick J. Higham, ‘Constantius, St. Germanus and fifth-century Britain’, Early Medieval Europe 22 (2014), 113-37, for the bibliography. Higham stands for the historicity of the second visit. 28 See PCBE, 4, 521-2, Constantius 3. 29 N. Higham, ‘Constantius’ (2014), 122-34. 30 Constantius, Vita Germ. 3, 14, 148. 31 See, for instance, Beda, Hist. Ecc. 1, 8, ed. Bertram Colgrave and Roger A.B. Mynors, Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford, 1969), 34-6: mansitque haec in ecclesiis Christi quae erant in Brittania pax usque ad tempora Arrianae uesaniae, quae corrupto orbe toto hanc etiam insulam extra orbem tam longe remotam ueneno sui infecit erroris; et hac quasi uia pestilentiae trans Oceanum patefacta, non mora, omnis se lues haereseos cuiusque insulae noui semper aliquid audire gaudenti et nihil certi firmiter obtinenti infudit. 32 In his account of Germanus’ first mission, Bede adds to the passages excerpted from Prosper and Constantius the following clause: uerum Brittani, cum neque suscipere dogma peruersum gratiam Christi blasfemando ullatenus uellent neque uersutiam nefariae persuasionis refutare uerbis certando sufficerent […] (Beda, Hist. Ecc. 1, 17, 54). On Bede, ‘Pelagianism’, and heresy in general, see Alan Thacker, ‘Why did Heresy Matter to Bede? Present and Future Contexts’, in Peter Darby and Faith Wallis (eds), Bede and the Future, Studies in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland 1 (Farnham, 2014), 47-66.

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

141

in Ireland in a letter sent to Tómíne, bishop of Armagh, and some of his northern Irish colleagues.33 John’s letter was excerpted by Bede: And this also we have learnt that the poison of the Pelagian heresy has of late revived amongst you; we therefore exhort you utterly to put away this kind of poisonous and criminal superstition from your minds. You cannot be unaware that his execrable heresy has been condemned; and not only has it been abolished for some two hundred years but it is daily condemned by us and buried beneath our perpetual ban. We exhort you then not to rake up the ashes amongst you of those weapons have been burnt. For who can fail to execrate the proud and impious attempt of those who say that a man can live without sin and that, not by the grace of God, but by his own will? In the first place it is foolish and blasphemous to say that any man is without sin: it is impossible except for that one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who was conceived and brought forth without sin. For all other men were born with original sin and are known to bear the mark of Adam’s transgression, even though they are without actual sin, in accordance with the prophet’s words: ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother bring me forth’.34

Dáibhí O’Croínín has argued that what laid behind Pope John’s denunciation of Irish ‘Pelagianism’ in this letter was the disagreement between these Irish bishops and the see of Rome with regards the date of Easter for the year 641.35 With a previous letter to the Roman bishop Severin, which arrived at Rome after the pope’s death, the Irish had informed the Romans that they intended to celebrate Easter on the 1 April, which, according to the Roman Easter tables – but not to those used by the Irish –, coincided with the fourteenth moon of 33 These were Columban/Colman, bishop and abbot of Clonard; Crónán, bishop of Nendrum; Díma, bishop of Connor; Baetán, perhaps the bishop and abbot of Bangor; Crónán, abbot of Moville; Ernene, abbot of Tory Island; Laisréne, abbot of Leighlin; Sillan, bishop of Devenish; Ségéne, abbot of Iona; and Saran Ua Critain. See Charles Plummer, Baedae Venerabilis Opera Historica, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1896), 112-3, quoted by Olivier Szerwiniack, Florence Bourgne, Jacques Elfassi, Mathieu Lescuyer and Agnès Molinier, Bède le Vénérable. Histoire ecclésiastique du peuple Anglais, vol. 1 (Paris, 1999), 248, n. 193. 34 Iohannes (IV) apud Beda, Hist. Ecc. 2, 19, 200-2 : et hoc quoque cognouimus, quod uirus Pelagianae hereseos apud uos denuo reuiuescit; quod omnino hortamur, ut a uestris mentibus huiusmodi uenenatum superstitionis facinus auferatur. Nam qualiter ipsa quoque execranda heresis damnata est, latere uos non debet, quia non solum per istos ducentos annos abolita est, sed et cotidie a nobis perpetuo anathemate sepulta damnatur; et hortamur ne, quorum arma conbusta sunt, apud uos eorum cineres suscitentur. Nam quis non execretur superbum eorum conamen et impium, dicentium posse sine peccato hominem existere ex propria uoluntate et non ex gratia Dei? Et primum quidem blasphemiae stultiloquium est dicere esse hominem sine peccato; quod omnino non potest nisi unus mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus, qui sine peccato est conceptus et partus. Nam ceteri homines cum peccato originali nascentes testimonium praeuaricationis Adae, etiam sine actuali peccato existentes, portare noscuntur, secundum prophetam dicentem: ‘Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis peperit me mater mea’ (English translation in the main text by Colgrave and Mynors). 35 Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, ‘New Heresy for Old: Pelagianism in Ireland and the Papal Letter of 640’, Speculum 60 (1985), 505-16.

142

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

the month of Nissan and therefore, with the beginning of the Jewish Passover.36 On this ground, Pope John rejected the date calculated by the Irish, linking their way of fixing Easter with Judaism and with an ‘old heresy’ – Pelagianism: ‘we discovered that certain men of your kingdom were attempting to revive a new heresy out of an old one and, befogged with mental blindness, to reject our Easter in which Christ was sacrificed for us, contending with the Hebrews that it should be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon’.37 Unfair as it may seem, the same kind of heresiological argument equating divergent methods for determining the date of Easter with the ‘Pelagian heresy’ was later used by Bede in his De temporum ratione,38 and by Ceolfrith – abbot of Wearmouth-Jarrow – in a letter to Nechtan, king of the Picts (dated ca. 715),39 most probably drafted by Bede himself: Whoever argues, therefore, that the full Paschal moon can fall before the equinox disagrees with the teaching of the holy Scriptures in the celebration of the greatest mysteries, and agrees with those who trust that they can be saved without the grace of Christ preventing them and who presume to teach that they could have attained to perfect righteousness even though the true Light had never conquered the darkness of the world by dying and rising again.40 36 According to John, in condemning the Quartodeciman position, the council of Nicaea had decreed that Easter was never to be celebrated on the fourteenth day of Nissan, even if it were a Sunday. Consequently, for those who conformed to the Roman computation, the fifteenth day of the lunar month was the earliest date for Easter and the twenty-first day, the latest one. For a good introduction to the Paschal controversy in Ireland, see Thomas M. Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland (Cambridge, 2000), 391-415. 37 Iohannes (IV) apud Beda, Hist. Ecc. 2, 19, 200: scripta quae perlatores ad sanctae memoriae Seuerinum papam adduxerunt, eo de hac luce migrante, reciproca responsa ad ea, quae postulata fuerant, siluerunt. Quibus reseratis, ne diu tantae quaestionis caligo indiscussa remaneret, repperimus quosdam prouinciae uestrae contra orthodoxam fidem nouam ex ueteri haeresim renouare conantes pascha nostrum, in quo immolatus est Christus, nebulosa caligine refutantes et xiiii luna cum Hebreis celebrare nitentes. 38 Beda, De temporum ratione, 6, ed. Charles W. Jones, CChr.SL 123B (Turnhout, 1977), 2923: nam si qui plenilunium paschale ante aequinoctium fieri posse contenderit, ostendat uel ecclesiam sanctam priusquam saluator in carne ueniret extitisse perfectam, uel quemlibet fidelium ante praeuentum gratiae illius aliquid posse supernae lucis habere […] Ita etiam in eiusdem sacrificii tempore obseruando nec solis tantummodo cursum quaeritemus, quasi Deum quidem credentes sed ultra nostri curam sublimatum, iuxta eos qui dicunt nubes latibulum eius, nec nostra considerat et circa cardines caeli perambulat, nec item lunae solius plenum captemus exortum, quasi iuxta Pelagianos absque gratia superna beati esse queamus. 39 It has been suggested that King Nechtan aimed at undermining the influence of the monks of Iona over Pictish Christianity. On this purpose, he sought support from the Northumbrian church. Hence his letter to Ceolfrith, to which the abbot of Jarrow replied with the letter copied by Bede at the end of book 5 of his Ecclesiastical History. In this letter, Ceolfrith criticized the computation of Easter followed by the Irish monks of Iona. See David P. Kirby, ‘Bede and the Pictish Church’, Innes Review 24 (1973), 6-25. 40 Ceolfrith, apud Beda, Hist. Ecc. 5, 21, 544: qui ergo plenitudinem lunae paschalis ante aequinoctium prouenire posse contenderit, talis in mysteriorum celebratione maximorum a sanctarum quidem scripturarum doctrina discordat: concordat autem eis, qui sine praeueniente gratia

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

143

Bede’s heresiological assimilation of the non-Roman computation of Easter followed by some Britons and Irish with the Pelagian heresy,41 which he probably borrowed from John’s letter to Tómíne and his colleagues, also explains why his narrative of Augustine of Canterbury’s first meeting with the Briton bishops ‘who did not keep Easter Sunday at the proper time’ clearly follows the pattern of the public debate between Germanus of Auxerre and the Pelagians as described by Constantius of Lyons.42 Later Irish annalist sources, such as the so-called Annals of Clonmacnoise, also took up the heresiological association of Pelagianism with ‘heteropraxis’ with regards to Easter computation.43

3. ‘Pelagian heretics’ in Medieval hagiography As stated above, the inclusion of Constantius’ narrative of the British missions of Germanus of Auxerre in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History accounts for the recurrence of the topos of the ‘Pelagian heretic’ in later hagiographical sources. Rhygyfarch’s late eleventh-century Vita s. Dauidis, for instance, describes the Christi se saluari posse confidunt, qui et si uera lux tenebras mundi moriendo ac resurgendo numquam uicisset, perfectam se habere posse iustitiam dogmatizare praesumunt. As shown by this passage, for Ceolfrith / Bede, at the heart of the Pelagian heresy lies the assertion that Men / the Church can attain perfection without God’s prevenient grace, thereby referring to Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice and not to Augustine’s notion of praeueniens gratia working within the human soul. This is a good example of the fluidity in the definitions of ‘Pelagianism’ after 431. 41 It is worth remembering here that after the synod of Whitby (664), the Northumbrian church abandoned the Northern Irish computation of Easter followed by the monks of Iona and conformed to the Roman computation (see Beda, Hist. Ecc. 3, 26). 42 See Beda, Hist. Ecc. 2, 2, 134-6: interea Augustinus adiutorio usus Aedilbercti regis conuocauit ad suum colloquium episcopos siue doctores proximae Brettonum prouinciae […] Non enim paschae diem dominicum suo tempore sed a quarta decima usque ad uicesimam lunam obseruabant, quae conputatio lxxxiiii annorum circulo continetur; sed et alia plurima unitati ecclesiasticae contraria faciebant […] Sanctus pater Augustinus hunc laboriosi ac longi certaminis finem fecit, ut diceret: ‘Obsecremus Deum, qui habitare facit unianimes in domu Patris sui, ut ipse nobis insinuare caelestibus signis dignetur, quae sequenda traditio, quibus sit uiis ad ingressum regni illius properandum. Adducatur aliquis eger, et per cuius preces fuerit curatus, huius fides et operatio Deo deuota atque omnibus sequenda credatur’. Quod cum aduersarii, inuiti licet, concederent, adlatus est quidam de genere Anglorum oculorum luce priuatus. Qui cum oblatus Brettonum sacerdotibus nil curationis uel sanationis horum ministerio perciperet, tandem Augustinus iusta necessitate conpulsus flectit genua sua ad Patrem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, deprecans ut uisu caeco quem amiserat restitueret, et per inluminationem unius hominis corporalem in plurimorum corde fidelium spiritalis gratiam lucis accenderet. Nec mora, inluminatur caecus, ac uerus summae lucis praeco ab omnibus praedicatur Augustinus. Tum Brettones confitentur quidem intellexisse se ueram esse uiam iustitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus, sed non se posse absque suorum consensu ac licentia priscis abdicare moribus; unde postulabant ut secundo synodus pluribus aduenientibus fieret. 43 Heinrich Zimmer, Pelagius in Irland: Texte und Untersuchungen zur patristischen Literatur (Berlin, 1901), 22-4.

144

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

fight of its sixth-century hero44 against ‘Pelagianism’. To counter this threatening heresy, we are told, a synod was convened at Brefi (now Llanddewi Brefi, Dyfed), which gathered 118 bishops and a crowd of priests, abbots, kings, and laymen. The attendance was such that nobody was able to make himself heard until a hill rose up under David’s feet, enabling him to preach against the heresy. According to Rhygyfarch, a second synod – the ‘Victory synod’ – was needed to confirm the condemnation of ‘Pelagianism’ (Vita s. Dauidis, 49-55). Rhygyfarch’s narrative, which emphasizes the miraculous and has nothing to say about the arguments advanced either by the ‘Pelagians’ or by the ‘orthodox’ David, clearly draws on the ‘Germanus material’ provided by Constantius and copied by Bede. Indeed, Rhigyfarch mentions Germanus’ missions to Britain when he describes the spread of Pelagianism in the heart of Wales.45 Also, at a time when Canterbury threatened the autonomy of the Welsh church, the ‘antiPelagian narrative’ of Rhygyfarch’s Life of David perhaps aimed at demonstrating the ability of the Welsh episcopate to safeguard on their own the integrity of the Catholic faith.46 Significantly enough, after successfully preaching against the heresy – we are told –, David ‘is constituted archbishop of the entire British nation, by the unanimous consent of the bishops, kings, princes, nobles, and of those of every rank; his city is also declared the metropolis of the whole country, so that whosoever ruled it should be regarded as archbishop’.47 Jocelin of Furness’ Life of Kentigern follows a similar agenda. This Life was written sometime between 1175 and 1199 at the request of Bishop Jocelin of Glasgow, a Cistercian who championed the independence of the Scottish Church from the English one and succeeded in obtaining papal bulls which declared the church of Glasgow ‘daughter’ of the Roman see, thereby granting it independence from York and Canterbury. As Helen Birkett has rightly pointed out, Jocelin’s narrative of Kentigern’s encounter with a ‘Pelagian 44

On the ‘historical David’ – died ca. 600 –, who can hardly be recovered from the late hagiographical material, see Jonathan M. Wooding, ‘The Figure of David’, in J. Wyn Evans and Jonathan M. Wooding (eds), St. David of Wales. Cult, Church and Nation (Woodbridge, 2007), 1-19. 45 Ricemarchus, Vita David. 49, ed. Richard Sharpe and John R. Davies, ‘Rhygyfarch’s Life of St. David’, in J.W. Evans and J.M. Wooding, St. David of Wales (2007), 107-55, 142: quia uero post sancti Germani secundo auxilia Pelagiana heresis, sue obstinationis neruos, ueluti uenenosi serpentis uirus, intimis patrie compaginibus inserens, reuiuiscebat. 46 Gilbert Markus, ‘Pelagianism and the “Common Celtic Church”’, Innes Review 56 (2005), 165-213, 170-1. 47 Ricemarchus, Vita David. 53, 146: deinde omnium ore benedictus atque magnificatus, cunctorum consensu episcoporum, regum, principum, optimatum, et omnium ordinum tocius Brittannice gentis archiepiscopus constituitur, nec non ciuitas eius tocius patrie metropolis dedicatur, ita ut quicunque eam regeret, archiepiscopus haberetur. The English translation in the text is by John W. James, Rhigyfarch’s Life of St. David. The Basic Mid Twelfth-Century Latin Text with Introduction, Critical Apparatus and Translation (Cardiff, 1967), 45-6 – slightly modified. On the political implications of the cult of Dewi/David in Medieval Wales, see, for instance, David Stephenson, Medieval Wales, c. 1050-1332. Centuries of Ambiguity (Cardiff, 2019), 91-2.

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

145

preacher’ in chapter 28 of the Life also aimed at demonstrating that the Glaswegian church founded by Kentigern was able to face the threat of heresy.48 This was particularly relevant at a time when the Cathars and the Valdensians had aroused renewed concerns about orthodox belief and practice.49 As in the case of the Life of David, the ‘Pelagian’ in the Life of Kentigern – whose narrative is also set in the sixth century – simply embodies ‘the Other’, the potential deviant, an unspecific threat to unity. Rhygyfarch and Jocelin chose to label this ‘Otherness’ as ‘Pelagianism’ just because Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, with its account of the ‘anti-Pelagian mission’ of Germanus of Auxerre taken from Constantius’ Life, was virtually their sole source of information about post-Imperial Britain at their disposal.

4. Late antique British ‘Pelagianism’: revisiting the sources Now, let’s turn our attention back to Germanus of Auxerre’s mission, which lays at the foundation of the traditions about ‘British Pelagianism’ and the edifices of speculation built upon them. As we have already seen, neither Prosper of Aquitaine in his Chronicle and Contra collatorem nor Constantius of Lyon in his Vita Germani have anything to say about the content of the ‘Pelagian propaganda’ faced by Germanus. Consequently, we can only guess about what they meant with ‘Pelagianism’. First, we must keep in mind that – as Jérémy Delmulle has recently shown – Prosper’s Contra collatorem – published almost contemporary to the first edition of his Chronicle – was aimed at convincing the new Pope Sixtus III to take a clear stance against John Cassian and the Provençal critics of Augustine, whom Prosper accused of ‘crypto-Pelagianism’. Therefore, it suited Prosper’s agenda to expand on the anti-Pelagian actions taken by Sixtus’ predecessor, 48 Iocelinus, Vita Kentegerni, 28, ed. Alexander P. Forbes, Lives of S. Ninian and S. Kentigern Compiled in the Twelfth Century, The Historians of Scotland 5 (Edinburgh, 1874), 211-2: cum autem peracto officio, domi reuerteretur uir sanctus, occurrit ei inter ceteros clericus quidam peregrinus eloquentissimus. Hunc uir Dei intuens, urenti oculo perstrinxit; et quis esset, et unde, et ad quid in partes illas uenisset, inquisiuit. At ille predicatorem ueritatis, et uiam Dei in ueritate docentem, se esse respondit, et pro saluatione animarum ad partes istas aduenisse asseruit. Sed cum sanctus colloquium conseruisset cum eo, conuicit eum Pelagiane pestis inebriatum ueneno. Volens igitur eum potius redire, quam perire, ut pernitiose secte abrenuntiaret, sedulo commonuit, et conuenit; sed pectus eius saxeum ad conuertendum inuenit. Tunc sanctus a sua diocesi illum expelli precepit; et quod filius mortis, et mors utriusque hominis in ianuis esset, denuntiauit. Memorauit etiam illud Apostoli, hereticum hominem post secundam ammonitionem deuita, sciens quam subuersus est huiusmodi. Isdem filius gehenne a finibus illis expulsus recessit; et quoddam flumen transsire temptans aquis suffocatus ad tartara descendit. Et sanctissimi uiri uaticinium ueridicum, argumento tam euidenti, fide dignissimum ostendit. 49 Helen Birkett, The Saints’ Lives of Jocelin of Furness. Hagiography, Patronage and Ecclesiastical Politics (York, 2010), 259-67.

146

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

Celestine, perhaps even to the point of exaggerating their relevance.50 This said, we should not rule out in advance the possibility that the episode of Agricola in Britain was a sequel of the Pelagian controversy and the condemnation of ‘Pelagianism’ by the African and Roman churches and Emperor Honorius in 418. In the aftermath of the official condemnations of ‘Pelagianism’, the conditions for the readmission into the Catholic church of former ‘supporters of the heresy’ were sometimes a matter of contention.51 On the other hand, in a famous article, Robert A. Markus suggested that ‘British Pelagianism’ might simply be identified with a pre-Augustinian theology of grace.52 Now, if we assume that by the late 420s, this pre-Augustinian theology was rejected and condemned as ‘heretical’ by the British ecclesiastical faction supported by Rome and the Gallic church, then we must conclude that Augustine’s theology of grace (Markus’ ‘new Continental orthodoxy’) had gained powerful local supporters in the island at a very early date.53 Unfortunately, the question of the extent to which Augustine’s works were known in fifth and sixth centuries Britain cannot be resolved from the available evidence.54 There are other ways to approach this evidence. It is widely acknowledged, for instance, that in the course of ecclesiastical power squabbles, accusations of heresy were frequently used as a powerful weapon against the rivals. And by 429, ‘Pelagianism’ was the most recent of all heresies – and one genuinely ‘Western’. For this very same reason, it is also possible that Christian practices and beliefs rooted in Britain which were perceived as deviant by other British Christians were labelled by them as ‘Pelagian’ in order to stigmatize them and to exclude them from Christianity, even if they had nothing in common with the views hold by Pelagius, Caelestius, and Julian of Aeclanum. In my opinion, some details in Constantius’ account of Germanus’ missions to Britain provide some evidence supporting the latter hypothesis. As it is known, the public debate between Germanus and Lupus and their Pelagian opponents ends in a sort of ordeal in which Germanus gives back sight to the ten-year-old daughter of a uir tribuniciae potestatis attending the debate 50 See Jérémy Delmulle, Prosper d’Aquitaine contre Jean Cassien. Le Contra collatorem, l’appel à Rome du parti augustinien dans la querelle postpélagienne (Barcelona, Roma, 2018), specially 225-37. 51 See, for instance, Norman W. James, ‘Who were the Pelagians found in Venetia during the 440s?’, SP 22 (1989), 271-6; Raúl Villegas Marín, ‘En polémica con Julián de Eclanum. Por una nueva lectura del Syllabus de gratia de Próspero de Aquitania’, Augustinianum 43 (2003), 81-124. 52 Robert A. Markus, ‘Pelagianism: Britain and the Continent’, JEH 37 (1986), 191-204 (an article prompted by the publication of Edward A. Thompson’s book Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain [Woodbridge, 1984]). 53 R. Markus, ‘Pelagianism’ (1986), 200, suggests that London was the stronghold of the Augustinian theology in the island. 54 On Augustine’s reception in Late antique Britain and Ireland, see David Lambert, ‘Patterns of Augustine’s Reception, 430-c. 700’, in Karla Pollmann (ed.), The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, vol. 1 (Oxford, 2013), 15-23, 21-2.

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

147

– the Pelagians had previously acknowledged that they were unable to help the child: ‘after which Germanus, filled with the Holy Spirit, invoked the Trinity and took from his neck the reliquary that hung at his side and in full view of everybody put it to the eyes of the child. Immediately it expelled their darkness and filled them with the light of the truth’.55 Admittedly, the Vita Germani is full of miracles, exorcisms, and healings. In most cases, the saint performs them through prayer (VG 2, 7; 2, 9; 2, 10; 7, 36; 7, 38) and blessed oil (2, 8; 3, 13) and bread (2, 11; 6, 29). Indeed, this British episode is the sole case where Germanus operates a healing through contact with the relics of the saints which – for some reason – he had brought with him from the Continent.56 Moreover, Constantius let us know that, after defeating the Pelagians, Germanus and Lupus visited the shrine of saint Alban in Verulamium to give thanks to God through him.57 Constantius’ account has to be supplemented with the Passio Albani, which has Germanus placing the aforementioned relics in the grave of Alban and taking away a piece of land stained with the blood of the martyr.58 It has been suggested that the shortest – and the oldest one now preserved – version of this Passio (the ‘E’ text) was drafted in Auxerre to be used in the liturgy of the church which Germanus built and dedicated to Alban.59 The role played by the saints and their relics in the accounts of Germanus’ missions to Britain which were drafted in Gaul might 55 Constantius, Vita Germ. 3, 15, 152: ac deinde Germanus plenus Spiritu sancto inuocat Trinitatem et protinus adhaerentem lateri suo capsulam cum sanctorum reliquiis collo auulsam manibus conprehendit eamque in conspectus omnium puellae oculis adplicauit; quos statim euacuatos tenebris lumine ueritatis impleuit. The English translation in the main text is by Frederick R. Hoare, The Western Fathers. Being the Lives of Martin of Tours, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Honoratus of Arles and Germanus of Auxerre (New York, 1954), 299 – translation slightly modified. 56 Admittedly, Constantius also asserts that after Germanus’ death in Ravenna, Empress Galla Placidia took possession of the capsula cum sanctis which Germanus carried with him (Constantius, Vita Germ. 8, 43, 200). 57 Id., Vita Germ. 3, 16, 152: conpressa itaque peruersitate damnabili eiusque auctoribus confutatis animisque omnium fidei puritate conpositis, sacerdotes beatum Albanum martyrem acturi Deo per ipsum gratias petiuerunt. 58 Passio Albani 7, 21-2, ed. Wilhelm Meyer, Die Legende des h. Albanus des Protomartyr Angliae in Texten vor Beda (Berlin, 1904), 60. This passage of the Passio Albani was inserted by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History. See Beda, Hist. Ecc. 1, 18, 58-60: ubi Germanus omnium apostolorum diuersorumque martyrum secum reliquias habens, facta oratione, iussit reuelli sepulchrum pretiosa ibidem munera conditurus, arbitrans oportunum ut membra sanctorum ex diuersis regionibus collecta, quos pares meritis receperat caelum, sepulchri quoque unius teneret hospitium. Quibus depositis honorifice atque sociatis, de loco ipso, ubi beati martyris effusus erat sanguinis, massam pulueris secum portaturus abstulit, in qua apparebat cruore seruato rubuisse martyrum caedem persecutore pallente. Quibus ita gestis, innumera hominum eodem die ad Dominum turba conuersa est. 59 Richard Sharpe, ‘The Late Antique Passion of St. Alban’, in Martin Henig and Phillip Lindley (eds), Alban and St. Albans: Roman and Medieval Architecture, Art and Archaeology, The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions 24 (Leeds, 2001), 30-7. See also Ian Wood, ‘Germanus, Alban and Auxerre’, Bulletin du Centre d’études médiévales d’Auxerre 13

148

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

perhaps suggest that some controversies over the cult of the saints, their intercessory role, and the miraculous properties attributed to their relics lie behind Germanus’ visit to the island.60 It is worth keeping in mind that Victricius of Rouen also claimed to have visited Britain to serve the interests of the martyrs: uobis intra Britannias obsequebar, et oceani circumfluo separatus uestro tamen detinebar officio.61 On the other hand, by the mid-seventh/early eight century, Pope John IV, Abbot Ceolfrith, and Bede the Venerable did not hesitate to label as ‘Pelagian’ insular practices of computing Easter which they rejected as deviant. We might wonder if the use of this ‘heresiological link’ dates back to Germanus’ times. As it is widely known, the climax of Germanus’ first mission to Britain is the episode of the ‘Alleluia battle’, with Germanus commanding a British army against the Saxons and the Picts. Germanus – we are told – obtained a uictoria sine sanguine by stationing his army in a valley surrounded by hills and making his soldiers shout ‘Alleluia’ as the enemy forces approached: the echoes from the hills increased the sound and made the Saxons and Picts believe that the British army was bigger than it really was (VG 3, 17-8; Beda, Hist. Ecc. 1, 20). It is worth remarking that, according to Constantius, the ‘Alleluia battle’ took place shortly after the Easter solemnities, when the greater part of the army of the British was still fresh from the baptismal font: It was the season of Lent and the presence of the bishops made the sacred forty days still more sacred; so much so that the soldiers, who received instruction in daily sermons, flew eagerly to the grace of baptism; indeed, great numbers of this pious army sought the waters of salvation. A church was built of leafy branches in readiness for Easter Day, on the plan of a city church, though set in a camp on active service. The soldiers paraded still wet from baptism, faith was fervid, the aid of weapons was thought little of, and all looked for help from heaven […] When the Easter solemnities had been celebrated, the army – the greater part of it fresh from the font – began to take up their weapons and prepare for battle and Germanus announced that he would be their general.62 (2009), 123-9, who suggests that Germanus invented the martyr Alban and that his passio was ‘a propaganda document for use against the Pelagians’. 60 On the cult of saints in late Antique Britain, see Richard Sharpe, ‘Martyrs and Local Saints in Late Antique Britain’, in Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe (eds), Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West (Oxford, 2002), 75-154; Michael M. Garcia, The Cult of Saints in Late Antique Britain (Amsterdam, 2015). 61 Victricius, Laud. sanct. 1, 70. On the Christian criticism towards the cult of relics, see Robert Wiśniewski, The Beginnings of the Cult of Relics (Oxford, 2019), 180-202, who, on p. 190, states: ‘We can assume that in Late antique Christianity there was indeed a constant undercurrent reluctant to accept the cult of relics, only occasionally emerging to the surface of our evidence’. 62 Constantius, Vita Germ. 3, 17, 156 (= Beda, Hist. Ecc. 1, 20, 62): aderant etiam quadragesimae uenerabiles dies, quos religiosiores reddebat praesentia sacerdotum, in tantum ut, cotidianis praedicationibus instituti, certatim ad gratiam baptismatis conuolarent; nam maxima deuoti exercitus multitudo undam lauacri salutaris expetiit. Ecclesia ad diem resurrectionis dominicae frondibus contexta conponnitur et in expeditione campestri instar ciuitatis aptatur. Madidus baptismatis procedit exercitus, fides feruet in populo, et contempto armorum praesidio diuinitatis exspectatur auxilium […] Cumque emensa sollemnitate paschali, recens de lavacro pars maior

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

149

The ‘Paschal background’ to the battle might perhaps suggest that Germanus’ British mission – or, at least, one of his two missions – was prompted by controversies regarding the proper date of Easter. If such was the case, the legend of the ‘Alleluia battle’ might have been forged to demonstrate that God endorsed the date of Easter that Germanus had succeeded to impose to the British churches involved in this controversy.63 On the other hand, according to Prosper, Pope Celestine sent Germanus to Britain at the request of deacon Palladius, quite probably the same Palladius who, two years later, was consecrated by the Pope as bishop to the Irish. Dáibhí O’Croínín has attributed to this Palladius an Easter table described by the Irish bishop Cummian in his Paschal letter of c. 632-633. According to O’Croínín, the prologue to this Easter table was also copied in a collection of computational tracts used by Bede, whose archetype would have been drafted in the south of Ireland c. 658. Both Cummian and the collection used by Bede attributed this Easter table to Patrick, but this attribution is called into question by O’Croínín on the argument that the continental origin of the table is beyond doubt. The Irish scholar defends Palladius’ authorship of the table basing primarily on its continental provenance, but relying, too, on the connected hypotheses that Palladius mission to Ireland ended in failure and that some authentic Irish traditions regarding him were later merged in the ‘Patrick material’. All this would explain why this Easter table, despite being attributed to the most venerated Patrick, was not followed by most of the Irish churches.64 If O’Croínín is right – and I have to admit that his arguments are far from being conclusive –,65 Palladius’ Easter table would attest to his interest on computational issues and would provide some interesting insights on the historical background to Germanus and Palladius’ presence in Britain and Ireland: since Palladius, who was involved in Germanus’ mission to Britain, seems to have been concerned with the proper computation of Easter, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that this sort of controversy lie behind Germanus’ visit to the exercitus arma capere et bellum parare temptaret, Germanus ducem se proelii profitetur. English translation in the text by F. Hoare, The Western Fathers (1954), 300-1. Most likely, Germanus’ freshly baptized soldiers in Constantius’ account were Christians (catechumens), and not pagans: otherwise, Contantius would have mentioned the fact. See E. Thompson, Saint Germanus (1984), 15-25; R. Hutton, Pagan Britain (2014), 285. 63 Compare the role played by the ‘Alleluia battle’ in Constantius’ Life of Germanus with Bede’s account of the death of Egbert in book 5 of his Ecclesiastical History. According to Bede, Egbert died on Iona on 24 April 729. This was the first time that the monks of Iona, whom Egbert had convinced to conform to the Roman computation of Easter, celebrated this feast on that day. In this coincidence, Bede sees God’s hand at work: mira autem diuinae dispensatio prouisionis erat, quod uenerabilis uir non solum in pascha transiuit de hoc mundo ad Patrem, uerum etiam cum eo die pascha celebraretur, quo numquam prius in eis locis celebrari solebat (Beda, Hist. Ecc. 5, 22, 554). 64 Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, ‘New Light on Palladius’, Peritia 5 (1986), 276-83. 65 See David N. Dumville, ‘Bishop Palladius’ Computus?’, in id. (ed.), Saint Patrick, A.D. 493– 1993 (1993), 85-8.

150

R. VILLEGAS MARÍN

island and that already in 429, ‘deviant’ British computational systems came to be heresiologically linked to the most recent of all heresies, ‘Pelagianism’. 5. Concluding remarks In the past decades, some scholars have tried to fill the conspicuous void of evidence as to the exact nature of the ‘Pelagian influence’ on Britain and Ireland. It has been argued, for instance, that the inclusion of a filiation formula in ogham and ogham/Latin funeral inscriptions in Ireland and south-western Britain, dating to the fifth and sixth centuries, might be an indication of a ‘Pelagian stance’ on the issue of original sin, the mention of the father of the deceased being a way of asserting that no sin is transmitted from parents to offspring.66 Also, from a passage in Adomnán’s Life of Columba, it has been inferred that the church on Iona kept sabbath, and this practice has been linked to a ‘legalist’ and ‘Scripturalist’ form of Christianity ‘genuinely Pelagian’.67 These interpretative frameworks – rightly criticized by Brinley Rees, Gerald Bonner, and Gilbert Markus –68 are very close to those used by ancient heresiologists such as Pope John IV and Bede the Venerable – and perhaps, too, Palladius and Germanus ca. 429 –, who did not hesitate to label as ‘Pelagian’ divergent ways of computing Easter, although neither Pelagius nor any of the authors usually classified as ‘Pelagian’ ever said a single word about Easter reckoning. Likewise, Pelagius never advocated for the observance of the sabbath, and there is no ancient source attesting that the use of filiation formulae in funeral inscriptions was ever regarded as a ‘Pelagian’ practice. As shown by these examples, modern scholars resorting to heresiological categories to analyze and taxonomize the diversity of ancient Christianity, in the British Isles as in elsewhere, run the risk of acting as ‘modern heresiologists’. As Daniel Boyarin has stated, ‘the heresiologists of antiquity were performing a very similar function to that of the students of comparative religion of modernity, conceptually organizing “human diversity into rigid, static categories as one strategy for simplifying, and thereby achieving some cognitive control over the bewildering complexity of a frontier zone”’.69 In my opinion, the use of the category ‘Pelagianism’ by modern historians does not shed light on the diversity of beliefs and practices classified as ‘Pelagian’ by the ancient sources: to 66

John D. Bu’lock, ‘Early Christian memorial formulae’, Archaeologia Cambrensis 105 (1956), 133-41. 67 M. Herren and S. Brown, Christ in Celtic Christianity (2002), 106-10. 68 Brinley R. Rees, Pelagius. A Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge, 1988), 115-7; G. Bonner, ‘The Pelagian Controversy’ (2002), 154-5; G. Markus, ‘Pelagianism’ (2005). 69 Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia, 2004), 14, quoting David Chidester, Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in Southern Africa (Charlottesville, 1996), 22-3.

The Traps of the Heresiological Discourse

151

the contrary, it obscures them. A correct approach to the complexity of ancient Christianity demands the rejection – or, at least, a very cautious use – of the categories inherited from the ancient heresiology, such as ‘Pelagianism’.70

70 The use of Pelagius’ Commentary on the Pauline Epistles by British and Irish authors has also been advanced as evidence for the ‘Pelagian influence’ on Insular Christianity. The early ninth-century Book of Armagh, for instance, quotes ‘Pilagius’’Commentary several times. By the mid-ninth century, Sedulius Scottus also made extensive use of the Commentary, explicitly acknowledging his debt to Pelagius in the marginal notes which indicate the authors he copied. In addition to this, Pelagius’ Commentary is mentioned in four ninth-century catalogues of monastic libraries, some of them connected to the Irish mission in the continent – as was the case of Sankt Gall. On this, see – among other studies – Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford, 1927), 205-13; David N. Dumville, ‘Late Seventh- or Eighth-Century evidence for the British transmission of Pelagius’, Cambridge Medieval and Celtic Studies 10 (1985), 39-52. This evidence, however, must be set in the wider context of the manuscript transmission of Pelagius’ works. As Ali Bonner has recently pointed out, there are no less than 132 extant copies of the Epistula ad Demetriadem, more than 200 copies of the libellus fidei, 86 copies of the Epistula ad Celantiam, 85 copies of the De uirginitate, and 25 copies of the De diuina lege (A. Bonner, The Myth [2018], 290). As for the use of these works by ‘unsuspected’ authors, it will suffice to say here that Caesarius of Arles, frequently presented as the ‘champion of Augustinism’ who in 529 presided over the synod of Orange which put an end to a century of Gallic controversies over Augustine’s views on grace and predestination, made extensive use of Pelagius’ Letter to Demetrias in his famous Letter 21 to his sister, abbess Caesarea, as well as in his sermons 36, 59, 90, 91, 121, and 238. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius, many Provençal thinkers hold that the Church had neither approved all of the Augustinian views on grace and predestination, nor condemned all of Pelagius’ views, thereby paving the way for a critical reception of Pelagius’ writings within the monastic milieus. This critical reception of Pelagius in Provence can be inferred, for instance, from Prosper Aquit., ing. v. 136-9, 50: an uero excerptis quaedam quae parte recisa / suscipias, cordisque sinu purgata recondas? / dic igitur quidnam inde probes, quid uero refutes, / et de damnatis quid sit quod crimine soluas. Admittedly, Pelagius’ parenetical works were in most cases transmitted under the names of Augustine and Jerome, which contrasts with the explicit attribution of the Commentary to Pelagius by ninth-century Irish authors as well as by some library catalogues. Yet, copyists might well have assumed that the ‘Pelagius’ who authored the ‘orthodox-looking’ Commentary was not the ‘heresiarch’ condemned in the fifth century, but an ‘orthodox’ author – one of the two homonymous sixth-century bishops of Rome (Pelagius I, 556-61; Pelagius II, 579-90), for instance. Be it as it may, with regards the Irish evidence, Joseph Kelly has pointed out: ‘Most of the Irish use of Pelagius was selective and for explication of certain passages. Nowhere was Pelagius used to the exclusion of his adversaries Augustine and Jerome’ (Joseph F. Kelly, ‘Pelagius, Pelagianism and the Early Christian Irish’, Mediaevalia 4 [1978], 99-124, 115).

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706