Clerical Opposition to St. John Chrysostom in Constantinople and in Neighbouring Provinces

By J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz

Source: Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 208-216.

 

Theophilus would not have succeeded in mobilizing so formidable an attack on Chrysostom if there had not been a great deal of latent hostility. After so many generations have felt sympathy and admiration for the personality of John Chrysostom, it is difficult to believe that he was disliked by many of his contemporaries, and not only the wicked, jealous, or ambitious. But there is plenty of evidence of hostility among the clergy of Constantinople and neighbouring provinces. These were the people whom the four dissident bishops could most easily organize into a pressure group against their bishop. The charges brought against Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak show that his ecclesiastical administration had been extremely contentious. He had-so it was claimed-unjustly dismissed a deacon for striking a servant. [1] He had been abusive of some of his clergy, describing them as dishonourable, corrupt, capable of anything, and not worth three obols. [2] He had written a slanderous pamphlet bringing his clergy into disrepute. [3] He had allowed clerics to be tried in public courts and to die in prison. [4] A number of charges concern his financial administration. [5] To most of us the charges seem trivial, as they did to contemporaries at Rome. [6] But this does not mean that they seemed trivial to the clergy of Constantinople: in fact one can be sure that Theophilus and the other bishops masterminding the trial would not have accepted (or perhaps helped to compile) [7] this particular charge-sheet, unless they had thought that it would win them support and do damage to Chrysostom. It is clear even from the sympathetic accounts of the ecclesiastical historians and Palladius that Chrysostom's government of the Church of Constantinople left many people discontented. He was a strict disciplinarian. He expelled a considerable number of clerics from the Church. He appointed the stern and unpopular deacon Serapion as his second in command. [8] He tried to prevent the clergy from living under the same roof with their housekeepers, usually dedicated virgins of good family. [9] This arrangement was evidently widespread. It seems to have been related to the ideals of Eustathius of Sebaste one of the leaders of the ascetic movement in Asia Minor. [10] In this branch of the monastic movement women sought to overcome the distinctiveness of their sex by themselves becoming as much as possible like sexless men, cutting their hair, wearing masculine clothing, and sometimes living in mixed monasteries of men and women. [11] The chaste cohabitation of male and female couples was another way in which ascetics could achieve a state in which 'there is neither male nor female'. [12] Eustathius of Sebaste was a close ally of Macedonius, [13] Arian bishop of Constantinople, and patron of an Eustathian form of monasticism in the city. [14] The συνείσακτοι, were therefore well established at Constantinople, and Chrysostom's attempt to suppress them caused widespread indignation. [15] So, right at the start of his episcopate, he was involved in a controversy which was related to the much more serious conflict he was to have with the monks of Constantinople. [16]

Chrysostom had overhauled the finances of the Church of Constantinople in a way that was resented. He personally intervened regularly in the way the funds of the Church were spent. [17] He checked the extent to which the clergy kept the offerings of the faithful. There is no evidence to assess how far he was trying to subordinate the minor churches to the Great Church of Constantinople – if such was his aim at all. [18] He certainly cut expenditure in the bishop's household and transferred the money saved to the upkeep of a hospital. Presumably this caused redundancies among the household staff, as the men dismissed from the household were not necessarily the same as the doctors, cooks, and celibate workers whom he appointed to the hospital. [19] He abolished episcopal banquets, which had provided perquisites for the church's stewards (οἴκουροι). [20] Chrysostom gave very high priority to helping the poor. He refused to use marble which his predecessors had bought for the decoration of the Holy Apostles, and sold it.  [21] He also sold many valuable items from the treasury of the church. [22] The men who had looked after finance under his predecessor considered this irresponsible and improvident – or worse. At any rate, both items figured among the charges at the Synod of the Oak, and Arsacius, brother of the late bishop Nectarius, gave evidence against John on the charge of selling valuables. [23] Chrysostom was accused of having sold an inheritance left to the Church by a lady called Thecla [24] and also failing to produce accounts for his expenditure of ecclesiastical revenues. [25] It is obvious that there was great dissatisfaction with the financial side of Chrysostom's administration.

Hostility to John Chrysostom was by no means restricted to members of his clergy. There is evidence that the monks of Constantinople were to a large extent against him. We have no satisfactory account of the origin of this antagonism, because the fact of it was as embarrassing to Palladius as an apologist for Chrysostom, as it was to the biographers of the monks Isaac and Hypatius, who wrote after John had been rehabilitated. [26] Nevertheless, there can be no question about the hostile attitude of the Constantinopolitan monks. [27]

Palladius described Isaac as the leader of false monks, who spent all his time abusing bishops, and as one of the principal conspirators against John. [28] In fact Isaac was very unlikely to represent only himself when he took so prominent a part in the attack on Chrysostom. [29] At the trial Isaac produced his own list of seventeen charges, [30] and he was one of the men who brought the final summons for John to appear before the Synod. [31] One of the charges was that Chrysostom had caused a lot of unpleasantness to Isaac personally. [32] Sozomen explains the cause of this hostility:

John had several disputes with many of the monks, particularly with Isaac. He highly commended those who remained in quietude in the monasteries and practiced philosophy there, but the monks who went out of doors and made their appearance in the city he reproached and regarded as insulting philosophy. For these causes he incurred the hatred of the clergy and of many of the monks, who called him a hard, passionate, morose, and arrogant man. They therefore attempted to bring his life into disrepute, by stating confidently that he would 'eat with no one, and that he refused every invitation to a meal'. [33]

It is significant that while our sources mention Isaac as leader of the false monks they do not mention any corresponding leader of the good monks. The ascetics belonging to John's party, that is, Olympias and her home of dedicated virgins, [34] the Gothic monks living on the property that had belonged to Promotus, [35] and the Tall Brothers and their sympathizers [36] were, none of them, typical Constantinopolitans. There were no mass demonstrations by monks in favour of Chrysostom to compare with the violent rioting of monks to prevent his return from his first exile. [37] It is also significant that one of Chrysostom's principal enemies among the bishops was Acacius of Beroea, a Syrian like Isaac, and an ex-monk highly respected by the monks of his native province. When Chrysostom was on his way into exile, he was actually attacked by monks as he was staying at Caesarea in Cappadocia. [38] There is every reason to believe that the monks were against Chrysostom.

Unfortunately we have no account written from the monks' point of view. Most of the monks were probably illiterate, and if literate, were not concerned with writing. The oldest hagiographic source, Callinicus' Life of Hypatius, written about 447-50, [39] i.e., after the rehabilitation of Chrysostom, is carefully neutral between Isaac and Chrysostom. Each is given a paragraph of praise. Not a word is said of the conflict between them, or of any part that Hypatius himself might have played in those troubles. [40] Incidentally the early part of the Life amply illustrates the informality of monasticism at Constantinople around 400, and this helps to explain the antagonism between those uncontrolled monks and their administratively active bishop. In his Constantinopolitan writings Chrysostom occasionally mentions monks with approval. But the references are not to urban monks. The monks are described as 'those of the hills', [41] the 'brothers of the hills', [42] 'those who dwell in the mountains', [43] 'those who have embraced life in the desert'. [44] The passages look like nostalgic memories of the hermits of the hills on the desert edge around Antioch. [45] He says nothing either in praise or blame that might be applicable to monks roaming the streets of the capital.

So the history of the conflict between Chrysostom and the monks of Constantinople has to rely heavily on the passages of Sozomen already cited and some inferences based on scraps of very interesting but totally inadequate evidence on the nature of monasticism at Constantinople. Dagron has pointed out that monasticism at Constantinople was started by Eleusius and Marathonius, assistants of the semi-Arian bishop Macedonius, and was strongly influenced by the ideas of Eustathius of Sebaste. It had features which some contemporaries, and certainly the leaders of the more disciplined and controlled monasticism of later years, found discreditable. The theology might be semi-Arian. [46] Some monasteries contained both men and women. There was little discipline. Monks moved in and out of monasteries, changed monasteries, retired from monastic life almost as it pleased themselves, certainly without reference to any ecclesiastical authority. They wandered among the urban population. They had a strong social conscience. [47] While the founders and financial supporters of monasteries belonged to the official class the bulk of the monks were ordinary people, who like much of the population of the city were recent arrivals from the provinces. [48]

One can see that the monks might be considered a threat to public order - indeed they were. They also offered a challenge to any bishop who took a monarchical view of the government of his Church. After all, they were largely outside his jurisdiction. Sozomen suggests that this was precisely the point where they clashed with Chrysostom. The behaviour of the monks at Constantinople did not correspond to what Chrysostom thought proper. He tried to confine monks to monasteries and to subject them to the control of their bishop. This provoked resentment. Dagron goes as far as to interpret Chrysostom's charitable foundations as an attempt to transfer welfare work from monks to the episcopal Church. [49] There is no evidence for this motive. That the monks of Constantinople maintained hospitals or other social institutions is an inference from what is known of the monks of Eustathius of Sebaste. But Chrysostom's own passionate interest in helping the poor went back to his Antioch days and was certainly not simply a reaction to the charitable works of the monks of Constantinople. [50]

It is difficult to estimate the importance of Chrysostom's conflict with the monks since we know so little about their numbers and influence. According to Callinicus there existed crowds of monasteries in and around Constantinople, each with around 50 monks, at the turn of the century. [51] If this was so, a conflict between monks and bishops would cause endless disturbances of a kind which would seriously worry the administration. We know that the opposition of the monks of Constantinople was to contribute significantly to the fall of Nestorius thirty years later. [52] We simply lack the evidence to assert that the monks' contribution to the fall of Chrysostom was comparable. But it is likely.

The disaffected monks certainly were natural allies of Theophilus, and therefore made his task of building up opposition to Chrysostom much easier. Just as Chrysostom was the natural protector of the Tall Brothers, the intellectual monks of Egypt, so Theophilus was the natural ally of the ordinary monks of Constantinople. After all, he seems to have quite deliberately chosen to side with the unsophisticated. [53]

It is certainly not a coincidence that two of the most prominent laymen among the opponents of John Chrysostom, the general Saturninus, [54] and Aurelian, [55] twice praetorian prefect, had close links with the monk Isaac. Saturninus had given him the land for his first cell, and indeed built the cell itself. [56] Aurelian arranged for Isaac to be buried in the martyrium of Stephen which he had built. [57] Perhaps the body of Isaac was a substitute for relics of the body of Stephen himself which Aurelian had failed to obtain. [58] The ability of monks to combine with ordinary people to make an extremely powerful pressure group had already been demonstrated in the events leading to the abdication from the see of Constantinople of Gregory of Nazianzus. [59] In antagonizing the monks Chrysostom had made formidable enemies.

Chrysostom's clerical enemies were unfortunately not restricted to Constantinople and its immediate environs. In the first quarter of 402 [60] John travelled to Ephesus in answer to an invitation by the local clergy, and proceeded to exercise patriarchal authority in the ecclesiastical province of Asia in a way which was unprecedented, and extremely controversial. [61] Since the Council of Constantinople of 381 the bishop of Constantinople had enjoyed a 'seniority of honour' second only to that of the bishop of Rome, [62] but he had no unambiguously recognized regular jurisdiction even over the bishops of the cities of the diocese in which Constantinople was situated,

Thrace, [63] let alone the bishops of the diocese of Asia. The outcome was certainly dramatic. Invited to consecrate a new bishop of Ephesus, Chrysostom travelled to Ephesus and convoked a council of seventy bishops. [64] He also expelled Novatian and Quartodeciman sectarians from a number of churches. [65] Finally, on his way home, he replaced the bishop of Nicomedia in the diocese of Pontus. [66] Chrysostom was asserting the disciplinary authority of the bishop of Constantinople over the bishops of neighbouring dioceses. [67] It is clear that he did this with the full consent and backing of the emperor. For he was able to offer deposed bishops the consolation that they would probably receive immunity from curial service, [68] a privilege which would require the imperial signature. Moreover, only the emperor could provide any armed force needed to enforce the decisions of Chrysostom's synod. The depositions and consecrations decided at Ephesus angered and worried very many people. Citizens naturally resented the imposition of a bishop. The Nicomedians wanted Gerontius back, [69] and there were riots against Heraclides, the newly appointed bishop of Ephesus. [70] Bishops must have been deeply worried by such empire-building on the part of the bishop of Constantinople. Where would it end? Events showed that many bishops did become hostile to Chrysostom. For the time being the emperor was with Chrysostom, but perhaps not wholeheartedly: after all, a year earlier he had prevented Chrysostom from going to Ephesus to depose its bishop. [71] But if Chrysostom were ever to lose imperial support his unpopularity with many bishops would be extremely serious. After all, the future of an accused bishop would be decided by his fellow bishops sitting in synod. [72]

Chrysostom's way of life did not help to reconcile those he had alienated. He preferred solitude to sociability. He evidently made a habit of dining alone. [73] His motives were admirable: to spend the Church's money on any other object than the poor was sacrilege. [74] He was of course very busy. In addition to carrying out his duties as an administrator and preacher with extreme conscientiousness he was also a prolific writer. No doubt he thought he had better uses for his time than communal dining. Furthermore, as a result of prolonged asceticism in his youth he had acquired a weak stomach which could not stand elaborate food. The fact remains that his dining habits made it much more difficult for people, whether clergy or laymen, to meet him. This was bound to cause resentment. People expected to be able to meet their bishop in order to call on his assistance and patronage. [75] Patronage was required of a bishop. Moreover conversation over a meal has always been a good way of discussing contentious situations, and calming passions aroused by them. Chrysostom's zeal produced lots of such situations, but his way of life made it more difficult to discuss them with the people involved. His aversion to sociability was listed among the accusations of the Synod of the Oak, and Palladius felt obliged to include a very long defence of it in his Dialogue. [76] The solitary habits of Chrysostom made it easier for the visiting bishops and Theophilus to isolate him and to organize a strong pressure group for his deposition, and indeed to turn a large part of the clergy of Constantinople against him. [77]

Now the existence of a large body of ecclesiastical opinion, including a significant number of bishops, was something the imperial government woold take into account. In accordance with a tradition going back to Constantine, Christian emperors felt responsibility for the discipline and unity of the Church, but preferred to base their policy on the advice of ecclesiastics, and especially of councils of bishops. [78] If it happened that the Church spoke with two voices, it was left to the emperor to decide which to support and enforce. This was the situation in the case of Chrysostom. The Church was divided. The bishop of Constantinople had fervent supporters as well as determined opponents. The emperor had to make up his mind between them. In a situation like this he would consult with his officials, especially those who would be concerned with enforcement of any decision reached. [79] Unless the emperor was a man of strong personality, holding strong views on the issue concerned, the opinions of the great secular officials were obviously going to be very influential. Arcadius was not a strong emperor, and on the subject of Chrysostom he seems to have been uncertain what course to follow. So the advice of the officials is likely to have been decisive.

 

NOTES

1. Pall. Dial. 22–4; Socr. vi. 7, 13; Soz. viii. 11–12; J. N. D. Kelly (1975) 243–5, 259–61.

2. Dial. 24–5; Socr. vi. 9; Soz. viii. 13.

3. Dial. 26.

4. K. Holl (1928) 327.

5. Jerome Ep. 98, translating Theophilus’ Easter letter of 402, has no reference to the summons.

6. See above, p. 118.

7. Alan Cameron (1987) 349–50 with ref. to PG lii. 421 (Latin) and A. Wenger, ‘L’homélie de saint Jean Chrysostome à son retour d’Asie’, REB xix (1961) 110–23 (Greek text).

8. Jerome Ep. 98.

9. Ibid. 98. 23.

10. Dial. 26 (p. 43. 10).

11. P. C. Baur (1929–30) ii. 184.

12. Dial. 26 (p. 43. 14).

13. Ibid. (p. 43. 15).

14. Ibid. pp. 43. 21 ff. Photius Bibl. 59. 18 a, 18 b, 19 a: Chrysostom charged with having caused imprisonment of the accusers of the Tall Brothers.

15. Dial. p. 43. 19.

16. Jerome Ep. 90.

17. Soz. viii. 15.

18. RE vi. 193 s.v. Epiphanius 3.

19. Socr. vi. 15; Soz. viii. 16.

20. ‘Martyrdom’ 480 a–b, cited by F. van Ommeslaeghe (1979) 150.

21. Socr. vi. 15; Soz. viii. 16.

22. Dial. 30 (p. 50. 25).

23. Not dated in sources. Autumn 430 according to P. C. Baur (1929–30) ii. 202.

24. Dial. 9 (pp. 9. 16 ff.).

25. Ibid. pp. 9. 25 ff.

26. G. Karo and other pupils of F. Buecheler, eds. Callinicus, Vita S. Hypatii (Leipzig, 1895) xiii–xv proved that Isaac the enemy of Chrysostom was identical with the father of monasticism at Constantinople. AD 383, which according to the Vita Isaacii, AASS May, vii. 258d was the year of Isaac’s death, was the year when his successor Dalmatius entered the monastery. Isaac almost certainly died after 3. 12. 415, for he was buried in Aurelian’s martyrium of St Stephen, which could hardly have been built before the body had been found. On this E. D. Hunt (1982a) 211–18 and Alan Cameron and others (1989). But the Novatians had a church of St Stephen in 404 (Soz. viii. 24).

27. See the important G. Dagron (1970), esp. 263.

28. Dial. 21.

29. On Vita Isaacii, AASS May, vii, see R. Snee (1985).

30. Photius Bibl. 59 (18b. 33 ff.).

31. Dial. 40.

32. Photius Bibl. 59 (19a. 28).

33. Soz. viii. 9, translation by C. D. Hartranft in vol. 2 of the Postnicene Fathers series.

34. A.-M. Malingrey, ed. Jean Chrysostome, Lettres à Olympias et la Vie anonyme d’Olympias (Paris, 1968) 418 ff.

35. John Chrys. Ep. 5, 14, 207.

36. Soz. viii. 11 ff.; Socr. vi. 7; Pall. Dial. 23 ff. Bibliography: G. Dagron (1970) 259 n. 152. Doctrines and intellectual background: A. Guillaumont (1962).

37. T. E. Gregory (1973) 61–83.

38. John Chrys. Ep. 14. 2.

39. G. J. M. Bartelink, Callinicos, Vie d’Hypatios, Sources Chrétiennes 177 (Paris, 1971) 11–12.

40. G. J. M. Bartelink, Callinicos, Vie d’Hypatios, 11.

41. Hom. VII. 4 in Act. Apost. (PG lx. 68).

42. Hom. XIII. 4 in Act. Apost. (PG lx. 110).

43. Hom. X. 4 in Hebr. (PG lxiii. 87).

44. Hom. XXXIV. 3 in Hebr. (PG lxiii. 236).

45. But Isaac and the bishops Antiochus, Severianus, and Acacius were all Syrians.

46. Soz. iv. 27; an example: ibid. ix. 2. The Macedonian origin of Constantinopolitan monasticism is surely the reason why so little was remembered about it. Maybe the real importance of Isaac lay in that he was an Orthodox follower of the Nicaean creed (Soz. vi. 40) and that he persuaded other monks to accept it too. Episcopal discipline was another matter.

47. On ‘Eustathian’ monasticism at Constantinople see G. Dagron (1970), J. Gribomont (1957). For a description of monastic life see Callinicus, Life of Hypatius, editions cited nn. 26 and 39 above.

48. G. Dagron (1970) 255.

49. G. Dagron (1970) 264.

50. P. C. Baur (1929–30) i. 312–16; R. Brändle (1979).

51. V. Hypatii 11. 1.

52. T. E. Gregory (1979) 129–43.

52. Soz. viii. 11.

54. PLRE i s.v. Saturninus 10; his widow continued the enmity.

55. Ibid. s.v. Aurelianus 3.

56. V. Isaacii 4. 11.

57. Ibid. 4. 18.

58. Alan Cameron and others (1989) cite extract from an otherwise unpublished Life of Isaac cited by F. Nau in Revue de l’orient chrétien xi (1906) 199 ff.

59. G. Dagron (1970) 262; Greg. Naz. Ep. 77. 1.

60. For date see Alan Cameron (1987), correcting P. C. Baur (1929–30) ii. 127. Chrysostom was away over 100 days, returning soon after Easter. See Oratio post reditum (PG lii. 421).

61. G. Dagron (1974) 466–9.

62. Mansi iii. 560.

63. G. Dagron (1974) 458–9.

64. Pall. Dial. 47 (p. 82): 16 bishops deposed, according to Theophilus; Soz. viii. 6: 13 bishops; Dial. 47 (p. 83. 6): 6 bishops.

65. Socr. viii. 11.

66. Soz. viii. 6. Pansophius, former tutor of Eudoxia, was appointed.

67. According to Soz. viii. 6 bishops were deposed in Lycia, Phrygia, and Asia, as well as Nicomedia in Pontus.

68. Pall. Dial. 51 (p. 51. 16).

69. Soz. viii. 6.

70. Socr. vi. 11 (alternative version). He was a pupil of Evagrius Ponticus and a former monk of Scetis (Soz. viii. 6), and therefore close to the ‘Tall Brothers’.

71. Pall. Dial. 49 (p. 86. 22).

72. Mansi iii. 560–64; V. Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople (Istanbul 1932–) i. 4, no. 5.

73. Photius Bibl. 59 (18 b): charge 25; Pall. Dial. 39–45 is a lengthy defence.

74. Dial. 40 (p. 70. 4).

75. A. H. M. Jones LRE 915. On the use and abuse of meals and other forms of social intercourse between governor and governed, see Lib. Or. 51 and 52.

76. See n. 73 above.

77. Dial. 9 (p. 8. 27).

78. J. Gaudemet (1958) 457–60; see also above, p. 162.

79. See A. H. M. Jones LRE 361.