The Historians of Late Antiquity (34 page)

The conflict which arose between John and the bishop Severian is also worth examining as an example of varying treatments of the same material by Socrates and then Sozomen. The manuscripts of Socrates’ history preserve two different versions of the conflict, apparently representing the two separate editions of the work (6.11). The first version is considerably more favorable toward John. Severian was a substitute preacher for John, and his success, reported regularly to John by his trusted advisor Serapion, evoked feelings of envy in John. Serapion and Severian grew to dislike one another, and Serapion one day did not stand as the bishop walked past. Socrates, in this first version, denies being able to ascertain
whether Serapion’s behavior was disrespectful or inadvertent. Severian became incensed, and despite John’s urgings and the condemnation of a council, Severian refused to forgive Serapion and became estranged from John. The other version of the story preserved in Socrates’ manuscripts presumably represents the second edition, since Sozomen seems dependent upon it. In this version, Severian’s snub was unquestionably an insult. Severian, exasperated, swore, “If Serapion should die a Christian, then Christ did not become a man!” Serapion went to John and reported that Severian had claimed that “Christ did not become a man!,” and rather than the repeated conferences and councils of the first account, here John immediately reacted to the apparent blasphemy and sent the bishop into exile. Sozomen, faced with a story suggesting that John had unfairly overreacted, attempted to restore John’s honor in his account (8.10). In Sozomen’s version, Serapion reports Severian’s entire statement to the bishop, who considers it blasphemous even without emendation, since it would imply that Christ might possibly not have become man should Serapion abjure Christianity. This clumsy attempt to excuse John’s unreasonable behavior reveals the lengths to which Sozomen will go to ensure that his John is free from fault.

The church historians also narrate the conflict which arose between John and Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria. Theophilus is portrayed as an opportunist, willing to use vague charges of heterodoxy against opponents for nefarious purposes. Socrates claims that Theophilus had at first been a supporter of Origen’s theory of the incorporeal nature of God, but that he had switched to the opposite, anti-Origenist theory for crass, political reasons (6.9). Out of disgust toward Theophilus’ position, Socrates includes a long digression supporting Origen and praising the brilliance of his ideas (6.13). Socrates also draws a sharp distinction between Proclus, the excellent contemporary bishop of Constantinople, and the persecutor Theophilus (7.45). Sozomen is less tolerant of doctrinal deviation than Socrates, and he omits any defense of the questionably orthodox Origen and plays down the role of ideology in Theophilus’ behavior. Neither Socrates nor Sozomen had emphasized the role of Theophilus in an earlier exploit, the destruction of the temple in Alexandria called the Serapeum, which might, perhaps, have interfered with their later portrayal of his villainous behavior (Soc. 5.16; Soz. 7.15). By contrast, Theodoret lauds Theophilus as “intelligent and courageous” in his description of the destruction of the temple (5.22.1). Perhaps for this reason
Theodoret’s abbreviated account of the trials of John begins with a hesitant note that, owing to his respect for the virtues of John’s enemies, he will refrain from even mentioning their names (5.34).

The empress Eudoxia, who clashed several times with John, is another one of the bishop’s persecutors whose name Theodoret passes over. Socrates reports that John gave a sermon directed against the evils of women, which was understood by the empress to be directed toward her personally (6.15.1–4). Socrates implies that the empress was not paranoid, but that John did in fact mean for her to be the object of his diatribe. Sozomen, on the other hand, says that he cannot know whether the empress’ anger was justified (8.16.2). John’s congregants, he claims, attached “riddling” meanings to his words. Sozomen is also more favorable to John in his treatment of the affair of the statue. The empress was being honored by a silver statue and raised to the rank of “Augusta,” a controversial idea which had been rejected by the western emperor Honorius. The erection of the statue south of the church was celebrated “with dances and mimes,” says Sozomen, and John charged that this sort of behavior reflected poorly on the church, thus angering Eudoxia (8.20). This is a softening of the account of Socrates, who points out that while the bishop would have been acting properly if he had politely asked the officials to desist, John instead railed against the empress with abusive language (6.18.1–5). This is one of several occasions where Socrates makes it clear that, despite his admiration for John, at times he finds the bishop to blame for his difficulties.

John’s various conflicts eventually resulted in a trial
in absentia
conducted by his enemies at the Constantinople suburb known as “The Oak” in 402. The bishop was exiled, recalled by the empress, but then exiled once again in 403. John was sent to a distant town in western Armenia, where he remained for three years, and then died in 407 while undertaking a forced march to an even more distant place of exile. In Constantinople, supporters of the exiled bishop stayed in contact with him and agitated for his return, refusing to take communion with the new bishop and instead meeting outside the city walls. The three church historians treat events after John’s exile and death with sharp differences in emphasis. At John’s departure, riots had resulted in the burning of the church and the senate house. Socrates briefly reports the fire and then declines to provide details of the tortures suffered by the followers of John who had been responsible (6.18.19). Sozomen, however, claims that it was unclear who was responsible for the blaze (8.22.5). He then provides the details, which Socrates had
thought it best to omit, on the tortures suffered by various partisans of John after the fire (8.23–4).

Contemporaries disagreed whether the disasters which struck John’s enemies and the city of Constantinople were the result of divine displeasure at the bishop’s maltreatment. While Socrates is neutral on the question, Sozomen and Theodoret see these disasters as sure signs of the retributive justice of God. Not long after his participation in the deposition of John, Cyrinus was compelled to have his legs amputated because of gangrene. The death of Eudoxia and a major hailstorm were also, says Socrates, attributed by “some” to John’s exile. But others, Socrates reveals, felt that the bishop deserved his fate because of his high-handed behavior, which included the removal of churches from the Novatians, the sect from which Socrates drew many of his informants (6.19). Sozomen provides no balancing statement, but merely a list of the disasters which befell the opponents of John (8.27.1–2). He also attributes a Hunnic invasion and Alaric’s invasion of Illyricum to the disordered state of the church (8.25). Theodoret, too, while continuing his policy of refusing to provide specific names, claims that most of the guilty were indeed punished (5.34.10).

Sozomen provides in full, and Theodoret in abbreviated form, the strife between the eastern and western churches which resulted from John’s deposition, while Socrates omits it (Soz. 8.26, 8.28; Theod. 5.34.10–11). If Sozomen’s work were complete, it would surely contain the account of the return of John’s remains to Constantinople in 438, which plays a significant role in the conclusion of both Socrates’ and Theodoret’s histories. For Theodoret it serves as an opportunity to praise the piety of the reigning emperor Theodosius II, whom his history otherwise would not reach. Socrates’ account of the return of John’s remains gives more credit to the bishop Proclus than to Theodosius II, and he includes a lament that Origen is still not respected after two hundred years, while John is after only thirty-five (7.45). More important for Socrates, the return of John’s remains and their installation in the church are one of a constellation of events with which he ends his history, all of which signal an end to conflict of some sort: the conversion of Jews, the accession of Proclus, the pious reign of Theodosius, the destruction of the barbarians, the marriage of Valentinian and Eudoxia, and finally a pilgrimage by the empress Eudocia to Jerusalem. Thus for Socrates the restoration of the partisans of John into the church represents an end to the entire range of disputes and problems which he has chronicled in his history.

Monasticism

The deserts of the Levant and of Egypt in antiquity had long been home to religious dissidents as well as to those fleeing economic, social, or legal problems in more settled areas (Chitty 1966; Rousseau 1985; Brown 1988: 213–58; Markus 1990: 157–97). In the first century AD, for example, Philo of Alexandria described Jews who had withdrawn from city life to live contemplative lives of labor in the country. Other pagan, gnostic, and Manichaean precedents existed for similar rejections of urban life. The taxation reforms of Diocletian, which encouraged communal responsibility for land, probably further sparked new experiments in communal living arrangements.

The first major movement of Christians to the desert came in the third century, as a response to the persecutions of Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian. Antony, perhaps the most famous monk, heard his priest read from the book of Matthew (Matt. 19: 21) one Sunday around the year 270: “Go, sell what you possess and give to the poor.” Taking the message literally, Antony distributed his family’s inheritance to the poor and moved to the outskirts of the village, and in years to come retreated deeper and deeper into the desert. The monastic movement grew quickly through the fourth century, and a proliferation of monastic rules and communities allowed for many different models of monastic life. With increasing numbers came increasing political clout, and the organized power of monks began to be felt in the church and in the wider world of the empire.

The growth of monasticism challenged the established power of the church hierarchy and of the civil authorities. The late antique church historians are, as a group, generally very favorable toward the position of the monks. Rufinus and Theodoret wrote separate works celebrating the deeds of the monks, and Sozomen was close to the monks of his native land of Gaza. Only Socrates, with his more favorable attitude toward imperial power, hesitates to lavish unstinting praise on monastic communities.

Historians had several different models by which to explain monastic behavior. Sozomen and Theodoret commonly refer to the monastic life as the true “philosophy.” Sozomen considered the philosophy of the monks to be “the most useful thing given to men by God” (1.12.1). He further explains that monastic philosophy ignores some elements of learning, such as mathematics and oratory, in favor of studying virtue, and that the monk demonstrates his virtue not by argument but by action (1.12.1). He says that he has included monastic founders and their successors in his
history to provide models for emulation by his readers (1.1.19). Some pagan as well as Christian philosophers in antiquity had long been associated with ascetic behavior. Sozomen demonstrates a peculiarly late antique use of the concept of philosophy, however, which considers only the body and soul of the monk. The intellect is so tangential to Sozomen’s use of the term “philosophy” that some of his philosophers were illiterate, such as John of Egypt (6.28.1–2). Another monk whom Sozomen describes, Theonas, had a deep understanding of Roman, Greek, and Egyptian learning, but in an act of self-abasement did not speak for thirty years (6.28.3).

Monasticism was often portrayed as an attempt to return to the original condition of man prior to the Fall. While sexual continence was one aspect of this return to Eden, late antique historians are more likely to emphasize the tremendous abilities of monks to abstain from food, following a literal interpretation of Genesis which saw Adam’s consumption of the apple as the cause of his separation from God (Brown 1988: 220). Socrates writes that one of the founders of Egyptian monasticism, Ammoun, abstained from wine and oil and ate only rarely (4.23.11). More radically, Sozomen says that John of Egypt ate nothing but herbs, roots, and water (6.28.2) and that the monks of Nisibis eschewed bread, meat, and wine, and ate only grass (6.33.1–2). The monk Ammonius of Scetis ate nothing treated by fire except for bread throughout his entire life (6.30.3). Historians also demonstrate the return to Edenic simplicity by describing the ability of monks to mingle with wild animals. Rufinus’ brief comments on Antony mention that he mingled with the beasts (10.8), and he adds an anecdote from the life of Macarius, who once healed a baby hyena and was rewarded with gifts by the hyena’s mother (11.4). Despite Zeugmatos’ blindness, Theodoret says, he was a successful herder with no difficulty keeping wolves from his flocks (4.28.2).

The ability of monks to perform miracles also demonstrated that they possessed the powers of the Christians of the apostolic age. For Rufinus, the monks perform “signs and wonders” like those of the apostles (11.8), including the curing of blindness and of shriveled limbs (11.4; Thélamon 1992). Sozomen says that Macarius had raised a man from the dead to prove the possibility of resurrection to a skeptic (3.14.2). He also tells of the healings and exorcisms of the monk Julian, who lived near Edessa (3.14.29), and of the activities of Martin of Gaul, who performed miracles like the apostles (3.14.41).

Basil of Caesarea divided monks into two classes. Some lived in close-knit communities under a rule like that devised by Pachomius in Egypt. Other monks were more devoted to individual excellence, like the “athletes of God” whom Theodoret described in his
Religious History
. The former type of monk was more common in Egypt and the west, while the latter was particularly prominent in Syria and the east. In practice, of course, these distinctions did not always hold for individual monks, and the late antique historians do not often stress these differences in living arrangements in their surveys of monastic “superstars.” Sozomen discusses Pachomius and the thousands of monks who lived in his community (3.14.4–17). Pachomius’ monastic rule was presented to him by an angel on a tablet, which Sozomen claims still existed in his own time. This rule closely regulated the activities and duties of the monks. These monks wore distinctive garments: their tunics, for example, lacked sleeves, to remind them to be slow to allow their hands to do evil, and they wore a hood like that of a nursing infant, to remind them to be pure as a baby (3.14.7–8). Monks not bound by a formalized rule performed more radical forms of self-denial, such as Hilarion of Palestine, who lived in a cell too small to stand in or lie down in fully (Soz. 3.14.21–8) or Theodoret’s Acepsemas, who spent sixty years in his cell without speaking to or seeing another person (Theod. 4.28.1).