JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND HIS TIME VOLUME ONE PART ONE ANTIOCH: The Early Years BY REV. CHRYSOSTOMUS BAUR, O. S. B. Translated by Sr. M. Gonzaga, R. S. 1k This text has been scanned to file without having been checked for scanning errors. To go to the beginning of the text use word search BEGIN TEXT or go to Page 151 in this reader program (press the key 151 times) B0CHERVERTRIEBSANSTALT Posttach 461, FL - 9490 Vaduz, Europa [Exclusive Sales Agent: Notabie & Academic Books P. O. Box 470, Belmont, MA {USA) 021781 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND HIS TIME ISBN 3-905238-11-X VOLUME ONE: PART ONE ANTIOCH: THE EARLY YEARS Volume 1: Part One Antioch: The Early Years Volume 1: Part Two Antioch: The Later Years Volume 11: Part One Constantinople: The Early Years Volume 11: Part Two Constantinople: The Later Years 62) Copyright 1988 by Buchervertriebsanstalt All Rights Reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a n y retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. TO THE MOST REVEREND LORD ABBOT OF ETTAL WILLIBALD WOLFSTEINER O.S.B. IN COMMEMORATION OF THE FIFTIETH YEAR OF HIS PRESTHOOD WHO ONCE, AS PRIOR OF SECKAU, GAVE ME THE NAME OF CHRYSOSTOM D.D.D. Nihil osostat: ANDREAS MOORE, L.C.L., CENSOR DEPUTATUS Imprimatut: E. MORROGH BERNARD, Vlc. GEN. Vltestmonasterii, die 26 Julii, 1958 FOREWO1tD I O TIIE SECOND EDITION THE first edition has been out of print for years. The reason that the second has had to wait so long for its appearance is due, first, to the well-known circumstances of the time, and second, to the fact that the author has mean-while been occupied by other tasks for fully ten years. But at last, in the year 1932, shortly before the political closing of the Curtain, it was finally permitted me to visit the places in the East where Chrysostom had lived and labored; even the place where he died. That was for me the most glorious recompense for all the weary labors which had preceded it. Meanwhile, surprisingly, much more has been written about St. Chrysostom; not so much about his personal life and its events, as about his position on certain dogmatic, pedagogical, social-ethical and similar questions. In spite of difficult post-war conditions, I was able to find important literature in Graz, Innsbruck and Rome, and to utilize it as far as was necessary and advantageous. A few notes of general application would not be out of place here. One can certainly hold individual opinions as to what be-longs in a " biography " and what does not. At any rate as was remarked by one who at that time was still a very young investigator long researches on the numerous genuine and spurious homilies and writings of Chrysostom have no place there. If it is objected that many questions from the first edition remain unsolved, this also holds good in the second edition. My revered teacher, Professor Cauchie (Lowen) admonished me, with good reason, that one should not assume, through easy hypotheses, the appearance of certainty and security, which is not actually present. The well-known Bollandist, P. Hippolyte Delehaye (Les legendes hagio-graphiques 206), praised his predecessors because " ils se sont abstenus, generalement, d'essayer de resoudre les ques-tions insolubles." After all, several hundred years of peace will yet have to pass before the last word can be said on the vii viii Foreword to the Second Ed ition life of Chrysostom, his writings, real and spurious, and his teachings. Another critic says that I have made Chrysostom too white, and his opponents, for instance Theophilus, too black. The "fault " in the Chrysostom tragedy was " to be sought more in the various coincidences of human fate, than in individual conduct." Finally, that I had sought to unite " scientific and devotional ends," which apparently is not permitted. As con-cerns the last, I think that at least in the second volume, more unedifying than edifying occurrences are reported. That the political, economic and social relations into which a man has been born, can be of great infiuence on his destiny, is impor-tant, and I myself have emphasized that clearly enough (vol. I, 398). However, the way in which the individual deals with these fateful opportunities is a matter of his own free determination. To justify the actions of a Theophilus, a Severian, and other historical personalities on the ground of " the entanglements of fate " seems to me to be compelling the historian to become a writer of fiction. As to what the final distribution of the shades of black and white may be, I may perhaps refer to the foreword of the first edition; but you may be assured that it has been my earnest effort to present history in accordance with the facts, as demonstrable from the sources. But if an author, especially a contemporary such as Palladius, shows himself indignant at a manifest injustice, that is not a proof of " partisanship." A historian or biographer also has the right to call good good and bad bad. Today one might well consider the ethical standards of Chrysostom as historically sound values and truths, which have their ancient privileges in the domain of history and knowledge. At any- rate, for all the personalities concerned in the tragedy of Chrysostom, they were lawful and binding, and formed, in their judgment, the only permissible ethical standards. So, obviously, thought the author of the Dialog, to whom Ed. Schwartz (Palladiana 188) attributed more authority and reliability than to a Socrates or even a Sozomen. Likewise P. Ubaldi (Appunti . . . 224 f.) called this author " esatto e fedele storico " (loc. cit. 284) and declared his characterization of Theophilus to be no exaggera-tion. See also H. Moore, The Dialog. A still more severe Foreword to the Second Edition ix judge of Theophilus was G. Grtitzmacher, Hieronymus II so: " A conscienceless, born intriguer, imbued with but one thought, the advancement of his power in the hierarchy, Theo-philus pursued his aim coldly and energetically." At any rate, Theophilus, in later times, would have been able to offer effective competition to a Richelieu or a Talleyrand. Nor-man H. Baynes, " Alexandria and Constantinople, A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy," in the Journal of Egyptian Arch-aeology 72 (1996) 148, speaks of "the relentless brutality of Theophilus " and calls him (p. 150) " a man of violence who knew no scruples, but who was also a consummate diplomat, and knew how to bide his time." A third theological critic indeed granted me " an unusually methodical training," but then stated that I had investigated Chrysostom "without a sufficiently critical eye. In reading the second volume one becomes ever more strongly impressed by the feeling that Chrysostom was not qualified for the post of Archbishop of Constantinople, because he did not feel at home in the atmosphere of the court, was imprudent in his speech and in his dealings, and strove for impossible ends." Indeed, " he brought about, unknowingly, an alliance among his enemies, because he did not possess the art(! ) of playing off one against another because he was no diplomat." Now, if Chrysostom had been a Byzantine diplomat, he would have practised the " art " of playing off one against another, and so Chrysostom would not have been Chrysostom neither would the contemporary world nor the aftertime have been able to look with admiring awe at the towering moral grandeur of this man, who seemed so great for the very reason that he was so different from the others, from the " diplomats" and the intriguers of his time. Chrysostom outwardly was vanquished, but he remains a moral conqueror in the judgment of the whole world, above all of the Greek-Byzantine world. It will not do, to make purely external results a yardstick for the judgment of a personality. On this question, Palladius (Dial. 1 8) and St. Nilus (Letter I, 3og = SIG 79, 1 93) have called attention to what the critic has unfortunately passed over. Fortunately, Chrysostom was not a " diplomat " in the sense in which the critics used the word; he was a character of unusual stature. St. Augustine, who was almost his contem- x Foreword to the Second Edition porary, and certainly the greatest of the Latin Fathers of the Church, calls him " excellentis gloriae sacerdotem.''l In the twentieth century, the Protestant professor H. Lietzmann writes: "Chrysostom, according to modern opinion, is the most charming personality among ail the Greek Christian Fathers."2 Palladius might have repeated here the exhortation which he gave the critics of Chrysostom in his time: M~ 7 47roofxov TOVS HST f 7tSK~ 0f US TnV T@V aysuv oLa~ aMovTas 7rappr1atav. 8 1. Contra Julianum VI, 7 (Pl. ~ 5, 1512-13). 2. Realencyclopadie IX. 2 18 Halbbd. 1825. 3. Dial. 18 (47, 66; ed. Norton 118, 16-17). FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION I HAVE read more than a thousand of his sermons, from which pours an inexpressible sweetness. I have been enraptured with him from my youth, and I listened to his voice as though it were the voice of God. And I thank him for what I know and am." (Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. Eccl. 13-2 MG 146, 933 C.) The author has ventured to use these words of the Byzantine historian to a certain degree in reference to himself. When years before, I gave up Greek in the gymnasium, feeling a real dislike for it, I could not have known that one day I should write the biography of the most outstanding Doctor of the Greek Church. How that came about nevertheless, I beg the reader to allow me to relate in a few words. A day came when thoughts of the cloister began to over-shadow the path of my life. Over the cloister gateway hung many challenges. One of these was GREEK ! Four years later, the then Prior of Seckau and present Abbot of Ettal, Willibald Wolfsteiner, gave me on my admission to the noviti-ate, according to an old custom, the Greek name of Chrysos-tomus, to my great and not immediately joyful surprise. That was a stroke of destiny. So I took the bull by the horns a second time and began to read my patron's Treatise against the Enemies of Monasticism, in Greek. Gradually it began to have the same effect on me as it had had on Nicephorus Callistus in former times. The result of all this, somewhat delayed by various events in nature and in the world, is this book. Strictly speaking, I am not responsible for it. In any case, the courteous reader and critic of the short outline of the genesis of this book can observe that I have at least brought to my work the first requisite of modern scholarship: an entire absence of prejudice in regard to the hero of the work. I learned very soon to appreciate his towering personality, which embodied a program for humanity too great and signifi- xi xii Foreword to the First Edition cant for his contemporaries to withhold the proper niche from him and his advocates. St. John Chrysostom, by his life and still more by his tragic death, stirred to the depths the spirit of his times. This is best shown by the deep and wide echoes which his life and works have left behind, not merely among his partisans, but above all among historians in general. With the possible exception of Origen, to whom Eusebius dedicated almost the entire sixth book of his Church History, no Greek author and doctor of the Church has found nearly so many biographers and panegyrists as he. The fortunate result of this is that we are better acquainted with his life story than we are with any other from Greek Christian antiquity. " Since his tragic catastrophe happened during the reign of the Emperor Arcadius, which abounded in political entangle-ments, and since, besides the historical traditions, contempo-rary documents exist in abundance, we have here the material for a striking picture of the times. Whether it may present a biography of John, the attempt will show: but he will cer-tainly stand in focus as a man of the Word, who still wished to do constructive work in the world, like Demosthenes" (Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums 295). The attempt is here made, in which of course the person of Chrysostom, rather than a picture of the time, is the principal consideration. The last German biography of Chrysostom came from the pen of the distinguished A. Neander. The third edition of this appeared in 1848. Since then, research on this subject has made significant progress. A new scholarly biography therefore meets an actual need, especially since Chrysostom has meanwhile been honored by the Church with the official title of " Patron of Christian Preachers." The nature of the work makes it necessary that the first volume should treat of the priest, and his religious, literary and theological life work in Sntioch; the second volume, of the politically and ecclesiastically turbulent times, rich in vicissitudes, of his episcopate in Constantinople. As has been mentioned, Chrysostom should not be presented in solitary grandeur, without a background, but should-be represented in the midst of his time and surroundings. There-fore this biography is intended as a picture of the culture of Foreword to the First Edition xiii the time, and, as far as possible, a picture drawn by himself, with the vivacity of the people of those times, and with the linguistic art of a Chrysostom. Actually, such a distinguished orator as he can usually not be understood and estimated in his special genius, if one does not to a certain extent know the time for which and in which he preached. To this end, Chrysostom speaks abundantly in the first volume. Only so can the reader acquire a direct impression both of his character and of his thought. There arises, how-ever, the danger that this first part will result in an unwished-for resemblance to an anthology. However, the book is not written strictly for specialists, but for a broader circle especially for the clergy and learned members of the laity, for whom the works of St. Chrysostom would not be otherwise available. Unfortunately, it was not granted to me personally to visit the regions in which St. Chrysostom lived and worked, the better to be able to make them vivid to the reader. In order not to allow the book to become too heavy and its price too high, much individual research in literature and chronology, which served only as ballast, has been omitted. The specific German scrupulousness about writing foreign names only in the scholarly historical form, has not been adhered to. In this I have held to the manner of writing Greek names which was adopted in Germany centuries ago, and in this form, justified by usage, I have written accordingly, not Chrysostomos, Proklos, Melitios, etc., but instead, Chrysos-tomus, Proclus, Melitius, etc. T he quotation of notes has been carefully re-checked. Abbreviations are used only in capitals: for example, MG for Migne, Cursus Patrologiae Graecae, and ML for Cursus Patrologiae Latinae. When numbers alone are found in parentheses, for example 37, 310, these refer always to the volume and column of Migne, MG. The literature on the subject of Chrysostom appearing up to 1907 is almost fully represented in my book " S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l'histoire literaire," Louvain, 1907. As for the literature appearing since then, all that can lay claim to any scholarly value has been utilized. I owe a word of special thanks to the Archabbot Raphael xiv Foreword to the First Edition Walzer of Beuron, and Abbot Benedict Reetz of Seckau, who have made available to me the time and the opportunity to make the necessary studies in the Staatsbibliothek in Munich. I have benefited by the generous financial support afforded by the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft as well as the Gorresgesellschaf t, and another patron who wishes to remain anonymous. I am also under obligation to the Director of Classification of Manuscripts of the Staatsbibliothek of Munich, H. Geheimrat Leidinger, and his successor Krumba-cher: H. Geheimrat A. Heisenberg, for their much appreci- ated methods of pointing the way to progress. Munich, on the Feast of St. John Chrysostom, Jan. 27, 1929. THE AUTHOR TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword to the Second Edition vii Foreword to the First Edition xi Translator's Foreword xvii Introduction: A. Sources xix B. Literature/Bibliography xlv 1 Early Youth 1 2 Schools and Pupils in the Fourth Century 8 3 Libanius, the City Rhetorician of Antioch 16 4 Chrysostom in the Schools of Antioch 22 5 Antioch, the City and People 29 6 Religious and Ecclesiastical Relations in Antioch 45 7 Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 55 8 Emperor Valens (364-379) and the Last Flare-up of Arianism 74 9 Catechumenate and Baptism 79 10 In the School of Diodorus 89 11 Chrysostom as a Monk 104 12 First Literary Activity 115 13 Theodosius the Great and the Victory of Catholicism 126 14 John the Hermit 134 15 ChrysostomBecomes aDeacon 138 16 The Council of Constantinople 144 17 Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 152 18 Chrysostom is OrWned Priest (386) 180 19 Chrysostom as a Liturgist 190-205 Index of Persons, Places and Things at the End of Volume Two, Part Two TRANSLATOR'S FOREWORD TH E author of this book on the life and times of St. John Chrysostom is a Benedictine monk, Dom Chrysostomus Baur, O.S.B., at present living at the Benedictine abbey of Seckau, in Austria; he is the author of several other scholarly works on his distinguished patron. Father Baur was born in Wurttemberg in Swabia, and grezv up in Friedrichshafen am Bodensee, where he attended Latin school. He also studied Greek there, and disliked it very much. At the age of fifteen, having an inclination to the religious life, he entered the candidates' school at the Abbey of Seckau, and the novitiate received him in 1895. He was ordained priest at the Abbey of Beuron in lgol. To his great consternation, he was giyen the name of Chrysostom he still felt his old dislike of Greek. That has long been forgotten. however, and he is now a Greek scholar. After three years in Louvain, at Mont Cesar, he received the degree Docteur en Sciences morales et historiques. After-ward he went to Rome, to S. Anselmo, where he taught patro-logy, church history and historical method. At Graz, after returning from Rome, he received a degree in philology; in 1932 he visited the Orient. After his return, he became rector of the Oriental College in Munich. During the second world war, many Benedictine founda-tions were completely or partly destroyed, and the lot of Benedictine scholars has been very difficult since then. Dom Baur has now returned to the Abbey of Seckau, and is endeavouring to complete the work which was interrupted by the war. He divides his time between Seckau and Rome (the Bibliotheca Vaticana). He is the author of many scllolarly works, besides those dealing with his patron, St. John Chrysostom. My thanks are due to Father Edgar R. Smothers, S.J., for his patient assistance with this translation. SISTFR 01. GONZAGA, R.S.M.. Ann Arbor, Mich. xvii INTRODUCTION SOIJRCES AND LITERATURE A. SOURCES 1. Chrysostomus Chrysostom unfortunately spoke very seldom of himself in his writings. The most direct information we receive from him is during the time of his banishment, through his collected Letters: the authenticity of each individual compo-sition, and the chronological order, can often be only approxi-mately fixed. The longest and best known letters are the seven-teen which he wrote to Olympias.' In his remaining works he spoke only four times of the events of his life, as follows: In the De Sacerdotio 1, 5 (48, 624-5), he tells how his mother, whom he calls his " ego " mother, and whose name he does not mention, wished him to refrain from entering the monastic life as long as she was alive, and how he had been ordained priest while still young, together with his friend Basilius. Then he discloses in De Compunctione 1, 6 (47, 403) how much the thought of becoming a monk troubled him. In the little book Ad viduam juniorem 2 (48, 601), he states how once his teacher (Libanius) expressed his admiration for the long and voluntary widowhood of his mother Anthusa; and finally, after he became a bishop, he relates in the 38th Homily on the Acts of the Apostles, to his listeners in Con-stantinople, how once in his youth his life had been endan-gered by a book on magic which he had found. (Hom. 38, 5 in Act Ap.=60, 274-5.) [Books on magic were strictly banned at that time under pain of death for even carrying one on the person. Trans.] To what extent these quotations are actually historical, is in each case doubtful. Otherwise, Chrysostom, in his numer-ous writings and sermons, makes only occasional references to his state of health at the moment, or other small items. However, his collected works are a very valuable, because direct, source of information concerning his theological xix sx I ntrod uction knowledge and thought, his moral and ascetic views and principles, his oratorical gifts; they are a living and true image of his whole interior and spiritual life and struggles. Still more, they present at the same time a universal and living insight into valuable material for the explanation of the religious, ecclesiastical, political and social circumstances, and the world of thought, of his time. If the rhetorical character of many of his expressions necessitates partial excision, still the whole of Chrysostom's literary output brings before us a source of first-class historical value. Therefore it is just if these direct fruits of the spirit of Chrysostom find far-reaching con-sideration in the presentation of his life and work, especially for the time of his more interior church activity in Antioch. 2. The Synod of the Oak, in the Year 403 This is related by Photius, Bibliotheca 59 (103, 105-113). A well- founded objection against the authenticity of this is not forthcoming. The contents and arrangement of this narrative speak well for its authenticity. It is also in accordance with what is known of Chrysostom from other sources. 3. The pamphlet of the Patriarch Theophilus (ca. 404-5) The oldest literary production concerned with the person of Chrysostom is an outspoken libel, the author of which was no less a person than his chief opponent, the Patriarch Theo-philus of Alexandria. The latter was obliged to vindicate his assertions against Chrysostom before Rome and the world, and no doubt felt the most urgent compulsion to blame and slander him as much as possible. Unfortunately the composi-tion has been lost. Naturally it was not a personal biography, but still it might have contained valuable contributions to a life story, above all in relation to the final catastrophe, even when coming from the hand of an enemy. The document might have been occasioned by the breaking off of ecclesiasti-cal relations between Rome and Alexandria, and by the threat of calling a new synod to deal with Chrysostom's affairs; which latter threat was of course forcibly defeated. Facundus of Hermiane, in his work " Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum " 6, 5 (ML 67, 676- 8), is the only one who has given us the infor-mation concerning the libel of Theophilus, collected in a short anthology of the strongest invectives of its author. Not for nothing did he name the pamphlet " Liber innormis." Unfor- Introduction xxi tunately St. Jerome allowed himself to be misled; besides other productions of the Patriarch's, he translated this libel into Latin, so that according to the wish of Theophilus " qualis loannes fuerit, Latini cognoscerent" (Facundus loc. cit. 67, 678). Cf. Chrys. Baur, S. Jerome et S. Chrysostome=Revue Benedictine 23 (1906) 430-6. F. Cavallera, S. Jerome l,286. The Biography List of "Snonymous" Chrysostom stands alone in the whole of ancient ecclesias-tical literature in the number and variety of his biographies. An entire list of the authors who wrote chiefly of him has been given by the Anonymous (tenth century) in his " Vita " (Savile 8, 293). Of these authors whose works have survived until now, he names the following: 1. Socrates 2. Palladius, Dialogus 3. Theodoret 4. George Alexandrinus 5. Martyrius Antiochenus 6. Leo Imperator. Then come the panegyrists: 7. Proclus of Constantinople 8. St. Nilus 9. Isidor of Pelusium 10. Johannes Damascenus 11. Cosmas Vestitor 12. Nicetas Paphlago 13. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, Imperator. He also names the following authors, unknown or lost: . Cosmas Diaconus of Constantinople (contemporary of Chrysostom) . Evagrius Asceta 6. Nicetas Skeuophylax 17. Eustathius Primicerius. Finally the doubtful authors: 8. Basilius Protothronus (perhaps Basilius Mg., because identified with the Basilius of the Dialog De Sacerdotio) 19. St. Cyril of Alexandria 20. St. Sophronius Patr. Hieros. (7th century.) (Cf. Pratum spirituale.) xxii I ntrod uction Lacking in the list of Anonymous: 1. Sozomenus 2. Theodore of Trimithus. 4. The Apologetic Document Dialog of Palladius Fp. (ca. 408)2 Theophilus did not injure Chrysostom by his writings, but did him a favor. The excess of his invective challenged the friends of the exile in his place of isolation, and so the " Liber innormis" became an incentive for Bishop Palladius to write a refutation, the famous Dialog on the Life and Works of the holy Chrysostom. The Antiochene period is of course very briefly treated in this work. But he gives a very detailed relation of the events which took place in Constantinople which were connected with the removal and banishment of Chrysostom. All these events are treated from the almost exclusive point of view of the relations between Chrysostom and his episcopal opponents. His relations with the court, especially the opposition of Eudoxia, are generally not men-tioned, not even the fall of Eutropius. Political considera-tions might be responsible for this. At any rate, it follows that the Dialog must be evaluated chiefly from the point of view of an apology (defense) against the work of Theophilus, so that the contents of the letter may be inferred in essentials from the Dialog of Palladius.3 The historical reliability of the Dialog is very evident from the open opposition of its author against Theophilus and the other enemies of Chrysostom, ankl the deserved judg-ments he passes on individuals. In general, the Dialog deserves the greatest consideration of all the documentary sources concerning Chrysostom.4 The author is not merely a contemporary of Chrysostom, but a fellow-suflerer, and had at least in the years 402-404 played an active part in the latter's tragedy. So we may credit him with being very well informed concerning the last events dealing with the removal of the Saint from office. However, political events influenced at least the extent of his participation. That he kept almost complete silence concerning the Empress Eudoxia's share in the injustice done to Chrysostom, and found only words of excuse for the Emperor Arcadius, may be due to the reason that the author did not wish to burden himself for the future I ntrod uction xxiii with a crime of lese-majeste'. Another consideration might have played a part, namely, that by maintaining a certain regard for the court, the hoped-for rehabilitation synod might have some hindrances removed from its path. And so the author emphasized the guilt of the bishops, probably with the secondary object of offering more support to Rome in its stand against these bishops, and to hinder it from any resumption of relations until the crime of their injustice should become known. (Cf. Dialog 20; c. 78.) As to the time of production of the Dialog, ca. the year 408 is generally assumed, because Theophilus (d. 412) was then still living, while the death of Chrysostom (407) had already become known, at least according to report. Furthermore, Heraclidus of Ephesus had already been in custody for four years at the time of the Dialog (Ch. 20; col. 71). The persecu-tion of the Johnites began in June or July 404.5 The Author. Political considerations involving his own person might well have been the reason why the author of the Dialog was obviously concerned with throwing a veil over himself. He never mentions his own name. Later testimony affirms that the Dialog was composed by a Palladius who was bishop of Helenopolis and who was later transferred to Aspona; the same who had written the Historia Lausiaca. The first who ascribed our Dialog to a Palladius Episcopus is the otherwise extremely unreliable Theodore of Trimithus (ca. 680). He wrote in his short biography of St. Chrysostom (n. 2: MG 47, LV), that Palladius had first been long a monk, then a bishop in Bithynia, and that he had written " The Virtues of many Fathers," which evidently means that he was identical with the author of the Historia Lausiaca. Whence Theodore had his information is not certain; probably from a manu-script of the Dialog. For himself alone he merits no belief. Almost contemporaneously with Theodore follows the other probability depending on him, " George Alexandrinus," who must have written about the year 700. George not only knew the Dialog of Palladius, but had woven it almost entirely into his Bios, in practically literal quotations, so that George is also of outstanding significance to the textual critic of the Dialog 6 He may have borrowed from Theodore the ascription to Palladius. xxiv Introduction Finally, a hiatus of almost 300 years stretches between the Dialog and the first mention of Palladius as its author. Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Zosimus and all the other historians reveal no knowledge of the Dialog or its author. As the third piece of evidence comes, in the tenth century, the biography of Chrysostom by the so-called " Anonymous " (ed. Savile 8, 293). Here, in the list of authors given in the Vita, for the second time Palladius is called Bishop of Heleno-polis. In this, Anonymous does not go beyond Theodore, whom he did not know, but he does go beyond George Alex-andrinus, on whom he depended. Anonymous offers a cor-roboration and confirmation of Theodore in so far as that Helenopolis actually was in Bithynia. The next piece of evidence is the Codex Vaticanus 2210, written toward the end of the tenth century. It contains (fol. 1 87l) the note: " John Chrysostom died at the age of 53 years, so Palladius, Bishop of Aspona, says." Finally comes a manuscript in Florence, originating in the eleventh century: Laurentiana Plut. IX Cod. XIV. Unfor-tunately this manuscript is the only one which contains the Dialog of Palladius in full. The title reads:uzaAoyostazoptKds IlaAAaotov e'7rtaKo7rov 'EAevov7roAezs yevoyevos 7rpbs /Reooupov otaKovov PE œ, VfpF ~ FOV Kas roA~ esas Izavvov ertaKoroV KXvaTavTLvovroAeXs ~ v ' TOV ApraoatollOs. (" Historical Dialog of Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, produced in reply to Theodorus, the Roman deacon, concern-ing the life and affairs of John Chrysostom. Bishop of Con-stantinople.") This title cannot have stood thus from the beginning until then. At least the zOv XpsaoaTo,aov is a later addition. Also the name in the manuscript, " Pallad ius, Bishop of Helen-opolis," has surely come into the manuscript later, since the original author of the Dialog not only never mentioned his own name, but even went out of his way to exclude Bishop Palladius of Helenopolis as the author. As follows: 1. Palladius of Helenopolis is always spoken of in the Dialog in the third, not in the first person. 2. Palladius lived (Ch. 20, col. 71) at the time of the Dialog, as an exile or captive, probably not in Rome, but "in the Introduction xxv country of the Blemmyes (Bleptae) or in Ethiopia," i.e., in the extreme south of Egypt. 3. The author of the Dialog says of himself (Ch. 1, col. 7) that he first went to Rome about 408. However, Palladius of Helenopolis had already been to Rome in 40,. 4. The Dialog writer represents himself as an old man, bald and white- haired (Ch. l and 4: col. 7 and 17), who had only a short time to live. Palladius of Helenopolis, on the con-trary, was only 40 or 41 years old in 408. (Cf. Stilting n. 7 ff.) 5. A soldier must have given the author his information concerning Palladius of Helenopolis. (Ch. 20, col. 72. Cf. Ch. 19: col. 70.) It follows from this that the name of Palladius of Heleno-polis could not have been in the Dialog originally as the author's name; and indeed the Dialog itself gives good evi-dence against the authorship of Palladius. Still more: the apparently anonymous Dialog seeks to link the suspicion of authorship pretty surely with Theodorus, the alleged Roman deacon and interviewer of the " Episcopus." The Dialog places these words in his mouth (Ch. 20, col. 70): " Perhaps I too will put down what I have heard, with ink on a beautiful parchment, for the remembrance and benefit of mankind, and to the advantage of those who strive after the episcopal dignity, that they may take St. John for their example. . . ." The oldest manuscripts which derive from the Dialog men-tion no author's name. In the first place here is the life of the holy Olympias, from the second half of the fifth centurv (cf. P. XXV of the Introduction). This Vita contains, in Ch. 2-5, 13 and 14, long literal passages from the Dialog (Ch. 17; c. 60 f.), generally without naming the source. So far, this Vita cannot prove anything against the authorship of Palladius. On the other hand, thete is a long quotation from Ch. 15 of the Dialog in the Actio VIII of the 7th Ecu-menical Council of the year 787, in which the Bios of St. Chrysostom is mentioned as a source, but the author's name is not given. (Mansi 13, 467.) It is the same with Tarasius Patr. Const. (784-806) in the third Epistle to Hadrianum Pp. (MG 98, 1448-g); finally with Photius (d. 891) in his Syntagma Canonum Tit. I, Ch. 24 (104, 5g6-7). In all three the same xxvi I ntrod uction passage IS quoted. In the Bibliotheca 96 (103, 341 A) Photius names " Bishop Palladius" as author of the Dialog, but knows him only through George Alexandrinus. Only Anastasius Sinaita (fi40-700) quotes in his " Quaestiones et Responsiones" a passage from the Dialog (47, 75-6), under the name of Palladius (89, 444). The textual edition of this work is not altogether reliable (Butler, Authorship, 37, N. 3). Moreover also the vocabulary and style of the Dialog, com-pared with that of the Historia Lausiaca, are such that the authors do not appear to be identical, as Butler himself con-cedes (loc. cit. 39). Also, as Tillemont has noted, the style can be considered on reasonable grounds to differentiate one Palladius from the other (Memoires 1 l, 643, and Butler loc. cit. 39). It is therefore comprehensible that older as well as newer authors have spoken against the authorship of Palladius on the ground of the facts quoted. So Bigot,7 Doucin,3 Tille-mont,9 Stilting,' Ceillier,'l Nirschl,l2 and Fessler-Jung-mann,l3 and Aengenvoort,l4 consider the question at least doubtful. The following circumstance, which no one has noticed until now, also seems to speak against Palladius: the latter received the Bishopric of Aspona in Galatia about 417. This could scarcely have happened without the approval of the court and of the Patriarch Atticus of Constantinople, since he had lost his bishopric of Helenopolis thirteen years before as an adherent and defender of St. Chrysostom. But the author of the Dialog wrote that the Patriarch Atticus was, as a priest, the chief intriguer and intellectual leader of the plot against Chrysostom (7rav1s yrlXavr/s reXv*Tr/s KaTa Srov lsUawov) = Ch. 11: 47, 37). Atticus died in 4as. It is therefore not very probable that he would have allowed a new bishopric to be taken over, without further ado, by a man who had thus compromised him before all the world. Nothing is known of a recantation by Palladius, and that Atticus could not have known the author of the Dialog is not lightly to be assumed, for no one had a greater interest in knowing the author of such an accusation than he. A number of other details also contradict Palladius. On the other hand, newer researches, supported by an exact word and language comparison, have brought to light so many I ntrod uction xxvii resemblances and varieties of relationship between the Dialog and the Historia Lausiaca, that the assumption of the same authorship for both may be well grounded. In this regard, the chief credit belongs to the researches of Abbot C. Butler, O.S.B., who first occupied himself with the question in the Chrysostomica (1908) and besides in the Palladiana No. III. Butler's evidence was supplemented by H. Moorels in his English translation of the Dialog, and by R. Reitzenstein.'6 The latter now concedes, contrary to his earlier opinion, that the identity of authorship for both writings, the Dialog and the Historia Lausiaca, is " highly probable," but he believes it can be assumed that the author of both compositions was in any case not Palladius of Helenopolis. Perhaps, thinks Reitzenstein, if one has concluded, from Socrates 4, 23, that Palladius is the author of the Historia Lausiaca; thereupon one will further conclude, from language similarities in both documents, that Palladius is also the author of the Dialog. Thus the double conjecture added up to a fact in the manuscripts.l7 On the other hand, Butler (Palladiana 144 ff.) has pointed out, quite correctly, that the accounts which the Dialog, Socrates, Sozomen, and Photius give of Palladius agree exactly with that which the Historia Lausiaca says of its author, and that the majority of manuscripts of the Historia Lausiaca give Palladius as the author; only a few give Heraclidus. To sum up: An absolutely sure proof of Palladius' author-ship of the Historia Lausiaca and the Dialog is not forthcom-ing; but a high degree of probability speaks for it. The proof presented by Butler has also been conceded by Bardenhewer (GAL 4, 154) and Christ-Stahlin (GGL II, 2, 1394). New critical edition: Palladii Dialogus De Vita S. Jo. Chrysostomi ed. with revised text, introduction, notes, indices and appen-dices by P. R. Coleman-Norton. Cambridge, 1928. Since Norton has fortunately kept to the pagination of the MG in his edition, all Palladius quotations in my notes can be left unchanged. 5. Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porphyr11 ep. Gazensis (d. 420) A very important, because contemporary, contribution to the life of St. John Chrysostom was supplied by the travel journal of the deacon Marcus of Gaza, circa 4ao. In March xxviii Introduction 398 his bishop sent him to Constantinople for the first time, where he had some dealings with the new patriarch John (Chrysostom). He went there again as companion to his bishop, early in 401. He has written faithfully of his experi-ences there, in the life of his bishop, whom he highly esteemed. However, between the second visit and the composition of the Life stretches a hiatus of eighteen or nineteen years, quite time enough for a little inexactitude to creep in (for example, 38, 24: the birth of Theodosius the Younger and his designation as Augustus). To what extent the conversations which he and his bishop had with Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia rest on memory alone, or on notes made soon after, it is very diffi-cult to decide. Judging from the contents, one may certainly consider them reliable. The first critical edition was issued by the Philological Seminar of Bonn (Leipzig, 1895). Histori-cal and grammatical questions pertaining to this are treated by A. Nuth (Bonn, 1897). 6. Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica (ca. 440) Socrates, the not exactly contemporary historian of Catholic and ecclesiastical affairs, found the person and history of Chrysostom important enough to fill almost an entire book of his Church History. Chapters 6, 2-23 and 7, 25 and 4S, contain an entire biography of the great bishop. Besides a number of personalities, reported only by himself (about 26), Socrates shows a large number of errors (about 20), due to insufficient information. Actually he is reliable only when he is confirmed by other sources. He did not know the Dialog of Palladius. Edition: MG 67, 661 ff.=editio Valesius: Reading of the Year 1720. I iterature: 1. Geppert, die Quellen des . . . Socrates 79-80. 2. Sp. Lambros, Eine neue Fassung= Byz. Zeitschrift 4(1895), 481-6. ~ . Jeep, Quellenuntersuchung. 4. Christ-Stahlin, GGI. II, 2, 1434-5. 5. 0. Bardenhewer, GAI, 4, 137. 6. P. Maas, Libanios und Chrysostomos loc. cit. 1912, II, 1126. 7. Blondel, De la Primaute, 1247-8. Introduction xxix 7. Sozomenus, Historia E;cclesiastica (ca. 439-450) This imitator of Socrates dedicated Chapters 8, 2-24, -26 and 28 to Chrysostom. His narrative ended with the latter's death. Of the registration in the Diptychs and the translation of the relics he says nothing. His obvious chief source is Socrates. But he also had private sources of information at his disposal, and on the whole he shows himself better informed than Socrates on matters concerning Chrysostom. Furthermore he presents about fifty-seven special reports and only a few mistakes (about seven). He knew the Historia Lausiaca (Cf. Schoo, 41-58), but not the Dialog of Palladius. He mentioned the " Ad Theodorum lapsum " of Chrysostom. The two letters from Pope Innocent I to Chrysostom and his clergy (8, 26) he may have received from a "Johnite." On three occasions he made use of verbal reports. The reliability of Sozomen is greater than that of Socrates, since he is better informed. However, he was not nearly so well known, nor his works so well spread abroad, as Socrates. George Alexandrinus, for example, copied almost the whole of Socrates, but he did not know Sozomen. Edition: MG 67, 1513 ff.=ed. Valesius: Reading 17Xo. Literature: 1. Sarrazin, De Theodori Lect. hist. Ioc. cit. 165 ff. 2. Bidez, La tradition manuscrite. 3. Schoo. Die Quellen des . . . Sozomenus 18. 4. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchung n. VIII, 137 to 154. 5. Cf. Blondel 1247-8. 6. Stilting, n. 14. 7. Christ-Stahlin II, 2, 1435-6. 8. Bardenhewer, GAL 4, 141 ff. 8. Theodoret: (a) Historia Ecclesiastica (ca. 448-9I). What Theodoret reported about his countryman is extremely paltry (5, 27-36). He evidently did not make time-consuming investigations. Concerning Chrysostom's youth in Antioch, or indeed concerning Antioch itself, he says nothing. The names of the chief people responsible for Chrysostom's tragedy, namely Eudoxia, Theophilus, Acacius, Antiochus, Severian, he does not once mention. The Emperor Arcadius he mentions only once, in order to give him an undeserved xxx Introd uction compliment (5, 27). Of new items of information he presents only three (5, 30-32 and 36). Any literal dependence on earlier sources cannot be proved. Perhaps he knew Sozomen (in 5, 32 and 3s=Sozom., 8, 4 and 9, 1 and 3). Theodoret's brevity was intentional; he did not wish to expose the other-wise meritorious bishops (5, 34) nor to arouse disfavor in the court at a time when he needed its favor very much. Editions: 1. MG 82, 1256-6g=ed. J. L. Schulze in 1769. 2. L. Parmentier: Theodoret Kirchenge-schichte= Die griech.-christl. Schriftsteller vol. 19 (19ll) 328-339 Literature: 1. Guldenpenning, Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret. 2. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen 154-6. 3. Christ-Stahlin 1479. 4. Bardenhewer 4, 219. (b) Five Panegyrics of Chrysostom These in the original are lost. Photius, Bibl. 273 (104, 229-235) has made some outlines which offer nothing new bio-graphically. NB. The panegyric of Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434-446), who had the relics of the saint transferred to Con-stantinople, survives only in Latin (65, 827-834). He pro-duced no biographical material, and furthermore his authenticity is not certain. 9. Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica (ca. 425-433) He was an Arian, and lived in Constantinople from 388 on; he was also very probably an eyewitness of the events in which Chrysostom figured. Since Chrysostom came into conflict with the Arians in Constantinople, one may safely assume that Philostorgius would have dedicated some chapters to him. Unfortunately only a few fragments of his Church History survive, in which Chrysostom is not mentioned. However, he does mention Arcadius, Eudoxia, Eutropius, Tribigild and Gainas. He does not rank as specially reliable. Edition: Fragments by J. Bidez, Philostorgios Kirchenge-schichte = Griech.-christl. Schriftsteller, vol. 21 (1913) 134- 139. Cf . Jeep, Quellenunter-suchungen I. o. Zosimus, Nova Historia (ca. 45o-5oo) Introduction xxxi Contents: Bk. 5, Ch. 23 and 24 (fragment) begins with the enmity of Eudoxia for Chrysostom, and ends with the burning of the church. The author is probably identical with the heathen sophist Zosimus of Gaza, who was killed under the Emperor Zeno (473-491). As to his sources, he was served until the year 404 by Eunapius, "with whom he shared a furious hatred against all Christians" (Rauschen, Jahrbucher 9), and Olympiodorus. Zosimus reflects the temper of his contemporaries. His reliability is unfortunately very slight; for he is outspokenly partisan, uncritical and in this matter, very poorly informed. Editions: 1. I. Bekker in the Scriptores histor. Byzant. of Bonn, 1837 (P. 278-280). 2. L. Mendelsohn, Leipzig 1887., with Prologo-mena and critical apparatus (P. 243 ff.). Occasional remarks and opinions concerning Chrysostom are found in the letters of 1 l. St. Nilus (d. ca. 430) Epist. 1, 30g: II, 183, 265, 293; III, 13, 199, 279 (MG 79, 193 ff.). Concerning the personal relations between St. Nilus and Chrysostom nothing is known. The Chronicon of George Hamartolus (IV. CCII = MG l lo, 733 B) from the ninth century, names Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium, and other " pupils " of Chrysostom. Also, supported by George, Nicephorus Callis-tus HE 14, 53 (146, 1252 A). This can be understood only in the sense that every diligent reader of Chrysostom can be called his " pupil," even in our own day. Chrysostom was never a private teacher in any school either in Antioch or in Constantinople. 12 St. lsidore of Pelusium (d. ca. 44o) Epist. I, 152, 156, 310; (II, 42); IV, 224 (MG. 78, 288 ff.). Of his supposed learning from St. Chrysostom, the same can be said as of St. Nilus. It is interesting and important that Nilus (III, 199) and Isidore (I, 152) ascribe the individual blame for Chrysostom's tragedy not to Eudoxia, but to the bishops Cf. Bouvy, S. Jean Chrysostome et S. Isidore, loc. cit. 196-201. Important later sources are: . Collectio Conciliorum, ed. Mansi 2 and 3. . Codex Theodosianus, ed. Th. Mommsen et P. Meyer, Berlin I905. xxxii Introduction . Diodorus Tarsenis (2)=T.u.U. 2I (I9OI). 6. Julian Imp. Opera ed. Hertlein. Leipzig 1875-76. 7. Libanii, Opera rec. R. Forster. Leipzig 1903 ff. 8. Basilius Mg., Opera (varia) (MG 29-32). . S. Gregory Nazianzus, Carmina (MG 37, 1022 ff., 1542 ff.). ao. Justiniani Imp., Novellae ed. Zachariae a Lingenthal. I. Leipzig 1881. 21. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. H. Delehaye, S.J., Brussels 1902 ( = Propylaeum ad. Acta Sanctorum Novembris). 22. Itinerarilzm Antonini Piacentini (VI-IX cent.), ed. Gil demeister, Berlin 1889. 23. Monumenta Germaniae, Auctores antiquissimi, Vol. 9, 1 l and 13 (Chronica minora). B. THE RYZANTINE BIOGRAPHERS. (From the seventh to the eleventh century) 1. Martyrius (Patriarcha A ntiochenus>) The oldest true biography of Chrysostom is that of Mar-tyrius.l8 Only the beginning and the conclusion have so far been available.l9 The author avows himself a contemporary of Chrysostom and an eyewitness of the events of that time.20 He even doubts whether Chrysostom were actually dead.21 This gives the date of Martyrius as approximately the same as that of the Dialog of Palladius. The reading and examination of the entire text is disillusioning. Martyrius knew Palladius and copied him, and he also made use of Sozomen; he prob- ably also utilized the Oratio in S. Jo. Chrysostom ascribed to St. Proclus, n. 3 (65, 832 B) or Theodoret, Oratio 5 (~ o4, 233 A). It is therefore impossible to set the date of the Vita of Martyrius earlier than somewhere near the middle of the fifth century. The apparent indications of contemporaneity with Chrysostom rest entirely on a literary fiction. The ques-tion here is apparently one of a mere stylistic reworking of the material, which is known from Palladius and other sources. The reworking itself is handled in such a way that the language form is completely new and independent, and only very seldom and in a slight degrec can word for word plagiar-ism be confirmed. Chronologically, nothing would prevent Introduction xxxiii the assumption of its dedication to the Patriarch Martyrius of Antioch (d. 47 1 ). Only it would be remarkable that no one in Antioch had known of or called attention to anything better on the subject. I was unable to find a terminal date which would be even halfway certain chrono-logically. Martyrius relates no tales of prodigies. The only thing he mentions is the alleged history of the wine bath as a love charm (Cod. Paris 1519, p. 499v 500r). With this unfortunately vanishes the historical value of the source, which might have been ascribed to Martyrius on the basis of previously printed fragments.22 2. Theodorus of Trimithus (ca. 680) The short Vita written by Theodorus of Trimithus on the island of Cyprus takes an entirely unique place in the list of Byzantine biographies of Chrysostom. Theodorus knew, or at least mentioned, the Dialog of Palladius (in n. 2), of whom he expressly said, that he was also the author of the Historia Lausiaca. A comparison of Theodorus n. 3 ('Iuavvr)s ouv ff.) with Palladius 5 (col. 18: avvr/s OVTOS) proves also, that he actually used the Dialog. Cf. also Theodorus 4 with the Dialog 5 (col. 19). However, Theodorus on the whole scarcely made use of Palladius, but on the contrary admitted so many arbit-rary statements and direct inventions23 under the guise of his-torical and well-investigated records, that one can only agree with the judgment of Stilting (n. 31) "Tot tamque apertis figmentis Vitam illam foedavit, ut eum sine taedio non potuerim perlegere." The biographical sketch is actually historically worthless. The list of biographers of Anonymous (Savile 8,293) does not mention Theodorus. The eleven letters which supposedly came from the Emperor Arcadius and from Eudoxia, as well as from the Emperor Honorius, Pope Innocent and the Patriarch Theophilus, were either fabricated by Theodorus, or taken from an earlier source which goes back to further fabrications. Five of them turn up again in the Vita of George Alexandrinus (in an expanded form of the text) and in that of Anonymous, who depended on George. A comparison of the related portions in Theodorus and George speaks clearly for the priority of Theodorus, so that George must be assigned to about 700. xxxiv Introduction The manner in which St. Epiphanius, in opposition to the reality, in Theodorus 24, appeared suddenly as an intrepid advocate of Chrysostom against Eudoxia, fits Cyprus very well as the point of origin. Editions: 1. Card. A. Mai, Bibliotheca Nova, PP. VI, 262. MG 47, LI LXXXVIII. 2. A vulgar Greek translation published by Emman. Diodopulos, Athens 1895 (P. 5-44). Various readings from Paris. Bibl. Nat. 1169 (tenth century) were published by K. J. Dyobouniotis 'E7rsez~ ovsq 'EreTnpFs TnS EeAoyFKx1s ZXoA77s TOV A~ vnCi gav(TtheT~ HFoU s (1926) 345-375) 3. George Alexandrinus (ca. 700) With George, who until now has been identifled with the Patriarch George of Alexandria (d. about 630) begins the cycle of biographies which stand in a dependent relation to one another. They are: George, Leo Imperator, Anonymous and Metaphrastes. The sources of George's Vita were: The writings of Chrysostom, Palladius-Dialogus, Socrates, Theo-doret and probably also Theodorus of Trimithus.24 These sources are transcribed word for word almost entirely, and blended together into a more or less harmonious whole. Mean-while George inserts a number of chapters which tell of the virtues and miracles of Chrysostom, and which bespeak the Byzantine type of saint of a later time. These stories were probably freely invented by George. The time of composition is indicated externally by two facts. George had in all probability utilized Theodorus of Trimithus, who flourished about 680. The earliest possible date is thereby set. The latest possible date must be the year 725, since John Damascene in his " Oratio de imaginibus," first composed about 726 (MG 94, 1277), gives a literal quota-tion from George, Ch. 27 (192-4). Therefore the date of authorship lies between 680 and 725. The author therefore cannot have been that Patriarch of Alexandria who died about 650.25 However, he was certainly an educated priest and monk, an outspoken adherent of Rome (cf. Ch. 7, 26, 45, 49, 65, 68-70; cf. Theodorus of Trimithus), also an advocate of the veneration of images (Ch. 27, Savile, 192-4). Introduction xxxv The place of its authorship was certainly not Antioch, neither was it Alexandria or Constantinople. Ed itions: Savile, Chrysostomi Opera omnia, Vol. 8 (Eton 1612) 157- 265. Literature: Chr. Baur, Georg Alexandrinus = Byzant. Zeitschrift 27 (1927) s-16. 4. Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-9II) His Aoyos i'yKC aCtK~ S is a free and abridged version of George Alexandrinus. He has not utilized other sources apart from this. At any rate his work shows no individual, essential or literary worth. The Bios ends, like that of Meta-phrastes, with the death and burial of Chrysostom in Cumanae Edition: Savile loc. cit. 267-2go=MG 107, 228-292. 5. Anonymous (ca. 950) The Vita of Anonymous relies principally on George Alex-andrinus, whom he lists among the biographers and pane-gyrists at the beginning of the Bios. About seven chapters of George are not represented in Anonymous. On the other hand he has often enlarged on George. Above all he writes better Greek and is less diffuse. Time of Authorship: Anonymous wrote a long time after the death of the Patriarch Methodius I (843-847), who is mentioned in Ch. 23 as the " then ruling Patriarch," and at least after the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Con-stantine Porphyrogenitus (912-959), whose encomium on Chrysostom is mentioned as the last number in his list of biographers (Savile 293); but also before Metaphrastes, who does not appear in the list cited above. One may therefore, with Stilting (n. 3o) assign the work of Anonymous to about the middle of the tenth century. Anonymous certainly wrote in Constantinople, concerning the topography and history of which he shows himself very well acquainted (cf. Ch. 53, 73, 96). Also Constantinople is for him the "new Rome" (Ch. 129; p. 365, 29). The author was, we conclude from Ch. 8, 9, 53 and 74, a monastery chaplain, or perhaps the superior of a monastery, in Constantinople . Edition: Savile 8, ag3-371. 6. Symeon Metaphrastes (end of the tenth century) According to Erhard's researches, the Vita of Symeon xxxvi Introduction certainly belongs to the genuine Texts of Metaphrastes. The Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (2nd edition, p. 122, n. 6) omits the name of Metaphrastes. Cf. ibid. the Synopsis Meta-phrastica 282. Sources: 1. Between Anonymous and Metaphrastes there is a close textual relation, which a comparison of individual chapters will show. 2. The chapters 123-150 of Anonymous correspond for the most part with Ch. 65-72 of George Alexandrinus; however, they are missing in Metaphrastes, whose work ended with the death and burial of Chrysostom. So Anonymous has utilized George independently. 3. Chapters 25, 26, 47, 54 and 55 of George are missing both from Anonymous and Metaphrastes. 4. Chapters 30, 31 and 45 of Metaphrastes are found in George (37- 39, 63), but are missing in Anonymous. So Meta-phrastes has utilized George directly. 5. Chapters 8-9 (27-29?), 35-38, 45-54, 56, 57, (59-61 ?)~ 62-64, 66, 67, 69-71, 74, 77-79, 84, 86, 87, (88, 89?), (91, 92?), 95, (97- 98?), 107, (1 l l, 114, 115?), of Anonymous are missing from both Metaphrastes and George. So Anonymous has amplified independently. 6. Chapters (19?), 26, 30, (55, 58?), 72, 73, of Anonymous are missing in George and present in Metaphrastes. From the mere choice of material a sure conclusion in regard to the dependent relations between Anonymous and Metaphrastes cannot be drawn. But the utilization of the material, in particular, gives a clear indication. For example, Ch. 31 of Anonymous and Ch. 15 of Metaphrastes present the closest language parallels. But while Anonymous actually copied Ch. 26 from George, and thereby took over a letter of the Emperor Arcadius from George, the latter is missing from Metaphrastes. Therefore if one wishes to deny the priority of Anonymous, one must make the highly improbable assump- tion that Anonymous actually depended on George and at the same time leaned heavily on him linguistically.26 The clear resemblance in language between Anonymous and Metaphrastes proves that Anonymous produced a lingu-istically independent, mostly abbreviated but sometimes expanded reworking of George, while Metaphrastes again I ntrod uction xxxvii improved on Anonymous linguistically and stylistically, and abbreviated considerably, especially at the end, where he omits what follows in Anonymous (and George) concerning the death and burial of Chrysostom. It can therefore scarcely be doubted that Metaphrastes must be assigned to a later time than Anonymous. That agrees with the earliest date for Metaphrastes discovered elsewhere. According to M. Jugie,2' Metaphrastes died about the year I ooo. Editions: 1. Savile 8, 373-428. 2. MG 114, 1045-1209. 7. Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth century) Nicephorus compiled that part of his Church History which treated of Chrysostom (Bk. 13, Ch. 2-34, 36, 37; Bk. 14, Ch. 25-28; 43), from Socrates, Sozomen, the life of Olympias, George Alexandrinus, Metaphrastes, and Cosmas Vestitor. Nice-phorus does not possess any historical value.28 His principal errors are demonstrated by Blondel 1248 and 1252-53. Editions: MG 146, 928 ff. Cf. Jeep. Quellenuntersuchun-gen 100-105, Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 48. NB. The Greek "Menologium" Basilii Imp. reports the death of Chrysostom on January 27 (MG 117, Z81 -4) with almost the same words and narrative as Palladius. C. THE GREEIC CHRONICLERS 1. The Chronicon Paschale (MG 92, 781; ad annum 404), composed by an ecclesiastic under Patriarch Sergius (61o-638), presents nothing new except the statement that the Church fire in Constantinople broke out on a Monday, at about the sixth hour; that Arsacius was consecrated on Monday, June 25, 404; that a great hailstorm occurred on a Friday in the month of Hyperberetaios, about the eighth hour; and that Eudoxia died on Thursday, the sixth of October, and was buried on Wednesday, the twelfth. The dates may have been correct, and may have been taken from the " Public Records," which served as the principal source for the Chronicon Paschale up until the time of the Emperor Leo. Cf. Krum-bacher, BL 337 ff. H. Gelzer, Sextus Junilius Africanus 2, 8 ff. 2. The Chronography of Theophanes (MG lo8, 205, 212 ff. xxxviii I ntrod uction and ed. Boor, Theophanis Chron. 1, 72, 75 ff.) from the begin-ning of the ninth century, derived its information concerning Chrysostom chiefly from Sozomen, but also from Socrates and Theodoret. Especially interesting historically is the observa-tion of Theophanes: the fact that Chrysostom had "given light" not only to Constantinople, but also to Thrace, Asia and Pontus. This proves " that the Bishop of Constantinople also ruled over these churches before the Council of Chalce-don" (451) (ed- Boor ~ , 77)- Cf. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Historia Ecclesiastica ex Iheophane in MG 108, 122X-3. Literature: Krumbacher 342 ff. Sarrazin, De Theodore Lectore . . . 172-79. NB. Nicephorus Constantinopol. Patriarcha (805-815) men-tions Chrysostom in his Ecloge Chronographiae in the List of Bishops of Constantinople No. 33 (MG loo, 1045). 3. The Chronicon of George Hamartolus (ca. 866-867) (MG llo, 713, 728 ff- and 744) This derives its information on Chrysostom chiefly from Sozomen, Palladius, Theophanes, Malalas and George Alex-drinus 71 (or more probably from John Moschus MG 87, 2992-3). Besides some actual and chronological errors, he first makes the statement that the Bishops Palladius, Proclus, Brisson and Theodoret, as well as the monk Marcus (=Dia-conus Gazensis?) Nilus and Isidore of Pelusium had been " pupils " of Chrysostom. This impossible statement has never since disappeared from the literature. NB. The Chronography of Malalas (lib. 13=MG 97, 520) does not mention Chrysostom himself. It says only of the Emperor Arcadius that he was a man of " keen understanding and skilled in affairs"t Gelzer, Sextus Junilius 2, 129 calls this Chronography a "wretched production," which is correct. The fragment of Johannes Antiochenus (C. Muller, Frag-menta Hist. Gr. 4, 610) mentions the name of Chrysostom only once. In the following Chronicles every trace of original source tradition has been lost. At the same time the historical reli-ability of the individual accounts is diminished. 4. Eutychius Alexandrinus, 24nnales (composed about 397) I ntrod uction xxxix in its account of Chrysostom (1 l l, 1027-1030) despite its brevity, contains many and great errors. 5. George Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum (ca. Iloo = 121, 624- 636) derives chiefly from George Hamartolus, but utilized also the Chronographia of Theophanes (and Palladius?). 6. Joannes Zonaras, 24nnales 13, 20 and 22 (ca. 1118-1150= 134, 1180-81 and 1188) utilized George Cedrenus and Theophanes. 7. Michael Glyhas, Annales IV (end of the twelfth century = 158, 484) copied George Cedrenus and Zonaras, and also utilized (directly or indirectly) Theodorus of Trimithus (Nos. 3o and 32) or George Alexandria (60 and 70). Cf. Blondell -52. 8. The Chronographia synoptica of Joel (ca. 1200-1260= 139, 261) contains only two short notes which in any case originated with George Harnartolus. 9. Suidas, Lexicon (eleventh century = 117, 1282-83) origi-nated with Jerome, De viris illustribus 129, and George Hamartolus (CCII n. 9- 13 = l lo, 729-732) and out of his own knowledge (or ignorance) of the writings of Chrysostom. Io. The short Epitome Vitae (Inc. To guev yevoS flv=47, LXXXVII) is not positive as to author or time of composition. (Cf. BHG 874. Dobschutz=Byzant. Zeitschr. 12 (1903) 542.) At any rate it appeared in the eleventh century at the latest, since it was already recorded in Cod. Vat. gr. 808 (eleventh century) 183- 184. NB. The Epitome Vitae contained in several manuscripts (Inc.'0 HfVTOF OS XpUeoe7oyos) is borrowed from Ch. 19 of Metaphrastes (Savile 391, 39-392, 20). 1 l. The lost Church History of Theodorus the Lector, written after 518, was, in its first four books, from the year 323 until about 430, only a compilation from Socrates, Sozo-men and Theodoret. Cassiodorus translated it entirely for the first part of his Historia tripartita. Cf. Bidez, La tradition manuscrite . . . 35-81; Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen n. X, P 157-59. 12. The Fragmentum historicum by an unknown author (published by Card. A. Mai, Spicilegium Roman. II.P.II.p. l l, ff., printed in MG 85, 1812-13) treats of Chrysostom from the xl I ntrod uction time of the exile and here it is inexact. The name of Seleucus, the father of Olympias, he can only have obtained from the Vita Olympiadis 2; so it is later than this. The farewell scene between Chrysostom and Olympias and her companions origin-ates from Palladius 10 (eventually from George Alexandrinus 56). He thinks the burning of the Church started at the altar. 13. The Fragment of Joannes 24ntiochenus mentions in N. 189 (ed. Muller, Fragmenta Histor. Gr. IV, 610) the name of Chrysostom only once, in connection with Eutropius, and mentions in N. Igo (p. 610- 611) the insurrection of Gainas. 14. The Asyv7rztot Aoyot ~ 7 1rep; 7rpovotas of Synesius (written between 399 and 413; ed. Krabinger, Sulzbach 1835) is explained by E. Gaiser in the History of the Gothic Leader Gainas. However, this explanation is not clear. As a biographer of Chrysostom, Synesius deserves no consideration. Literature: 1. E. Gaiser, Des Synesius von Cyrene agypt. Erzahlungen. Wolfenbuttel 1886. 2. W. v. Christ, Gr. L. 6th edition, II. 2, 1399. NB. 1. The Fita Olympiadis, by an unknown author in the second half of the fifth century (according to Bousquet; accord-ing to Delehaye between 408 and about 630). The author living in Constantinople, certainly knew well the history of the " Cloister of the holy Olympias," but had not seen her or her contemporaries. All he tells concerning the person of Olympias and concerning her relations with Chrysostom, is from Palladius, Dialogus and Historia Lausiaca. The Vita possesses no special source value for Chrysostom, and its composition date can scarcely be set before 450 (Ch. XI of the Vita is a later addition). As the name " Chrysostom " does not appear there, one cannot easily extend the date to later than about sso. Editions: Delehaye Analecta Bolland. 15 (1896) 400- 423. A French translation by Bousquet is found in the Revue de L'Orient chretien 1 l (1906) 225-250. Cf. Baur, S. Jean Chry- sostome 59. NB. 2. The Narratio Sergiae de translatione S. Olympiadis (Analecta Boll. 16 (1897) 44-51) is by Sergia, Abbess of the cloister of Olympias in Chalcedon, who lived in the time of the Patriarch Sergius (61 o-638). Her source was the Vita Introduction sli Olympiadis, of which the eleventh chapter is enlarged by tales of miracles. She does not give any information concerning Chrysostom. Cf. Bousquet. Le recit . . . 257. NB. 3. St. Gregory of Nazianzas dedicated to Olympias on her wedding day a "Carmen paraineticum" (37, 1)42-50), which is a practical Christian mirror for women. Cf. his letter 193 to Procopius (37, 316-17) from the year 385. NB. 4. Ioannes Moschus, Pratum spirituale Ch. 128 (87, 2992-93; cf. Blondel 1248) from the seventh century, says that he had heard from an Abbot Athanasius, that the Abbess Johanna had related that Chrysostom had stayed in Arabissus with her brother, the Bishop Adelphius, and that Adelphius had seen in a vision that Chrysostom stood higher in heaven than all the doctors of the Church, directly beside the throne of God. This part mav have been borrowed from George Alexandrinus 71 (Savile 8, 2 >4). Cf. Anonymous 1 ll (Savile 358) and 126 (ibid. 364, 15), and Metaphrastes 42 (Savile 423, 1l). Actually a statement from Chrysostom himself contra-dicts this; he himself wrote in his letter 13 to Olympias (52, 611) that he had dwelt in Cucusus in the house of Dioscurus, while the Bishop of Arabissus was not named Adelphius but Troilus. An Adelphius was bishop of Arabissus from 451 to 458. This whole narrative may have found its way into the Pratum Spirituale later. Cf. Tillemont, Memoires 1l, 623, Note 103. D. BYZANTINE PANEGYRISTS Beside the contemporary panegyrics of Chrysostom by Theodoret and Proclus(?) there are also in existence a number of edited (and unedited) panegyrics from all the following centuries, which obviously possess no historical value. Those which are edited will at least be named here. 1. Cosmas Festitor (ninth to tenth century) wrote several sermons on Chrysostom, relative to the Feast of the Transla-tion of his Relics to Constantinoplc. K. J. Dyobouniotis has published five of these in the 'E7rfrnpFs f'TatpLas BvCarT>vuv sTTOUO@V 2 (1929) 55-83. The headings read: (a) ufV^7f aKovweaTf (b) IlTaAtv o XpveoaroMwos (C) z fpOV D TOV OVftOtC0fVTOS xlii Introduction (d) wHKovaraF 7ravTOos V~ tV (this exists in more than 36 manu- scripts of which Dybouniotis has utilized one) (e) Tls rov azeTpov Excerpts from (d) have already been published by Combefis, Novum Auctar. 1, 494-96 and Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum 9, 679 and MG 65, 829- 31. Cf. Krumbacher-Ehrhard, Byzant. Lit. 169 and Ehrhard, Hagiograph. Forschungen 173. 2. The Emperor Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus. In translation. Inc. Tl T(p1rVOTf pOV. Ed. by Dyobouniotis 'E1rFatX 0V$K17 ES7rerr/pts x1s feoAoyFKrls S7xoArls TOU AEvx1aYv ~ 7avf7rFarx ov. X (1926) 303-319. Out of at least six manuscripts, only the Cod. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 137 (XVI cent.) is utilized. 3. Michael Psellus, Oratio in laudem S. Jo. Chrysostomi et. Gregorii Theol. Inc.: Tv xpUadv Kas rrRv ~ UX7p. Ed. P. Levy, Michaelis Pselli de Gregorii Theol. charactere Judicium. Accedit eiusdem de Jo. Chrysostomi charactere judicium ineditum. Strassburger Dissert. (Leipzig 1912) 92-98. 4. Neophytos Encleistos Presb. (1134 to about 1200), Encomium, Inc. xpUaopspffF@pov awpa. Ed. K. J. Dyobouniotis= 7rorlyovFKr} fn7pls (Athens) 1 (1926) 329-45. The only known manuscript is the Cod. Paris Bibl. Nat. 1189 (eleventh-twelfth century) 153V-l64. Cf. Anal. Boll. 26 (1907) 291 and L. Petit, Les ouvrages de Neophyte Le Reclus = Echos d'Orient 2 (18g8-gg) 257. Neophytus utilized George Alexandrinus directly. 5. An anonymous author wrote concerning the " types " of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and others= MG 29, p. CCCXCI. 6. Ioannes Mauropus Euchaitensis (eleventh century). Encomium in tres Hierarchas, Inc.: r AFv 'Ionavv^qs. Ed. P. Levy, Michaelis Pselli et Gregorii Theol. charactere Judicium. Accedit eiusdem Euchaitensis quae supersunt= Gottinger Abhandlungen 28 (1881) lg6-119. In manuscript form there still exist a large number of festival sermons on Chrysostom and the translation of his relics, as well as poems. For an incomplete list see Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 51-55. E. LATIN SOURCES 1. The oldest historical information concerning Chrysos- I ntrod uction xliii tom was given in the year 392 by St. Jerome, De Viris illustri-bus 129 (ML 23, 754 and ed. Richardson in Texte u. Unters. 14, 1 (1896) 54. For a later summing up of this chapter, expanded before the ninth century, see A. Feder, Studien zum Schriftstellerkatalog des heiligen Hieronymus. Freiburg 1927, p. 158-X60. NB. Also the oldest quotation from Chrysostom comes from a Latin writer, namely Pelagius, in the year 415. Cf. S. Augustinus, De natura et gratia Ch. 64 (ML 44, 285). Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome, 67-68. 2. Gennadius (d. 495) De Viris illustribus 30 (=material from the sixth or seventh century?) supplemented Jerome (Ed. Richardson=Texte u. Unters. ibid. 72-73). Likewise 3. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), De Viris illustribus (Ml. 83 3-94- NB. Anonymus Mellicensis shows a knowledge of Chrysos-tom full of mistakes and hiatuses (ca. 1150), De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 12 (ed. Ettlinger, p. 51; ML 213, 965-6). 4. Marcellinus Comes, Secretary of the Emperor Justinian I (ca. 534) offers in his Chronicon exact and reliable informa-tion concerning Chrysostom. Perhaps he knew Palladius. Editions: ML 51, 921-22; and Mommsen Monumenta Germ. Auct. Ant. XI. Chron. min. II (1894) 67. NB. Prosper Tiro, Epitoma Chronicon, of perhaps 463 (ed. Mommsen in the MGH. Auct. Ant. IX, 464), offers very little, and nothing new. The same is true of Isidore the Younger, Chronica (Mommsen loc. cit. XI, 471) and of Hidatius (d. 470), Chronicon Olymp. 296 (ML 51, 876), who even makes Eudoxia an Arian. The Chronicle of Ado of Vienne (ML 123. 97 and loo) merits no consideration as a source. 5. Ca.ssiodorus, Historia tripartita lo, 3-22 and 26 (ML 69, 1165- 1183) offers only a literal translation and compilation from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Cf. Bidez, La tradi-tion manuscrite . . . in Texte u. Unters. 34 (1908) II, B. p. 51-76. 6. The Biography of Leo Clericus (ca. the tenth to the eleventh century) utilizes principally George Alexandrinus, through whom it probably has passages from Palladius. A few legendary quotations may be of some merit. xliv Introduction Editions: A. Amelli, in the Bibliotheca Cassiensis 3 (1877) 380-87; and an expanded composition, in the Catalogus Codicum hagiographicorum latinorum of the National Library in Paris 3 (1893) 17-45 (published by the Bolland-ists). Cf. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 76-77. F. SYRIAN CHRONICLE A fragment of a Nestorian church history, perhaps from the eleventh century, is presented by Goller in the Oriens Christi-anus 1 (lgol) 82g6. Chrysostom is mentioned there only once. The principal sources are Socrates or Theodoret. The Syrian manuscript originated in the year 1703. FOOTNOTES TO INTRODUCTION 1. MG 52, 549-623- 2. Cf. Bardenhewer, GAL 4, 155-57. 3. The credit of having discovered this connection belongs to Dr. F. Aengenvoort, Der Dialog des Palladius, Munster 1913. 4. Bardenhewer, GAL 4, 156; Hermant (Menard), Le vie de S. Jean Chrysostome 60. Butler, Authorship 46. 5. It is correct, as Butler (Authorship 36) has noted, that the time of composition of the Dialog does not necessarily coincide with the time with which it is concerned. In regard to this, no proof for a separation of the two points has been produced. Also the whole trend of the Dialog, to place its composition at a time when it would have meaning, requires that it warn against fellow-ship with Theophilus and his co-conspirators, and to await a rehabilitation synod, although Chrysostom was already dead. That could only have been a time when the death of Chrysostom was very recent; in any case, before the death of Theophilus (412), and surely very soon after the Pamphlet of Theophilus, which the Dialog purposed to answer. 6. Cf. Norton, Palladii Dialogus 222-24. 7. Praefatio in Palladii Dialogum (MG 47, XCVI f.). 8. L'Histoire des mouvements 218. 9. Memoires 1 l, Art. 12. so. Vita Chrysostomi n. 6 ff. . Histoire gen. des auteurs sacres lo, 77 ff. Paris 1742. . Lehrbuch der Patrologie 2 (1883) 337 (utilized by Ceillier). I ntrod uction xlv . Institutiones Patr. 2, 1, P. 54 and 209 f. Innshruck 1896. . Dialog 8. . The Dialog of Palladius. London 1921. 6. Historia monachorum and Hist. Laus. in the Notes. 7. Historia monachorum etc. 6. 18. Until now, known only from two manuscripts: X . Paris Bibl. Nat. 1519 (llth cent.) 453r-536 (under the name of Meta-phrastes). 2. Venice Marc. gr. C1. VII. Cod. XXXIV. (ol. Nani-anus 145) (12th cent.). This manuscript is incomplete. The Life will soon appear. 19. The beginning of this Life is given by Mingarelli, Graeco Codices 337-8, the conclusion MG 47, XLII-LII. 20. Cod. Paris 490r, 495v, 500r, 502r, 520r. 21. Ibid. 530rs 533r (=MG 47, XLVI n. 4). 22. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 39. 23. For instance he states (n.l) that Chrysostom was baptized by a Bishop Baitanus in Amida, and received his lectorship from Bishop Poimenius of Antioch. Then (he states that) Chrysostom, as Bishop, turned the Empress Eudoxia away from the church door (n. 15) and appeared later at the Synod of the Oak, to defend himself in person (n. 21) and so forth. 24. The Anonymous (Savile 293) states that George Alexand-rinus utilized notes of St. Cyril of Alexandria and other writers. That is certainly untrue as regards Cyril. 25. In the list of Patriarchs of Alexandria in the Chronography of Nicephorus of Constantinople, a Patriarch George is men-tioned as the 4gth patriarch and as a follower of Johannes Elee-mosynarius. He ruled for eleven years. Ed. Neibuhr, 1,781. 26. Cf. Baur, S. Jean Chrysostome 47. 27. Sur la vie et les procedes litteraires de Symeon Met. = Echos d'Orient 22 (1923) ~ -l - 28. He shows in his HE 13, 2 (146, 933 CD) a moving love and gratitude to Chrysostom. LITERATURE Achelis, H., Virgines subintroductae. Leipzig 1902. Ackerman, Leopold, Die Beredsamkeit des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus. Wurzburg 1889. Adler, Mich., The Emperor Julian and the Jews=The Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 591-651. Aengenvoort, Friedr., Der Dialog des Palladius uber das Leben xlvi Introduction des heiligen Joh. Chrysostomus (= Bericht uber das Schuljahr 1912-13 des Collegium Augustinianum zu Gaesdonk 3-16). Munster 1913. Ainsworth, W. F., Travels and researches in Asia Minor, Mesopo- tamia, Chaldea and Armenia. 2 vol. London 1842. Allard, P., Julien l'Apostat. 3 vol., Paris 1900-1903. Histoire des Persecutions. 5 vol., Paris 1890. Ameringer, Thom. E., O.F.M., The stylistic influence of the Second Sophistic on the panegyrical sermons of St. John Chrysostom. A study in Greek rhetoric. A Dissertation Washington 1921. Anderson, J. G. C., A Journey of exploration in Pontus (=Studia Pontica I.). Brussels 1903. (Anonymous) Le idee pedagogiche di S. Giovanni Crisostomo= Didaskaleion 2 (1913) 463-491 and 3 (1914) 49-63. Antoniades, E. M. wEK+paess rris ~ AyzaS z as 3 vol. in fol. Athens 1907-lDog- Armstrong, C. B., The Synod of Alexandria and the Schism at Antioch in A.D. 362=The Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921), 206-X21 and 347-355. Auer, J. E., Kaiser Julian der Abtrunnige in Kampf mit den Kir- chenvatern seiner Zeit. Vienna 1855. Babut, E. Ch., Recherches sur la garde imperiale et sur le corps d'officiers de l'armee romaine aux IV et V siecle = Revue historique 114 (1913) 225-260. Barbagallo, Corr., Lo Stato e l'Istruzione publica nell' impero romano (=Bibliotheca di Filologia Classica 3) Catania 19ll. Bardenhewer, 0., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. 4 vol. Freiburg 1913-24 (=GAL). Bardy, G., Paul de Samosate. lttude historique (=Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 4). Louvain-Paris 1923. Le Symbole de Lucien d'Antioche et les formules du Synode in Encaeniis=Recherches de Science Rel. 3 (1912) 139-155; 230- 244. Batiffol, P., Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Philostorgius= Romische Quartalschrift 3 (1889) 252-289. l:tudes d'Histoire et Theologie positive. 2. Serie. L'Eucharistie. 7. ed. Paris 1920. III 5. L'Eucharistie. sth edition. Paris 1913. Le Siege Apostolique (359-401). Paris 1924. Chap. 5. Bauer, Fr. X., Proklos von Constantinopel. Ein Beitrag zur Kir-chen und Dogmengeschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts (= Pub-lished by the Kirchenhistor. Seminar of Munich, 4th series, num. 8). Munich 19l9. Introduction xlvii Bauer, W., Der Apostolos der Syrer in der Zeit von der Mitte des vierten Jahhunderts bis zur Spaltung der syrischen Kirche. Giessen 1903. Baumstark, A., Das Kirchenjahr in Antiochien=Romische Quar-talsch. 1l (1897) 31-66 and 13 (1899) 305-323. Die Chrysostomusliturgie und die syrische Liturgie des Nes-torios Chrysostomica (Rome 1908) 771-857. Die konstantinopolitanische Messliturgie vor dem 9. Jahrhun-dert (Kleine Texte 35 sgog) 1-16. Die Zeit der Einfuhrung des Weihnachtsfestes in Konstantl- nopel=Oriens christianus 2 (1902) 441-46. Zur Urgeschichte der Chrysostomusliturgie = Theologie und Glaube 5 (1913) 299-313 and 392-395. Baur, P. Chrysostome, O.S.B., S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l'Histoire Litteraire (=Recueil des travaux publies par les membres des Conferences d'Histoire et de Philologie. 18. Fasc.). Louvain-Paris 1907. S. Jerome et S. Jean Chrysostome=Revue Benedictine 23 (1906) 43 - 436- L'entree litteraire de S. Jean Chrysostome dans le monde latin =Revue d'Histoire ecclesiastique 8 (1907) 249-264. Zur Ambrosius-Theodosiusfrage=Theologische Quartalschr. go (1908) 401-409. Der Ursprungliche Umfang des Kommentars des heiligen Joh. Chrysostomus zu den Psalmen=Chrysostomica (Roma 1908) 235-242. Das Ideal der christlichen Vollkommenheit nach dem heiligen Joh. Chrysostomus=Theologie und Glaube 6 (1914) 564-574. Der Kanon des Joh. Chrysostomus=Theologische Quartalschr. 105 (1924) 258-271- Chrysostomus De Sacerdotio=Theologie und Glaube 18 (1926) 569- 576. Chrysostomus in Genesim=Theologische Quartalschr. 108 (1927) 221-232. Georg Alexandrinus=Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27 (1927) 1-16. Der Weg der Vollkommenheit nach dem heiligen Joh. Chrysos- tomus=Theologie und Glaube 20 (1928) 26-41. Wann ist Chrysostomus geboren?=Zeitschrift fur kath. Theo-logie 52 (1928) 401-406. Beloch, Jul., Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt (=Histor. Beitrage zur Bevolkerungslehre 1). Leipzig 1886. Bezdeki, Steph., Ioannes Chrysostomus et Plato = Ephemeris Daco- romana X (1923) 291-337. xlviii l ntrod uction Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (BHG). Ediderunt Socii Boll andiani, ed. altera. Brussels sgog. Bidez, Jos., La tradition manuscrite de Sozomene et la Tripartite de Theodore le Lecteur (=Texte und Untersuchungen 32 (1908) 2, b)- Leipzig 1908. Blankenhorn, M., Syrien, Arabien et Mesopotamlen (= Hand buch der regionalen Geologie 17). Heidelberg 1914. Blondel, David, De la primaute en l'Eglise. Geneva 1641. Bockenhoff, K., and Stapper, R., Gedanken des heiligen Joh Chrysostomus uber Fragen der Sexualpadagogik = Viertel jahrschrift f. wissenschaftlich Padagogik 2 (1926) 174-188. Boringer, Fr., Johannes Chrysostomus und Olympias. 2nd edition, Stuttgart 1876. Bonsdorff, Max von, Zur Predigtatigkeit des Johannes Chrysos- tomus. Biographisch-Chronologische Studien uber seine Homilienserien zu neutestamentlichen Buchern. Helsinki 1922. Bousquet, Jos., Vie d'Olympias la Diaconesse= Revue de l'Orient chretien 1l (1906) 225-250. Recit de Sergia sur Olympias, ibid. 12 (1907) 255-268. Bouvy, E., S. Jean Chrysostome et S. Isidore de Peluse=Echos d'Orient X (1897-98) 190-201. Brinkmann. Aus dem antiken Schulunterricht = Rheinisches Museum N.F. 65 (sglo) 149-155. Brightman, F. E., Liturgies Eastern and Western 1, 527 ff. Oxford 1896. Buttner-Wobst, Der Tod des Kaisers Julian=Philologus (1892), 561-580. Buhl, K., Der Kirchengesang in der griechischen Kirche bis zur Zeit des Chrysostomus=Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie 18 (1848) 179-211. Bury, J. B., A History of the Later Roman Empire from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian. 2 vol. London 1923. Butler, Cuthbert, O.S.B., Authorship of the Dialog de Vita Chrysostomi=Chrysostomica (Rome 1908) 35-46. Palladiana. N. II. The Dialog de Vita Chrysostomi and the Historia Lausiaca: Authorship=The Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1920- 1921) 138-155. Cantarelli, I1 primo magistrato di Constantinopoli=Rendiconti . . . dei Lincei. C1. mor, Ser. V. 26 (1917) 59 ff. Caspari, W., Perikopen=Realenzyklopaedie fur prot. Theologie und Kirche. 3rd edition, 15 (1904) 131-159. Cavallera, F., Le schisme d'Antioche. Paris 1905. Introduction xlix S. Jerome, sa vie et ses ocuvres. 2 vol. (=Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 1-2). Louvain 192a. Ceillier, R., O.S.B., Histoire Generale des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques. Vol. g and lo. Paris 174z 742. Chapman, John, O.S.B., St. Chrysostom on St. Peter. Chapot, V., La province romaine proconsulaire d'Asie, depuis ses origines jusqu'a la fin du Haut-Empire ( = Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes. IV ser. t. 150.) Paris 1904. Christ, W. von, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. 6th edition, by 0. Stahlin and W. Schmid. II, 2. Munich 1924. Chrysostomica. Studi e recerche intorno a S. Giovanni Crisos-tomo a cura del Comitato per il XV. centenario della sua morte: 407 - Z go X . Rome 1908. Cobham, Cl. Del., lhe patriarchs of Constantinople. With an introduction by Adrian Fortescue and H. T. Duckworth. Cambridge 19 l l . Colombo, S., II Prologo del 17ept 'Ispoew71s di S. Giovanni Crisos-tomo=Didascaleion z ( 1912) 39-47. Sull' origine del concetto di a7raTr/ in un passo di S. Giovanni Crisostomo=Didascaleion 1 (1912) 437-454. Croiset, Alfr. and Maur., Litterature grecque. Vol. V, 951 ff. Paris 1899. Cumont, Fr. and Eugene, Voyage d'exploration archeologique dans le Pont et la Petite Armenie (= Studia Pontica II.). Brussels 1906. Cumont, Fr., Etudes Syriennes. La marche de l'Empereur Julien. Paris 1917. Deconinck, Jos., Essai sur la Chaine de l'Octateuque avec une edition des commentaires de Diodore de Tarse (= Biblio-theque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes 195) Paris 1912. Degen, P. Heinr., O.S.B., Die Tropen der Vergleichung bei Johannes Chrysostomus. Beitrag zur Geschichte von Meta-phor, Allegorie und Gleichnis in der griechischen Prosa-literatur. Dissertation. Olten 1921. Delehaye, H., S. J., Les menologes grecs=Anal. Bolland. 16 (1897) 311 -329. Le menologe de Metaphraste=ibid. 17 (1898) 448-452. Les deux saints Babylas=Anal. Bolland. 19 (lgoo) 5-8. Les legendes hagiographiques. Brussels 1905. Les origines du culte des martyrs. Brussels 1912. Synopsis Metaphrastica = Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca. 2nd edition. 269 ff. Dennefeld, L., Der alttestamentliche Kanon der antiochenischen Schule (=Biblische Studien 14, 4). Freiburg lgog. l I ntrod uction Dethier, P. A., and Mordtmann, A. D., Epigraphik von Byzantion und Constantinopolis von den altesten Zeiten bis zur Jahre Christi l453=Denkschriften der kaiserl. Akademie der Wis-senschaften, Phil.- hist. K1. 13. vol. (Vienna 1864). Dieckmann, H., S.J., Antiochien, ein Mittelpunkt urchristlicher Missionstatigkeit (=Abhandlungen aus Missionskunde . . . H. 17). Aachen 1921. Dieu, L., Le Commentaire de Saint Jean Chrysostome sur Job= Revue d'Histoire Ecdesiastique 13 (1912) 640-658. Le Commentaire sur Jeremie du Pseudo-Chrysostome serait-il l'oeuvre de Polydhronius d'Apamee?=ibid. 14 (1913) 685-701. Le Commentaire armenien de S. Jean Chrysostome sur Isaie est-il authentique?=ibid. 17 (1921) 7-30. Dolger, Fr. J., Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit. Gesammelte Studien. N. XIX. Freiburg 1913 (=Rom. Quartalschr, XIX. Suppl.) Doucin, L., S.J., Histoire des mouvements arrives dans l'Eglise au sujet d'Origene et de sa doctrine. Paris 1700. Du Cange (Du Fresne), C. Historia Byzantina. II: Constanti-nopolis Christiana. Venice 1729. Duchesne, L., Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise. III 3. Paris 1910. Duck, Joh., Die Erdbeben von Konstantinopel. Laibach 1904 (=Die Erdbebenwarte 3 [1903-4] 121-139 and 177-196). Durks, W., De Severiano Gabalitano. Dissertation. Kiel 1918. Dyobouniotis, K. J., Die Beteiligung des Epiphanius an der Verur- teilung des Johannes Chrysostomus (neugriedh.)=Epeteris 3 (1926) 67-84. Eberhard, B., Die Beteiligung des Epiphanius am Streite uber Origenes. Beitrag zur Geschichte des Origenismus. Trier 1859. Ebersolt, J., Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le livre des ceremonies. Paris lglo. Egger, Die Begrabnisstatte des Kaisers Konstantin=Jahreshefte des osterreichischen archaolog. Instituts 16 (1913) 212-230. Eggersdorfer, Fr. X., Die grossen Kirchenvater des 4. Jahrhun-derts auf den heidnischen Hochschulen ihrer Zeit=Theol. Prakt. Monatschrift 13 (1903) 335-345; 426-432. Ehrhard, A., Die Legendensammlung des Symeon Metaphrastes und ihr ursprunglicher Bestand=Festschrift zum elfhundert jahrigen Jubilaum des deutschen Campo-Santo in Rom. Freiburg 1897. P. 46- 82. See: Krumbacher, Geschichte d. byz. Literatur. Introduction li Engdahl, R., Beitrage zur Kenntnis der byzantinischen Liturgie. Texte und Studien (= Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und Kirche 5). Berlin 1908. p. 1-42; 87-149. Erdmann, G. A., Die Dardanellen. Konstantinopel und die Meerengen einst und jetzt. Bielefeld and Leipzig 1915. Ermoni, V., Diodore de Tarse et son r61e doctrinal= Le Museon N.S. 2 (sgol) 422-444- Saint Jean Chrysostome (Le Pensee et l'oeuvre sociale du Christianisme. Etudes et Documents). Paris 19ll. Forster, R., Antiochia am Orontes=Jahrbuch des kaiserl. deut-schen archaologischen Instituts 12 (1897) 103-149. Cf. ibid. 13 (1898) 177- lgl; 16 (Igol) 39-55. Forchheimer, Ph., Die byzantinischen Wasserbehalter von Con- stantinopel. Vienna 1893. Funk, F. X., Johannes Chrysostomus und der Hof von Constanti- nopel= Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuch-ungen II, 23-24. Paderborn 1899. Pseudo-Justin und Diodor von Tarsus ibid. 3 (1907) 323-350. Entwicklung des Osterfastens= Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen 1, 24l- 277- Galtier, P., Saint Jean Chrysostome et la confession=Recherches de science religieuse 1 (sglo) 209-240; 313-350. Gerhardt, H., Die Bedeutung Innozenz I. fur die Entwicklung der papstlichen Gewalt. Dissertation, Leipzig lgol. Gedeon, M., Byzantion Heortologion. Constantinople 1899. Geffcken, Joh., Kaiser Julianus und die Streitschriften seiner Gegner= Neue Jahrbucher fur das Klass. Altertum 21 (1908) 161-195- Kynika und Verwandtes. Heidelberg sgog. Gelzer, H., Sextus Junilius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie. 2nd part. Leipzig 1885. Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse der orientalische Kirche=Byzant. Zeitschrift l (1892) 245-282 and 2 (1893) 22-72- Geppert, Fr., Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sokrates Schol- asticus (=Studien z. Geschichte der Theologie und Kirche 3, 4). Leipzig, 1898. Gibbon, Ed., The history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited with introduction, notes and appendices by J. B. Bury. London 1914. 7 vol. Gifford, Seth K., Pauli epistolas qua forma legerit Ioannes Chrys- ostomus (=Dissertationes Halenses 16, 1). Halle 1902. Gobel, Ren., De Ioannes Chrysostomi et Libanii orationibus quae sunt de seditione Antiochensium. Dissertation. Gottingen lii Introduction lglo. Cf. Rauschen=Berliner Philolog. Wochenschrift (19ll) 923-927. Gottwald, J., La statue de l'imperatrice Eudoxie a Constantinople = Echos d'Orient lo (1907) 274-276. Grosse, R., Romische Militargeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der byzantinischen Themenverfassung. Berlin 1920. Grosvenor, E. A., Constantinople. 2 vol. London 1895. Grutzmacher, G., Hieronymus. Eine biograph. Studie z. alten Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig 1901-06. Synesios von Cyrene. Ein Charakterbild aus dem Untergang des Hellenentums. Leipzig 1913. Guldenpenning, A., Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret von Kyrrhos. Eine Untersuchung ihrer Quellen. Halle 1889. Geschichte des ostromischen Reiches unter den Kaisern Arka-dius und Theodosius II. Halle 1885. Guidi, J., Una descrizione araba di Antiochia=Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei. C1. mor . . . Ser. V. 6 (1897) 137-161. Hadzsega, J., De discrimine inter sententiam theologorum ortho- doxorum et S. Jo. Chrysostomi de Primatu S. Petri = Operum Academiae Velehradensis vol. IV. (1912) l-lo. Haidacher, S., Die Lehre des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus uber die Schriftinspiration. Salzburg 1897. Des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus Buchlein uber Hoffart und Kindererziehung samt einer Blumenlese uber Jugend-erziehung, aus seinen Schriften ubersetzt und herausgegeben. Freiburg 1907. Chrysostomus-Fragmente = Chrysostomica 217-234. For his other works on Chrysostom, see: Baur, S. Jean Chrysos-tome 258-261. Harnack, Ad., Die Zeit des Ignatius. Leipzig 1878. Diodor von Tarsus. Vier pseudojustinische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen=Texte und Unters. 21, 4 Leipzig lgol. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 4th edition. Tubingen 1909. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. 4th edition, 2 vol. Berlin 1924. Harrent, A., Les ecoles d'Antioche. Essai sur le savoir et l'en- seignement en Orient au IV. siecle apres J. C. Paris 1898. Hasselbach, K. F. W., Des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus sechs Bucher von Priestertum. Stralsund 1920. Preface. Introduction liii liautsch, E., Der Lukiantext des Oktateuch (Nachrichten der Gottinger Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften, Phil-hist. K1. Igog). P. 518-543. Hefele, C. J. von, Konziliengeschichte. 2nd edition, vols. s and 2. Freiburg 1873 and 1875. Heisenberg, Aug., Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche. Zwei Basili-ken Konstantins. 2nd part: Die Apostelkirche in Konstanti-nopel. Leipzig 1908. Hengstenberg, W., Das griechische Januar-Menologium. Freising 1910. Hergenrother, Ph., Die antiochenische Schule und ihre Bedeu-tung auf exegetischem Gebiete. Wurzburg 1866. Hermant (Menart), La vie de Saint Jean Chrysostome . . . Paris 1664. Hirschfeld, O., Die Rangtitel der rom. Kaiserzeit= Kleine Schrif-ten (Berlin 1913) 646-681. llubbel, H. M., Chrysostom and Rhetoric=Classical Philology 19 (1924) 261-276. Hug, A., Antiochia und der Aufstand des Jahres 387 n. Chr. (=A. Hug Studien aus dem klassischen Altertum, H. 1). Freiburg-Tubingen 1881. Hulster, Al., Die padagogischen Grundsatze des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus Theologie und Glaube 3 (19ll) 203-227. Jacoby, H., Die praktische Theologie in der alten Kirche. I: Gregor von Nyssa, Gregor von Nazianz, Chrysostomus= Theolog. Studien 6.3 (1890) 295-323. Janin, R., Formation du patriarcat oecumenique de Constanti-nople = Echos d'Orient 13 ( z g l o) 213-218. La banlieue asiatique de Constantinople. IV: Rufinianes= ibid. 22 (1923) 182-lgo. Jeep, L., Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchen- historikern=Jahrbucher f. klassische Philologie. Suppl. Vol. 14, p. 53- 178. Leipzig 1884. Jugie, M., Saint Jean Chrysostome et la Primaute de St. Pierre= Echos d'Orient 1 l (1908) 5-15. Saint Jean Chrysostome et la Primaute du Pape=ibid. 193-202. La premiere fete mariale en Orient et en Occident=ibid. 22 (1923) 129-l52. uzek, J. H., Die Christologie des heiligen Johannes Chrysosto-mus. Dissertation. Breslau 1912. Die Lehre des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus uber den Heili-gen Geist=Der Katholik 93, 1 (1913) 309-320. Kalsbach, Ad., Die altkirchliche Einrichtung der Diakonissen bis liv Introduction zu ihren Erl6schen (=Rom. Quartalschr. 22 Suppl.). Frei-burg 1926. Kammel, H. J., Der Untergang des Heidentums in Palastina und Phonizien=Zeitschrift f. hist. Theologie 13 (1843) 1, 3~33- Keane, H., S. J., The sacrament of penance in St. John Chrysos- tom=Irish Theological Quarterly 14 (19l9) 305-317. Kihn, H., Die altesten christlichen Schulen uberhaupt und die Schulen zu Antiochia, Edessa und Nisibis insbesondere. 1st part. Weissenburg 1865. 2nd part: Die Bedeutung der Antiochenischen Schule auf den Exegetischen Gebiete. Ibid. 1866. Ueber Theoria und Allegoria nach den verlorenen hermeneu-tischen Schriften der Antiochener = Theolog. Quartalschr. 62 (1880) 531- 582. Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten. Freiburg i. Br. 1880. Koch, H., Synesius von Cyrene=Historisches Jahrbuch 23 (1902) 751-774- Kraus, S., Antioche=Revue des Etudes juives 45 (Xg02) 27-50. Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur. 2nd edition. (=Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9, 1). Munich 1897. Kruger, G., Lucifer, Bischof von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer. Leipzig 1886. Kulemann, A., Das christliche Lebensideal des Chrysostomus auf Grund seiner Schrift 1rfpl tepe 7S. Berlin 1924. Ladeuze, P., Etude sur le Cenobitisme Pakhomien pendant le IV siecle et la premiere moitie du V. Louvain-Paris 1898. Lambros, Sp., Eine neue Fassung des elften Kapitels des sechsten Buches von Socrates' Kirchengeschichte= Byzant. Zeitschrift 4 (1895) 481-486. Leclerq, H., and Gastoue, Antioche, in: Dictionnaire d'Archeo-logie chretienne et de Liturgie, vol. I. 2, p. 2359 ff.; and Chant Romain et Gregorien ibid. 3, 1 (1914) 257 ff. Leder, P. A., Die Diakonen der Bischofe und Presbyter und ihre ursprunglichen Vorlaufer (=Kirchengeschichtliche Abhand-lungen, published by U. Stutz, 23 and 24), Stuttgart 1905. Lietzmann, Johannes Chrysostomus, in: Pauly-Wissowa, Realen- cyklopadie der klass. Altertumswissenschaft 9 (1916) 1811-1828. Loofs, Fr., Leontius von Byzanz und die gleichnamigen Schrift-steller der griechischen Kirche=T.u.U. 3, 1. Leipzig 1888. Ludwig, A., Weibliche Kleriker in der altchristlichen und fruh- Introduction Iv mittelalterlichen Kirche=Theolog. praktische Monatsschriit 20 (lglo) 548-557; 609-617 and 21 (19ll) 141-149. Ludwig, Fr. Der heilige Johannes Ghrysostomus in seinem Ver-haltnis zum byzantinischen Hof. Braunsberg 1883. Lubeck, K., Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum Ausgang des vierten Jahrhunderts (= Kirch-engeschichtl. Studien 5, 4). Munster i. W. Igol. Die Weihe des Cynikers Maximus zum Bischof von Konstanti-nopel in ihrer Veranlassung dargestellt (Programm). Fulda 1907. Die Einfuhrung des Weihnachtsfestes in Konstantinopel= Historisches Jahrbuch 28 (1907) 109-118. Maas, M., Die Maccabaer als christliche Heilige=Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 44 (zgoo) 145-156. Maas, P., Libanios und Johannes Chrysostomus (Anhang: Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Kirchenvatern und Sophisten) = Sit- zungsberichte d. preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften 1912, II, 1123- 26. Mahler, E., Zur Chronologie des Chrysostomus wegen der Weih- nachtsfeier = Orientalische Literaturzeitung 24 (1921) 59-63. Mansion, J., Les origines du christianisme chez les Gots = Analec[a Boll. 33 (1914) 1-30- Maries, L., Aurions-nous le Commentaire sur le Psaumes de Dio-dore de Tarse?=Revue de Philologie 35 (1911) 56-70. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes =Recherches de Science Religieuses 9 (1919) 7g-1ol. Marin, E., Les moines de Constantinople depuis la fondation de la ville jusqu'a la mort de Photius (330-898). Paris 1897. Marini, N., Le macchie apparenti nel grande Luminare della chiesa greca S. Giovanni Crisostomo=Bessarione 13 (sgog) 30-40; 159-184; 14 (Iglo) 367-385 and separate: Rome Iglo. I1 Primato di San Pietro e dei suoi successori in S. Giovanni Crisostomo. 2nd edition. Rome 1922. Martain, Ph., St. Jean Chrysostome et la confession = Revue Augustinienne 6 (1907) 460-462. Maspero, J., Organisation militaire de l'Egypte byzantine=Bib- liotheque de l'ecole des Hautes Etudes. Sc. hist. et phil. vol. 201. Paris 1912. Meliopulos, J. P., nos sKeCVTo at tpov+LvCavaf =Syllogos 29 (1907) 274-283 Bowds fiAugev~ *ou, 'Pou- 2. HE 8. a (67, 1513)- 3. Dialog 5 (47, 18). (Ed. Norton 28. 6-7.) 4. Ad viduam jun. 2 (48, 601). This passage may well be original. Libanius says the same of his own mother, which naturally makes the ascription of his remark about Anthusa very questionable. In this respect Libanius has been to blame for such plagiarisms (cf. his pretended support and his feigned ambassa-dorial speech at the time of the Antiochene revolt) so here also the thought of a plagiarism is not to be rejected without further proof. Cf. P. 232- 33- 5. Christ-Stahlin, Gr. L. II. 2. p. 997. 6. Letter to Ophelius 2, 42 (78, 484). 7- Essai 13l-2. 8. Libanios und Joh. Chrysostomus=Sitzungsber. d. k. preuss. Akad. d.W. 1912. II. 1123-6. 9. In his recension of Gobel=Analecta Boll. 33 (1914) 223-4. Io. Sievers 290. O. Seeck, Briefe . . . does not quote this letter. On the other hand, Anton Nagele, Joh. Chrys. und Libanios 102 ff. and: Joh. Chrys. und sein Verhaltnis zum Hellenismus 74, consider this letter genuine; so does Aug. Nagle, Introduction 83. Fr. Schulte, in his edition De inani gloria et de educandis liberis (P. XVIII) designates even the account of Maas as made " nimis temere." 1l. P. Maas loc. cit. 1123 notes that Libanius cannot have had any reason for surprise at Christian widowhood, since his own mother had been widowed early, and had remained a widow for twenty years. In this I cannot forbear the opinion that Libanius plagiarized Chrysostom, Ad viduam jun. 2. Cf. note 4. Chrysostom at School 27 Moreover, Libanius was only once mentioned, and that in the treatise De S. Babyla, attributed to Chrysostom, which was prob-ably intended as a reply to the lament by Libanius over the desecration of the Temple in the Grove of Daphne. There Libanius is accused as Huxps and raZaF7rops which for a polemicist in the fourth century were entirely harmless expressions. In regard to this, I am doubtful whether this composition may actually be attributed to Chrysostom. But cf. Note 4. . De Jo. Chrysostomi et Libanii orationibus 10-12. 13. Joh. Chrysostomus und sein Verhaltnis zum Hellenismus 74 ff. Nagele (Chrysostomus und Libanios 86), overestimates the influence of Libanius when he says: " Without a Libanius the Christian Church would not have had a Chrysostom." The spiritual difference between those two was much too great, and Chrysostom had a much more pronounced and outstanding talent. With much more reason the Christian Church can be grateful to his mother Anthusa and to his later teacher Diodorus, or to Meletius. 14. Griech. Lit. 2, 1457, Note 4. In this Christ is wrong when he says that Chrysostom copied Libanius. Gobel points out that it is just the opposite. Cf. Ch. 22, N. 53. 15. Socrates 6, 3 (67, 665), Sozomen 8, 2 (67, 1515). The name Andragathius occurs in letter 223 from Libanius to Julian (Forster lo, 206) as the bearer of a letter of Libanius. However, this does not prove that it referred to the philosopher Andragathius. 16. Schemmel, Libanius 68. L. Sternbach in his Analecta phil. 59, has referred to the proverb " Constant dripping wears away a stone," which appears in Chrysostom's homily Si esurierit . . . X (51, 173-4), and which he considered a quotation from Ovid's Ars amatoria 1, 475 f. But this proverb is too commonly known to admit of a conclusion as to its literary derivation. Also Chrysos-tom knew nothing of Vergil but his name. . Allard, Julien 1, 267 f. 18. Lib. 3, 5 (47, 357). Cf. H. Zilliacus, Zum Kampf der Welt sprachen im ostromischen Reich. Helsinki 1935; from Byz. Zeitschr. 36 (1936) log. 19. Hom. 7, 2 in Matth. (57, 74). 20. 50, 646; likewise also- the languages of the Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and others. Hom. 2, 2 in Joh. (59, 32). Cf. Hom. 19. 1 ad pop. Ant. (49, 188). See Fr. Nau, L'arameen chretien, in: Revue de lthistoire des Religions 99 (1929) 237- 21. In Ch. so, p. 97. 22. Hom. 12, 2 ad pop. Ant. (49, 128). Cf. Severian of Gabala 28 John Chrysostom and his Time in Zellinger, Genesis-Homilien 69 ff. One Gregory Acropolites wrote a treatise on whether, according to the divine Chrysostom, the heavens are spherical and fixed or not (from Eui; Kurila in: Theologia 17 (1938) 174. 23. Hom. 9, lo ad pop. Ant. (49, 106 ff.); in Ps. 49; 3 and 147, 2 (55, a44 and 480); Hom. a, 4 in Gen. (53, 3o). 24. Hom. so, 2 ad pop. Ant. (49, 113). Cf. Diodorus (?), Refuta-tion of some Aristotelian teaching T. u.U. agl (lgol) a27 n. 6; Nemesius Emis., De natura hominis 4 t De corpore (40, 608); Gregor. Nyss., De hominis opificio 30 (44, 240). V%thether there are actual traces of a knowledge of physiology on Chrysostum's part, as Krumbacher says, (Byi. LG 875), must be dctermined by concrete examples. 25. Contra Judaeos et gent. 6, 7 and 12 (48, 822 ff.). De laud. S. Pauli 4 (50, 491)- 26. Hom. 3, 2 in Matth. (57, 33). De Incomprehens. 2 (48, 714), 27. Hom. 3, 1 in Princ. Act. (51, 88). a8. Ch. 4 (Savile 8, 161-6). ag. Ch. 4 (ibid. a68-270). 30. Ch. 4 (ibid. 297g). 31. Ch. a (ibid. 374-6). CHAPTER V ANTIOCH, THE CITY AND ITS PEOPLE tHE narrow schoolrooms of the grammarians and the sophists were not the only places which offered intel-lectual stimulation to the young John, and were of significance in his future development and spiritual inclina-tions. The place itself, the great city of Antioch, vouchsafed by its mere existence the tnost all- embracing education by observation, for a boy and young man, if only he had a recep-tive mind and kept his eyes open. What the student found day by day in his classical studies, what he read there of the ancient gods, of Jupiter, Mars and Apollo, of Minerva, Ceres and Fortuna, all this he saw on the open streets and in the public squares of the city, visible, comprehensible, in living actuality and in a thousand forms and shapes before his eyes. At least eight great temples of the gods still stood there; from them he had heard in his earliest youth, under Julian, the death cries of many sacrificial animals, and from which he saw the smoke ascending from the burning sacrificial flesh.l A multitude of small temples, sacred edifices and altars arose on all sides; these, in themselves alone, signified a whole school of Roman mythology, and reminded young John vividly of the recently vanished time of the bloody persecutions, the three-hundred-year struggle between paganism and Christianity; also of the bloody Caesars, whose statues stood in all the squares and street crossings, and looked down from all the monuments; upon a new generation, entering upon a new pathway. A purely external observation might reveal to whom the final victory belonged. During the short span of Julian's rule, the temples, for the most part, stood empty and forsaken. Not once did the few sophists and patriots who still claimed belief in the gods, come there to pray or offer sacrifice. On 29 30 John Chrysostom and his Time Sunday, which they called the " Lord's Day," the majority of the people of Antioch were to be seen passing by the temples to hasten to the great Christian church in which their Patriarch officiated at divine service. The Christians really possessed two churches in Antioch. The oldest and most venerated, the Palaia (old church) was originally built in the time of the persecutions. It was also called the " Apostolic," because according to ancient traditions, the Apostles had held divine service in it, or at least on the site where it stood. The Christians of Antioch clung to their " old church " with much love and veneration, for a long time, as can be seen from a sermon preached in it by Chrysostom, on an occasion when divine service could not be held in the new " Great Church," probably because of alterations in the building.2 " Now," said the preacher, " we have come home for a time to our mother (the Palaia), to this church which is so beloved and dear to us all, and which we honor as our mother and the mother of all churches. It is our mother-church, not merely because it is the oldest in point of time, but because it was built by the hands of the Apostles. This is also the reason why it will always be rebuilt with the help of Christ, since it has so often been destroyed against the name of Christ. And it is not merely its apostolic origin which entitles it to protection, but still more the word of the Lord: Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The power of this word has been proved in the three-hundred-year-long persecutions of the Church, in the times when fire and sword, the sharp teeth of wild beasts, steep cliffs, abysses and whirlpools, torture, cross, and fiery furnace, and every conceivable agony were brought to bear against the Christians. And in spite of it all, the foundations of the Church remain unshaken! " In size and splendor the old church was far surpassed by the new " Great Church," which was built by the Emperor Con-stantine the Great, and which, in the year 341, had been consecrated at the famous church consecration synod, in the presence of numerous bishops.3 This church of Constantine, according to Eusebius,4 was built in the form of an octagon, with an immense, high cupola, and encircled by chapels, exedrae and galleries. The altar stood on the western side. Antioch, the City and its People 31 The church towered in the midst of a large open square, which in turn was surrounded by a wall. In the last third of the fourth century, this church was the only episcopal or patriarchal church in Antioch in which the Patriarch held divine service attended by his priests. Chrysos-tom preached in it for twelve years, and often from the pulpit he called his hearers' attention to the splendor of the gloriously colored inlaid marbles, the rich decorations of gold and bronze, the many reliefs on the walls, and especially to the single high cupola of the church, which roused great admira-tion.5 The great earthquake of Justinian's time, in 55 1, sealed the fate of this cupola and of the church. After standing for more than two hundred years, it fell at last, after having towered for two days still erect among the ruins of the destroyed city. The conflagration which followed completed its ruin.S Regular divine services were also held, toward the end of the fourth century in Antioch, not merely in this church, but also in other churches of the city.6& In Alexandria and Con-stantinople, about this time, there were already several " parish churches" with regular services. Furthermore, it is not probable, that in the great city of Antioch, with its hundred thousand Christians, that divine service could only be celebrated at one church. At least, in the Emperor Julian's time, a certain Theoctenus was placed as priest in a suburban church in Antioch.6b This great patriarchal church, however, was apparently the only one in which the full Divine Liturgy was regularly carried out. Individual parish churches, as such, did not exist in Antioch at that time, although the population of the city was estimated at about half a million, and at least half of these were Christians. The political uncertainty and the fatal internal dissension over Arianism had doubtless hindered church building. Only outside the city had the so-called martyria (martyrs' shrines) been erected; these were chapels of honor, built over the graves of certain martyrs, and in which divine service, with a sermon, was celebrated on the anniver-sary of the day on which the individual martyr shed his blood.' The best known martyrium of this sort was the memorial chapel of St. Babylas, former Bishop of Antioch, who died a 32 John Chrysostom and his Time martyr's death about the year 2g,o.8 He had first been buried in the large general cemetery of the Christians. Later the Emperor Gallus, the brother of the Emperor Julian, had a splendid memorial chapel erected to him in the Grove of Daphne. But when Julian became Emperor, he commanded that the relics of the saint be returned to the common cemetery. But not even here could the Bishop, whose grave had been so often disturbed, remain in peace. The Patriarcb Meletius built another great Martyrium for him. Meletius took such an interest in this building that he often journeyed out to it in the most intense heat, to observe and urge on the progress of the work; and often he would join in and put his own hand to it. This had actually another reason. Meletius had probably from the beginning envisioned this memorial chapel as his own eternal resting place. Actually this Patri-arch, although he died in Constantinople in 381, was brought back to Antioch and buried in the Martyrium of his holy predecessor.9 The cruciform memorial church seems to have been built first under Flavian, one of whose inscriptions, from the year 387, from the latest excavations, has been discovered. Two priests were also mentioned: Eusebius, the "steward" of the church, and Doris, who contributed a mosaic.9' A second popular Martyrium was situated in the suburb of Kerateion, where the Jewish ghetto was located. Here, in a rock of the declivity of Mount Tauris, was shown the grave of the seven Maccabean brothers and their mother Aschmunit, who had been martyred in Antioch under the fierce King Antiochus Epiphanes.l High above, in the temple of Jupiter Keramios on the so-called Mount of Sighs, that is, on the western height of Mount Sylpios, opposite to Mount Kasios, Mosis and Jehovas had shed their blood for the Law. They had been buried in a rock sepulchre under the synagogue.ll These also stood in high honor as martyrs among the Chris-tians, so much that the latter simply took the synagogue away from the Jews, against whom they had some old scores besides, and changed it into a Christian Martyrium. This probably took place under the Arian Emperor Constantius or Valens. Over the sepulchral chamber were placed reliefs of the martyr-dom (Tormenta).l2 Antioch, the City and its People 33 Every year on the first of August the Christians celebrated their annual memorial here, and Chrysostom, as a priest, had preached several times on these occasions. At least three of these sermons have survived.l3 The Maccabaean church may also have fallen in the great earthquake which destroyed the patriarchal church. At any rate, the Emperor Justinian had the collected relics brought to Constantinople in 551. The Emperor sent the greater part of these a few year6 later to Pope Pelagius, who brought them to Rome about 556 and had them interred in San Pietro ai vincoli. They were found again in a sarcophagus under the high altar, in the exhumation of 1876. Very near the Maccabees' grave, on the slope of Mount Tauris, and near the synagogue, was located the Grotto of St. Paul, in which the Apostle was said to have preached. Also a house in which he once dwelt, was held in llonor, and his bed and table were shown there.l4 The Martyrium of St. Drosis seems to have been a fairly large mausoleum. When a visitor entered the vestibule, a multitude of graves appeared before his eyes, and he saw all around him sarcophagi, urns and monuments to the dead.ls Probably the custom prevailed in Antioch, as in Rome, that pious Christians wished to be buried as near as possible to the graves of the saints and martyrs, so that many a Martyrium became the focal point of a large cemetery. Another chapel (or church) which certainly was still stand-ing in the time of Chrysostom was the Martyrium of St. Ignatius, the famous martyr bishop of Antioch, who died in Rome; Chrysostom preached a sermon on him which still survives.l6 Under Theodosius the Younger, the bones of St. Ignatius were transferred to the former temple of Tyche, which had been transformed into a Christian church.l7 A piece of good fortune, that Libanius, the enthusiastic wor- shiper of Tyche (Fortune) did not live to see it1 Also Bishop Eustathius, who had died in exile in Thrace, had his memorial chapel in Antioch.'8 Then there wa6 a Church of Saint Simeon, in which the adherents of Paulinus held divine service. Other saints and blood witnesses from the times of the persecutions may have had their martyria or memorial chapels already in the fourth century, for example 34 lohn Chrysostom and his Time Sts. Juventinus and Maximus, Pelagia,l8^ Berenice and Pros-doce; St. Lucian, the founder of the older schools of Antioch, and others.l8b For a number of martyrs, who still rested in the common cemetery, " together with heretics (Arians), so that the people had difficulty finding their graves,''l9 the Patriarch Flavian later built a common martyrium before the city, " in Romanesia." Here Chrysostom gave a still surviving sermon on a certain Ascension Day.20 This martyrium of Romanesia ateained a special significance in the later life of our John. Finally, Antioch appears to have been surrounded, toward the end of the fourth century, by a complete circle of martyrs' chapels and martyrs' graves. Chrysostom considered it the grace of God that the relics of the holy martyrs surrounded it on all sides as though with a protecting wall.2' Still other martyrs' shrines and churches stood in or near Antioch in the course of the fourth and fifth centuries. For example, the martyrium of St. Romanus; those of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, Cassian, Stephen the first martyr, and Thecla; also the churches of St. Michael the Archangel, the Mother of God, and others. The author of the Itinerarium Antonini was acquainted with nine martyria in all.22 The form in which these martyria were built was usually that of the octagon, while churches were usually built in the basilican style.23 With all the other religious buildings, they doubtless elevated the architectural elegance of the " Queen of the East." Antioch was also rich in other splendid buildings, in which the whole history of the city and of the former kingdom of Syria was embodied. King Antiochus Epiphanes had erected the old Senate house, the Curia (council hall) and the splendid temple of Jupiter Keramios, near the Acropolis, on the height of Mount Sylpios. The great State and City library, called the Museum, was built by Antiochus Philopator. The great basilica called the Caesarium, on the brook Parmenius, opposite the temple of Mars, was a memorial to Caesar. This was later desecrated by being turned into a slaughter-house (macellum). The same Caesar had begun the Thermae (public baths) and built the first amphitheater. The Emperor Tiberius built a temple to Bacchus near the theater, and another public bath near the fountain of Olympias, in the Antioch, the City and its People 35, Kerateion, the Jewish quarter. Trajan likewise enriched Antioch with new Thermae and aqueducts, so that the city offered its inhabitants what might be expected of a great Graeco-Roman city of ancient times. Not without reason was it the second residential city of the Roman empire for many years. It stood not far behind ancient Rome in brilliance and splendor. Like the latter, it was divided by a river, the Orontes, which had built up a large island in the center of the city. On this island, Antiochus the Great (228 187) built a new quarter of the city, which he had settled and established by Greek colonists from Aetolia, Euboea and Crete. Five bridges connected it with the old city.24 In the fourth century the enormous imperial palace built by Diocletian occupied a great part of the island,25 which was also traversed by regular and beautiful streets and promen-ades. The same Diocletian built a Mint and new Thermae in the city itself. The Christian emperors were not back-ward in the beautifying of Antioch. Constantine the Great built, besides the noble Patriarchal Church, the Basilica of Rufinus, the law courts, the Praetorium, and the palace of the governor of the city, the Count of the East. And last, the Emperor Valens built a new Forum and great baths near the Circus, under the eyes of young Chrysostom. Wealthy private individuals also frequently built splendid palaces, baths, porticoes, and promenades, with the outspoken aim of making a name for themselves and living long in the memories of mankind.26 The entire city of Antioch covered an area about seven kilometers long and six wide. Hence it had an area of about forty-two square kilometers and was a little smaller than modern Paris. The great city wall reached a length of at least seventeen kilometers and lay partly on the level plain and partly on the steep heights and in the deep depressions of the limestone cliffs of Antioch. On the whole, the site of Antioch is one of the most beauti-ful in the world. Along the banks of the Orontes, embedded among a chain of mountains, its houses climb up the precipices and lofty heights of the rock fortresses, and there endangered the peace of the numerous hermits and cave dwellers. " The mild climate, the pure air, the abundance and clarity of the 36 John Chrysostom and his Time waters, the picturesque situation, all make this one of the most attractive cities that one could imagine. Within its walls are hills seven hundred feet high, steeply sloping cliffs, precipices, torrents, deep valleys, graves, waterfalls, and inac-cessible caves in the rock."27 Most of the dwelling-houses had flat roofs, on which the people slept orl hot summer night8. The principal streets were lighted at night, which was a special rarity, and also agreeable to the moths of Antioch. Torches also burned in the evening befqre the Thermae, and the avenues approaching them. The principal streets were not only paved, but were sup-plied, on one or both sides, with kilometer-long colonnades, a kind of covered promenade in which pedestrians could find protection in all kinds of weather. Even the donkey and camel drivers with their four-footed companions, often allowed themselves to turn off the street out of the sun into the shady promenades; this irritated the Emperor Julian not a little.28 But the Emperor was powerless against the donkeys and camels. The principal streets converged into a focal point which bore the poetic name of the "navel of the city." A square vaulted building occupied this important spot. Within the extended walls, numberless houses and gay streets, moved a multitude, equally numberless and gay, of dice-playing, pleasure-loving people. The population of the city in the fourth century cannot be exactly determined. Chrysostom is never mathematically exact in giving numbers. In the time of St. Ignatius, toward the end of the first century, there were in Antioch, according to Chrysostom, twenty "myriads," which would be two hundred thousand inhabi-tants; this count probably included only the adults.29 For his own time, Chrysostom gave the number as one hundred thousand Catholic Christians alone (adults?).30 If one includes the Arians, Apollinarists, and other sects, and takes into con-sideration the fact that under the Emperor Julian, about the year 363, the Christians made up the majority of the popula-tion,3' then, including pagans and Jews, one might arrive at a total of three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand. In the fearful earthquake of the year 551, approximately two hundred and fifty thousand people perished in one day.32 Antioch, the City and its People 37 That was the fearful aspect of Antioch; thse continual violent earthquakes. After that came the almost equal danger of surprise raids by the Persian cavalry, which could come in Erom their frontiers to the very gates of Antioch in a short time. These warlike pagan Persians were definitely the most Sangerous border enemies of Syria and Antioch. Even the great Roman Empire itself never was able to master them zompletely. The Emperor Valerian, after losing a battle (A.D. 260) ended his life as a Persian prisoner of war, and more rhan a hundred years later (363) in the lifetime of Chrysostom, :he Emperor Julian lost both his crown and his life in battle lgainst this enemy. In 256, the Persians had even conquered Xntioch, and took its bishop, Demetrius, with a great number ~ f the inhabitants, to Persia as captives.32a Otherwise, however, life in Antioch was a fine life, and the ~ eople had the best will in the world to enjoy it. Whoever lad money could buy freely in the shops and bazaars, any-:hing he wished for making life pleasant. Gold, silver and ewels, precious carpets and silken tapestries, ivory-inlaid beds md tables, cleverly made pointed shoes, gay clothing, the .hoicest Oriental wines, wild game and choice food of every eind. Whoever wished to be amused went to the theater, shich was cut in the rock on the slope of the Acropolis; traces f it are visible to this day. Or he could visit the Circus on he plain of the Orontes; the ancient Spina and one of the Metae of this Circus still tower above the swamp which has ubmerged its foundations. These ruins have recently been ~ xcavated by an American scholarly group. The great rhermae, now vanished, offered all sorts of pastime and efreshment, both in summer and in winter.33 There wers )lenty of taverns in Antioch, and many thirsty souls who ,at for hours every day behind a wineglass came home lrunk, unless they fell down in the street34 before getting ome. The nucleus of the population consisted of the Greek ,ettlers who had first established themselves in the city in the ime of Alexander the Great and his successors. They gave he city its Greek stamp. Besides them, one might see there he togas of the Romans, the turbans of the proud Persians, ig8 John Chrysostom and his Time the cunning Armenians, the half-barbaric Scythians, children of the wastes; Saracens and Arabians, Hindus and not a few Jews, and other folk types, who remind us by their traces, that Antioch was the outstanding bulwark of the Roman Empire in the East against Persia and Asia, the dividing line between culture and barbarism, the boundary between Christianity and paganism. This gave the city a cosmopolitan and inter-national character and made it the great city of antiquity in which one might see and hear everything, and have one's share of good and evil, and pay the price: where the weak might perish of excess or poverty, and strong souls might be great or unfortunate. As soon as one left the city behind, one left Greece for Syria, so to speak. The people of the hinter-land were altogether Syrian and understood not a word of Greek.3s The military significance of Antioch in the fourth century was greater than that of Constantinople. The always restless Persians demanded an unwearied watchfulness toward the East. So the city itself was a great fortress and garrison, with numerous arms factories, since it was the headquarters of the supreme military commander of the Eastern frontier. In the last decade even the Emperors themselves, especially Constan-tius, Julian and Valens, often used to spend the greater part of the year in residence at Antioch. With them came also the rich, colorful and brilliant life of the imperial court into this city in which the threads of world empire were woven together, and to which couriers from every corner of the Empire brought new reports daily, to the great satisfaction of the curious and sensation-loving people of Antioch. Furthermore, there were the brilliant spectacles of the Circus, the exciting horse races, and splendid theatrical performances. The greatest single institution for sport and amusement which the people of Antioch had was in Daphne, which was about eight kilometers from the city.36 Originally a large forest, Daphne had been transformed into a grove and park, actually a suburb in itself. It was about sixteen kilometers in circumference, almost as large as Antioch itself. There the people flocked together in the beautiful spring and in the hot days of summer, to rest among the fresh greenery and in the shadow of the trees. Streets, carriage roads and footpaths Antioch, the City and its People 3g extended in all directions, and many a cozy nook became a regular rendezvous for lovers, whether secret or not, for whom the great city was too confining. The god Apollo in his temple nearby in the cypress grove, was not thereby disturbed. The place itself owed its name for love-adventures to Apollo, for he had waylaid the nymph Daphne there. Apollo's temple, however, had been visited by other devo-tees. To its holy sanctuary had once fled Berenice, the Egyptian king's daughter and the unfortunate wife of Antio-chus II. A rival had displaced her, and in spite of her tears and her right of asylum, she was murdered at the foot of the statue of Apollo.37 The same fate was suffered by Cleopatra, the wife of Antiochus Cyzicenus. She also fell here, sacrificed to a woman, Thyphaena, the wife of Antiochus Grypus. Antiochus Epiphanes enriched not only Antioch but Daphne with a temple to Jupiter. The Emperor Titus, the destroyer of Jerusalem, built a theater there in the place where a Jewish synagogue had stood; the latter he had torn down. The Thermae and aqueducts were built by Trajan and Hadrian. All the outstanding Emperors of later times con-tributed to the beautification of Daphne as well as of Antioch. Diocletian built an imperial villa and a temple to Hecate in Daphne, also three arms factories. The Jews at length built a new synagogue about this time. The principal event in Daphne and all Antioch was the Olympian games, which were celebrated every four years. They continued for not less than forty-five days and were always held in July and August. A rich man of Antioch under the Emperor Commodus gave the city an immense sum of money for the celebration of public games. Also in the month of May in every third year occurred the " thirty nights " in which the Feast of Lights was celebrated. There were also horse races every Sunday, and theatrical and dance exhibitions, attended by everyone who could afford them. The Olympic games were always the most important events to take place in the city, indeed in the whole country. The rich youth flocked in, most of them with a great following, to interest themselves in the prize fights in the palaestra, the betting on the foot races, the boxing events, archery contests, horse racing, music and singing. Only slaves were barred 40 John Chrysostom and his Time from contending in the Olympics.38 The active contenders had to live in Antioch for at least a month before the begin-ning of the games. Then they were taken out to Daphne and shown to the assembled people in the theater therc. The herald called out as each one appeared: " Has any one any objection to this one? " Then, if no one raised his voice, the candidate was admitted to the games. Even the weaker sex could not resist the temptation to take part in the boxing matches and the foot races. The girls also took part in the poetic and musical contests. The victors received lifelong exemption from taxes.39 A certain Artabanes, a citizen of Antioch, had established a charitable institution. At the end of the Olympic games he had a large number of " bread tickets " (tokens) thrown to the crowd in the grove of Daphne. Every one who managed to catch one of these tokens was entitled to " eternal bread." It happened that many in the struggle for eternal bread attained to eternal life. However, a marble statue was erected in gratitude to Artabanes in Daphne.49 This grove of Daphne was the cause of much secret grief to Chrysostom when he later became a preacher in Antioch. Once he complained from the pulpit: " Some of you have the bad habit of coming here to listen to sermons and then run-ning out to Daphne between times. I do not wish to forbid you to go there, but only do not go there tomorrow, so that the day may pass without sin. For tomorrow the suburb will be filled with troops of dancing men, and there will be indecent songs, immoral speech and other inventions of the devil, besides the common entertainment.''41 Another place of resort for the ever pleasure-loving people of Antioch was the great lake which is still to be seen north of the city. It was about thirty kilometers in circumference and offered a royal opportunity for bathing and every kind of water sport. Many springs and three small rivers brought fresh water to it, and its fish were relished by the people. Such was the city of Antioch, full of brilliance and royal splendor, full of the pleasures of life and the craving for amusement, full of hidden virtue and open crime, a volcanic foundation for young souls; the city whose charms and entice- ments the great majority of Christian youth did not have the Antioch, the City and its People 41 power to withstand. It was almost an exception if a young man was able to make his way on this slippery pavement without falling. The young John was much too vivacious and full of life not to take pleasure in the splendid spectacles, the races, the Circus, the theaters and the other places of amusement. He said of himself that he had " plunged into the whirlpool of the world" and that he had not only spent plenty of time at the law courts, which was his duty as a student, but that he had been passionately fond of the theater42 and also knew how to enjoy the pleasures of good food.43 The frank and natural inclination for the pleasures of life was strong in young John's nature. He had seen enough of the world to be able to form a judgment of it from his own observation and experience. He had passed through the fire but his steadfast heart and the good guidance of Anthusa had protected him from taking fire or falling into the whirlpool of worldly pleasure and sin. He had passed his youth clean and unsullied in spite of all the opportunities for wickedness and all the hundredfold seductions of the great Eastern city. The most brilliant evidence of this was given later by one of his antagonists. As his thoughts ranged here and there, attempting to find an excuse for removing the hated Bishop John, the idea occurred to him to have an investigation made in Antioch, in the attempt to find something in John's youth which would serve his purpose. But even the sharp eye of hate could discover nothing.44 It is a fact that at the Synod of the Oak, among all the petty items dragged in or partly invented, of the " transgressions " of Bishop John, there was no accusation concerning anything from his youth.45 FOOTNOTES 1. Allard, Julien 3, 96. 2. Hom. 2 (Title) in Inscript. Act. (51, 777. 3. Hefele KG 1, 502. W. Eltester, Die Kirchen Antiochias in IV Jh., in Ztschr. f. neutest. Wiss. 36 (A 38) 251-286. 4. Vita Constantini 3, So (20, 1109) and De laude Constantini 42 John Chrysostom and his Time 9 (20, 1369 B). Cf. Strzykowski, Kleinasien 95.(49) Chrys. in Kalendas (48, 953). 5. Hom. 6, 2 in Gen. (53, 56); De mutatione nom. 2, 1 (51, 125); Si esurierit 2 (5, 175); Hom. lo, 2 in Eph. (62, 78). 6. Malalas, Chronographia 17 (97, 620>. 6a. In these, Chrysostom gave the sermons against the Arians (48, 701 ff.). Cf. W. Eltester, Die Kirchen Antiochiens, loc. cit. 272 ff. 6b. Philostorgius, KG., ed. Bidez 280. Theoctenus apostatized under Julian. 7. There is no satisfactory reason for considering the " Mar-tyria ", a Christian continuation of the pagan " Heroa " (heroes' graves). No Heroon has been discovered in Antioch. The martyr's grave was to the Christian something holy, and for itself alone was sufficient to become the focal point of a place of worship. Contrary to Pfister, Reliquienkult 401 ff. Cf. Delehaye, Le culte des martyrs 44 f. 219 ff. 8. Babylas was the twelfth bishop of Antioch. Cf. A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius 14 and 48-49. The Martyrium of St. Babylas, which Papadopulos Kerameus published in the Pravosl. Pal, Sbornik 19, 3 (1907) 75-84 from the Petersburger Handschrift 213 (loth cent.) has the church door scene played between the Emperor Numerian (?) and Babylas. 9. Chrys., Hom. de S. Babyla 3 (50, 534); A; Sozomen HE 5, 19 (67, 1271); Evagrius HE 1, 16 (86, 2468); Theo-doret HE 3, 6 ~ 82, 1097); Rufinus HE 1, 35 and 36 (ML 21, 5o3 ff.). ga. J. Lassus, in Stillwell, Antioch on the Orontes, II, 6; 13, 38-39. Cf. W. F. Albright Explorations and Excavations in Palestine and Syria 1935, in: Amer. Journal of Archaeol. 40, P. 154-67; and Baumstark, in Oriens Chr. 33 (1936) 105. so. 2 Maccabees 7, 1-42. 1 l. Card. Rampolla, Martyre et sepulture= Revue de l'Art Chretien 42 (1899) 383 ff. IY. Itinerarium Antonini Piacentini (6th-7th cent.) ed. Gilde-meister (Berlin 1899) 33 and 62. 13. Hom. 1-3 in Maccabaeos (so, 617 ff.>. Rampolla, Martyre et sepulture loc. cit. 296 ff. M. Maas, Die Maccabaer als christ-liche Heilige loc. cit. 145-156; J. Guidi, Una descrizione araba loc. cit. S.V. 6 (1897) 160. 14. Chrys., Hom. 30, 4 ad Rom. (60, 666). Antioch, the City and its People 4 15. Chrys. In S. Drosidem (50, 683); Delehaye, Les origines 230 speaks of a " basilica." 16. 50, 587 and BHG2 816; S. Ierome, De viris ill. 16 (23. 633; ed. Bernoulli 19) says his bones were interred " in the cemetery outside the gate of Daphne"; Acta SS. Febr. 1, 33; Nilles, Kalen-dar. man. 1, 85-6. 17. Evagrius HE 1, 16 (86, 2465). 8. Chrys., In S. Eustathium 2 (so, 600). 8&. Chrys., In S. Pelagiam (so, 585). 18b. Chrys., Laudatio S. Juliani M. (so, 965) 19. Hom. de ascensione Domini X (so, 441); cf. Wieland, Altar und Altargrab 103. 20. Hom. de ascensione loc. cit. 21. Hom. de cemeterio et cruce X (49, 393); cf. Severian, De cruce (Savile 5, 899) and Zellinger, Studien 54. 22. N. 47 (ed. Gildemeister 33). 23. J. Strzygowski, Kleinasien. Ein Neuland der Kunstge-schichte. (Leipzig 1903) P. 42 ff. and 70 ff. 24. This island must have been considerably larger than it is today; it is now only one kilometer in circumference. 25. Forster, Antiochia 116 ff. and 125. 26. Hom. 30, 2 in Gen. (54, 275). 27. E. Renan, Les ApBtres 221 ff. 28. MisopOgOn (ed. Hertlein 458). 29. In St. Ignatium 4 (50, 591). Beloch, Bevolkerung p. 484 and 285 gives the population under Augustus as about 3oo,ooo free citizens (excluding slaves). Cf. Schultze, Antiochien 183 ff. 30. Hom. 85, 4 in Matth. (58, 762-3). Cf. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung 2, 132. 31. MisopOgOn (ed. Hertlein 461>. 32. Malalas, Chronographia 17 (97, 6xo). 32&. P. Peeters. in: An. Boll. 42 (1924) 288-314. 33. R. Forster, Antiochia 103-149. 34. Hom. 29, 5 in Gen. (54, 267-8). 35. Hom. 19, 1 ad pop. Ant. (49, 188). 36. C. O. Muller, De antiquitatibus 246 ff. D. N. Wilber, The Plateau of Daphne, in: Stillwell, Antioch. Excavations II +9 ff., and The theater at Daphne, ibid. 57-94. 37. Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyklopadie 5, 283 n. Io. 38. Hom. 1, 3 in princ. Act. (51, 76). Cf. Pseudo-Basilius Seleuc (Nestorius?), Hom. 27; In Olympia (85, 308-316). 39. Cf. Malalas, Chronographia 12 (97, 436). 40- Ibid. (col. 437). 41. In S. Julianum 4 (50, 672-4). 44 John Chrysostom and his Time 4s. De Sacerdotia 1, 4 (48, 624). 43. De compunctionc 1, 6 (47, 4 3? 44. Palladius, Dial. 6 (47, 21); cf. Leo imp. 18 (107, 264 D). 45. Photius, Bibliotheca 59 (103, 105-13). Ad Smyrnenses, VIII, 2 (ed. Funk, Patres Apostolici [Igol] 282). CHAPTER VI RELIGIOUS AND ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIO9S IN ANTIOCtI Patriarch Meletius t H E people of Antioch were proud of their city, which not without reason bore the honorary title of " Queen of > the East." But the Christians had another reason for pride. The Church of Antioch was the first and oldest Chris-tian community after the one in Jerusalem. Here preached the princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul; here labored their pupils Barnabas, and Silas, and the Evangelist Mark. The Evangelist Luke also came from this city. Here also the new converts first received the name of Christians. One of their first bishops was St. Ignatius, who was taken to Rome and thrown to the wild beasts there; he was the author of seven famous letters. Bishop Theophilus, one of the oldest ecclesi-astical wTiters of Christian antiquity, also labored here. Chrysostom said, not without reason, ln one of his later ser-mons, that no other city in the world had such merit, not even Rome. On this account Antioch was the " principal city of the entire world" and could look the whole world in the face.l St. Basil himself wTote to St. Athanasius, in reminiscing about the primitive Christians: " Could the other churches of the world show anything more important than Antioch? 922 It is not surprising that the city which was " the head and mother of all the churches of the East," the political and administrative center of the Eastern province, should also become the ecclesiastical center of a wide district whose arch-bishoprics and bishoprics constituted the " Patriarchate of Antioch." It is not exactly known when this patriarchate originated. At any rate, in the time of the Council of Nicaea (325) it possessed a rank not far below that of Alexandria.3 Not fewer than one hundred and fifty bishoprics in 15 ecclesi- astical provinces belonged to it,4 and in normal times the 45 46 John Chrysostom and his Time bishops of the neighbouring provinces assembled, with their patriarchs, for an annual general council, in the first half of October.5 After the cessation of the persecutions, Antioch was called, and actually became, the great center for missionary effort in the East, and carried Christianity deep into Persia and India. It acquired a significance in this field which surpassed even that of Alexandria. Unfortunately, in the fourth century, the Patriarchate was practically paralyzed by external and internal upheavals. The youthful years of John Chrysostom fell in a time in which the ecclesiastical and religious relations in Antioch were as confused and disagreeable as they could well be; conditions resembled those in Germany in the sixteenth century. Not only were the Christians continually opposed by the numerous pagans and wealthy Jews; the greatest mis-fortune was that they were divided among themselves by heresies and long-continuing schisms.6 Naturally, the time of the persecutions had also cost many blood sacrifices in Antioch. The best known martyrs were Bishop Babylas (d. 250) and the learned priest Lucian (d. 3 1 2). But pagan ideas, customs and examples persisted for a long time. Their most obstinate adherents and champions were chiefly the rhetoricians and sophists (professors), into whose hands the Christian youth were often given. Many of them clung with almost fanatical zeal, not only to their classical literature, but also to their old gods and goddesses, who indeed often allowed them what Christianity forbade them. Not only the Greek gods, such as Zeus and Adonis, but the Roman gods, attained a home and citizen's rights there, and they also venerated Astarte, Heliogabalus, Isis, Serapis and many others. It was not easy for the Christians to keep themselves entirely free from this world of spirits, with which they came in con-tact every day, in every street, almost in every house, in business and other relations. It still happened in the fourth century, that baptized Christians offered sacrifices to the gods, or at least kept their gold and silver statues in their houses; that Christians would give their daughters in marriage to a pagan priest of the gods; that others had two wives. or repudi-ate their wives in order to take others. Bishops and priests often married.7 Ecclesiastical Relations in Antioch 47 Many were converted to Christianity only externally, because the emperor happened to be a Christian, and so it seemed that they might make better progress by getting a good position in the state or the church; this was often attained by means of financial help. This was also the custom among pagans and Jews. Very often the office of priest or bishop was obtained in this way, by a man who had dishonored him-self by an unworthy life. Chrysostom complained in his treatise on virginity: " Many have obtained their priesthood for money."3 Paul of Samosata, a favorite of Queen Zenobia, was made bishop of Antioch by her help. He was a complete rationalist, the "Voltaire of the second century."9 The sophist Hecebolius in Constantinople was a zealous Christian under the Emperor Constantinus, but under Julian a zealous pagan; and after Julian's death a zealous " penitent." Marcus Diaconus complains that " many officeholders (at Court) pretend to be believers.''l Christianity, in the course of the fourth century, had become the property of the people, and had to suffer all the disad-vantages of this. Chrysostom also complained that many clergy, through ambition and love of fame, or in order to be able to display the highest possible number of new converts, admitted wicked and faithless men to baptism, without any clear proof of their good intentions, and that they led people into the sanctuary who did not even deserve to set foot in the vestibule. Hence resulted falls and backslidings. Ten or twelve days after the baptism they went back to their old ways of living.l' Also there were not a few half-Christians and opportunists. These were the religious pachyderms, the 7roXvrepo~ about whom Chrysostom so often complained later on. Also many vain and light-headed women, of whom he observed that they only came to church to show off their silken garments, their valuable gold jewellery and their penetrating perfumes. Then there were Christians who came to church only once or twice a year, and others, on whom all the exhortations of the clergy were fruitless.l2 Even among the monks and consecrated virgins were those who gave occasion for just complaints.l3 With all this, there was still the counter-activity of the Jews. Flavius Josephus testifies that Antioch had the largest 48 John Chrysostom and his Time Jewish population of any city in the world.l4 By preference, they practiced as physicians, and engaged in merchandising and finance.ls They even won seats and influence in the city council. But they seem never to have become popular. Even in the pagan time before Christ there were many bloody pogroms. The chief Jewish quarter in Antioch was the so-called Kerateion, in which they had their great synagogue. There was a second synagogue outside the city, in Daphne. The highest ruler of the Jews in the fourth and fifth centuries was the Patriarch, who made decisions in religious affairs and sometimes in civil affairs, and who was recognized by the State. In every province there was also a provincial Patriarch. How much the " Jewish questions " concerned the State is shown by the fact that, in several hundred years, the Roman emperors, from Constantine the Great to the year 438, had to pass no fewer than about a hundred laws dealing with the Jews.lX Concerning the relations between Jews and Christians, and Chrysostom's position, we will speak later. So this was the political and religious world in which Chrysostom grew up; these were the spiritual powers and dominations which strove among themselves for victory, in the fourth and fifth centuries. However, neither Jews nor pagans damaged Christendom at this time so much as the heresies which originated within the Church itself. These indeed had risen up again and again since the Apostles' time, in the Latin as well as in the Greek portion of the Roman empire; but all of them together had not produced so much disaster, or given rise to such deep dis-union, as the one which originated in the fourth century, namely Arianism, with its rationalistic denial of the divinity of Christ. That was the greatest tragedy of Christendom. Scarcely had the three-hundred-year-long period of the perse-cutions and the martyrs under the pagan Roman Caesars passed away, scarcely had Christendom been able to dedicate its whole power to the conversion of the heathen world, when it was weakened and crippled internally by this heresy, dissi-pated its best energies in an almost hundred-year-long fratri-cidal strife, which included all churches and all dioceses. And Ecclesiastical Relations in Antioch 49 Antioch and Constantinople were hurled into the very vortex of the whirlpool. The cradle of Arianism was indeed in a certain sense the city of Antioch, for it was here that Bishop Paul of Samosata had first taught that Christ was not the actual but only the adopted Son of God; and the priest Lucian, also a native of Samosata, taught that the Logos was a created being. Arius was Lucian's pupil, as were alsn the most important adherents of Arius, who called themselves "Syllucianists." They denied the real identity of the Son with the Father, and also denied the divinity of Christ. Only five years had passed since the condemnation of Arius by the Council of Nicaea, when by the machinations of the Arian-minded but outwardly orthodox bishops, one of their number was seated in the patriarchal chair. In the year 33o, the then bishop and Patriarch Eustathius, one of the most out-standing and zealous champions of the Nicaean creed, was banished to Trajanopolis in Thrace, through the tortuous plotting of his Arian opponents; he was removed from office by a synod in Antioch, and the Emperor Constantine the Great decreed his banishment, on the alleged ground of Sabellian-ism His immediate successors were Arians in secret, who conformed only outwardly to the Nicaean creed, since the Emperor Constantine himself had solemnly established it and imposed it on the whole empire. Two years after the banish-ment of Eustathius, in 322, a break came between the Catholic-minded part of the community and the new bishop, Euphron-ius (332-33), who was suspected, with reason, of Arianism. The strict Catholics grouped themselves about the priest Paulinus, who not until thirty years later received his episcopal consecra-tion, by methods not entirely unobjectionable. The Catholics therefore possessed no real ecclesiastical leader; they formed first of all a schismatic group, which separated from the main body of the Church and from its head, the bishop. This group was called the " Eustathians," or " Paulinians." Their adher-ents were never very numerous, and they had to assemble in a private chapel for the service of God. The overwhelming majority of the Catholics, however, did not at first break off their ecclesiastical fellowship with the new bishop. He had not given any open proof of heretical opinions. So in the fnllowing years of fluctuating strife 50 John Chrysostom and his Time between Arians, semi-Arians and Catholics, the hierarchal unity of the Church in Antioch stood fast. The bishops of the time strove not to allow their more or less clear Arian coloring to appear too openly. The clergy and the believers were divided into three parties. The spiritual leaders of the Nicaean Catholic party, who did not follow Paulinus, were, under Bishop Leontius (344-58) two young and well-educated monks or lay-ascetics; Flavian and Diodorus. They gathered their people often in the martyria outside the city, and spent the night singing psalms and hymns. According to a custom of Syria, Flavian led in the antiphonal singing of alternate choirs, and replaced the hitherto ambiguous doxology with the better known " Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit." Both practices spread from Antioch in a short time to the entire East and even the western Churches. At the same time Flavian and Diodorus attended, with their followers, the official divine liturgy of the bishops. This went on for about sixteen years. In the year 360 a new bishop and Patriarch was installed. The choice fell upon Meletius, who had been Bishop of Sebaste in Armenia. Meletius was a personal friend of the semi-Arian Bishop Acacius, who possessed the greatest influ-ence in the Imperial court at the time. The new Patriarch had not been present in person at his election in Antioch. The friendly sentiments of Acacius seem to have been based more on personal attributes than on dogmatic views. Meletius was actually a rarely sympathetic character with unusual natural gifts. His contemporaries, both friends and foes, are unanimous in their praise and admiration of this man, who, through his noble appearance, his charming con- versation, his attractive, simple and yet dignified behavior, as well as his sincere kindness, took the hearts of the people of Antioch by storm. " It was the greatest pleasure merely to look upon his holy face. For not only by his teaching and his speech, but by his very looks, one was led to all good things," said Chrysostom in a later eulogy of Meletius.l7 St. Gregory of Nazianzus also praised him, saying: " His countenance breathed peace, and awakened trust and respect in anyone who saw him."'8 St. Basil the Great was filled with high esteem for him, and said "from his good heart streams of Ecclesiastical Relations in Antioch 5,1 kindness flow." Indeed, he declared it a foretaste of heaven in this world, when it was permitted him to see and hear Meletius personally.9 St. Gregory of Nyssal spoke in a similar vein, as did St. Epiphanius, who was so suspicious of all heresies.'l It is therefore not surprising that the new Patriarch " in less than thirty days" after his entrance into Antioch, had won the love and confidence of the Catholics of that city in so high a degree, that all the later banishment decrees of the Arians, all their plots and machinations, had no other object than to destroy the fidelity and love of his flock for him.'2 The new patriarch found himself in an extremely diffi-cult situation. In his community, as has been noted, four parties were contending; the Integral- Nicaeans (Paulinians); the Nicaeans or Orthodox, the semi-Arian and the Arians. Each party secretly hoped to win Meletius to its ranks. So far they had not accomplished anything. A very serious obstacle was the Emperor Constantius, a man who saw himself in the role of principal theologian of the kingdom, and who had just at that time established the seat of government at Antioch. He was known as a Nicaean with a semi-Arian lean-ing. He and the semi-Arian and Arian bishops, his followers, only wished to know where the new bishop really stood in regard to Homo-ousios and Homoi-ousios. So one day the Emperor expressed the wish to hear the best episcopal orators speak on the much-disputed text of Proverbs 8, 22: The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways. Meletius was the third speaker, and his speech was generally received as a sincere, courageous avowal of genuine Catholic belief.l3 Thereupon a great tumult broke out among the Arian party. They accused the Patriarch to the Emperor, saying that he favored Sabellianism. Only a month after his solemn installation Constantius sent to him, in the episcopal palace, the decree of banishment. The prefect of the city came himself, toward evening, to take the patriarch away in a carriage and to deliver him over to an escort waiting outside the city. Obviously he was afraid the people would free their bishop by force, and bring him back. But this foresight had only partial success. As they went across the market square, the enraged crowd threw stones at the head of the prefect, who 52 John Chrysostom and his Time would not have emerged with a whole skin had not Meletius protected him with his own mantle.l4 After this, the Catholics and the supporters of Meletius would have no more to do with the Arians. When the latter, in 360, installed the openly Arian Euzoius as bishop of Antioch, they separated, and held their own divine service, like the Paulinians, who in turn rejected every proposal for union, because they did not consider the Meletians entirely orthodox. The exile of the Patriarch Meletius did not last very long. The Emperor Constantius died in the following year (Nov. 3, 361). The Catholics experienced a great sense of relief and hope. The new Emperor, Julian, the nephew of Constantius, seemed to be more interested in war and armies than in retigion and churches. Actually, it seemed at first that the optimists were right. In the second month of his reign Julian issued an edict by which all the bishops exiled by Constantius were restored to their sees. The rejoicing was great, especially in Alexandria and Antioch. The Catholics soon took posses-sion, on their own responsibility, of the Palaia, the old patri-archal church, no longer used, and when Patriarch Meletius actually came home to his episcopal city in the spring of 362, they repeated their rejoicing with the/ inspired acclamations of his first coming. However, the situation had changed in the last weeks before the Patriarch's return, and not in his favor. St. Athanasius was animated by a most earnest desire, after the death of the persecutor Constantius, to reconcile the Meletians and the Paulinians, the two Catholic parties in Antioch. It happened that Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari came to Antioch, by the order of no one, to heal the schism among the Catholics. Instead of healing it, he aggravated it. The Meletians probably refused to defend their rights and their orthodoxy before a strange bishop. And so it was easier for the Paulinians to convince Lucifer of the orthodoxy of their thought and the legality of their party, even though their leader was only a simple priest. Thereupon Lucifer, in his holy but misguided zeal, laid his hands upon Paulinus and consecrated him bishop in March 362, in the absence of Meletius. This had the effect of prolonging the dissension immeasurablyl5 and Ecclesiastical Relations tn Antioch 53 of keeping everyone irritated. From that time on, there were not only two Catholic parties but also two Catholic bishops in the principal city of the East. The famous Synod which began in May, 362, in Alex-andria, under the presidency of St. Athanasius, now recognized Paulinus as orthodox Bishop of Antioch.16 The great majority of Catholics, on the other hand, as well as the Bishops of the Patriarchate, considered Meletius their actual and lavwful head.l7 After the Catholics and the Arians, there were several comparatively insignificant sects, such as the Massali-ans,l8 the Luciferians (from Lucifer of Cagliari), the Paulin-iansl9 (from Paul of Samosata; not to be confused with the Paulinians of Paulinus or Eustathians); to which later were added the Appolinarists. There were also Novatians in Antioch, perhaps also Euchites, Manicheans and others. Thus affairs stood among the Catholics, as the new imperial sun, in which so many of them had placed such great hopes. suddenly began to darken. FOOTNOTES 1. Hom. 3, 1-2; 14, 6 and 17, 2 ad pop. Ant. (49, 48-49, 153, 176); Hom. 7, 7 in Matth. (57, 80); Hom. 15, 1 in Act. Ap. (60, 192). Antioch also had possessed the leadership in ecclesiastical art since the third century. Cf. Strzygowski, Antiochenische Kunst. Oriens Christianus 2 (l9o2y 421. The chalice said to be that used by Christ at the Last Supper, and found at Antioch, may well be a forgery. Cf. G. de Jerphanion S.J., Le Calice d'Antioche. Rome 6. 2. Epist. 2, 66 (29, 4s5). 3. Can. 6 (Mansi Y, 672); cf. Can. 2 of the Councils of Constan-tinople (381)=Mansi 3, 560. S. Vailhe, L'ancien Patriarchat loc. cit. 2 (18g8-g) 216; K. Lubeck, Reichseinteilung 134-140. 4. S. Vailhe, La "Notitia Episcopatum" d'Antioche=Echos d'Orient lo (1907) 140; and E. Honigmann, Studien zur Notitia Antiochene, in: Byz. Ztschr. 25 (1925) 60-61. 5. E. Schwartz, Christl, und jud. Ostertafeln 174. Cf. Chrysos-tom, Hom. 2, X contra Anomoeos (48, 709). 6. F. Cavallera, Le schisme 3o ff. and 71 ff. 7. so, 517. Cf. Council of Elvira (362), Can. 1, 17, 33, 41 (MCC. 2, 2 ff.). 54 John Chrysostom and his Time 8. Carmen de vita sua II, 1l, V, 1516 ff. (37, 1134>; 48, 550. 9. Epist. 57 (32, 405). Labriolle, La reaction payenne . . . 1ll ff. Cf. Ch. 17 and 27; and G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate, 187- 190. lo. In laudem Meletii (46, 852-864).Vita Porphyrii Gazensis ep. No. 15. (ed. Sodal. Bonn 44). 1l. Haeres. 73, 74 and 35 (42, 468).Hom. lo, 5 in Rom. (60, 480). 12. Chrysostom, In laudem Meletii 1 (5o, 516). De Baptismo Christi 1 (49, 363 f.). 13. F. Cavallera, Le schisme 84. Hom. 3, 5 in Joh. (59, 44; De Sacerdotio VI, 7 (ed. Nairn 545). 14. Chrysostom, In laudem Meletii 2 (50, 517>. De bello judaico, 7, 3, 3; Antiquitates 14, 7, Schultze, Antiochien 176 ff. Cf. Ch. 26, P. 273 ff. 15. Armstrong loc. cit. 213; cf. Kruger, Lucifer so f. Fried-lander, Sittengeschichte II, 231. 16. Ibid. 219-221. Juster, Les Juifs 163-164. On the position of Chrysostom on the "Jewish question," cf. Ch. 26. 17. Treppner 34-38 counts Paulinus and Evagrius, uncritically, as lawful patriarchs; but Meletius only for the first month of his rule. He does not admit Flavian to his list of the patriarchs of Antioch. 8. Theodoret HE 4, 1l. . Cf. Bardy, Paul de Samsosate 435. CHAPTER VII THE EMPEROR JULIAN AND THE LAST STRUGGLE OF DYING PAGANISM {n o insignificant had paganism already become in the middle \of the fourth century, that it still survived only in the dull Jschools and narrow minds of a few sophists and professors, carrying on a harmless, hopeless existence. Scarcely forty years had gone by since Constantine the Great had won his decisive victory at the Milvian Bridge and had published the freedom of Christianity. Already the Christians constituted a majority in the empire. However, there were still very many and very influential pagans, especially among the con-servative families of the nobility; also in the army and in state offices, even in the highest grades, all over the country. The spread of Christianity was much hindered by the dreadful fratricidal struggles with the fanatical Arians, and the scandalous occurrences in the reigning family, even under Constantine, but especially under Constantius, the fanatical Arian; likewise the eternal struggle of bishop against bishop and synod against synod were certainly not calculated to commend Christianity to outsiders, but rather to increase their hostility to it. However, the general picture in Antioch must have been strikingly brilliant. The Emperor Constantius had taken up his headquarters there again with his court, and his army, as the constant danger on the eastern frontier made his presence imperative there. His regent, the Emperor Gallus, also had his residence there. In Antioch, however, soon appeared a dark cloud, hanging black and threatening over the fearful Christian world, and it would have been extremely dangerous and fateful if Divine Providence had not dispersed it. It was the young Emperor Julian the Apostate. The focal point of the danger was once again Antioch, at the time when Chrysostom was in his early 55 56 John Chrysostom and his Time youth there. He was then between seven and nine years old, according to the reckoning of Palladius; at any rate, he was old enough to have retained a vivid memory of the events of that time. For this reason, and also because of their general significance in the cultural and religious history of this period, and as a foreword to Chrysostom's preaching activities, the situation at that time deserves a fuller discussion. The Emperor Constantius spent the winter of 360-61 at his headquarters in Antioch. During this time he was married for the third time. Up to this time he had been childless, to his great grief, as he was very anxious to leave the kingdom to a son of his own. The new Empress was named Faustina. She was not destined to enjoy the imperial glory for long. Con-stantius had to take the field against the Persians, who had again overrun the border, plundering and murdering. They should have received a well-deserved punishment, to frighten them off. Constantius unfortunately possessed little of the military genius of his father, the great Constantine. He let the right time go by in irresolute wavering and then, before he had been able to strike a blow, he received, like a bolt from the blue, the news that his nephew Julian had rebelled and usurped his throne. This unwished-for aspirant to the kingdom, who could not wait for his natural inheritance, was now thirty years old. His troops in Gaul, whom he had led to many a cheap victory over the unwarlike German tribes, had proclaimed him Augustus in Paris. This is not the place to picture the interior development of Julian, or the manner in which he, the grandson of the great Constantine, had come to abjure Christianity and try to re-awaken the half-dead gods to a new life. The dreadful experiences of his youth, the early death of his mother, whom he had never known, the murder of his father, his older brother and six other near relatives, his constant terror of his pietistic Arian uncle, the Emperor Constantius, and his own character, which was emotional rather than intellectual,l and finally his boundless vanity, " the one passion which he never learned to subdue,"2 and which the Christian-hating rhetoric-ians and sophists flattered, all these things contributed to tipping the balance.3 Much that is incomprehensible and inexplicable remains in the character of Julian, and the mere Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 57 thought of wishing to turn the Roman empire back to pagan-ism in the year 362 betrays in this thirty-year-old man an entirely aberrant outlook on politics and good sense, and gives evidence of the visionary or fanatic, a stranger to reality, who could not estimate political factors and possibilities or differ- entiate between personal interests and the duties of a regent. Julian was named Caesar on November 6, 35~ by Con-stantius, as his only surviving relative. His first good fortune had one dark aspect; he was commanded by the Emperor to marry his somewhat elderly aunt Helena, in order to assure his political fidelity. However, she was not able to guarantee his loyalty; five years later he rose as usurper, and a year after that, as an open enemy, and the leader and champion of the pagan party against his imperial uncle. Constantius had left Antioch in May 361, to pursue fur›her the war against the Persians, when the news of Julian's approach reached him. He left Persia at the utmost speed to meet the enemy at home. When he had reached Cilicia on his way back to Antioch, he fell a victim to a natural or perhaps induced fever, and on the third of November, 361, the forty-four-year-old Constantius was dead, and Julian was ruler of all. Scarcely a month later, on December 1 l, the new Emperor made his solemn entry into Constantinople. Here he solemnly buried the body of his predecessor and uncle in the imperial vault of the Church of the Apostles. There they lay together, Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor and founder of Constantinople; and Constantius, his son, the pro-tector and defender of Arianism. Before the sarcophagus stood Julian the Apostate, nephew of Constantius, who had fallen back from Christianity to paganism. It must have made a striking impression on the inhabitants of Constantinople when they saw for the first time the nephew of the great Constantine sacrifice to the old long-dead pagan gods, in the public square, in thanksgiving for his elevation to the throne. As recently as January of that year, Julian had celebrated the feast of the Epiphany with the Christians in Vienne. Now the youthful fanatic burned with the eager desire to restore his gods and the whole of ancient paganism to power again as soon as possible. One of his first concerns was to call to residence at the court the philosopher and 58 John Chrysostom and his Time magician, Maximus of Ephesus. Thenceforth he was the Emperor's principal adviser in religious affairs. Many hasty changes were made; the high offices of State were filled by pagans, or by those who would deny Christianity to keep their positions. The entire court household was replaced. All court and chancery offices were administered by people in Julian's confidence. Rhetoricians, philosophers and charla-tans attained to offices and honors, as long as they appeared to share the Emperor's religious and literary views.4 Soon the Roman " Nationalists " began to pour in; these believed they would be able to reanimate the ancient greatness of the Empire with the old gods. In a special edict (January 362) Julian announced complete religious freedom for Christians and pagans.5 He called on the pagans, moreover, to reopen the temples and renew the worship of the old gods. But the Catholic bishops who had been exiled by Constantius he gave permission to return to their sees; these, however, had mostly been taken over by Arian rivals. It may be that Julian concealed a malicious purpose in this move.5 At any rate these rulings had one important result for the Church of Antioch, and for ChrYsos-tom himself, in that the Patriarch Meletius was able to return from exile. Early in 362 he returned to Antioch; but also at the same time returned the Arian bishop, who had treated his adherents too badly, and thirteen years before had been removed from office by them.' After about five months' delay (June 362) Julian left Constantinople and went to Antioch. From here he wished to take up again the war against the Persians which had been broken off by his predecessor, in order to be able after that to turn his attention entirely to the affairs of the kingdom. The Emperor planned to make Antioch his principal residence, and intended to erect great marble structures there. The people of Antioch soon discovered Julian's weakness he was born to be a professor rather than a ruler. When he went through the streets like one of the Stoics. in a philoso-pher's mantle, with an untrimmed beard, long nails on his unwashed hands, and in soiled garments,8 it was not surpris-ing that people shook their heads over this remarkable " Majesty." Also when they saw that the new Emperor Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 59 sacrificed and burned swine, sheep and oxen with his own hands on the sacrificial altars of the gods' temples, that he blew up the fire and placed the wood on it himself, that he associated with hetaerai and hierodouloi, then the observers could no longer conceal their disrespectful comments. " The little dirty man with the quick angular movements, who wishes to appear so great and solemn, excites nothing but laughter; so much the more, because he always does what no other man in his pl..ce would do. And to be laughed at was just what he could not endure at all. So it was in every residence which he chose during the course of his short reign; each one of them became unpleasant to him. At first he was received with joy and honor; then people began to get well acquainted with him, and his amazing behavior aroused ridicule; however, he blamed the people, not himself, and so he conceived a bitter hatred for every city in which he had lived for a considerable time."9 The people of Antioch, who were especially notorious for their mockery, went very far in this. Soon they were calling him the imperial ox-burner and temple servant.l At the feast of the Saturnalia, the pagan Carnival, they sang songs of derision of the Emperor, of his laws and edicts, of his gods and of his own person, and made merry over his manners, his walk, and most of all over his "remarkable goat-beard.'''l This made the Emperor furiously angry. In his wrath over the people's ridicule, he forgot what moderation and dignity required of a ruler. He wished to take revenge on his adver-saries, who were so impudent as not to take him seriously. He composed a libel on his malicious subjects and gave it the tasteful title of " Misopogon," or " Hater of Beards." In this he called the people of Antioch idle, ungrateful, loafers, undis-ciplined people, living for pleasure, loving nothing but plays and horse racing, while he himself, on the throne, lived the life of a " philosopher." But that was just what the people of Antioch found so very laughable in an Emperor. Julian threatened, at the close of his tirade, to leave Antioch the next winter and go to Tarsus. His plan was to reach fulfilment, but in another way from what he had expected. Meanwhile the angry fanatic would not allow himself to make an error in this affair. He consulted the oracles 60 John Chrysostom and his Time zealously, observed the flight of birds and the livers of sacri ficial animals, and wrote panegyrics to the " Sun King " and to " Cybele, mother of the gods.''l2 When a new Apis bull was discovered in Egypt after a long search, Julian even had a medal struck in honor of the noble ruminant. In all Antioch no one rejoiced more sincerely and from the heart, over the progress of affairs, than the city rhetorician Libanius. " I laughed and danced, and composed and delivered speeches with joy, as the sacrificial blood flowed upon the altars again, the fragrant smoke of the sacrifices rose up to heaven again, and the gods were honored through the festivals of which only a few surviving old men remembered."l3 Libanius furthermore had more reason for laughing and dancing than the Christians had for mockery. Slowly but inexorably the storm clouds of the coming persecution gathered in the political heavens. The first lightning flashed in the Burningof the Temple of Spollo in the Grove of Daphne.l4 Like all the temples, those of the Grove of Daphne were ruined and abandoned. The Christians had built a special martyrium a few years before, under Julian's brother Caesar Gallus, in honor of St. Babylas, the martyr- bishop of Antioch, and had buried his bones there. Each year on the anniversary of his death the Christians made pilgrimages to it and held divine service there. This irritated the devotees of Apollo, most of all Julian himself. He resolved to awaken a new life in this place also. He had a temple erected there at great expense. Then he went to the grove of Daphne in the burn-ing heat of an August day in 362, with his retinue, to offer once more a solemn sacrifice to Apollo.l5 Naturally the old Apollo would now resume the utterance of his oracles. But the pagan priests declared that as long as the bones of the Christian bishop Babylas profaned the holy grove, Apollo could not speak.l6 So Julian commanded the Christians to take their holy Babylas back at once to the place from which they had brought him. So in the middle of a wonderful late summer night, an endlessly long procession with a thousand lights wended its solemn way back to the city from the grove Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 61 of Daphne. In the midst of the procession moved a great and richly decorated chariot, bearing the sarcophagus with the relics of St. Babylas, followed by the bishop and the clergy and almost the entire Christian population of Antioch. Far and wide resounded the singing of the psalms; especially strong in the passages which were aimed at false gods.l7 This demonstration was harmless; but not so harmless was the event which occurred shortly thereafter, perhaps on the same night, October 22, 362, when the temple of Apollo was destroyed by fire. Even the beams, and the immense statue of the lute-playing Apollo, were destroved by the flames: the statue was the work of the Athenian Bryaxis, and was almost as high as the roof of the building. At once the cry arose, the Christians have done this! But the Christians replied: Lightning struck the temple.l8 Libanius retorted that on the night of the fire not the smallest cloud could be seen in heaven.l9 The Emperor, in his rage, closed the Christian Patriarchal church in Antioch; this was in the hands of the Arians at the time. The sacred vessels and all the church treasures were taken away.20 Then came the order that all the Christian Martyria were to be torn down. It seems, however, that this order was not carried out. On the other hand, the (Arian?) priest (Theodoret?) who had distinguished himself under Constantius by destroying pagan temples and sacrificial altars, was placed on the rack, and (against the Emperor's wish, it was said) beheaded.2l Libanius composed a lament over the ruins of the temple. Probably this lament gave St. Chrysostom the occasion for writing his treatise " Concerning St. Babylas, against Julian and the pagans." At the time of the composition of this treatise, the smoke-blackened temple walls and solitary pillars were still standing in the Grove of Daphne, reaching up toward the sky. The pleasure which the people of Antioch had taken in ridicule and scorn slowly passed away. They began gradually to ask themselves where all this would end, and what they might expect from the passionate nature of the young Emperor. Concerning the re-establishment of paganism he became the young despot in bitter earnest. He or his advisers went 62 John Chrysostom and his Time to the task with the greatest single-mindedness. In imitation of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Julian created, or at least planned, a pagan priestly hierarchy extending over the whole empire,22 of which he himself was Pope and chief priest as " Pontifex Maximus." Its members vwere given a number of privileges and honors which had hitherto been held by the Christian bishops. In return they were to lead a serious and useful life, through almsgiving and charity resembling the life of the Christian priests, and above all, in seeking to win new adherents through preaching and edification.23 He carried this servile imitation of Christian virtues so far that he even tried to found monasteries for men and young women, who were there obliged to practice the Stoic philosophy and the ascetic life. It had been one of Julian's first cares to remove from the banners of the legions the monogram of Christ which Constantine had first introduced. Two flag lieutenants, Bonosus and Maximilian, refused to do this and were condemned to death in Antioch. The Acts of the Martyrs, originating in a later time, say that Bishop Meletius, with the whole Christian population, escorted the two martyrs to the place of execution.24 Two other soldiers, Juventinus and Maximinus, of the Emperor's guard, had allowed themselves to make some disparaging remarks about Julian's rule and his numerous sacrifices, which poisoned the air. They too were executed as offenders against Majesty.25 Persecution was already in the air, and Julian would doubtless have become an open and bloody persecutor as soon as he felt strong enough. Meanwhile he did the Chris-tians as much harm as he could. He had temples to the gods built in Constantinople, which had hitherto been entirely Christian. Also he commanded that the furniture of the temples, which in many cases had been used in Christian worship, should be collected and returned. The privilege of exemption from curial offices was taken from the young clergy, and further access to civil and military offices was forbidden to Christians. At the same time the bishops, as well as the church's widows and young women, were deprived of their share of the public revenue. Lastly he commanded that the Christians should in future be called " Galileans." That had a contemptuous sound, Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 63 The officials all over the kingdom, and the heathen rabble, had soon noticed how and by what they could give the Emperor an inexpressible pleasure. Thus, for example, the pagans struck the Arian Patriarch George dead in Alexandria on December 24, 361; he had infuriated pagans and Catholics alike by his shameless avarice, violence and love of persecu-tion, and was on the whole one of the saddest specimens of ecclesiastical life in the fourth century.26 The Bishop Marcus of Arethusa, who had once saved the Emperor's life, was very cruelly mistreated, because he had once had a pagan temple destroyed and had refused to make restitution.27 But the pagans often took the offensive without any such reason. Where they were in the majority, they burned Christian churches and shrines, and dishonored and killed Christian men and women, often with specially cruel torments. This occurred in Gaza, Ascalon, Caesarea, Heliopolis, and other cities.28 If the Christians tried to defend themselves, or if they practiced retaliation, they were given the severest punishment. The Christians had no redress against encroach-ment on their rights by the mob, or by the caprice and injustice of bureaucratic officials. As in every persecution, there were among the Christians at that time, besides many heroic martyr-souls, others who denied their faith through fear and through lack of religious constancy. Court people, officials and sophists, even a few bishops and priests went over to the apostates. In Antioch the (Arian?) priest Theoctenus29 took this step. Libanius admonished the governor of the city, Alexander of Antioch: " See to it that they outwardly obey your good advice and offer sacrifice; at home their wives will convert them again by their tears, and draw them away from the altars."30 In this regard, a youth, the son of a pagan priest of the gods in Antioch, gave a splendid example of Christian fortitude.31 Not without a humorous touch is also the story of the holy Publia.32 She held at that time the office of a deaconess in the church of Antioch, and was at the same time superior of a congregation of young women consecrated to God. One day the Emperor himself, with his retinue, came through the street in which their " cloister" was situated. As soon as she saw him coming, she at once intoned the 1 1.3th Psalm, and sang 64 John Chrysostom and his Time it in a loud voice, so that it was heard in the street outside: " The statues of the pagan gods are silver and gold, the work of man's hands " and " all shall be like to them who put their trust in them." Julian felt the ridicule, and sent the singers a command to keep still when he went by. By way of answer, resounded this Psalm verse: "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered" (Ps. 67, 1). The Emperor then sent one of his bodyguards to seize the superior and bring her before him. But in order to show that they were " gentle and lovable people," and not to make himself ridiculous by the bloody persecution of a woman, he only ordered one of the bystanders to give the bold singer a few vigorous boxes on the ear.33 Having enjoyed this visible proof of her triumph, the abbess went back to her little flock. The truth of this little story is vouched for by Theodoret.34 Julian, as a man of intellect and culture, wished to fight Christianity rather within the domain of the mind than with the weapons of brute force. To him, for whom paganism and classical culture were inseparable, it was very irritating that the Christians rejected the pagan religion while seeking the classical culture with enthusiasm. Until the year 362 neither the pagan nor the Christian State authorities had thought of interfering in the " school question." Everyone could learn and teach what, how and where he wished. Julian, the last persecutor of Christians in the old Roman Empire, was the first to proclaim from Antioch a prohibition against education for Christians,3s that they were excluded from all higher callings and forbidden to become physicians, lawyers or professors.36 Somewhat later the Emperor appears to have forbidden Christian students in general to go for instruction to gram-marians and rhetoricians. He openly wished to make of the Christians an uneducated, superstitious mob. Ammianus Marcellinus himself, the panegyrist of Julian, called this action of his a " harsh, intolerant proceeding," that would be best concealed by eternal silence.37 The Christians recognized at once the significance of this action, and prepared their defence. The most active in this respect were the two Apollinarises, father and son. After the method of Homer, they had made a poetic translation of the Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 65 Bible one part in hexameters, another in all possible lyric verse forms, and a third in dramatic dialog form. "These hastily completed works were not beautiful, but at any rate they served as a means of learning grammar, verse forms and modes of expression, and that was sufficient for actual needs.''3l Scarcely had Julian fallen when the Christians returned to the ancient classics with zeal and inspiration. Whether this time of "interruption of school" exercised any delaying influence on the education of Chrysostom is not certain. But Julian was not content even with all this. He took up the pen and composed all by himself a literary disputation " Against the Galileans " that is, the Christians. This treatise has not survived in the original. Only St. Cyril of Alexandria has cited quotations from Julian in his refuta-tion,39 and Jules Simon says that this treatise of Julian's has the least value of all of his literary productions.40 If the essential value of the contents did not matter, at least the person and position of the author were important enough for the Christians to contend with him in a whole series of written refutations. The first to enter the arena were the before-mentioned two Apollinarises of Laodicea.41 Also Diodorus, the teacher of Chrysostom, who organized the Catholic Christians under the eyes of the Emperor, seems to have written against Julian. At least the latter seems to have been very angry at the man to whom he refers contemp-tuously, in a letter to Photinus,42 as "the magician of the Nazarenes." The terror which the short but threatening reign of Julian struck into the Ghristians found such expression that the pens would not come to rest for years afterward. Theodore of Mopsuestia,43 Philip of Side,44 St. Ephraem45 and St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria,46 all composed denunciations of Julian. Also we have a treatise under the name of Chrysos-tom: " Treatise on St. Babylas, against Julian and the pagans."47 Julian and the Building of the Temple in Jerusalem. We cannot pass over in silence an event which excited the greatest imaginable sensation in the Christian world at the 66 John Chrysostom and his Time time, and resounded long after in the preaching of Christian pulpit orators and authors. While Julian, with the utmost hatred of its ideology, sought to destroy Christianity, where and how he could, he showed himself favorably inclined toward the Jews, who however had at least as much aversion for his many gods and goddesses as the Christians had.48 The phenomenon is remarkable, but not new. It can be observed from the time of Nero almost through all the three hundred years of the persecutions, and later still. Perhaps some wealthy, influential, credit-giving Jews were members of Julian's narrow circle of companions and advisers. It is certainly probable. He needed money for the Persian war. War-loving and avaricious rulers gave good opportunity, even in Caesar's time, for the business and finan-cial talents of the Jews, who knew how to take advantage of every opportunity. It is a fact that in the last Roman persecution of Christians, as well as in the first, the Jews proved themselves in various ways as the most eager and most malevolent agents for the execution of the open or concealed plans of the Roman Emperors against the Christians. St. Ambrose has attested that the Jews under Julian set fire to a large number of Christian churches, in Damascus, Alexandria, Gaza, Ascalon, Beirut and other cities.49 Be that as it may, whether Julian wished to show himself grateful to the Jews, or whether he wished to bring ridicule on the supposed prophecy of Christ, or whether both purposes influenced him, at any rate he commanded one day that the temple at Jerusalem should be rebuilt. This order excited a great sensation in the whole empire. The Jews rejoiced; the Christians anxiously awaited events, and the pagans were curious spectators. In the shortest possible time, enormous sums were spent for this purpose by the Emperor and the enthusiastic Jews. An army of paid and volunteer workers toiled day and night to remove the debris and ruins of the old temple which had been destroyed by the Emperor Titus, and to prepare the founda-tions for the new building. The foundation was already newly laid, the new walls were already rising from the ground, when suddenly, one day near the end of January 363, flames of Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 67 fire broke from the quaking earth and destroyed the work, which was never resumed.50 The terror inspired by this inexplicable event caused many Jews to become converts to Christianity. The unconverted have kept Julian until this day in benevolent and grateful memory.5l While the old Jewish writers pass over the event in absolute silence, for easily comprehensible reasons, the later ones assert, against all the evidence of antiquity, that the entire story is not true, but merely a fiction of the Fathers of the Church.52 Emperor Julian's Death. Julian burned for more than religious and literary laurels for himself. He wished to go to the East to make war against the Persians, since he had learned the art of war in Gaul. In fact he found his empire continually in a state of war with the Persians, since Constantius had not made a peace treaty with them. The Persian king Sapor sent an ambassador to the new Emperor, to negotiate for peace. Julian rejected it and declared that he would come himself to dictate a peace. Actually he assembled in Antioch a great army, prepared machines of war, bridges, ships and everything else necessary, wit.h the most careful preparation, then concluded an alliance with the Armenian king Arsaces, and on March 15, 363, with an army of about sixty-five thousand picked troops, left the city in which he had dwelt for about eight months. The Christians in Antioch were relieved to be able to breathe again, even though trouble remained in their hearts. Who could know what the Emperor might do if he were to return home flushed with victory from the Persian war? All the same the people of Antioch were not very joyful over his departure, as he chose one of the most barbarous and brutal of his officers, Alexander of Heliopolis, to be governor of Antioch, as successor to his uncle Julian who had recently died. "For the sarcastic and impudent people of Antioch, he will do very well," said the Emperor.53 So Julian departed. Later a rumour went around that in the Orontes and in the subterranean vaults of the Imperial palace had been found bodies of children which Julian had sacrificed to the gods. Also in the treatise On St. Babylas, 68 John Chrysostom and his Time against Julian and the Pagans, this rumor found an echo.54 Soon the army crossed the Euphrates and the Tigris; soon it penetrated deeply into the enemy's country and stood on the point of engaging the chief enemy army in the decisive battle. Then a rumor suddenly spread that on the 26th of June, 363, the Emperor had fallen in battle pierced by an enemy spear. It was true. A few days later the leaderless army summoned the general Jovian, who was a Christian, to be Emperor. A few months after Julian's entrance into Antioch, the new Christian ruler entered again into the Syrian city, with a greatly reduced army. It was a crushing blow to the pagan party. When Julian's death was announced to Libanius, he writes that " he looked at once at the sword; for bitterer than any death would be the life that awaited me! " The somewhat theatrical glance at the sword was however not too seriously meant by the rhetori-cian: " But then," he continued, " Plato's law occurred to me, which forbade such a deliverance . . . and I also remembered that I must honor the dead with a funeral oration I "55 Later Libanius did not shrink from ascribing Julian's death to a plot by the Christian clergy.56 Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian's friend, who was conversant with eventsi was not informed of any such plot. Also Gibbon5' and Buttner-Wobsts8 borrowed this groundless calumny through Libanius. The only one who in most recent times repeated this inven-tion of Libanius as a probability, and claimed that Julian had died by a spear hurled by a disguised Christian, is the historian 0. Seeck in his Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt.59 The Christians gathered in their churches and at the martyrs' graves and thanked God on their knees for their salvation. The joy over Julian's death even found expression in the theaters.60 The Christians had real reason to feel relieved. Julian had really been a very dark cloud, which now had fortunately passed away. In his reprimand to the people of Antioch, Julian had threatened that he would not make his residence in Antioch in the future, but in Tarsus. It was an ironical dispensation that the faithless Emperor, the last descendant of the first Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 69 Christian Emperor, should find his last resting-place in Tarsus, the birthplace of St. Paul, who had labored chiefly for the conversion of the pagans. Here also lay the bones of the Emperor Maximin Daia (d. 313), the last fierce persecutor of the Church in the East, who fifty years earlier after his defeat at Adrianople, had died in Tarsus.6l The Christian world trembled for a long time at the painful memory of Julian and the ever-present fear of new and bloody persecutions. Many years later Chrysostom reminded his listeners repeatedly of the time when under Julian " Chris-tianity was suppressed, we all trembled in danger of our lives, and every open word among men was forbidden, when paganism bloomed again; and as for the faithful, some remained hidden in their houses, while others fled to a solitary region and avoided publicity."62 That had not been unnecessary prudence. The struggle to win his empire back to paganism had been to the emotional nature of Julian as a fixed idea, a sort of possession. All his actions and commands were aimed at this one thought. For the sake of his gods he plunged the empire into disorder, out-raged the religious feelings of the overwhelming majority of his subjects, and brought the penalty of scorn and ridicule upon himself. If he had remained victorious over the external foes, the bloody persecution of the "internal enemies," the Christians, would not have been long delayed. And had he acted according to the intentions he expressed in the circle of his trusted friends, the Persian war would have been harm-less compared with the war that would then be waged against the Christians; they would all have been annihilated.63 The Christians therefore had reason to be thankful to Providence. If Julian's attempt in 363 to help paganism return to power and to annihilate Christianity must from a political point of view be considered the madness of a fanatic, at least it proves one thing: that paganism was not yet dead, but still showed a very significant power, and the Church would have to do a great deal of work before the Greek-Roman world would actually become Christian. Unfortunately it was not able to devote its full strength in the coming years to this effort. It was hindered by the internal dissensions which had been stirred up by Arianism. 70 John Chrysostom and his Time FOOTNOTES 1. S. Athanasius, s. Rufinus, HE 1, 34 (ML 21, 5os). Negri, Giuliano l'Apostate (sgol), an admirer of and sympathizer with Julian, writes " the philosopher Maximus, a superstitious charla-tan, a conceited, ambitious man," exercised an overpowering influence over the " restless and mystical spirit of Julian." (Pp. 136 and 143.) However, he calls him an " outstanding genius " and a "general of the highest ability." (ibid. p. 2-3.) But this ability did not prevent Julian, on the march against the formidable Persians, from writing a treatise on Cybele, the mother of the gods, instead of looking after the important military necessities. (ibid. 16, 1.) Also, Negri wishes to exonerate Julian from every accusa-tion of persecuting Christians; but at the same time he calls him "a very embittered enemy of Christendom, still more so than Diocletian, because he was guided by hatred, not by reasons of state" (P. a38). Not so plainly partial and uncritical is Bidez, Julian der Abtrunnige. (Munich 1940.) According to him, Julian fell away because he " followed a mystical call . . . and obeyed the divinity which had protected his dynasty and the empire" (P. 98). So his apostasy was the "result of an actual religious conversion" (P. 264J. The rejoinders of Sts. Ephrem and Gregory of Nazianzus he called "passionate utterances of hate" (P. 352). In the same spirit writes Kathe Philipp, evidently influenced by Negri and Seeck, in Julian the Apostate, P. 4 and 1 l. On the other hand, Enslin, in: Klio 18 (1923) 189, is candid enough to say " We understand the interests of the Christian com-munity." The judgment of Julian depends, from the sixteenth century until today, on the personal standard which one applies to Julian: whether Christianity or paganism. In any case, it is significant that a Voltaire could say: Julian had " more virtue in his heart and more justice in his thought, than all the Church Fathers together." See P. de Labriole La polemique anti-chretienne de l'empereur Julien, in: Rev. des Quest. hist. 113 (1930) 258. y. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs 4, 207. 3. Prof. O. Seeck says indulgently of Julian (Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt 4, 211): " Truly it was not frivolous ignorance which made Julian faithless to the beliefs of his child-hood, but after profound study and conscientious examination, he concluded that they were untenable." This is absolutely false and a clear example of personal prejudice. 4- Cf. Gibbon 4, 75-76. Emperar Julian and the Dying Pagantsm 7 5. Allard, Julien a, 149 ff. 6. Ammian. Marcellinus Y2, 5 (ed. Clark 1, 257). Cf. Allard, Julien 2, 288 f. 7. De S. Babyla 22 (50, 568). 8. Julian, MisopOgon (ed. Hertlein 434-6). 9. Seeck4,3lo-31l. o. Ibid. 313; Allard 2, 213 ff. (Chrys.) De S. Babyla 14 (so, 554). 1l. Libanius, Oratio ad Antiochenos de imperatoris ira (ed. Forster 2, 160). Cf. Allard 3, 161. 12. Allard 2, 234 ff. Cf. Th. Nissen, Eine christliche Polemik gegen Julians Rede auf dem Konig Helios, in: Byz. Ztschr. 4o (1940) 15-22. 13. Vita (ed. Forster I, 1, p. 140); cf. Misch, Autobiographie 362-3. 14. Concerning the burning of the Temple of Apollo in the &rove of Daphne, see: Julian, Misopogon (ed. Hertlein 2, 446 and 466; Libanius, Monodia de templo in Daphne (ed. Forster 4, 311-321); Sozomen 5, 20 (67, 1277); Philostorgius 7, 8 (ed. Bidez 93); (Chrys.) In S. Babylam 17 (50, 559)- 15. Julian, Misopogon (ed. Hertlein 2, 467>. Chrys., De laudi-bus S. Pauli 4 (50, 489). 6. Sozomen 5, 19 (67, 1272-6). 17. lbid. 5, 20 (c. 1277); Theodoret 3, lo (82, 1101-4; ed. Par-mentier 186); Philostorgius 7, 12 (ed. Bidez 98). 8. De laudibus S. Pauli 4 (50, 489). De S. Babyla 17 (50, 560). 19. Monodia (ed. Forster 4, 311-21). 20. Sozomen 5, 8; Theodoret 3, 8. 21. Passio S. Theodori (Acta SS. Oct. 3 ff. and 40 ff.); Ruinart, Acta sincera (1713) 591. Perhaps there is a confusion or similarity of names here with Theodore, mentioned by Rufinus (HE 1, 36; ML 21, 504) who was indeed tortured on the rack, but was released again. 22. Allard, Julien 2, 177 ff. 23. Gregory Naz., Or. 4, 1ll (35, 648); Sozom. 5, 16 (67, 1261). 24. Ruinart, Acta sincera 663. 25. Chrysostom, In ss. Juvent. et Maximin. (50, 571-8). 26. Socrates, 3, 2; Sozom. 5, 7; Ammian. Marc. 22, 1l (ed. Clark 277); Epiphanius, Haeres. 76 (42, 516). Philostorgius, HE 7, and 4 (65, 537 and 541). 27. Socrates 2, 30; Sozom. 5, lo; Theodoret 3, 6 (ed. Parmentier 83-5). 28. Sozomenus 5, g-lo; Allard 3, 84 ff. 29. Allard 1, 318; 3, 79. 3o. Libanius, epist. 1411 (ed. Forster 1 l, 452). 72 John Chrysostom and his Time 31. Theodoret 3, lo (ed. Parmentier lgo f.). 32. Cf. Ch. 1, note 3. 33- Seeck 4, 30g. 34- HE 3, 14. 35- Allard 2, 352 ff. 36. S. Gregory Naz., Or. 4, 5, lol; 5, 39 (35, 536, 636, 716); Chrys., In ss. Juventin. et Maximin. 1 (50, 573); Ammian. Marc. 22, lo, 7; 25, 4, 20 (ed. Clark 1, s76 and 370); Julian, epist. 4s to Hecebolius (ed. Hertlein 2, 547); S. Jerome, Chron.: Julianus (ML 27, 692); St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 18, 52 (ML 41, 615). 37. Ammian. Marc. 22. lo (ed. Clark 276). 38. Seeck 4, 3s8. 39- MG 76, sog ff. 40. Histoire de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie (Paris 1845) 2, 358. J. Geffcken, Kaiser Julian 164 f. depicts the Emperor as a man by nature filled with unrest and inconstancy, who " had an aimless mind." In his polemics against the Christians, and against the Evangelists, he produced scarcely anything new, but only repeated the arguments of a Celsus and a Porphyrius. From him springs only the hate that speaks in his writings." (loc. cit. 174.) 41. Socrates 3, 16; Sozomen 5, 18 (67, 417 and 1269). 42. Juliani epist. 79 (ed. Hertlein 2, 606). Allard 3, lo6. 43. This has been lost. 44. This is also lost. Cf. Socrates 7, 27 (67, 809). 45. Four Poems, published by Overbeck, S. Ephrem Syri . . . Opera selecta (Oxford 1865) 3-21. 46. Fur de Religion der Christen gegen die Bucher des gottlosen Julian (76, 509, lo64). Bardenhewer GAL 4, 58. 47- 5 . 533-572. 48. Sozomen 5, 22 (67, 1281 f.): Allard 3, 131 f. and 387; Auer 221 ff.; Adler loc. cit. 595 ff. Julian considered paganism better than Judaism, and the latter better than Christianity. In epist. 23 (ed. Hertlein 2, 512-4) Julian even asks the Jews for their prayers. Sozomen 5, 22 (67, 1284); M. Adler states loc. cit. 594; "Julian showed always a friendly behavior toward the oppressed races." " He seems to have known many Jews personally." Cf. J. Vogt, Kaiser Julian u.d. Judentum. Leipzig 1939. P. 6 ff. 49. Epist. 4o, 15 ad Theodosium imp. ML 16, 1107. Already the report on the martyr's death of St. Polycarp n. 13 (ed. Funk, Patres Apost. 2, A. 1, 329) says that "as usual" the Jews had shown themselves very enthusiastic about dragging in wood for the funeral pyre. Cf. Allard 3, 132. Juster, Les Juifs I. 464 ff.; G. Richter, tSber die alteste Auseinandersetzung der syrisch. Chris-ten mit den Juden, in: Ztschr. f. neutest. Wiss. 35 (1936) 101-115. Emperor Julian and the Dying Paganism 73 Also Jacob of Sarug and Afraates wrote and preached against the Jews. 50. Even Gibbon 4, 88-go, does not deny the ext}aordinary nature of this event, and Seeck 4, 322 cannot admit the truth of the contemporary report that the building operations had been stopped by fire which broke out in the foundations: "In the winter of 362-363 the eastern empire was visited by repeated earthquakes, and one of these, accompanied by flames rising from the foundations, killed many of the laborers who were working on the Temple, and struck such terror into the others that they ceased work and would never take it up again." 51. Cf. M. Adler loc. cit. 592. 52. Ibid. 616 ff. 53. Ammian. Marc. 23, 2 (ed. Clark 298); Allard 3, 185-6. 54. N. 14: "Who knows his necromancy, who can number his sacrifices of children? " (50, 556). Cf. Gregory Naz., Or. 4, 92 and 5, 25 (35, 624 and 693). 55. Autobiographie 135 (ed. Forster 1, 148). 56. De ulciscenda Juliani nece 21 (ed. Forster 2, 523). 57. Decline 4, 186, N. 133. 58. Der Tod des Kaisers Julian, Philologus 51 (1892) 561-580. 59. Vol. 4, 355-7. Even G. Negri, L'Irnperatore Giuliano log ff., who shows such outspoken partiality to Julian and against the Christians, does not venture to agree with Libanius openly. 60. Theodoret 3, 22 (82, 1120; ed. Parmentier 206). 61. Allard 5, 258. 62. Hom. 5, 1l adv. Judaeos (48, gol). Cf. Hom. de laudibus Pauli 4 (50, 489); De S. lSabyla 22 (50, 568); in Ss. Juventinum et Maximinum (so. 573); Contra Judaeos et gentiles 16 (48, 835); In Matth. Hom. 4, 1 and 43, 3 (57, 41 and 460-l); In Ps. X lo, 4 (55, 285). 63. De S. Babyla adv. Julianum et gentiles 2s (50, 569). Rode 98 declares Gregory's account " an exaggeration, but not without some truth." The attempt of Negri 411 ff. to prove that the fear of a later bloody persecution was unfounded does not rest on factual arguments, but on his tendency to partiality to Julian. CHAPTER VIII EMPEROR VALENS (364-379) AND THE LAST FLARE-UP OF ARIANISM t H E dark clouds had passed over. The threatening lightning had not been followed by the ruinous tempest > which everyone had feared. Even though the Chris-tians were constrained and oppressed in various ways, there was no public or official persecution. Meletius had even been able to remain in Antioch during Julian's short reign. At least nothing certain is known as to whether he, like Athan-asius, was banished again by Julian. The joy of Catholics over the unexpected turn of fate was all the gTeater in that the report of Julian's death was accompanied by the news of the elevation of Jovian to the imperial throne; he was a Christian and a Catholic. Unfortunately that joy was of short duration, for Jovian was murdered in the same year, 363. The army then chose the general Valentinian to be Emperor; he was at least a stanch Christian and Catholic. Once in the reign of Julian, he had even boxed the ears of a pagan sacrificial priest who had sprinkled him with sacrificial water, in the presence of the Emperor.l But the new Emperor had a brother who had Arian leanings. Only a month later, in Constantinople, he had named this thirty-six-year-old brother, Valens, Emperor of the East. The results of this soon began to appear, especially in Antioch. The Arians gained the upper hand once more. While they left the insignificant Paulinus alone, with his few adherents, Meletius, who was dangerous to them, had to leave Antioch again, if one may believe Socrates.2 Also the Catholics had to give up the " Great Church " to the Arians. The principal Catholic leaders at this time were Flavian and Diodorus, as well as a few monks, chiefly Aphraates and Acacius. Flavian and Diodorus held divine service partly in the military parade ground, partly in a 74 Emperor Valens and Arianism 75 martyr's shrine near the Orontes, and partly in a cave on a neighboring mountain.3 The degree of passion and hatred to which the religious dissension led may best be realized by the fact that the Arians in Constantinople in 370 loaded no less than eighty bishops and priests into a ship and burnt the entire boatload in the open ocean.4 Soon, however, Valens became so involved with insurrections and inroads by the Goths, that these claimed his entire attention. As a result of this, Meletius was able to return again to Antioch (about 367). Valens resided almost uninterruptedly in Antioch from 371 to 379. Meletius was an intolerable neighbor for the zealous Arians and had to leave Antioch for the third time. How long his absence lasted is unknown. Meanwhile, St. Basil, with the help of St. Athanasius, tried to effect a union between the Meletians and the Eustathians (Paulinians) in Antioch. But their efforts were not successful. On the contrary; for after 374 another schism was added to those already existing among the Catholics; namely the Apollinarists, the adherents of Bishop Apollinaris of Laodicea in Syria. Their head in Antioch was Vitalis.5 At about the same time the Meletians received a still more severe blow. About 374 the Paulinians, chiefly through the intervention of Meletius' enemy the Patriarch Peter of Alex-andria, the successor of St. Athanasius (d. 373) were able to win over the insufficiently educated Pope Damasus to them-selves and to the recognition of the Paulinian sect, without the complete breaking off of the relations between the Pope and Meletius. These tactics on the Pope's part did not mean the " condemnation " or excommunication of Meletius; it was not a declaration of war, but a sort of " rupture of diplomatic relations." So at an earlier time had Pope Stephen broken off diplomatic relations with St. Cyprian, over the dispute on the baptism of heretics, but no formal announcement of a rupture, and no excommunication, was ever spoken. St. Basil was inconsolable over this new complication in the situation, at a time when Meletius was absent from his see, and his adherents were persecuted and tormented in every way by the Arians, who considered themselves the real Ortho-dox.6 Words full of bitterness concerning the Latins, who neither knew the truth nor wished to know it, and through 76 John Chrysostom and his Time their false suspicions (of the orthodoxy of Meletius) only favored the (Arian) heresy, testified to the intensity of the discord.7 In this affair one cannot deny that Meletius and his adher-ents shared the blame indirectly for the new development. They had been much too negligent in informing Rome of the actual situation and in declaring their orthodoxy, in a time when the whole East was swarming with heresies of various colors and shadings, when the Apollinarist Vitalis had even deceived Pope Damasus about his orthodoxy.8 And still Apollinaris and Vitalis were ready to organize their heresy; Apollinaris consecrated bishops on his own responsibility, and so made Vitalis bishop of Antioch. The latter successfully circulated the teachings of his master, who himself held theological discourses to great crowds in the chief city of Syria.9 So now there were no fewer than four bishops of Antioch: an Arian, two Nicaean Catholics, and an Apollin-arist. At that time theologians disputed over the use and meaning of the word " Hypostase" (person). About the year 377 St. Jerome had come to Antioch for the second time. He wished to study the monastic life in the East. At first he remained for some months in the chief Syrian city as a guest of his friend Evagrius. Both of them held to Paulinus as bishop; his orthodoxy had been proof over every suspicion and he remained in communion with Rome. The terms for dogmatic ideas were not the same in the East at that time as they were in the West. As every one besieged Jerome on all sides, asking whether he believed in one or in two persons in God, whether he shared the belief of Paulinus, Meletius or Vitalis, he was glad to back into the desert of Chalcis to find rest. But the disputing of the theologians at last found its way even into the quiet cells of the monks in the desert. Soon Jerome lamented: " They will not even let me have a little corner of the desert in rest and peace. Every day they demand an account of my belief . . . I explain it, according to their wishes (the monks), and they are not satisfied. I sign my name to what they place before me, and they do not believe it. They openly wish only one thing, and that is that I go away from here. I would very gladly go, indeed, for one after another Emperor Valens and Arianism 77 of my friends are departing, for they say it is easier to live with wild beasts than with such Christians! "' In order to obtain rest at last, Jerome, in the course of the year 377, turned to the Pope, and in two famous letters besought him, as the occupant of the Chair of Peter, to define faith. If the Bishop of Rome said so, he would believe in one or in three Persons, he would hold ecclesiastical fellow-ship with Meletius or Paulinus or Vitalis. " Whosoever is in communion with the See of Peter, with him I stand.''l' At the end of the year 377 Jerome went back to Antioch, where he remained through 378 and part of 379. During this time he even allowed himself to be ordained priest by Bishop Paulinus, without binding himself to belong to his clergy. But at the same time he diligently attended the lectures of Bishop Apollinaris on Holy Scripture, which proves that at that time the heresy of Apollinaris was not well known or officially condemned.l2 The Emperor Valens was moreover not only an enemy of the Catholics, that is the " Homoousians," but he also tried to fight against paganism as much as he could. In the year 374 he also decided to begin the fight against the superstitions which had remained deep in the hearts of the people since pagan times, and which were fostered and played upon by charlatans and impostors. He commanded that all books of magic should be burned and that all magicians and sorcerers, as well as authors of books on magic, should be punished by death. An author or possessor of any such book would rid himself of his dangerous treasure by the simplest method, namely by throwing it quickly into the Orontes. If he was seen doing this, he was convicted of magic practices and punished by death. Once Chrysostom was walking along by the Orontes with a friend, on the way to divine service at a nearby martyr's shrine. They saw something white floating on the water, and thought it was a piece of linen. The friend jumped into the water and pulled out a book. He saw at once that it was one of the forbidden books on magic. In the same moment a soldier passed by. If he had seen the book in their hands, both of them would have been lost; for who would have believed them if they had said that they took it out of the 78 John Chrysostom and his Time river? Pale with fear, his companion hid the book under his garments. By the Providence oJi God, the soldier did not notice them. He passed on and they were able to throw the book back into the water unnoticed.'3 FOOTNOTES 1. Sozomen 6, 6 (67, 1308); Theodoret 3, 16 (ed. Parmentier 194); Zosimus 4, 200-1. 2. HE 4, 2 (67, 465). 3. Theodoret, Historia Religiosa 2 (82, 1317). 4. Hefele, KG 1, 736. ;;. Voisin, L'Apollinarisme 80 ff. 6. S. Basilius, epist. 156, 214, 216 (32, 613, 786, 792). 7- Epist 239 (32, 889-893). 8. Cavallera, Le schisme 163. Fr. Diekamp, Das Glaubens bekenntnis des apollinar, Bisch. Vitalis v. Antioch, in: Theol. Q'schr. 86 (1904) 497 Also Gregory Nazianzus let himself be deceived for a long time (Epistola 102 ad Cledonium (37, 193 fF.). 9. Ibtd. 195. Io. Epist. 17, 3 ad Marcum Presb. (ML 22, 360). See Cavallera, S. Jerome 39 and 50. . Epist. 15 and 16 (ML 22, 355-9). 12. Jerome, epist. 84, 3 (ML 22, 745); cf. Cavallera, Le schisme 20s,N. 1. 13. Chrysostom, Hom. 38, 5 in Act. Ap. (60, 274-5). CHAPTER IX CATECHUMENATE AND BAPTISM ~ ~ T. Chrysostom's youth saw the beginning of the battle. >>Paganism, Judaism and Arianism opposed the Catholics KJas bitter enemies. The battle went on for almost fifty years. However, battle and persecution form the atmo-sphere in which great and noble souls develop. The law of reaction was proved here. Never had the Church of Antioch produced so many heroic figures as it did just at this time. One may well attribute it to this situation, that the young John attained to such a strong and sincerely religious character. Socrates, the advocate and ecclesiastical historian, states that Chrysostom had at first wished to become a lawyer, but later turned from this calling because of the toilsome life, so bound up with injustices, and became a monk.l That may have been quite possible in and for itself, and on account of his precocious oratorical gifts, one might well have " expected " something of the sort from him, as Sozomen cautiously expresses it.2 However, Socrates did not speak from a direct and better knowledge of the facts, but drew a wrong conclu-sion from the treatise On the Priesthood, in which Chrysostom says of himself that he had often visited the sessions of the Law Courts, and also was passionately fond of the theater.3 However, if he went to the theater for pleasure, he went to the courts only for the completion of his education, because the young people learned by listening to the speeches of the advo-cates. Even those who did not intend to become lawyers did the same. Actually Chrysostom never intended to become a lawyer. In his writings he shows no juridical knowledge. On the contrary: when he was once discussing a point of law, he called expressly on the " statements of learned secular lawyers.'" Actually Palladius also stated clearly that Chrysostom 79 80 John Chrysostom and his Time entertained from his youth the thought of dedicating himself to the service of the Divine Word, that is, to choose the spiritual life. He had already decided on this when he was attending the school of rhetoric. The quotation says: " John was very gifted and studied rhetoric (practiced oratory) for the service of the Word of God,"s that is, with the aim of consecrating himself to the service of the Word of God. " When he was eighteen years old, he forsook the sophists and joined himself closely to Meletius." With this statement of Palladius, Chrysostom agrees and disagrees at the same time. In his treatise On the Priesthood he writes thus of himself and his friend Basilius: " Not only when we were attending school, but also when it was time to leave school and to reflect on what way of life we wished to choose, then too we were of the same mind."fi This " reflection " resulted in the decision to enter the monastic life. In this they were of one mind. But when it came to carrying out the plan, John hesitated. However the historicity of these autobiographical statements in the De Sacerdotio may be construed, this much is certain, that Chrysostom never thought of following a secular vocation. It is also a fact that he did not at first choose the monastic life, but followed the spiritual way. The exterior evidence of this, after the statements of Palladius, was given by the man who at that time stood at the summit of ecclesiastical life in Antioch, the sympathetic and universally beloved Patriarch Meletius. "At that time the holy Meletius, the confessor, a native of Armenia, governed the church of Antioch. He observed the talented youth and, struck by the nobility of his heart, foresaw with prophetic eye what the young man was to become. Therefore he allowed him to come to him often."7 There can be no doubt that Anthusa, as a Catholic, belonged to the community and congregation of Meletius. As a lady of rank, wealth and piety, she had no doubt found opportunity to become personally acquainted with the friendly bishop, and no doubt she also brought young John before him. There-fore we need not take the words of Palladius in too narrow a sense and believe that Chrysostom was fully eighteen years of age before he came to know Bishop Meletius. However, a close acquaintance and a direct spiritual influence of Meletius Catechumenate and Baptism 81 on Chrysostom must not be lightly assumed, not merely because of John's youth, but also because Meletius was again living in exile from 360 to 378. Unfortunately an absolutely sure chronology, either for the life of Meletius or for that of Chrysostom, is not available. Therefore it is practically impossible to fix the exact years of their mutual acquaintance. At any rate we may believe Palladius: that it was actually the personal influence of Meletius which gave the external impetus to young John's choice of vocation. Catechumenate. The next result of his close association with Meletius was evidently that the young John had himself enrolled in the list of catechumens, that is, those who were candidates for holy baptism. Probst is probably correct in saying that the children of Christian parents were themselves treated as catechumens, and then, if they expressed a desire for baptism, were at once admitted among the candidates for baptism (the ~ TZfergas wAov7es, also pATRTt;O~ SOF and +UTF>SOF) who in the following Lent would partake of the final and individual course of preparation for baptism.8 That may well have been the case with Chrysostom.9 The baptismal instruction was given chiefly by the bishop, and in larger cities also by one or more priests or deacons. A completely uniform procedure for catechumens and for baptism did not yet exist in the fourth century, but it was a fairly general custom to enroll the catechumens in two classes; first, those who were making the remote preparation for baptism and who attended only the sermons and catechism classes; and second, those who had passed this course and had been admitted as direct candidates for baptism. The entire time of preparation lasted usually two or three years. This custom must have been general in Antioch, for Chrysostom himself once said: The catechumen never celebrates Easter, although he observes Lent every year.l It was furthermore very natural and necessary, owing to the size of the city and the long absences of Meletius, that the special training of catechumens should be undertaken by simple priests, among whom we may suppose Diodorus and Flavian to have been in the front line. Chrysostom himself instructed catechumens when he was a deacon.1l 82 John Chrysostom and his Time At the divine service of the Christian congregation, the cate-chumens might remain only until the conclusion of the ser-mon: that was called the catechumen's Mass; they could not remain for the great Ektenie (Canon).l2 Furthermore they were often treated as "strangers" and "foreigners" by the believers and the baptized,l3 as " unconsecrated,''l4 who above all did not know the " secret of the Chalice," that is, the Holy Sacrament of the Altar.l5 The baptized slave might remain for the entire Mass, while his unbaptized master, as a catechumen, had to leave the church; the baptized maid remained, her unbaptized mistress left, and the baptized beggar had more rights than the unbaptized rich catechumen.l6 The catechu-men might not at once take a place in the nave of the church, but had to remain in the vestibule, " far away from the boundary of the sanctuary,''l7 in which the holy Mysteries, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, was being celebrated. The instruction of catechumens took place every evening during Lent. It consisted chiefly, in connection with the first book of Moses, in the teachings of God, the creation of the angels, the world and the human race, but above all the moral duties of Christians. Then in this time of novitiate the catechumens had to show that they had the will and the strength to observe continence according to their state of life. The ceremonies which are still observed in baptism, the show-ing of the Cross, the laying on of hands, the offering of salt (also milk and honey), the manifold Scrutinium (examina-tion), the exorcism, the renunciation of Satan, the participa-tion in the Creed and the Our Father, these were gradually distributed over the individual weeks of the period of catechumenate.l' The preparation of the catechumens for baptism and their reception into the Church were taken very seriously. Before every celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the entire congrega-tion offered a prayer for the catechumens. Chrysostom him-self has fortunately given us the original text of the beautiful ancient prayer. Before the catechumens were permitted to leave the church, they prostrated themselves at full length on the floor, and the deacon said in a loud voice: " We earnestly pray for the catechumens, that the merciful and forgiving God will hear their prayers, that He will open the ears of their Catechumenate and Baptism 83 hearts and teach them the word of truth, that He will implant in them His fear, establish His faith in their souls, that He will reveal to them the gospel of righteousness and bestow upon them a godly mind, chaste disposition and virtuous manner of life, that they may walk in His law day and night. Let us pray earnestly for them, that God will guard them from every evil deed, from every devilish sin, and every plot of the wicked enemy, that He will vouchsafe them at the proper time the bath of regeneration, for the remission of their sins, through the garment of immortality, that He may bless their coming in and their going out and their whole life, and like-wise their homes and habitations, and that He will turn all the events of their life to their best good." Then the deacon bade the catechumens rise and exhorted them: "Pray, O catechumens, to the angel of peace. May everything on earth guide you to peace. Pray that this day and all the days of your life may be full of peace, that your ideals may be Christlike, guided to that which is good and salutary, and suited to place us under the protection of the living God and of His Christ." All the catechumens answered with a solemn resounding Amenl 19 Then they left the divine service and the doors were closed. In this manner were they prepared for the great day which would bring them holy baptism and with it the admission to Christendom and the Holy Church. To every one who was capable of religious feeling, the holy teachings which they shared, the prayers offered for them and with them, as well as the ceremonies and symbolic acts performed over them, must have made a deep impression. After such a preparation there were doubtless very few who did not receive baptism with deep seriousness and the intention of conversion to a good life. Baptism. So approached for John the day on which he would cele-brate his first Easter as a Christian. On the evening of Easter Saturday the catechumens of the entire congregation assembled in the church or in the baptis-tery of the episcopal cathedral. In those days, in the large cities, there were usually several hundred, sometimes more than a thousand to be baptized at the same time.20 Then the 84 John Chrysostom and his Time entire body of the clergy, bishop, priests and deacons, had to assist, in order to deal with the numbers. The baptismal ceremonies lasted all through the night, until the dawn of Easter morning. First the bishop and the priests undertook the last baptismal instruction, which, in Antioch, usually took the form of an examination.2l As to whether the baptismal water was blessed, we do not learn, at least not from Chrysostom. Then the catechumens laid aside their secular garments and shoes, and clothed themselves in a long linen garment. The bishop spoke a last exorcism over the candidates, and then each one was anointed over the whole body by a deacon. The anointing of the women was done by deaconesses.22 Then followed the solemn renunciation of Satan according to the regulation of the Western Church: "I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomps,23 and thy service, and thy angels." Then the candi-dates turned toward the east, to the rising sun, as the symbol of Christ, and pronounced their solemn vow to Him: " I enter into Thy service, O Christ," the formula ran, which was modeled on the solemn promise made by recruits on their admission to the army.24 Then the catechumens recited the Lord's Prayer together for the first time,25 and added to it the Nicene Creed, which closes with the words: " I believe in the forgiveness of sins, in the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting."26 Next after this public and solemn declaration of their ortho-doxy, followed the individual baptisms. Each candidate entered the baptismal pool. The bishop or officiating priest immersed him three time with the words: " I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."27 Then the Neophyte, or newly born, retired from the holy font. It is noteworthy that only after the completion of the baptismal ceremonies were the candidates allowed to partici-pate in the mystery of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, of which indeed the Creed makes no mention.28 Thus any profanation or sacrilege by unbaptized or uninitiated persons was prevented. From the moment of baptism, the catechu-mens were complete Christians, " consecrated " and " enlight-ened," and with whom all the mysteries of belief were shared. Meanwhile Easter morning had dawned, and the youngest Catechumenate and Baptism 85 children of the Church might partake for the first time of the highest mystery, that of the Holy Eucharist. The baptismal day was considered by every Christian the greatest and most beautiful day of his life. I7or baptism blotted out even the worst sins, " like sparks that fall into the water."29 It made men " holy and righteous," for it cleansed them not merely as a vessel is cleansed from rust, but in the baptismal water a man was recast and moulded anew, like an old statue. There fore baptism was called the burial and the resurrection from the death of sin to a supernatural life, a rebirth of the soul, a renewal and reform, a cleansing, sanctification and enlighten-ing of the spirit.30 " We have received through baptism the greatest gift, the absolution of sins, sanctification and partici-pation in the Spirit, the Sonship and the eternal Life. What more could one wish?''3l The action and operation of baptism, however, comes not from the baptizing itself, but from Christ, in Whose Name it is bestowed. He gives baptism its meaning and importance.32 The solemnity of it is also indicated by the fact that was cele-brated only once a year, and that on the vigil of the very highest festival of the Resurrection of the Lord. Only the sick could receive it at any other time.33 The baptismal year is mentioned only by Palladius, who writes: " Afterwards Chrysostom, baptized (consecrated) through the rebirth of water, spent about three years in asso-ciation with Meletius, by whom he was made lector."34 This can only be understood to mean that Chrysostom received baptism at the beginning of this three- year period, and " as a baptized person" remained for these three years under the influence of Meletius. Chrysostom then was probably baptized about the age of eighteen, that is, about 352, and made lector at 21, about 375. A puzzling obscurity in the old sources overshadows the question: who bestowed baptism on him? Palladius does not mention any names expressly.35 Only by association can one conclude that it was probably Meletius himself. In any case both George Alexandrinus36 and Leo Imperator37 so con-cluded; Anonymous33 and Metaphrastes39 copied them. How-ever, these four last named writers possess only the probable interpretation of Palladius. Socrates and Sozomen do not 86 John Chrysostom and his Time speak of the baptism at all, neither does Theodoret. Theo-dore of Trimithus says he was baptized in Amita (Mesopo-tamia) by Bishop Baitanus of that place.40 But history knows of no such bishop: 4i he belonged among the capricious inven-tions of Theodore, who was a better romantic writer than historian. Martyrius, on the other hand, states that the baptism was bestowed by a bishop who had been expelled from his diocese by the Arians.42 That of itself would not be impossible, but still it is probably a mere conjecture on the part of Martyrius, who remembered that Meletius had been exiled from Antioch for long years. Neither can the question of who baptized Chrysostom be answered by searching the sources or the ancient biographers. It is established, however, that Chrysostom took it very seriously: " After his baptism," Palladius states, " John never cursed or swore, or spoke evil of anyone, or spoke a lie, or wished ill to anyone, or tolerated loose talk."43 Not for nothing did the priest and preacher John Chrysostom emphas-ize later to his congregation again and again, that baptism alone means nothing, unless it is followed by a truly Christian life. " Baptism avails nothing," he said, " if we lead an unworthy life after baptism.44 For St. Paul demanded a life united with virtue. And we offer prayers that you may lead a good life after your baptism. However, you think only of how you can reach death without having led a Christian life.45 Of what value would it be, if you were to be perfect only in faith? We will pray for this, that you prove yourselves also by good works."46 FOOTNOTES 1. HE 6,3 (67,665). 2. HE 8,2 (c- 1513)- 3. De Sacerdotio 1, 4 (48,624). 4 Hom.7,2 de poenitentia (49,324). 5. Dial 5 (c- 18); 47le7aS7) TOtS AoyoFs 7pOS OtsaKOVU~ V TQJV ffl@V Aoyojv. 6. De Sacerdotio 1, 1 l48, 623). 7. Palladius. Dial. 5 (18). 8. Katechese 42. Katechese und Predigt (1884) P. 42. P. de Puniet, Catechumenat. in: Dict. de Archeologie chret. II, s583. Catechumenate and Baptism 87 9. Cf. P. 67: Die Zeit der Taufe. o. Hom. 3, 5 adv. Judaeos (48, 868). 1l. Catechesis 1 and 2 ad Illuminandos (49, 223) and Hom. IY, 1 in Gen. (53, 98). 2. De prophetarum obscuritate 2, 5 (56, 182). . Hom. 25, 3 in Ioann. (59, 151); Hom. 2, 5 in 2 Cor. (61, 399). 14. De proph. obscur. 2, 5 (56, 18X); Hom. 40, 1 in 1 Cor. (61, 347>- . Ad Illuminandos 1, 1 (49, 223). 6. De resurrectione Christi 3 (so, 437). 17. Hom. 2, 5-7 in $ Cor- (61, 399). 8. Cf. Wiegand, Symbol und Katechumenat 8 ff. 19. Hom. 2, 5-7 in 2 Cor. (61, 399-404). Cf. Chap. 17. 20. So it was for example in Constantinople in 404, "about three thousand," according to Palladius, Dial. 9 (47, 33-4). $1. Cateches. 1, $ ad Illuminandos (49, 225). The following source references originate in Antiochene writings, with the exception of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians and on the Acts of the Apostles, which were written in Constantinople; the liturgy of the latter was closely related to that of Antioch; perhaps it had been modeled after the Antiochene by Chrysostom. 22. Hom. 6, 4 in Col. (62, 342). 23. By this is meant, according to Chrysostom, " the theater, the circus, and all sins, the observances of the times, magic practices, and all superstitions"=Cateches. 2, 5 (49, 239). x4. rvvTaavopaz aoF XptaTfE = Hom. 6, 4 in Col. (62, 34Y); Cateches. 2, 3-5 ad Illuminandos (49, 234 and 239). 25. Hom. 6, 4 in Col. (ibid.) 26. Hom. 40, 1-2 in 1 Cor. (61, 348g). s7. Hom. 25, 2 in Ioannem (59, 151). Cf. Hom. 40,1 in 1 Cor. (61, 348). 28. Cateches. 1, 1 ad Illuminandos (49, 223) and Hom. 25, 3 in Ioann- (59, 151)- 29. Cateches. 1, 2 ad Illum. (49, 227). Cf. Hom. 27, 1 in Genes. (53, 541) and Hom. 1, 5 in Act. Ap. (60, 21). 30. Cateches, ad Ill. 1, 2 (ibid. 225-7). Cf. Hom. Io, s in Ioann. (59, 75-6). 31. Hom. 40, 2 in Act. Ap. (60, 285). 32. Hom. 3, 2 in 1 Cor. (61, 25). 33. Hom. 1, 6 and 8 in Act. Ap. (60, 22 and 25); Cateches. 1, 2 (49, 225). 34. Dial. 5 (47, 18); Qs Of XropX1opsUaf ZuaTayev7@sss T\V TO AOVTPOS SaAtWfVfaFaV aXL Ta TpLa fTv, VpOayfTaF aVayV@aT\S. 88 John Chrysostom and his Time 35- Ch- 5 (47, 18)-36- ch.2 (159, 13). 37- Ch- Y (229 B). 38- Ch- 1 (295 Z, 34). 39. Ch- 1 (374 Z, 3). 40- Ch. 1 (47, LV). 41. Cf. Gams, Series Episcoporum 437. 42. Cod. Paris BN. gr. 1519; Fol. 214 v. 1. 43- Ch- 19; (47, 67). 44. Hom- 1l, 6 n Matth. (57, 198). 45. That is: If you have kept your faith, but have not led a pure life, this justification alone will not suffice. You wish to receive baptism only at the hour of death. 46. Hom. 2, 6 in 2 Cor. (61, 401). CHAPTER X IN THE SCHOOL OF DIODORUS T iS scarcely to be assumed that Chrysostom's personal con-. tact with Meletius, no matter how much it influenced his . > spiritual development, assumed the proportions of a formal theological education. The Patriarch of Antioch would not have had the leisure for that. On account of the immense extent of his Patriarchate and his diocese he had of necessity to relinquish the education of the spiritual recruits to others, and that at a time when the Arians and the Emperor Valens made the government of his diocese difficult enough, and when he himself more than once had to remain far away from Antioch. Chrysostom must therefore have learned the sacred sciences elsewhere. That is obvious from the general state of things in Antioch in the years 370 to 380, and Socrates and Sozomen make special mention of it. The latter says: " John studied the Sacred Scriptures and led a life in conformity with the laws of the Church. To teach him this philosophy (that is, the ascetical life) he had the ascetic leaders of the time, Carterius and Diodorus." This statement refers of course to the time when Chrysos-tom was already a monk. The absolute silence of Palladius on the subject of Diodorus is striking. Chrysostom himself testified indirectly that he once actually stood in the relation of a pupil to Diodorus. In the eulogy, which he as a priest spoke for Diodorus the bishop, he said that Diodorus, by the encouragement and praise he had given him (Chrysostom), had shown the love of a father for a son.' The Catholics in Antioch had possessed for a long time a sort of catechetical school, similar to that in Alexandria; this had probably developed from the School of Catechumens and was directed by priests, who were appointed by the bishop. Unfortunately, exact details about the external and internal workings of this school are lacking. Neither are we well 89 go John Chrysostom and his Time informed about the time of its establishment. However, Antioch, as a great city, afterward had its pagan schools of rhetoric, and philosophy, and some of its earliest bishops, for instance Theophilus (d. about 181 ) and Serapion (d. about 209) were active in a literary way, so we might assume that the Bishops of Antioch had very early begun to attach importance to the theological education of their clergy. In regard to this, they had probably been able to establish an organized and regulated system of education during the long interval of quiet before the last persecution of Christians under Diocle-tian; while Alexandria had already established its schools almost a hundred years before, in the brilliant period of Origen and Clement. Lucian is known as the first teacher of a sort of theological school in Antioch. He had been a pupil of Macarius in Edessa, and died a martyr on January 7, 312, when already the Cross of Christ was being carried at the head of the legions of Con-stantine, on the march to Rome, and the dawn of the Christian age of peace and victory was appearing in the heavens. Unfortunately, however, this theological school of Antioch seemed to be dogged by misfortune. Lucian's pupils, the " Syllucianists," could be found for the most part in the ranks of the Arians, whose head, Arius himself, was a pupil of Lucian. Whether the blame for this can be attributed to Lucian can neither be affirmed nor denied, on account of the almost complete loss of his writings. However, manv disting-uished apologists for Catholic teachings arose in Antioch, such as Bishop Eustathius, and then Diodorus.2 The purest and most shining light among the ranks of Antiochene theo-logians was of course John Chrvsostom himself; while his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia, like his teacher Diodorus, suffered anathema post mortem; and with Nestorius, the "school" faced an illegal dissolution and only in Persia, at Edessa and Nisibis, enjoyed a late Nestorian period of bloom. At any rate we may scarcely venture to consider this Anti-ochene school an ecclesiastically endowed and regulated institution, as may have been the case, at least temporarily, with the one at Alexandria. Neither was it the equivalent of our modern theological seminary. Furthermore it resembled in some ways the private schools of the sophists. In the School of Diodorus 91 except that these Christian " sophists " read and expounded the Holy Scriptures instead of Homer and Plato. Whenever a teacher appeared, pupils gathered around him and a new school came into existence. An unbroken historical connec-tion between the "school" of Lucian and that of Diodorus cannot be established. The Christian younger generation would probably have been entrusted mostly to individual priests for private instruction. But the schools of Lucian and Diodorus, which wished to share in the instruction, were all open, even to women. Of Lucian's we know, at least, that St. Pelagia was numbered among his pupils;3 also Eustolium, Dorothea, Severa and others. About the time when Chrysostom embarked on the spiritual life, there were two men standing beside Meletius, who, even before his election as Patriarch, had strengthened and fortified the Catholics in the faith, and by their courageous loyalty and endurance in regard to everything Catholic, had accomplished inestimable things. These were the above-mentioned Dio-dorus and Flavian. Diodorus came of a distinguished family, which probably had been established in Tarsus.4 He had made his classical studies in Athens. When under the Emperor Constantius (377-361) the Catholics were in peril under the Arian or semi-Arian bishops of Antioch, threatened with being Arianized, these two were the ones who averted this danger; they either prevented the bishops from openly espousing Arianism, or else they gathered their Catholic followers together for the service of God on religious feast days, in the martyrs' chapels outside the city or in caves on the mountainside. Diodorus and Flavian were for a long time members of the laity; however, they had followed the " ascetical life," which was a sort of monastic life in the world. Apparently they, as well as those who shared their views, though they did not lead a common life in a cloister, yet remained in a certain close alliance.S At that time they first introduced the anti-phonal singing of the Psalms into the service of God; this consisted of the alternate singing of the Psalm verses by two choirs of the faithful.6 Also under Julian (361 to 363), they had the opportunity of protecting the Catholics from the Emperor's attempt to paganize them. Julian was very genu- 92 John Chrysostom and his Time inely angry about this, especially at Diodorus, this " keen-witted lawyer of a peasants' religion," who had brought the whole art and science of Athens to the business of arming his slanderous tongue against the pagan gods. His thin form, his hollow cheeks, his haggard face, were such evidences of the well-merited revenge of the dwellers on Olympus.7 About this time, perhaps in 362, Meletius ordained both Diodorus and Flavian to the priesthood. Under the Arian Emperor Valens (364-378), both of them were the soul and backbone of the Catholic community of Antioch. Diodorus endured both prison and exile, while the Catholics were hindered in every possible way in the service of God.8 At that time, according to the statement of Theo-doret, came the famous wonder-working Syrian monk Aphraates from Edessa to Antioch, in order to help Flavian and Diodorus to strengthen the Catholics there. He seems to have performed some wonderful deeds there. A courtier who had threatened him, soon after fell into the boiling water of the Imperial palace baths. Then Aphraates cured the Emperor's sick horse with some water which he himself had blessed; the Emperor, however, did not abandon his heresy. He brought back to conjugal loyalty a married man who had been " bewitched " by a woman; this he did by the use of holy oil. He sprinkled a peasallt's field with water which he had blessed, and the hue and cry which had spread over the country, stopped at the boundary of this field as before an invisible wall.9 Theodore had himself received, as a child, a blessing from this holy monk, when his mother had brought him to the hermitage. To the circle of pupils and friends of Diodorus belonged also Evagrius, who later transferred his allegiance to Paulinus and became his first and last successor.l At this time, about 372, Diodorus stayed for a while with his bishop, Meletius, in Armenia, where he became acquainted with St. Basil of Caesarea, who had also come on a visit to Meletius, and whom he came to know as a courageous confederate in the war against the Arians. The three men became fast friends from that time forward. Such was Diodorus, the theological teacher of St. Chrysos-tom. It is obvious that an orderly and regular system of In the School of Diodorus 93 education was not possible in such unsettled times. The first three years in which Chrysostom " heard " Meletius and Diodorus, was somewhere between 372 and 37511 The principal subject was theology, which at that time consisted of a continual reading and explanation of the Holy Scriptures. In addition to this, questions of exegesis, apolo-getics, and dogmatic, ascetic and moral theology were studied, which possessed special value for those times. There was also a large body of theological literature: commentaries on the Scriptures, and treatises on various theological and ascetical subjects. The great " Summa Theologica " of St. Thomas, the first systematic text for the study of theologyX was not written until nine centuries after this time. Cyril of Jerusalem, Pseudo-Dionysius and John Damascene were for the Greeks the forerunners of St. Thomas. Books in those days were very expensive and hard to make, and in the beginning of the second half of the fourth century, the fairest fruits of patristic literature still hung on the tree of the future. Diodorus had been careful to provide for his pupils good and needful commentaries for a great number of the books of Holy Scripture. He wrote explanations of the five books of Moses,l2 of the Psalms,l3 the books of Kings, the difficult parts of the Paralipomena, Proverbs, Eccesliastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Prophets; also for the four Evan- gelists, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. John.l4 From this alone it is evident that his theological education consisted principally of explanations of Scripture. Besides this, Diodorus, with his immense and enduring energy, found time to discuss a great number of exegetical and dog-matic questions in separate treatises. He composed various works on God, the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the resurrec-tion of the dead, Divine Providence, the soul, and other sub-jects. He also wrote against Paganism, Plato and Aristotle, the Jews, the Manichaeans, Melchisidekites, and Arians, astronomers and astrologers and their fatalism, and so forth. Unfortunately Diodorus in these writings did not take any definite stand on the subject of the two natures and the one person of Christ. On account of this, the lifelong and unwearied fighter against heresy, with his pupil Theodore of Mopsuestia, became the unwitting forerunners of a new 94 John Chrysostom and his Time heresy, Nestorianism. While his contemporaries, such as St. Athanasius, the Patriarchs Peter and Timotheus of Alex-andria, and then St. Basill5 and finally Chrysostom himself,l6 were full of the praises of Diodorus, and the Emperor Theo-dosius the Great in 381 called him the model and standard of orthodoxy for the entire East," a Greek synod in Constanti-nople pronounced an anathema on him more than a hundred years after his death.l8 That is certainly one reason, though not the only one, why of all Diodorus' writings not one has survived in its entirety. Only scanty fragments and old quota-tions exist, of which the authenticity is yet to be proved. While the Arians sought to destroy his writings whenever and wherever they could, the Nestorians took care to keep and circulate them under a different name.l9 On account of this, a deep and revealing glimpse of his theology and teaching methods are denied to us; above all, the possibility of an exact appraisal of his theological and literary influence on his still greater and more famous pupil, St. Tohn Chrysostom.29 However, a work called " Questions and Answers" is still in existence, which gives a glimpse into the theological work-shops of that time. These "Questions and Answers" may have been addressed to Diodorus or Flavian; at any rate they were produced by a man who was near to Diodorus tempor-arily and locally, an outstanding Christian teacher, who was accustomed to being asked questions from all sides, by Chris-tians and catechumens, by individual pupils, by colleagues and monks; and who was considered an authority in the sphere of theological knowledge.2l A. Harnack dates the authorship of this work in the time between $65 and 378, or probably between $70 and $77; but in any case it was during the time in which Chrysostom was being taught by Diodorus.22 The collection of Answers gives us therefore a picture, not onlv of the theological and moral questions which were discussed in and out of school at that time, but doubtless also permits us to reach a conclusion as to the entire method of education in the school of Diodorus. There it was necessary that the pupils, in addition to the Scriptural explanations of their teachers, should ask questions about all possible subjects which excited their curiosity. In the School of Diodorus 95 These questions, asked as they came to mind, without any particular order or system, were answered in the same way, and with the answers they were collected and published. In this way originated, for example, the Regulae of St. Basil. Among the questions posed here we may read, for example; How can there be three persons in God and still only one God; but in Christ, two natures, but still only one Christ; why the genealogy of Jesus is different in St. Matthew and St. Luke; what is the difference between a prophet and a soothsayer; why, in the Church, miracles are occasionally performed by heretics; what is the fate of unbaptized children in the world to come; of the validity of heretical baptism; of evil dreams by night; why Moses brought the bones of the dead Joseph along with him and yet forbade anyone to touch a dead body; what do the guardian angels do, when after the death of immense numbers of human beings they are left, as it were, with nothing to do; if the Flood was general or only partial? Further; how can it be said of God, that He has cause to repent of anything, or that He changed His mind, when at the same time He is called unchangeable? Or whether it is correct that the Witch of Endor conjured Samuel out of the under- world? Also they asked questions about the natural sciences, chiefly in connection with the explanation of the Creation. For instance, whether the sky consists of unlimited space, or is of spherical form; whether day and night already existed before the stars were created on the fourth day; whether the world is actually only six thousand years old; what happens to men during the time between death and resurrection; why Eliseus had allowed wild beasts to attack the mocking boy, since it was not allowed to seek revenge? Further; whether exorcism was founded on actuality; why Christ prayed, when He was the Lord; why one sings in the church, and why on Sunday in the time between Easter and Pentecost one stands during prayer, instead of kneeling? And why, since wars are per-petual, how can the Lord send wars as a prelude to the end of the world? Thereupon follow apologetic discussions with the pagans on the subjects of spirit, soul, God, creation, immortalitya the origin of evil and the resurrection of the dead.23 96 John Chrysostom and his Time These expositions moved entirely about the framework of the Aristotelian terminology, and dealt with things, being, substance, quantity and quality, power and action, person and Hypostase and so forth; and they held fast to the syllogistic method of proof. From the writings: The Christian ques-tions to the Hellenes (pagans) collected together with the answers of the Hellenes, and the counter arguments, one may correctly draw the conclusion that even at that time the members of the Antiochene school of theology held formal disputations, with appointed subjects, with accusers and defenders, just as the medieval scholastics did.24 The answers which were given here to the questions about God, free will, moral responsibility, and eternal destiny, have their material and formal value even to this day. Chrysostom's knowledge of theological literature was not restricted to the writings of Diodorus. The latter was closely bound in ties of friendship with Basil and his Cappadocian friends, so that their writings, which appeared every year, were known also in Antioch and especially by Diodorus' own pupils. So we find in the records of Chrysostom that he had a direct knowledge of the writings of St. Basil the Great,25 St. Gregory Nazianzus,26 and perhaps also of St. Gregory of Nyssa. But the writings of Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa, seem to have served as the principal source for both Diodorus and Chrysostom. St. Jerome expressly says so.27 Eusebius also placed the greatest importance on these Scriptural explanations, and held to the historical-grammatical method of exposition which he had learned in the school of Edessa. He had also spent long periods in Antioch himself repeatedly. Besides, he appears to have been a versatile writer. However, on account of his adherence to the semi-Arian party, only a few scanty remains of his literary output have been left to us.28 Thilo wrote of him: "What we know and have of Eusebius justifies the opinion that he was the most significant forerunner of the real Antiochene teachers."29 It is striking that, in the writings of Chrysostom, he reveals no knowledge whatever of the seven characteristic and original letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the greatest and most out-standing bishop of his native city.29' However, he shows him-self familiar with Flavius Josephus; the "Jewish War" was In the School of Diodorus 97 industriously read in the school of Diodorus~ He quotes him at least twelve times in his writings, in part as excerpts from longer quotations.30 It seems very strange, however, that he who was later the most widely read expounder of the Holy Scripture, had never himself learned the language of the Old Testament. Chrysostom did not understand Hebrew. This is certain from statements he made himself, also from his whole style of exegesis of the books of the Old Testament.30a Thus he once wrote: " The Syrians and Hebrews, they say, collect wasps instead of bees.''3l Of Psalm 148, 1, Chrysostom notes: "The Holy Scriptures were originally composed in Hebrew, not Greek. Therefore those who know this language well, say that for the word Uranos (Heaven) the plural is used, and those who know the Syrian language agree."32 In his entire Exegesis Chrysostom depends entirely on the Greek text, and in the few places where he refers to the Hebrew, he knows it only by hearsay: " These books (of Moses) are not written in our language, but in Hebrew. Those who know the Hebrew language say . . ."33 If Chrysostom occasionally quoted a Hebrew versiont34 he was only sure of it when it came from Origen's Hexapla, a Hebrew text written in Greek letters. Theodore of Mop-suestia did not understand Hebrew either, which is surprising, though he knew Syrian, at least after he became a bishop.35 As to the Hebrew knowledge of the priest Flavian, the later successor of Meletius in the patriarchal chair of Antioch from among the teachers of Chrysostom, it can neither be proved or disproved. There is a certain probability in favour of it. Flavian was not outstanding as a writer. Only one sermon of his appears to be extant.36 Socrates and Sozomen speak of another teacher of Chrysos-tom who led the ascetic life in Antioch at the same time as Diodorus: his name was Carterius. Unfortunately nothing is known of him but the name alone.37 Entry into the Spiritual Life: Chrysostom becomes a Lector. Already three years had passed since Chrysostom had received baptism, and had dedicated himself to the study of theology under Meletius and Diodorus. There can be no doubt that during this time he had fulfilled the hopes that 98 John Chrysostom and his Time had been placed in him, both in regard to his spiritual qualifi-cations and his character development. As has been mentioned before, Chrysostom must have had very early the intention of devoting himself to the spiritual life. However, he did not appear to be resolved as yet whether he preferred to be a monk or not. What finally decided him to undertake the religious life, we do not know. It is a fact, however, that at the end of this period he was made " Anagnost " (lector) and thereby entered into the ranks of the clergy. As in the matter of the baptism, it is not certain who bestowed the lectorate upon him. Palladius merely states that he was made lector.33 The very unreliable Socrates states that a Bishop Zenon made him lector on his return from a trip to Jerusalem, and at the same time with Basilius, the later Arch-bishop of Caesareal si George Alexandrinus40 copied this from him, and it passed to Leo Imperator.4l This statement concerning Basil the Great is a notorious error on the part of Socrates, who apparently thought that Basil of Caesarea was identical with the Basil of the Dialog on the Priesthood. In regard to Zenon the matter stands otherwise. Who this Zenon was, is not certainly known. It is highly probable that Bishop Meletius, during his several banishments from Antioch, did not simply leave his Hock to its fate. He must have seen to it somehow, that in Antioch Catholic priests, and for the whole Patriarchate Catholic bishops, should succeed him wherever possible; no doubt these meanwhile died. It may also be assumed without further doubt that he either empowered neighboring bishops to undertake the ordinations in Antioch, or else he himself remained near enough to the city to come in from time to time, as St. Athanasius had done before him in Alexandria.42 Palladius would seem to be near the truth when he says that Chrysostom received the lectorship from the bishop who baptized him, and that Meletius was the one. The lectorate was at that time, among the Greeks, the first and lowest step of the ascent to ordination. After it came the deaconship and then the priesthood. As "Anagnost," John had the duty of reading the Holy Scripture to the believers assembled in the church. The ln the School of Diodorus gg formal prelude to the reading stated, " Thus sayeth the Lord." Then the deacon, according to the rules of procedure, called to the people, npOaXU{XfV, (let us pay attention). On the lector then devolved this duty, which among the Latins the acolyte, then the subdeacon and deacon fulfilled at the cele-bration of Holy Mass, if they read the Epistle or the Gospel.'2a The lectorate was one of the offices which had existed from the earliest times. It also happened in those older times that the lector not only read the Holy Scriptures but expounded them, and even preached. Socrates actually states that Chrysos-tom had already as a lector composed the " Logos " against the Jews; by this is probably meant the treatise Concerning the Divinity of Christ against the Jews and the Pagans.43 Although Socrates is unreliable in his statements, concerning the youth of Chrysostom, still one may draw certain definite conclusions from him here. Externally, this last named work is considered, on good grounds, to be a later work, while the sermons against the Jews belong to the earlier years of his priesthood. At any rate an alleged synod in Carthage in 398 allowed the laity, who were not even lectors, to teach, if they were expressly asked to do so by the clergy.44 However, Chrysostom does not mention that he had preached as a lector or given instructions to the catechumens. His mind was already set on other things. Perhaps he had been actually hesitating earlier as to whether he should become a monk or a priest. Soon after becoming a lector, he finally resolved to renounce all prospects of an ecclesiastical career, and to lead, as a simple monk, a life of renunciation, piety, and devotion to God. FOOTNOTES 1. In laudem Diodori 1 (52, 761). 2. Theodoret 1, 4 expressly states that Lucian was excommuni-cated by three successive bishops of Antioch on account of his heretical teachings; but this is not verified in any other place, and in the face of the silence of the Anti-Arians it is not entirely reliable. See F. Loofs, Paulus v. Samosata (1924) 183 ff.; J. Bardy, Recherches sur Lucien d'Antioche et son l:cole. Paris 1936. Chrys., Encomium in S. Lucianum mart. (so, 522 ff.). oo John Chrysostom and his Time 3. Philostorgius 6, lo (ed. Bidez 192). 4. This is proved not only by the circumstance that Diodorus was one of the pupils of Bishop Sylvanus of Tarsus, but also by the sharp observation of Cavallera, Le schisme 202, N. 1, that Jerome, in a letter to Pope Damasus, called the Meletians, led by Diodorus, the " heretics of Tarsus," at a time Diodorus was not yet metropolitan of Tarsus. The work of Nik. Fetissov, Diodor von Tharsus (Russ.) Kiev 1915, was unfortunately not available to me; he says Diodorus was born in Antioch. 5. Socrates 6, 3 says of Diodorus and Carterius, that they had presided over an " asketerion." Sozomen 8, 2 says the same, and speaks of it as a " famous asketerion." 6. Theodoret, 2, 24. Cf. Severian Gab., Or. 2, 5 de mundi creatione (56, 445)- 7. Julian, Letter 79 to Photinus (ed. Hertlein 2, 605-6). 8. Socrates 4, 17. 9. Hist. Rel. 8 (82, 1368-78). Cf. Chrys. Epistol. 51 (52, 636); J. Schiwietz, Morgenland. Monchtum III, s78; F. Cavallera, Le schisme d'Antioche, 132-37. 10. Pirot, L'oeuvre exegetique 3o. 1l. Socrates 6, 2; Sozomen 8, 2; Theodoret HE 5, 39 (82, 1277). At any rate Nelz 51, note 23, is wrong if he believes after Palladius Ch. 5, that one must assume Chrysostom to have spent six years with Diodorus, that is, the entire duration of his monastic life (about 375 to 381). Neander also assumes this period in his first edition, but irl the third it is dropped (1, 29, Amm. 2)., The following statement in Nelz p. 51 is pure fantasy: "Some ten years later, Theodore of Mopsuestia stood with John Chrysostom in Antioch . . . before the so-called Euprepius monastery," and when he calls Theodoret the pupil of both of them. (P. 52, N. 25). 12. These fragments, preserved through the "catena," are found in J. Deconinck, Essai 91-157. 13. L. Maries in the Revue de Philologie 35 (1911) 56-70 ascribes the psalm commentary discovered by Lebreton in Coisl. gr. 275 to Diodorus, and promises its publication (Theol. Lit. Zeitung 39 (1914) 363-4). Cf. Pirot 31-33 and Ermoni, Diodore de Tarse= Le Museon 2 (1901) 428-431. . Bardenhewer GAL 3, 306-g. 15. Facundus Hermianensis, Pro defensione trium cap. 4, 2 (ML 67, 612 ff.). 6. In laudem Diodori (52, 761, 6). 17. Socrates 5, 8. John Chapman says, not without reason, that Diodorus stood in the same relation to Nestorianism as the earlier Lucian did to Arianism, and St. Cyril of Alexandria to Mono- ln the School of Diodorus lol physitism. (Catholic Encyclopedia 5 (lgog) 8 Art. Diodorus.) Cf. On the other hand Julicher, in the Theol. Literaturzeitung 27 (1902) 82-86; and Funk, in the Kirchengeschichtlichen Abhand-lungen 2 (1907) 323-350- 18. Victor Tonnensis, Chronica ad annum 499 (=Mon. Ger-maniae hist. Chron. min. II. ed. Mommsen) Berlin 1894, p. 193. Bardenhewer, GAL 3, 312 says: "Diodorus has sown wheat and tares mingled together, and in Chrysostom has the wheat fallen on specially good ground, and in Theodore (of Mopsuestia) the tares." Cf. Jerome, De viris illustr. 1l9 (P. 123, 709). 19. Cf. Loofs, Leontius 28 f.; W. Bauer, Der Apostolos 62. 20. That would naturally be otherwise, if the four Pseudo-Justinian texts (T. u. U. 21 [lgol] IV) could with certainty be ascribed to Diodorus. Herein the thesis of La Croze and Harnack is not sufficiently proved. However, it is certain that the text in question had its origin in the Antiochene circle of theologians. 21. Harnack loc. cit. 19. 22. Funk on the contrary (Pseudo-Justin) thinks this document dates from after 380, even from after 4so, but he does not produce any convincing arguments. He thinks it originated in the Antiochene circle. Julicher (Theol. Literaturzeitung 27 (1902) 84) thinks it certain that the four writings belong together; he thinks the time of composition may have been anywhere in the years before 450. Only Diekamp (Theol. Revue 1 (1902) 52-56) regards, with Harnack, the authorship of Diodorus as proved. 23. Greek questions to the Christians (T. u. U. 21 (lgol) IV. 61-181). 24. Harnack also says: " In this formalism Diodorus appears to have anticipated the medieval scholastics; which is not surprising considering the common Aristotelian root." " In this answer Dio-dorus shows an astonishing virtuosity in dialectic, and such a wealth of formalistic points of view, that his little work is able to rival the keenest deliberations of the medieval scholastics. In fact, we have here in Antioch and in the fourth century already a Christian scholastic primi ordinis" (loc. cit. 233 and 239). 25. Cf. Basilius, Ad. virginem lapsam (32, 369-381) and Chrysos-tom, Ad Theodorum lapsum (47, 277-316); also Basilius, epist. 140 (32, 585 CD); then Basilius, Hom. 17 in Barlaam mart. (31, 484 especially the conclusion) and Chrysostom, In S. Barlaam (~ o, 675). 26. Cf. Gregory Naz., De fuga (35, 407 ff.) and Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio (48, 623 ff.); Gregory Naz., Oratio 26 (35, 1s28) and Chrysostom, Neminem laedi (52, 460-480); Gregory, Adversus Julianum Or. 4 and 5 (35, 532-720) and Chrysostom, In S. Baby-lam, contra Julianum (49, 533 ff.); authenticity doubtful. Cf. los John Chrysostom and his Time also Theo. Sinko, De traditione orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni= Meletemata Patristica II (Cracow 1917) 1, 119-121. 27. De Viris ill. Ch. 9l, 1l9, 129. Jerome also says this for Chrysostom ibid. Ch. 129. Du Pin, Nouville Bibliotheque 2, 238b, that he thought more of Eusebius of Caesarea than of him of Emesa. A comparison of the homilies of Chrysostom with those of Eusebius reveals many similarities which might be worth care-ful examination. Cf. Chrysostom, In Judae proditionem (49, 373 ff.) and Eusebius Em., In Judae proditionem (86, 525 and 527, Note 56); the sermon is in manuscript under the name of Severian of Gabala (see Zellinger, Studien zu Severian 142). Thilo, tYber die Schriften des Eusebius von Alexandrien 4 ff. ascribes this homily again to Eusebius of Alexandria. 28. Bardenhewer, GAL 3, 263-4 and 673. This sojourn in Antioch is recalled by his festival sermon on the Antiochene saints: Berenice, Prosdoce, and Domnina; cf. A. Wilmart O.S.B. Le souvenir d'Eusebe d'Emese . . . Anal. Boll. 38 (1920) 241-284. 29. Loc. cit. 73, note 1. 29^. Cf. M. Rackl, Die Christologie des hl. Ignatius v. Anti-ochien. (Freiburg 1914) 361. The Hom. De legislatore 4 (56, 404) in which the letter of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp is quoted (ed. Funk, Patres Ap. I, 296) is of uncertain origin. 30. Cf. Kihn, Theodor von Mops. 85, Note 1. 30^. Chrys., Hom. 25, 2 in Rom. (60, 635). 31. In Isaiam Ch. 7, 18 (56, 88). 32. Hom. 4, 4 in Genesim (53, 42-3). Cf. Sermo 9, 3 and 5 in Genesim (54, 624- 5 and 628). As a young monk Chrysostom was the " pupil " of an old " Syrian "; he must have known Greek at any rate, otherwise he could scarcely have taught the young Greeks who knew no Syrian. 33- Hom- 4, 4 and 39, 3 in Genesim (53, 43 and 54, 364); Hom. 2, 3 de mutatione nominum (51, 129). The passage in Hom. 4, 3 in 2 Tim. (62, 622) proves nothing concerning Chrysostom's knowledge of Hebrew. 34. Only in the Commentary on the Psalms, 76 and 12 (55, go, 99); Ps. 8 (col. 106, 114, 116); Ps. g (col. 126, 133); Ps. 1l (144, 147, 148) and so forth. Cf. Rosenmuller, Historia interpretationis librorum sacrorum. Pars. III. (Leipzig 1807) 270 f. 35. L. Pirot, L'oeuvre exegetique 95 f. 36. F. Cavallera, S. Eustathii . . . 105 ff. 37. Socrates 6, 3; Sozomen 8, 2. Pirot, L'oeuvre exegetique 85 surprisingly lists Theodore of Mopsuestia among the " teachers " and sources of Chrysostom, and states that he and Theodoret made use of Theodore's work and practically plagerized him. This In the School of Diodorus 103 may be true in some measure of Theodoret; but Chrysostom, who was older than Theodore, naturally could not have had him as a teacher, though as his fellow pupil and friend, he doubtless knew his writings and theological views. Cf. Baur, Der Kanon des heiligen Chrysostomus=Theolog. Quartalschrift 105 (1924) 267- 8; Richard Simon, Histoire critique du Nouveau Testament 3, 314 (Ch. 22). 38- Ch. 5 (18). 39. HE 6, 3 (688 A). 4o- Ch- 5 (176~ 43). 41- Ch- 5 (107, 236 D). 42. Hefele, KG 1, 664. 42^. PL 51, 921. Likewise the Synaxarium of Constantinople for Nov. 13. Propyl. col. 219-220. 43- HE 8, 22. 44. Canon 98 = Hefele KG 2, 76. CHAPTER XI CHRYSOSTOM AS A MONK T F a grain of history lies at the foundation of the introduction to the first Book on the Priesthood, then Chrysostom had . . already as a student felt drawn to the life of a monk. He had a friend named Basil. The most ideal conditions of similarity of age, condition, fatherland, tastes, studies, and even choice of vocation, cemented the friendship between them. Basil wished earnestly to become a monk, that is, an ascetic. He lived in his own home a life as mortified as possible, devoting himself to reading and meditation on the Holy ScTiptures, and to ascetical practices. Chrysostom, his friend, could not tear himself away from the world so easily. He found great pleasure in the theater and in the spectacles at the law courts. Finally, however, John began to " raise his head above the troubled waves of the world." They both decided to leave their homes and lead the common life of monks. Anthusa, John's mother, had already guessed the secret design of the two friends. One day she took her son silently by the hand, led him into her chamber and asked him to sit down. The she burst into a storm of tears. Finally, when she gained control of herself, she said to John: " My child, I could not rejoice with your dear father for very long God did not will it so. For you were scarcely born when death overtook him and left you an orphan before the time, and left me a widow, with all the gTiefs of widowhood, which are known only to those who have endured them. There are no words to describe the deep suffering of a young girl who first left her parents' home such a short time ago, and who now suddenly, all unskilled in business affairs, is plunged into the deepest misfortune, and sees herself compelled to take responsibilities on herself which are too much for her age and her sex. She must watch careless servants, beware of malevolent people, 104 Chrysostom as a Monk 105 defend herself against avaricious relatives, and steel herself to battle with troublesome and heartless tax collectors. If the child of the departed father is a girl, the mother must try to protect her from the sorrows she herself has suffered; a boy, on the other hand, gives a mother a thousand cares and worries day by day, aside from the cost of giving him a good education. " Nevertheless, none of this has ever persuaded me to marry again, and bring another husband into your father's house. I endured through storm and stress, and held firm through all the trials of widowhood; and in this I have been helped first of all by grace from above. It has been a great consolation for me in my sorrow, that I have always been able to see the living image of your father in your face, for you have all his features. Therefore you have always been my greatest con-solation, since you were a little one, not yet able to talk; for it is at that age that children give their parents the greatest . " To this then you cannot object: if I have had the courage and the strength to remain a widow, I might have been forced by the necessities of widowhood to diminish your paternal inheritance. I know it has happened thus to many who have had the misfortune to become orphans. However, I have kept your inheritance whole and intact, though I spared no expense for the necessities of your education. However, I have paid for everything out of my own property, which I received from home. Do not think that I wish to reproach you with this. As the only recompense for all, I beg of you but this: do not make me a widow a second time; do not rouse again the slumbering grief and pain, but wait until I am dead; I will not live much longer. In youth one always wishes to live to a great age; but when one is old, as I am, one can only wait for death. So when you have laid my bones in the grave beside your father's, then you may start a long journey, and cross the sea, if you will; no one will hinder you then. But as long as I remain among the living, stay with me in my home. " Do not offend God by condemning me without reason to such undeserved suffering. Indeed, if you can reproach me for entangling you in worldiy affairs, or forcing you to give your-self over to petty domestic cares, then hear no more of the law of nature, think no more that I brought you up, that we l o6 John Chrysostom and his Time have been together for years, then look back no more, but flee from me as from an enemy who is preparing snares for you. But on the contrary, if I do everything possible to obtain time and leisure for you for such a life, then this, at least, if noth-ing else, should move you to stay with me. For even though you can name thousands who are dear to you, yet no one will grant you so much freedom (to practice the monastic life); for no one has your welfare so deeply at heart as I have.''l This and still more his mother said, and her words, spoken from the heart, made such an impression on the young John that he was not able to follow the persuasion of Basil, to begin his own monastic life. This entire passage above quoted belongs among the finest and most delicate pearls of ancient Christian literature, and deserves on this account alone to be remembered here. Prob-ably both truth and poetry are woven into the picture. Possibly also Gregory of Nazianzus had supplied the literary model, Gregory who himself had withdrawn from the world and wished to become a monk, but his plans had to be deferred out of consideration for his parents.2 However, Anthusa may have spoken thus, or similarly, when her only son decided to become a monk. Whatever the circumstances were, young John's next step could not have been easy. He himself reveals to us the thoughts and cares which moved his soul at that time: " As I on my part formed the determination to abandon the city and seek the habita-tion of the monks, this great doubt harassed my soul, how and whence I might obtain for myself the necessities of life; whether I would be able to eat freshly baked bread there, whether one could use the same oil for lamps and for meals, whether anyone could compel me to eat a dish of miserable beans, or to do hard labor, to dig, to carry wood, or water, or perform similar tasks; in short, I was greatly concerned over having a tranquil and easy life."3 Finally, the longing for the " high philosophy " of the mon-astic life, the desire for the life of the monks, overcame all other considerations. Palladius states that his conscience plagued him with the thought that, in spite of his good will, he could not satisfy the demands which life in the great city of Antioch placed on the strength and purpose of a young Chrysostom as a Monk 107 man in the bloom of youth.4 Perhaps also another considera-tion had helped to his final decision. From the above pictured conversation between him and Anthusa, one may perhaps conclude that his mother had meanwhile died, or at least had given her son her painful consent to the separation from him. Socrates, the lawyer and ecclesiastical historian, states that the example of Evagrius was what finally decided his choice of the monastic life the same Evagrius who had been his teacher and who had taken up the monastic life before him.S Socrates was evidently thinking here of Evagrius of Antioch, who later became a priest and then the successor of Bishop Paulinus. But Evagrius had been a priest since 362, and had joined the party of Paulinus. He would therefore not have had much association with Chrysostom as yet, and Socrates' statement may have as little truth in it as the other, that Evagrius, as successor to Paulinus, ordained Chrysostom to the priesthood. Monasticism in Antioch. In the second half of the fourth century, the manner of life of the monks, both in Svria and in Antioch, was no longer unfamiliar. From Egypt it had quickly conquered the Roman Empire of the East, and in the year 370 there were scarcely any of the larger cities, or mountains, or deserts, in which one might not see men either youthful or old, wearing the typical monastic habit. Some of them lived alone as hermits, others together in small or larger groups. The latter were called " Cenobites," that is, those who live together. The boundaries between these groups had not as yet been juridically laid down. One might change from one to the other easily and without any trouble; indeed there were many who lived as hermits for part of the year and cenobites for the rest of it. These latter sometimes formed loosely organized groups, so that it was difficult to say whether they were to be classified as hermits or as ceno-bites. The first one who introduced the strict form of common life was St. Pachomius. His brother John reproached him with having surrendered the very essence of monasticism, the solitary life; for a monk, said he, can only be one who lives alone and solitary.6 108 John Chrysostom and his Time In Antioch and the surrounding country the eremitical form of monasticism appeared to prevail. This we learn from the Historia religiosa of Theodoret.7 But Chrysostom, in his later apologetic writings, knew of the religious life chiefly from the hermits who dwelt in the caves and on the heights around Antioch. But, he speaks occasionally of a " choir of brothers," of a " house of Christ,'1 or a " list of brothers," and compares the monk to a soldier who has been enrolled in a regiment. However, this does not always indicate a community strictly enclosed by law.8 These expressions in connection with the monastic life are used only in a loose sense. Whether a community life was led in the " Asketerion " of Diodorus, cannot be definitely determined. Stagirius, a friend of Chrysostom, lived in a community of brothers, in which prayers were said in common, the community slept in a dormitory, and perhaps also ate in common; they therefore apparently lived a fairly well organized monastic life.9 Many hermits had one or more young people with them as pupils, to whom they taught the rudiments of the ascetic life. Others again instructed boys in reading, and writing, and the mysteries of grammar. The whole ptctllre is that of monasticism in its first youth, full of spiritual zeal but lacking in experience, and with a freedom in its outward forms which in later times was to become very unusual. Chrysostom was still a child when the great father of monks, St. Antony died in li:gypt in 365. He was perhaps about eleven years old when St. Athanasius, through his Life of St. Antony (in the year 365) made the monastic life known in the whole world and thereby inspired thousands to follow it. In his Commentary on St. Matthew (Hom. 8, 5; 57, 89) Chrysostom speaks with enthusiasm of Egyptian monasticism; he mentions especially the life of St. Antony (by St. Athana-sius) and recommended all his readers and listeners to read it. The founder of the common life, St. Pachomius, died only a short time before Chrysostom was born. North of Antioch and Syria, in Pontus and in Caesarea, at about the same time, St. Basil was giving form and shape, and his own ascetical spirit, to the monastic life. .So the youth of Chrysostom was at its spring, shortly after the Chrysostom as a Monk 109 youth and springtime of monasticism. It is not surprising that the warm fresh current which flowered through the lands of the Eastern Roman Empire, touched John also. The " philo-sophy " of the " athletes of grace " constrained his soul. The riven rocks, the lime and chalk cliffs,l which tower over Antioch to the southeast and north, to a height of seven-teen hundred meters, especially Mt. Kasios and Mt. Amanos, offer through their numberless caves and clefts an excellent natural shelter for humble monks who would rather be near heaven than earth. Actually these caves were inhabited by many hermits who prayed, fasted and chastised themselves there. From the zeal and the almost supernatural austerity with which many of these monks devoted themselves to the ascetical life in Syria alone, one may form an idea of the examples which have been preserved by Theodoret in his monastic history.'l Naturally, however, these monks did other things besides fasting and mortifying themselves. There were educated men among them, who, as preachers, strengthened the people in the faithl2 and who were even active as writers. Others distinguished themselves as spiritual leaders, when pious women sought out their retreats to pour out the story of their cares and sorrows. Others again dedicated themselves to the education of youth.l3 From these monkish teachers one might learn not only Greek but Latin.l4 Their pupils lived and took their meals with them, as it was the custom for secular pupils from outside to live in the houses of their teachers.ls One such monks' school of great distinction belonged prob-ably to the Asketerion of the learned Diodorus. According to the statement of Socrates, he, together with Carterius, was the director and leader of his Asketerion.l6 Here Chrysostom, with his young friends, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Maxi-mus, later Bishop of Seleucia among the Isaurians, benefited by the ascetic-theological training of Diodorus. Palladius, on the other hand, says that he lived for four years with an old Syrian monk, exercised himself in solitude and mortification, and practiced the ascetic way of life.l7 Palladius did not know the name of this old monk. These two statements may very well agree, for the strict old Syrian may be identified as Carterius, in which case his Greek name llo lohn Chrysostom and his Time need provoke no real doubt. For this " Syrian " must have known Greek well, since Chrysostom knew no Syrian. George Alexandrinus says that this old Syrian was named Hesychius; though this may very well be an invention, as are so many other statements of George.l8 On the other hand, George Hamartolusl9 and George Cedrenus20 state, openly supported by Socrates,2l that the old Syrian was Carterius. It may appear doubtful as to whether the Asketerion of Diodorus was located on a mountain. If it was, this would justify the assumption that Chrysostom remained in the school of Diodorus throughout the four years of his monastic life. The fact that Palladius is silent on the subject of the relations of Chrysostom with Diodorus is in accord with the character of his Dialog, which was intended as an apologia for Chrysos-tom against Theophilus, and omits practically everything which has no bearing on this subject. At any rate, during the time of the exile of Meletius, this school for ascetics of Diodorus and Flavian formed a religious focus for the Catholics of Antioch, the chief bulwark of resis-tance to Arianism and paganism.22 Here is a question: Why did the young John, so soon after being made lector, give up this office? What did he seek in the monastic life and what was in his mind? It has been variously stated, that monasticism, in that day as well as in the present, was considered the pre-eminently Christian life, as distinguished from the life of the people in the world, who are considered "Christians of the second class." Only the monk was considered able to lead the perfect Christ-like life. Such a conception was far from the mind of Chrysostom. On the contrary, he opposed it and refused to accept it. For him, monasticism meant, first of all, the "solitary world-renounc-ing life." Indeed, he called it precisely the " passive life."23 And yet for him the monastic life was no empty husk, without a kernel, nor was it a mere negation. Its essence is for him so positive, that it is the " Wisdom of life," so that he repeatedly calls it " the Philosophy " while the monk is " the philosopher," that is, the man who has grasped the secret of life's true wisdom and gives practical proof of it.24 Therefore the monastic life is also in his eyes the " life of the angels,"25 and to become a monk is to " consecrate oneself to God " and to Chrysostom as a Monk 1 l l " serve God."26 What is significant for souls in this life is not fasting, watching, mortification, not the renunciation of worldly honors or pleasures, not even prayer, or contempla-tion, or the practice of all kinds of virtues, but simply and solely the most perfect possible love of God. " Speak not to me of mountain heights, of caves and gorges and inaccessible deserts; these alone are of no avail to soothe the unrest of the soul. Much more, to this end one needs . . . the love of Christ."27 All men are obliged to love; so also all are called to perfection; but not all to the monastic life. Or "is it perhaps only monks who are obliged to please God? No! God wishes that all should become holy, and that none should neglect the practice of virtue."28 " Then whoever lives in the world, has only one thing a monk has not, namely a wife. In that one respect freedom is given him, but in no other; he must be observant in all other things, just as a monk is."29 "You make a great mistake if you think that anything different is required from people of the world than from monks. The one difference is this, that the one takes a wife, the other does not; in all other things the same reckoning will be demanded from each." " For Christ has made no difference between them.... Hear now what St. Paul says concerning love, the highest good: He says of it, that the same love is demanded of people of the world, as Christ demands of His children . . . Had he said only this, it would be proof enough, that the same demands are laid on monks and people of the world. Indeed, the whole world has done its utmost to further the idea that the monk must lead a perfect life, while everyone else makes himself comfortable. No, No, the same philosophy is required of all of us; as St. Paul says, and that I should like to emphasize, or rather not I, but He Who will one day judge us." " That monks and people in the world have a similar obligation to attain the same height of perfection . . . that, I hope, no one will deny in future, though they be never so dogmatic and obstinate."30 Thus Chrysostom wrote at a time when he was probably a monk himself. St. Basil taught the same thing. He said: "The teachings of the Gospel are for all, both monks and married people. For one who is married, it is enough that for him the desire for a wife and the possession of one are allowed. 112 John Chrysostom and his Time The other precepts hold for all alike; none may violate them and go unpunished."3l If then the goal is the same for all, what advantage has the monastic life over the seclllar life? Wherein lies the progress and the gain, if one is " converted " from the secular life to the monastic life? The advantage of the monastic life lies in this, that the monk or the ascetic finds less hindrance in the way of God than the man of the world. " The monk stands securely on a high mountain and looks about him over the stormy sea of life, where ships are sinking and being dashed to pieces, and shipwrecked men are clinging to floating timbers, while others, dead, are tossed to and fro by the waves."32 "So did the Apostles leave everything to follow Ghrist, and they could follow Him more easily because they had left all things."33 " And as St. Paul explained the differ-ence between a virgin and a married woman, he did not men-tion either marriage or chastity, but rather a life of freedom from care as opposed to one harassed by care. For marriage in itself is not evil, but it is a hindrance to philosophy" (a life of virtue).34 " Therefore the single life is the surest way to heaven." Then " I do not advocate virginity because I consider marriage evil, but because I consider virginity more precious."35 " Consider how it is if a man wishes to lead a quiet life at home. But there stand his children and his wife about him, and they must be supported. What remains to him but to plunge himself against his will into the whirlpool of worldly affairs? And how many sins will he be forced to commit? Anger, cursing, abuse, revenge, deceit, partiality, enmity I So it goes with his affairs. When he comes home, he must sympathize with his wife and take care of many things which an unmarried man does not need to worry about. That is even the case if his wife is good-looking and pleasing. But if she is a scold, then his presence at home must be rather called a punishment from on high. How can such a one travel the road to heaven, the road which requires swiftly-flying feet and a light- armed soul he who bears such a weight of worldly cares, who is entangled in so many fetters, and continually dragged down by a shrewish wife as by a chain? ~ s36 A monk or a nun is free from all these hindrances to the spiritual life. " His cell is free from the noise of the world, Chrysostom as a Monk 113 free from any clamor. Silence rules in the heart, as in a quiet harbor, and a still greater peace in the soul; for they concern themselves with no worldly things, they spend their days striving toward God and keep their eyes fixed on Him."37 FOOTNOTES 1. De Sacerdotio 1, 5 (48, 624-5; ed. Nairn p. 5 ff.). 2. Carmen de Vita sua II, 1 l V. 357 ff. (37, 1054). In the treatise Adv. opp. vitae mon. 3, 12 (47, 368 f.) Chrysostom tells of an aristocratic youth who wished to become a monk, and whose father was a rough officer, while his mother wished to entrust his educa-tion to the monks. De Sacerdotio 1, 50 prohibits any consideration of this as a hidden allusion to himself personally. 3. De Compunctione 1, 6 (47, 403). 4. Dialogus 5 (18). That alone can be the correct meaning of this passage. Schwietz, II, 291, Note 1, has apparently allowed himself to be misled by the Latin translation. Cf. Ad Theod. lapsum 2, 5 (47, 315)- 5- HE 6, 3. 6. Vita S. Pachomii=Acta Sanctor. Maii III, 24, Ch. lo, 15, 16. 7. 82, 1284-1496. Cf. Baur, Einleitung zu Theodorets Historia religiosa in Koselschen Vatersammlung Vol. 50, p. 8 ff. 8. Ad Theodorum lapsum 1, 16; 2, 1 and 4 (47, 302, 309, 316). Chrysostom himself knew several monastic communities (ceno-bites), for example Hom. 68, 3 in Matth. (58, 644); Hom. 14, 3 in X Tim (62, 575). The Euprepius Monastery, in which Nestorius lived forty years later, was about two stadia (360 meters) from the city. Cf. Evagrius Schol., HE 1, 7 (86, 2436); Theodoret even mentions a monastery with two separate divisions, one for Greek and one for Syrian monks (Hist. Rel. 5 = 82, 1356). On Mt. Amanos at Antioch, Symeon had also founded two other " monas-teries," that is, ›>sAoao+zas ~ >porrtaSri7pLa (ibid. 6; 1364 C), while the monastery of Theodosius, situated at the foot of Mt. Rhodos on the Orontes, was moved into Antioch on account of the Isaurian invasion,s, 404-407 (ibid. 1o=82~ 1388-93). 9. Ad Stagirium a daemone possessum 1, I (47, 423). o. Blankenhorn 124-125. 1l. German of K. Gutberlet= Koselsche Vater-Bibliothek, Vol. 5 (1926). . Chrysostom, Adversus oppugnatores v.m. 1, 6 (47, 327). . Ibid. 2, 1 ff.; 3, 16 ff- (332, ff-, 376 ff-3- John Chrysostom and his Time 14. Ibid. 3, 11 (368). . Ibid. 3, 18 (380). 6. HE 6, 3 (67, 665). 7. Ch- 5 (18)- 8. Ch. 7 (Savile 8, 168). 19. Chronicon 4, 202 (llo, 728). xo. Comp. Hist. (121, 6x8). 21. HE 6, 3. 2x. Epist. 17 ad Marcum presb. (ML x2, 360) and epist. 15 and 6 to Pope Damasus (ibid. 355 ff.). 23. Hom. 1, 2 ad pop. Ant. (49, 18); Adv. Oppugnatores 2, 9 (47, 345). 'A7rpay~ v means a man who, for religious reasons, has withdrawn himself from the 7rpayHaora that is, the affairs and cares of the world. x4. Comparatio regis et monachi (47, 387g2); De compunctione , 4 ff. (47, 399 ff.) and passim. 25. Ad Theodorum lapsum 1, 17 (47, 304); De Subintroductis 7 (47~ 5Y7); Hom- 18, 4 in Genesim (53, 153). 26. Adv. Oppugnatores 3, 14 (47, 372); Comparatio regis 1 and x (47, 387-89). 27. De compunctione 2, 2 (47, 413); De sacerdotio 6, 6-8 (48, 682-5); De virginitate 4 (48, 536); Hom. 44, 1 in Matth. (57, 463 ff.). x8. Hom. 21, 6 in Gen. (53, 182-83). xg. Hom. 7, 4 in Hebr. (63, 67-68). 3o. Adv. oppugnatores 3, 14 (47, 372-74); cf. Baur, Das Ideal der christlichen Vollkommenheit loc. cit. 573-74. 31. De renuntiatione saeculi 2 (31, 6xg A). 3x. Ad Theodorum lapsum x, 5 (47, 315). 33. Hom. 64, 1 in Matth. (58, 609). 34. Hom. 19, 6 in 1 Cor. (61, 160). 35- De virginitate 9 (48, 539) 36. De virginitate 44 (48, 566-67). 37. Ibid. 68 (584); cf. Adv. oppugnatores 3, 15 (47, 376). CHAPTER Xll FIRST LITERARY ACTIVITY Three Treatises on the Monastic Life. s r T is very probable that Chrysostom at this time of his mon- astic life had already begun to write. His " Comparison , ,. between a king and a monk " and his treatise in three books, "Against the enemies of monasticism," give the impression of being the earliest youthful manifestation of his literary life work. The Comparison between a king and a monk may well have owed its composition to a school exercise set by Diodorus, and to have been composed as a Christian counterpart to Plato's " Comparison between a philosopher and a tyrant " in the ninth book of his work " On the State." Comparison between a king and a monk.l Most men, the young author begins, admire the apparent rather than the actual good. So they consider it the greatest earthly happiness to be a king, who possesses a kingdom, power, sovereign authority, and honor. But a monk, who leads a solitary life and serves God alone, is noticed by no one. So we will compare the life of a king with the " philosophy of the monastic life." The king rules over cities, countries, people and armies; the monk rules over anger, envy, avarice, mean desires and the whole host of passions. He has more right to be called a king than the one who sits in purple and laurel on a golden throne, for he is actually free interiorly. On the other hand, he who rules over men. and is himself ruled by anger, avarice and mean desires, plays a ridiculous role and can scarcely be a good ruler. The monk wars against demons, conquers them with the help of God, converts whole cities and villages from heresy, and will be crowned by Christ. The king battles with bar-barians, only with the object of winning lands and treasures, or to satisfy his ambition or his thirst for power. 115 6 John Chrysostom and his Time Also their daily lives are radically different. The monk is familiar with the prophets and with St. Paul, goes from Moses to Isaias, and from them to John, and so on. A king is familiar only with officers and spear bearers, who are often given to wine and lust, and who spend the greater part of the day in drinking. The night shows no small differences. The monk lies praying and worshiping God, anticipates the songs of the birds, associates with the angels, keeps himself in the presence of God, and lives as though he were in heaven. The king, who commands people and armies, and rules over many countries and distant oceans, lies in his bed and snores until bright day comes, because he has been feasting at a royal banquet, whereas the monk lives so ascetically that he never sinks into a deep sleep. Also the king finds his subjects troublesome because of the billeting on them of an undisciplined soldiery, who often rob and plunder and demand unheard-of things as their right. Then come the tax-collectors, who have no respect for old age, widowhood or anything else; and between these the rich have little or nothing to suffer, but the poor are oppressed, and the peasant has to give up what the earth did not produce for him. It is not thus with the monk. He lives simply and modestly, and is well adjusted between rich and poor through the alms by means of which he makes the rich poorer and the poor richer. So he releases at the same time the one from his sins and the other from his need. Also their individual gifts are very different. The king spends only gold, but the monk gives the grace of God; for if anyone is tormented by an evil spirit, he does not go to the king, but to a holy monk, who drives out the devil with his pious prayers, as with a sword. Indeed, not only we, but kings themselves call on such men of God for help in their affliction. So Achab besought the intercession of Elias, and Ezechias that of Isaias, and others came to Eliseus for help. Further, if a monk, in his struggle for virtue, falls from grace and loses control over himself, he is helped by the prayers, tears, penances and helpful service of the poor, that First Literary Activity 117 he may the more quickly regain the mastery over himself; but if a king once loses control over his kingdom, he must depend on foreign help; he needs allies, soldiers, knights, horses, and money, and must incur many dangers. And when it comes to dying, death is fearful for a king; for a monk it is no worry at all, because he has long ago renounced kingdoms, pleasures and luxurious living. If either one of them must endure a violent death, the monk dies like a martyr and goes to Heaven, while the king succumbs to the sword of a rival. Indeed, he must spend his whole life in anxiety and worry, and protect himself with a bodyguard. The monk, on the contrary, protects cities by his prayers, as with a wall, and needs not fear anything for himself. When he does come to die, many are praying that others may be aroused to follow his example. After death their ways still lie apart. The good monk enters into the glory and splendor of the Lord, Who was the leader and teacher of this beneficent way of virtue. The king, if he was good, obtains a much lower grade of honor and bless- edness; for it is by no means the same thing to be a good king as to be a monk, living for God's service above all things. But if a king was evil, and did wicked deeds, who can say what torments of hell he must suffer? If then you see a rich man walking about in splendor, do not envy him; but if you see a monk who is humble, gentle and modest, then go and imitate his wisdom. That is the only good and the only blessing that possesses lasting value, through the loving Providence of Jesus Christ, to Whom be honor and power for all eternity. Amen. This short treatise, which sounds like a naive Christian stoic diatribe, is probably the first product of the literary workshop of the young Chrysostom. It shows a clearly arranged development of ideas, and also displays the sharp eye for seek- ing out fortunate comparisons, though not yet the free flow of speech, that in later years rushed along in a broad and mighty torrent.2 Against the Enemies of Monasticism.3 From the same period of his spiritual development, and from approximately the same time, originates the second 118 John Chrysostom and his Time composition, which is likewise dedicated to the praise and defense of the monastic life. The occasion for this4 was as follows: The ascetics or monks living in the neighborhood of Antioch had undertaken the education and training of children from the city. That was a general custom. So the famous Abbot Schenouti, when he was nine years old, came to the monks of the " white monastery " in Egypt,5 and John of Lycia charged the " Praepositus " to send his son, aged seven, to the monks in the desert.6 Evi-dently many young men of Antioch had joined the monks after this and did not wish to return to their families. A great excitement arose over this. It must have involved actual ill-treatment of the monks, as the idlers of the Antiochene streets and markets told with malicious laughter what had happened to them (the monks).7 Our John was very much troubled about this, and he resolved to come to the help of the maligned monks, by writing in their defense, and making clear to the world that they could find no better teachers and masters for their children, whether they were pagan or Chris-tian, than the hermits and the monks. Perhaps he had in mind here the monks' school or Asketerion of Diodorus. The advocate of the monastic life begins his defense thus, by showing examples from Holy Scripture and from history, to the effect that all those who persecuted the saints of God had been themselves destroyed. You ask, he says, what is the need of monks at all: one can lead a rational life in the world. Yes, he answers, but actually the ordinary life in the city is like a burning house; the sooner one saves himself from it, the better. Well, then, should all the city dwellers withdraw to the mountains, there to become monks in the solitude? So. But they should take care to live so that the monks will not need to leave the city. Let us suppose, Chrysostom goes on in the second book, that the promising only son of a distinguished and wealthy but pagan father should go into the mountains to become a monk. What, from the standpoint of pure reason, shall he say to his father? First, that only he is rich who is freed from all necessities. Moreover, his father can dispose only of his own money; but the monk has at his disposal the riches of all good Christians. His father need not be ashamed of his poor cloth- First Literary Activity 1l9 ing, for in the eyes of Christian people it is of more value than garments of royal splendor; and also the influence of the monk over the people is greater than that of a king. No one can deprive him of anything, because he has nothing, and he pardons insults with joy. Since he himself renounces the world, he is able more easily to console the sorrowful, and in time of persecution, to give an example of heroism to others.8 Also, in relation to his father, such a son can conduct himself better and more nobly than another. He possesses true great-ness, and real joy, lasting because it is spiritual. Therefore do not grieve for that which should be a cause for congratula-tion. In olden times the ancient Greeks (pagans) thought so. They knew that the good would be happy, and only the bad unhappy. So wait a little and you will think as I do, and perhaps even enter on the way your son has taken. Finally, in the third book, comes the turn of the Christian and believing father. So, says the young moralizer to him, you are obliged in the first place to educate your children well, or have someone else educate them well. Whoever does other-wise is worse than a child-murderer. Unfortunately the life ambition of most fathers turns only to riches and to distin-guished and influential positions. So they corrupt the souls of their children from early youth, with avarice and ambition, and follow principles which are opposed to those of Christ. And how then can a child save his soul? If one thinks of the crime of pederasty, one must wonder that this city had not already been destroyed by fire and brimstone, like Sodom and Gomorrha. All this evil springs from the fact that one holds the philo-sophy of the monastic life in such contempt. And still the monks are much happier than the people of the world, who live in sensuality and excess. It is precisely these who bring all harm upon themselves; the others, like a lighthouse in a stormy sea, show the threatened ones the way to the quiet haven. The one kind are a plague to the whole earth. The monks, on the contrary, lead the lives of angels, full of peace, quiet, harmony, love and genuine happiness. Therefore one cannot do better than to entrust one's children to such people as early as possible. If they do not acquire so much learning, they acquire more virtue, and that is of more value. The 120 John Chrysostom and his Time pagan philosophers thought so, and the Apostles taught the same; fi~ rst virtue, then culture; first wisdom, then knowledge. If the two can be joined, so much the better. Both monks and men of the world are likewise bound to virtue; but those who live a worldly life fall from virtue more easily than those who are monks. But you will say, you would like to see your grandchildren. But how do you know that your children will marry? And how many fathers experience nothing but grief and sorrow from their own children ! But sons who become monks cause no such grief. And the moths will consume your goods and your money, while the riches of the monastic life are imperish-able. But, you say, he can marry first and then begin the monastic life in his old age. As if it were not precisely the youth who need more protection for their virtue, and also, you do not know whether your son will live to be old; and finally a married man cannot separate himself so easily from his wife and family. So leave your son in peace in the monks' school, even though he may stay there for ten or twenty years. He will be the more sure to be strong and mature in his morals and to be of use to you and to human society. Indeed, if all children were educated thus, the world would soon be changed into a para-dise. Men in the cities would become like angels; and if your son does not become a very great saint, let him at least become a little one. But he should begin the race for the reward of victory while he is still young, instead of beginning in his stiff old age. Samuel was consecrated to God from his youth, and Abraham was ready to sacrifice his youthful son to God. Give therefore worthy servants to God, and do not place obstacles in the way of your sons, otherwise they may follow this noble philosophy without your consent. You only draw down punishment on yourselves, and will praise my advice only when it is no longer of any advantage to you I The Letter of Advice to the relapsed Theodore.9 The monastic life is however not so ideal as Chrysostom depicts it in these two above mentioned writings. Many have made a good and spiritual beginning and have ended less well. First Literary Activity 121 For such cases Chrysostom also wrote a treatise, to complete his monastic trilogy. " Who knows whether he will persevere? " objects the doubtful father, in the previously quoted treatise (3, 13). It is a fact that more than one does not persevere, since to them in their solitude, in all the exterior rigors of the ascetic life, the seductive pleasures of the world pass before their eyes in all their gay and enticing colors. Two impressive letters from St. Basil have been preserved: To a relapsed monk, and To a virgin who had not remained faithful.l Gregory the Great tells of St. Benedict, that the image of a young Roman girl whom he had known in times past remained before his eyes, so lifelike and striking, while he was in his cave, that he was on the point of leaving his solitude and returning to the world. At the last moment he impetuously threw himself among thorns, in order to smother the inner fire by means of outward pain.l' The same sort of thing happened to a young Antiochene named Theodore, who came of a very good family, and prob-ably lived in the Asketerion of Diodorus. One day memories returned to him of the beautiful Hermione, whom he had known in Antioch, and with the memories came love. How-ever, Theodore did not throw himself among thorns, but into the arms of Hermione. Full of grief over his fall, the friend of his youth, John, sent him a letter of advice, to persuade him to return.l2 " Who will give water to my head, and to my eyes a fountain of tears7 " So he begins, by quoting Jeremias. I weep and grieve, not over the loss of a temple of stone, but over a lost temple of the Holy Spirit. It stands there, robbed of its treasures, its gates wide open and unguarded; every enemy passion may enter it. But I will not cease to mourn for it until its earlier radiance is given back to it. One thing you must not do: to doubt the possibility of a returlL To fall is human, but to remain fallen is devilish. But true repentance will wipe out every sin. Then returnl Give up the joys of the world, even though they last a hundred years; for Hell is eternal, and also eternal is the unspeakable splendor of Heaven. Think of the example of the rich young Phoenix. He was a monk and a priest too, but he let himself be led 122 John Chrysostom and his Time astray by his relatives into a worldly life and various affections. Only some monks who knew him had been able, through patience and discretion, to bring him back to the right way. The Apostle John had been able, through love and gentleness, to make a saint of a robber who once had been his pupil. Therefore do not despair of yourself ! Make another begin-ning, go back! I will repeat these admonitions until they are successful. These last threats Chrysostom carried out in another com-position, drawn up in the form of a letter. " You have with-drawn yourself from the ranks of the brethren," he writes, "and have trampled on your bond with Christ. For this desertion severe punishment awaits you, if you persist in it. A merchant can suffer shipwreck, an athlete be defeated, a soldier have recourse to flight; but they can come back again. King David fell, but he rose up again. Of what profit to you the good fortune, power, riches and esteem? All that is but temporary. Now your friends, Valerius, Florentius, Por-phyrius and many others are praying for you. If they do not despair of your salvation, why should you? Also life in the world brings its cares, dangers and disillusionments. He who lives for Christ alone enjoys real freedom. Therefore away with despondency and fear, the sharpest weapons of evil. I do not despair of you. At any rate I will try, with the lifeboat of this letter, to save you from shipwreck. If you have not completely forgotten me, then rejoice me by answering it." One such answer still survives. Probably it was occasioned by Chrysostom's last statement. But by general agreement it was not written by any Theodore of the fourth century, but is an early school exercise of an " otiosi et insulsi Graeculi " (idle and foolish little Greek) as Montfaucon expresses it.l3 The Theodore to whom the two letters of advice were written by Chrysostom, according to Sozomen,l4 is supposed to have been the famous Theodore of Mopsuestia who after-wards became Bishop of Mopsuestia, the most prominent posi-tion in the whole rank of Antiochene theologians. Whether Sozomen is here more correct than Socrates, with his inter-pretation of Basil in the Dialog on the Priesthood of Basil the Great, is a question which we must consider unsettled. Evi-dence one way or the other is not forthcoming. At any rate, First Literary Activity 1X3 Hesychius of Jerusalem, in his Church History, adopted the interpretation of Sozomen in one place which goes back to the Acts of the fifth General Council,l5 while Leontius of Byzantium restricts himself to the use of the phrase "they say~ ~ Sl6 At any rate one may probably assume that John and Theo-dore were good friends in their youth. Both attended the school of Libanius at first, then that of Diodorus, and, accord-ing to passages in Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret,l7 also the Patriarch John of Antioch,l3 they lived in the Asketerion of Diodorus. Indeed Theodore was persuaded by Chrysostom to lead the life of an ascetic and a monk,l9 as was also Maxi-mus, later Bishop of Seleucia in Cilicia. Perhaps Polychronius, the brother of Theodore and later Bishop of Apamea, belonged to the youthful band, which, with Demetrius, Stelechius,20 Stagyrius,2l Valerius, Florentius, and Porphyrius,22 must have formed a splendid group. Chrysostom himself mentions a monastic friend named Theophilus of Ephesus.23 John and Theodore must have been about the same age. In regard to their difference in character and temperament, Theodore was more matter-of-fact and learned, and with this he had a disputatious nature which inclined him to theo- logical argument, while the gentle Chrysostom preferred to preach virtue and morality. FOOTNOTES 1. 47, 387 392 2. Stilting assigns this composition to about 376, but without intrinsic proofs after the Advers. oppugnatores and the Ad Theo-dorum lapsum. Montfaucon thinks likewise 375-376, and this agrees also with the assumption that Chrysostom wrote this com-position as an " ascetic " or monk. For purely internal reasons I prefer to consider it Chrysostom's first literary production. The theme itself, the comparison between a king and a monk, Chrysos-tom has also treated briefly in the second book, sixth chapter, of Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life. From this it may be concluded that here is a further exposition of an idea which was previously only lightly touched on (Stilting 431 A; Montfaucon= 47, 387). Naturally it can only be treated in the Adv. oppugnatores 124 John Chrysostom and his Time as a short repetition of the theme of the Comparatio. Chrysostom often brings in the splendor and riches of a king for purposes of comparison. At any rate these writings lie so near in time and thought that the question of priority can scarcely have any real significance. 3- 47. 319-386. 4. Stilting (loc. cit. 429 B) proceeds from the erroneous assump-tion that this work was composed on account of the proclamation of the Emperor Valens, launched at the beginning of the year 376, by which monks could be compelled to do military service. But there is no mention of this in Chrysostom's treatise. The author wishes solely to urge parents, both pagan and Christian, to send their children to the monks to be educated. 5. Butler, The Lausiac History 2, p. CI. 6. Historia monachorum in Aegypto 1, lo (ed. Preuschen 7). 7. A certain aversion appears to have existed here and there against the monks. Chrysostom states in Hom. 2, X de Lazaro (48, 983) that necromancers made a spirit called up from hell say: " I am the soul of this monk." 8. This may be an allusion to the persecutions of Constantius, Julian and Valens. 9. 47, 277-316. The Latin translations bear the general head-ing. De reparatione Lapsi, in imitation of the composition of the Spaniard Bachiarius, De reparatione Lapsi (ML 20, 1037-62), which show parallel ideas, but otherwise no relationship to the treatise of Chrysostom. lo. Epist. 46 (32-369-381). Cf. Nicetas of Remesiana, De lapsu virginis consecratae (ML 16, 367-84), under the name of St. Ambrose. Anonymous, Epistola ad virginem lapsam, from the sixth century, edited by G. Morin, in: Revue Ben. 14 (1897) 193-202. The testimony and complaints about monks and virgins, who returned to the world again and married, are as numerous in the Orient as in the Occident. For this reason, gradually the vow of stability was added to the other vows; since the ninth century this has been defined, in an easily misunderstood way, as " Stabili-tas loci," whereas " stability in the monastic life " was really meant. 1l. Dialogorum 2, 2 (ML 66, 132). Likewise St. Jerome. see Epist. 22, 7 (ML 22, 398)- 12. Tillemont (Mem. 12, 434-36) has left the dedication of the first work: to the relapsed "Theodore" in doubt, because the second never refers to the first, and the person addressed in the second must be much older than the one addressed in the first. But though Chrysostom speaks of " very advanced age " in regard to Flavian, he was not yet seventy; therefore the person addressed, First Literary Activity 125 who had still fifty years before old age, must not have been more than twenty. Moreover, Chrysostom says at the end of the second work, that he had "also written this letter" (47, 316); clearly indicating an earlier letter. Also the same state of affairs and the same motive underlie both works. Whether the state of affairs is really a historical occurrence or only a literary invention can no more be determined with absolute certainty than it can in the De Sacerdotio. (Cf. Tillemont, 1l, 556, Note 6). 3. 48, 277-316. . HE 8, 2 (67, 1516). Cf. George Al. 5 (167) and lo (172). . Mansi 9, 248. 6. Adversus incorrupticolas 3, 7 (86, 1364). 7. HE 5, 39 (82, 1277). 18. Epist. ad Theodos. II. in Facundus Herm., Pro defensione trium cap. 2, 2 (ML 67, 563). 19. Socrates 6, 3 (67, 666). 20. De compunctione 1 and 2 (47, 393-422). 21. Ad Stagyrium (47, 423-494). 22. Ad Theodorum lapsum 2, 4 (47, 313). 23. Ad Stagyrium 1, 1 (47, 426). CHAPTER XIII THEODOSIUS THE GREAT AND THE VICTORY OF CATHOLICISM IN THE EAST HILE Chrysostom was occupying himself with God \A land spiritual things in the quiet seclusion of the v v monastic life, events were being played in the theater of the great world outside, which changed the face of the Eastern world at least, and would result in a revolution in the domain of religion such as had not been seen since the time of Constantine the Great. The beginning of this came about through the migration of the Germanic races. Early in the year 378, the Goths, a Germanic race, pushed forward into Thrace and into Roman jurisdiction, as they had often done before. Their invasion usually meant burning, plundering and murder for the Roman-Greek peoples. This time it happened just as Chrysostom wrote in his little book to the young widow: " We have had to live through what never happened before. Barbarians have left their dwelling places and have forced themselves into thousands of kilometers of our land, have wasted the plains with fire and destroyed the cities, and thought nothing of it, and then they go away again. As though they were in a dance instead of a war, they make merry over our armies. Indeed, one of their leaders has said that he wondered at the effrontery of our soldiers, who let themselves be slaughtered like sheep, and yet always hope to be victorious and not have to give over the ruling of their own affairs. He for his part was weary of the everlasting butchery." ' The Emperor Valens, who defended Arianism better than he did the Empire, finally decided to attack the barbarians, and to expel them from the soil of the Empire. From Antioch, his ordinary residence, he sallied out early in April, 378, at the head of his army. After a march of about two months he reached the chief city, Constantinople. Only twelve days' 126 Theodosius and the Victory of Catholicism 127 sojourn in the city was permitted. Then the Emperor pro-ceeded further, against the Goths and his own fate. On the ninth of August, 378, a battle was fought near Adrianople. Valens lost on this day not only the battle, but his crown and his life, and no one knew what became of him. According to the most reliable report, the defeated Emperor fled to a peasant's house; this was surrounded by the Goths, and put to the torch with all that it contained. Now the unfortunate Emperor's nephew, Gratian, the son of Valentinian, was supreme ruler of the kingdom that covered three quarters of the earth. He held it for only five months. Then he decided to follow the example of his father, as well as Constantine the Great and Diocletian, and to appoint a co-ruler as the successor of Valens, at least for the eastern and overwhelmingly Greek half of the kingdom. Since he had no relatives, and the East needed a qualified military leader, his choice fell upon the thirty-three-year-old Theodosius. Already after the battle of Adrianople, in which Valens fell, Gratian had summoned from Spain, where his family had settled, the young and energetic general, tried in many battles, and gave him the supreme command in the war against the Goths. Theodosius brilliantly justified the trust the Emperor had placed in him. He struck back at the Goths the same year. Gratian granted him, for this, the highest honor a Roman Emperor could bestow: he gave him the imperial purple and the title of Augustus. On the 2gth of January, 379, Theodosius mounted the imperial throne of the East. In a short time he re-organized the army, and while still in the first year of his reign, he cleaned out of Thrace and Illyria the large and small bands of Goths, Huns and Scythians that were swarming and plundering everywhere. Then he followed the example of Constantine the Great and removed the imperial residence again to Constantinople, which remained, for a thousand years after, the undisputed hub of the Empire. Theodosius never entered Antioch. The brilliant military genius of the new ruler was every-where acknowledged with praise. Unfortunately he was the last military genius who ever dawned on the warlike glory of the ancient Roman empire, before its western half sank in 128 lohn Chrysostom and his Time the storm of folk migrations. As to character, Theodosius showed himself extraordinarily benevolent and magnanimous. For six years he never authorized the death penalty. His worst fault was a trigger temper. Fortunately, however, his anger did not last long. He possessed greatness of character and right conscience enough to recognize mistakes made in the first eruption of temper, and to correct them. The new Emperor was also a man who loved life. He loved conversation, music and the theater, and according to the statement of Zosimus, who was not friendly to him, did not deny himself the pleasures of the table.2 Besides his military skill he also possessed a deep piety and a genuine charity. He was a convinced Christian and a stanch Catholic, as far as one may say that of a mere catechumen. Like a true Spaniard, he showed himself firm and even intolerant against the Arians and heretics, as Valens had been against the Catholics.3 Furthermore, the sudden emergence of Theodosius meant for the Arians the unexpected but well deserved end of their dominance. For decades they had disgraced themselves and the name of Christian before the half-pagan world, by detest-able intrigues, a mania for persecution, lies and vulgarity of every kind, as well as mass murder. It was a blessing for Christianity and Christian culture that this poison plant finally disappeared from the world. Arianism had fostered disorder and harm for fifty years, and had assailed the Chris-tian religion at its deepest roots. In this lies the historical significance of the reign of the Emperor Theodosius I., whom the later world had reason to call the Great. The new Emperor decided from the beginning of his reign on a clear and resolute direction of ecclesiastical policy. The Emperor Valens, before his attack on the Goths, and also the Emperor Gratian, had proceeded to restore the exiled bishops to their dioceses,4 and Theodosius also proceeded forthwith to bring order and unity out of the religious chaos created by Arianism and other sectarian organizations. Divine Provid-ence aided in this. Theodosius spent the winter of 379-380 in Saloniki. Here, early in 380, he fell seriously ill. Evidently he, like Constan- Theodosius and the Victory of Catholicism 129 tine the Great, had had the idea of remaining all his life in the vestibule of the Church, where more freedom of action and morals seemed to be possible, and then at the last critical moment to seek quickly an alliance with the kingdom of heaven. Now his condition became so much worse that finally he himself expressed the desire to receive holy baptism. Ascholius, Bishop of Saloniki, was called in, and bestowed baptism upon him in February 380. Bishop Ascholius would scarcely have omitted to call the Emperor's attention to his obligations as a Christian ruler, and ask him to take to heart, in case of his recovery, the restoration of the Nicaean faith. In fact, Theodosius, on February 27, 380, promulgated the famous law through which he laid down, clearly and plainly, his religious policy for the future of his reign. This law provided that all those under the jurisdiction of the Emperor should profess the faith that had been entrusted to the Apostle Peter, and at that time invested in the Bishops Damasus in Rome and Peter in Alexandria, namely the belief in one God in three Persons. Only those who professed this faith might bear the name of Catholic Christians. All others would be considered heretics. These would not have the right to call their sects " churches," and would be visited not only by ecclesiastical (divina) but by imperial punishment, which the Emperor reserved it to himself to determine.5 With this, for the first time since the Council of Nicaea, the Nicaean Catholic faith was proclaimed as the religion of the Empire, definitely fixed, and laid down by a living ecclesias-tical authority; and the power of Arianism was finally broken. Then the following year, on January lo, 381, came another law, by which Theodosius forbade the heretics to possess churches within the cities or to hold public assemblies. The churches previously held by them in the cities should be given back to the Catholic orthodox bishops, who confessed the Nicaean faith.6 In Antioch the Arians had to give back the " Great Church " to the Catholics. Their Bishop Dorotheus, left without a church, and considering the Arian cause lost, left Antioch and returned to his home in Thrace. Two Arian priests, Asterius and Crispinus, from that time on remained at the head of the 130 John Chrysostom and his Time Arian community, whose slow decay they were not able to check. In rapid succession new laws were issued, within the next few years, against the Manichaeans and their various branches, the Encratites, Apotactites, Hydroparastates and Saccophores,7 against the Eunomians, Aetians, Tascodrogites,8 against the Macedonians, Pneumatomachites, and Apollinarists.9 From the point of view of pure statesmanship, Theodosius wished at any price to put an end to the religious quarrels and the pernicious splitting up of the empire into all kinds of sects. Only when that was accomplished would he be sure of public order and peace. As a matter of fact, for fully fifty years no new heresy appeared in the East. With the final elimination of Arianism as a political power factor in the East, the empire of Theodosius was freed of its worst source of internal disturbance. The final settlement with paganism had not evoked so much unrest and disorder since Constantine the Great, as did this Christian civil war between Catholics and Arians. However, the pagans in the year 380 found themselves in such numbers in the kingdom, that, in spite of all laws and edicts, which had been passed by all the Christian and Arian emperors against them, they had a certain power which had to be reckoned with. This was proved by the repeated risings of generals, who, as a recom-mendation of their cause, inscribed the restoration of the religion of the ancient gods on their standards. Theodosius wished to bring them also to the acceptance of the Christian hegemony, and to realize his ideal of religious unity in the empire. Next, in the year 381, the Emperor forbade the offering of slaughtered victims in the temples with the object of predict-ing the future.l Only simple visits to the temple, and incense offerings, were still allowed as before. But soon, in some provinces at least, it came to a complete closing of the temples. In the years 386 to 388, the prefect Cynegius proceeded through Syria and Egypt, under military guard, from place to place, to close the temples in which the forbidden sacrifices had continued to be offered.ll Many times overzealous Chris-tians had arbitrarily destroyed temples without authority, and thereby had occasionally come to bloody encounters with Theodosius and the Victory of Catholicism 131 pagans.l2 So in the year 384 Libanius composed a speech in Antioch to the Emperor, with the request that he would pro-tect the pagan temples against the violence of overzealous monks.l3 It was of no avail. Five years later the Christians of Alexandria, under the leadership or with the co-operation of monks, destroyed the famous Temple of Serapis.l4 In 389, the Christian Sundays, and the Easter season, from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, were declared state and legal holidays; while perhaps at the same time, certainly by 39S, the days hitherto celebrated as pagan festivals were abolished by the state.ls In the year 386, then again in 392 and 399, public theatrical and circus performances were forbidden on Sunday. Only the Emperor's birthday and the anniversary of his accession to the throne were excepted, until 40g. Finally, on February 24, 391, and again on the 8th of Novem-ber, 392, all the temples without exception were declared closed, and every kind of pagan sacrifice and religious cere-mony forbidden.'5 Still this was not the last word in the matter, as we shall see presently. It would be a great mistake to see in Theodosius a sort of Christian Nero. He wished to strike at paganism, not the pagans. The mere private belief in paganism he had never punished or forbidden; whereas the pagan Emperors had often persecuted the Christians for mere private belief. On the con-trary, he showed to individuals a tolerance and a magnanimity which was amazing in the face of the strictness of his laws. During his whole reign there were pagans in the highest of the offices of the empire, and in the most eminent military posts. In 383 he elevated the pagan Richomer to the office of consul. In the same year the rhetorician Themistius became city pre-fect of Constantinople. He named, in 383, Merobaud, a Frankish general, to be commander-in-chief in Egypt, and Bauto, another Frank, he made Magister militum in 384 and consul a year later. Bauto's handsome daughter, Eudoxia, later elected to the imperial throne, played an outstanding role in the life of St. Chrysostom. The Emperor's tolerance and sense of justice showed itself also on other occasions. When, in 388, the Christians in Kallinikos on the Euphrates set fire to a Jewish synagogue and a sanctuary of the Valentinians, Theodosius commanded them 132 John Chrysostom and his Time to rebuild them; this St. Ambrose, with much effort, prevented.ll So affairs stood during the entire reign of Theodosius, and also of his son and successor Arcadius. Socrates, who was not especially friendly to him outside of religious considerations, declares that Theodosius persecuted no one on account of his religion,l8 and Sozomen states that the Emperor only sought to terrify and convert the heretics by his laws, not to persecute them.l9 Hence Theodore was very far removed from that brutal conscience-enslaving principle of "Cuius regio eius religio." After paganism and heresy had been deprived of the sup-port which they had hitherto received from the state, they teamed up together. On account of this, the beginning of the reign of Theodosius signalized a great revolution in the spiritual world, the final completion of the work which Con-stantine the Great had begun sixty years before- FOOTNOTES 1. Ad viduam juniorem 4 (48, 605). 2. Nova Hist. 4, 27-29 and 33. 3. Cf. Gratian's Law against the heretics, of Aug. 3, 379 (cod. Theodosianus XVI 5, 5; ed. Mommsen 856); cf. ibid. XVI 7, 1 (loc. cit. 884); XVI 5, 21, a2 and 24 (loc. cit. 862); XVI 4, 2, 3 and (loc. cit. 853-54) 4. Cf. Rauschen, Jahrbucher 29. 5. Cod. Theodosianus XVI 1, 2 (ed. Mommsen I, 2, P. 833); cf. Sozomen 7, 4. 6. Cod. Theod. XVI 1, 3 (loc. cit. 834). 7. Cod. Theod. XVI 5, 7, 9, 1 l (loc. cit. 857-59). 8. Law of July 19, 381 = Cod. Theod. XVI 5, 8 (loc. cit. 858) and Law of June 20, 383 = Cod. Theod. XVI 5, lo (loc. cit. 859). 9. Law of July 25, 383 and December 3, 383 = Cod. Theod. XVI 5, 1l, 12 (loc. cit. 859 f.). o. Cod. Theod. XVI 1, 3 (loc. cit. 834). . Zosimus 4, 37. Cf. Rauschen, Jahrbucher 2s8. 12. Also for example in Apamea and Alexandria; cf. Sozomen 7}~ 5 . Oratio pro templis, ed. F6rster 3, 87-118. . Rauschen, Jahrbucher 3ol-3o3, 315. Theodosius and the Victory ot Catholicism 133 . Usener, Weihnachtsfest 17. 6. Cod. Theod. XVI lo, lo, 1l and 12 (loc. cit. 8gg-goo). 1 7. Epist. 40, 6 and 4 1 (ML 1 6, 1 103 and 1 1 1 3); Rauschen, Jahr-bucher 293. Bidez, Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte, again shows his partiality, when he accuses the Emperor of merciless oppression of those of other faiths. 8. HE 5, 20. . HE 7, 12. CHAPTER XIV JOHN THE HERMIT tHE progress of affairs on the stage of the great world continued, from the beginning, both in the city and in z the Patriarchate of Antioch. After long years of exile, the hour of release had struck for the Patriarch Meletius with the death of the Emperor Valens. He had had cares and bitter-ness in overflowing measure during all those years. Arianism, prone to persecution, had overshadowed the course of his life for twenty years. Now, shortly before its sinking, the sun of fortune broke through the clouds, to transfigure the evening of his life with gentle light. He celebrated, in the autumn of 378, his third entry into Antioch; at the same time Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem and others returned to their episcopal sees, amid the rejoicings of the faithful. Unfortunately, the chief champion of Nicaean orthodoxy and at the same time the best friend and most faithful ally of Meletius, St. Basil the Great, outlived the fortunate turn of events only a few months. He died on New Year's Day, 379. In our Chrysostom's solitude, the surge of great world events beat in upon him and bore him away from the scene of his former activities. The chronology of Chrysostom and its relation to later world and ecclesiastical happenings, brings for these years significant difficulties and considerations which can only be solved with a certain degree of probability. Through the sudden revolution in political and ecclesiasti-cal spheres, some entirely unexpected problems faced the Patriarch Meletius. The winning back of the churches of his patriarchate which had fallen into the hands of Arians and other sectarians, the removal of Arian-sympathizing bishops and clergy, brought with it at the same time an unusual demand for new spiritual powers. It was very natural that Meletius should set his eyes in the first place upon those persons who, in the bygone years of trial, had been faithful 134 John the Hermit 135 to the Catholic religion, and had distinguished themselves by leading moral and ascetic lives. These were, above all others, the monks and ascetics who lived near Antioch or on the moun-tains. It is understandable that Meletius thought at this time of his faithful ally Diodorus and his former lector John, of whom he might well assume that he had now been long enough in the school of Diodorus and under the discipline of the stern old Syrian, to become a good priest. Here appears an occurrence worthy of recording, of which Chrysostom speaks in his treatise On the Priesthood, and which has given rise to so many headaches among learned men. Chrysostom relates there, that he and his friend Basil had once, in their early youth, desired to become priests (or bishops?).' He had arranged through a subterfuge to have Basil ordained, but he had hidden himself and so avoided the ordination, for which he considered himself unworthy. It is by no means impossible that Patriarch Meletius, soon after his return, should have expressed the wish that his lector John should return to the service of the Church, especially that meanwhile his talents should not remain hidden. There may be a historical basis for the story that Chrysostom felt unworthy of the priesthood and too young for such an office. Also another idea might have been uppermost: namely, to flee from such a burden and rather retire from all human affairs to the solitude of a remote mountain cave. A certain proof for or against this state of affairs unfortunately cannot be produced. It is certain at any rate that, just at the time when so many pious men went out from cloisters and hermitages and were made priests and bishops, Chrysostom not only did not undertake ordination, but withdrew from the world again, still more than before, and, on a mountain height near Antioch, probably on Mt. Sylpios, withdrew to a cave, to live henceforth for God and his soul. Of the withdrawal of St. Chrysostom into strict solitude we know from Palladius: after he had practiced bodily mortifi-cation under the Syrian for four years, " he withdrew into a cave by himself, in order to be altogether undisturbed and unknown. Here he lived for two years. Most of the time he went without sleep. During this time he learned the New 136 John Chrysostom and his Time Testament entirely by heart, in ord er not to stagnate spiritually sJ2 These few words again allow us a glimpse into the spiritual life of the young John. Above all, his actions give evidence of a profound moral conflict, and also of an extraordinary strength of will. Also, it showed at the same time an extremely sympathetic appreciation of spiritual liveliness and activity, which one does not observe in all the monks and hermits of those days. John was well aware of the dangers of solitude, and employed it in a way that was very practical and useful in his later life. Here he also laid the foundation for that a,stonishing knowledge of the Bible which made him so distinguished a preacher and exegete in later years; he could make quotations from Holy Scripture with the utmost ease and with almost wasteful prodigality, even interspersing his extempore sermons with them.3 Unfortunately, however, during this time of his solitude in the cave, he laid the foundation for a severe impairment of his health. His Syrian master seems to have taught him every-thing except only discretion against himself. For the sake of mortification, he never lay down to sleep in all those two years, but slept in a sitting position, when nature claimed her inexorable rights over him. As if that were not enough of a burden on his nerves and his health, he afterwards became helpless under the influence of changes of tempera-ture, since he did not become hardened in that way, especially in regard to winter cold. As a result the young hermit developed a severe abdominal condition.4 Also in the matter of fasting he seems to have carried things too far. He suffered all his life with stomach trouble, on account of his immoderate austerity;S he also was troubled often by insomnia, to all appearances, and also by a rush of blood to the head.6 On the whole, he suffered from frequent disturbances to his health.7 He always remained extremely sensitive to winter cold, from which he had to suffer so much in his later exile in Cucusus.8 In very similar ways, also, St. Basil the Great, Pope Gregory the Great, and others, through early excesses in fasting and mortification, permanently injured their health. The heroic beginning of monasticism first had to learn the virtue of discre- John the Hermit 137 tion, and then sometimes the zeal of inspired followers for-sook this salutary school. The memory of the place where once the famous John lived as a hermit seems to have survived among the people of Antioch even until our own time, with the tenacity with which place names once established assert themselves through all the storms of centuries. On the eastern height of the ridge of Mt. Sylpios, which towers over the city, a cave is still shown, with the name "Cave of John Chrysostom." It serves the Latins as a chapel.9 What degree of trustworthiness this tradition deserves can-not be ascertained. After Chrysostom had spent two years in his cave, his health had declined so much that he himself had to admit that he could go no further in that way without endangering his life. FOOTNOTES . Baur, Chrysostomus De Sacerdotio=Theologie und Glaube 8 (1926) 569-576- 2. Ch. 5 (47, 18) 3. Cf. Ch. 25: Chrysostom as an Exegete. 4. Palladius 5 (18) says: VfKpOU^TaF Ta u7ro yaaTepas yeTs a7ro TOU^ KpUOVS Tas 7rfpi TOUS V(ipOVS ouvaHfts. 5. Palladius, Dial. 12 (47, 39); Chrys. Letter 4, 1 and Letter 6 to Olympias (52, 59o and 599). 6. Palladius, loc. cit.; cf. George A1. s7 (192 ff.), who writes that Chrysostom always worked until late at night. 7. Hom. 19, 1 ad pop. Ant. (49, 187); Hom. 1, 1 de poenitentia (49, 277); Hom. 8, 1 de poenitentia (ibid. 335); Hom. 2, 1 de diabolo tentatore (ibid. 257); Hom. 1 post terrae motum (ibid. 713); Hom. 3, 1 in 2 Tim. (56, 271 and 278). St. Basil also brought on himself a severe liver disease in this way, which may have caused his early death at 49. 8. Cf. Letter 4, 1 to Olympias (52, 590); Letter 127 to Polybius (ibid. 687); and Letter 138 to Elpidius (ibid. 695). 9. R. Forster, Antiochia 108. Cf. Plate 6, after p. 148. CHAPTER XV RETURN TO ANTIOCH CHRYSOSTOM IS MADE DEACON FTER all, the hermits and cave dwellers of Antioch did ~ 4 not live in absolute solitude. The city dwellers frequently 1 Xmade pilgrimages to them, especially to those of them who on account of their austerity were considered holy. They asked questions of all kinds, requesting advice about the state of their souls, and begging for prayers and blessings.' Chrysos-tom also received visits from friends and relatives from time to time. Perhaps Anthusa was still living. So the serious state of his health could not have remained unknown in Antioch, and doubtless it came to the ears of the Patriarch Meletius. Nothing is more natural than that this bishop, who was so zealous for souls, renewed his pleas and remonstrances, and with his other friends besought the strict hermit that he would give himself rather to life than to death. Chrysostom himself realized that the best choice he could make would be to yield to them. According to all probability it was in the winter of 380-381 that the sick and half-frozen hermit forsook his cave, descended from Mt. Sylpios, and, after an absence of six years, returned to Antioch and to men, to the joy of his friends and above all of his bishop, the Patriarch Meletius. Under the care of loving hands his shattered health was soon re-established, so that he was able once more to resume his office of lector at the Divine Liturgy on Sunday. Divine Providence had so ordained that the future " light of the world" should not flicker out into darkness in the gloom of a solitary cave, but return to the world and the Church, that soon afterward it might be placed on a candlestick, and fulfill a mission which has endured for many centuries until today. It would be interesting to know whether, among the reasons which motivated Chrysostom in his abandonment of the 138 Chrysostom Becomes a Deacon 139 eremitical life, were ideas of an elementary nature concerning the value and significance of monasticism or the eremitical life, and to what extent the actual abandonment of the monk's life, in an easily understood psychological reaction, influenced the esteem of Chrysostom for it. Palladius gives his shattered health as the only reason, and the one which decided the issue. One may well believe that. It was certainly the principal reason. Chrysostom himself, in a little book which appeared shortly thereafter, offered a criticism of the monks, which sounds almost like an apology for those who perhaps had considered his own abandonment of the monk's life and his assumption of ecclesiastical office an unfriendly judgment. Indeed, one cannot resist the impression that Chrysostom had so changed in his esteem for the contemplative monastic life, in the course of time and in the light of his own experi-ence, that although he continued to esteem monasticism on general principles, he now held the apostolic service, the priestly care for souls, higher still not merely more impor-tant and more urgent. " That people of the world," he wrote, " prefer the broad and long way, is not to be wondered at. But that such as appear to be crucified with Christ, desire it more than the others, that makes one wonder exceedingly indeed, it is truly a riddle. For if one should beg a monk to undertake an ecclesiastical office, almost all of them will first ask you if he will have time for rest (for contemplation), or whether the petitioner can secure for them some time for rest, and from beginning to end one hears nothing but the word rest I Why do you speak thus, O man, you who travel the steep and narrow way, and you are so solicitous about your restl "2 Only a short time later he writes in his Treatise on the Priesthood, " I should gladly regard the withdrawn life, the life of renunciation, as a proof of virtue; but still it is not sufficient proof of the entire strength of soul which one possesses. He who sits at the rudder in a quiet haven, cannot give any proof of his skill. But he who is able to save the ship in the open ocean, in the midst of a storm, everyone will acknowledge that he is an excellent steersman. Therefore we need not admire the monk so boundlessly, if, in his solitude, he is not tempted and does not commit many and great sins. 140 John Chrysostom and his Time For there is nothing there that can entice and endanger the soul. But he who has to carry on amid the great crowd and is compelled to tolerate the errors and sins of the great multi-tude, and nevertheless remains unbowed and steadfast, and guides the little boat of his soul through the storm, as though the wind were calm, such a one rightly merits to be praised and admired by all. If anyone should place the choice before me, as to whether I should be a good priest or a good monk, for my part I should a thousand times rather choose the first. For I have always admired and praised anyone who is worthy of this holy service and knows how to understand it properly." He only feared that he himself would not be able to be a good priest.3 Again somewhat later he writes (speaking of the virtue of Lot): " Where then do the people stay who say that it is impossible to live in the midst of a city and still preserve one's virtue? that for this one must flee away and live on a mountain as a monk? One who has a house to care for, and a wife and children and servants to look after, that is it impos-sible for such a one to be virtuous? These people should consider the upright Lot, who lived in a city, with a wife, children, and servants, among wicked and sinful men, and who shone like a light in the midst of the ocean, and was not extinguished, but his light only shone all the brighter. " I do not say this to hinder anyone from leaving the city to go into solitude, or from following the (monastic) life on the mountain in solitude; I only wish to show that nothing of all this hinders anyone who wishes to lead a temperate life and be watchful. For those who are light-minded and who let themselves go, solitude will not be of any use to them; for it is not the place which makes the man virtuous, but good will and living deeds. Whoever lives a temperate life in this way, life in the city cannot do him any injury. Indeed, I should like it, for just that reason, that all the virtuous people should live in cities, for they would become as leaven for the others and fill many with their own zeal."4 In much the same way, Gregory of Nazianzus also says that he wavered between the choice of the monastic life, which in a " narrow love " would benefit only himself, or to remain in the world, where he might surely help others, not merely him- Chrysostom Becomes a Deacon 141 self alone.5 And when later he gave up the monastic life again, and entered into the service of the Church, he wrote: " Each one of us receives his life not for himself alone, but for all who possess the same nature, and are created by the same hand, for the same goal."6 When Chrysostom was on the way to exile, he persuaded a hermit in Nicaea to go on a mission to Phoenicia, where he would be able to do good to others, not merely to live for himself alone.7 Moreover, St. Basil the Great, the " lawgiver " of Eastern monasticism, also made this change from the retirement of the monastic life to the priesthood from fleeing the world to sanctifying it and so also did St. Gregory of Nyssa, and numerous other monks and hermits of the fourth and fifth and later centuries. Chrysostom is made Deacon. Much had changed in Antioch during the long interval. Bishop Meletius, soon after his return, had begun with fiery zeal the work of the spiritual rebuilding of his church and his patriarchate. He had chosen the most able men to take the places of the departed bishops. Just at the same time (378) Diodorus of Tarsus, John's first teacher, so deserving for his preservation of the Catholic faith in Antioch, was consecrated bishop of his native city. At the same time the monk Acacius was made Bishop of Beroea. We will meet him again in the course of this history. By September or October of the following year, 379, Meletius was able to assemble the bishops of his Patriarchate about him for a great Synod. More than one hundred and fifty bishops attended, in order that in union with their Patriarch, whom they all acknowledged as the only lawful Bishop of Antioch, they might prepare the way for the new order of the Catholic Church in the East. Among the bishops present was St. Gregory of Nyssa. At this Synod, before all else, the Apollinarists, who had cut quite a figure in Antioch, were condemned, and a written testimony of the unity of the Faith and the Church was sent to Rome, to Pope Damasus, whose creed the Antiochene bishops had simply taken over.8 IJnfortunately Pope Damasus was never able to 142 John Chrysostom and his Time decide upon a position corresponding to the actual state of affairs.8' However, from another quarter, new attempts were made for attaining unity. About 380 an Italian council had resolved to send some bishops to Antioch, and, if possible, to bring about between the two orthodox parties of Meletius and Paulinus, an agreement toward which St. Basil and the Eastern bishops had worked for so long. They proposed that both the bishops should rule the united faithful at first, and that after the death of one, the other should be bishop alone. This proposal was of special significance, since in February 381 the Emperor Theodosius had sent his general Sapor to Antioch to hand over to the Catholics the church buildings and ecclesiastical property which until then had been in the hands of the Arians. The general was so surprised as to be in confusion, when instead of one Catholic bishop, three of them appeared, and laid claim to the church property for themselves and their congregations. The three were: Vitalis, the head of the Apollinarists; Paulinus, in the name of the Eustathians, and Meletius. Vitalis, as an adherent of a heresy already condemned, was easily eliminated. The decision between Paulinus and Mele-tius was more difficult. As the actual Patriarch, only Meletius could be considered. However, Paulinus with his little group was able to claim the special trust and confidence of Rome and Alexandria. In order to avoid this embarrassment, an agreement was proposed on the part of the Meletians, such as everyone wished had been made long ago. Paulinus, how-ever, rejected every agreement. So Sapor gave over the churches to Meletius, because the overwhelming majority of the Catholics of Antioch, as well as the assembled bishops, considered him the Patriarch.9 Meanwhile Theodosius had decided to call all the bishops of his empire together to a great council in Constantinople, at Easter 381, for the purpose of setting in order the ecclesiastical affairs of the empire. On account of the great age of Meletius, the difficulty of the journey, and the vicissitudes of an incalculable climate, such a journey was not without its dangers. Therefore Meletius decided to prepare for any eventualities, and leave Chrysostom Becomes a Deacon 143 his church in order before he departed. So he ordained his lector John to the deaconship of the Church of Antioch, shortly before his departure. The sources are unanimous in saying that it was Meletius who officiated at his elevation to the deaconship. That is occurred in 381, is stated by Palladius with sufficient authority; he states that Chrysostom, after five years' service as deacon, was ordained priest.l It is certain that the ordination took place in 386, and in May 381 Meletius died in Constantinople. FOOTNOTES 1. Theodoret Hist. Rel. 13, 14, 21 (82, 1408-g, 1413, 1449-52). 2. De compunctione 1, 6 (47, 4o3). 3. De sacerdotio 6, 6-7 (48, 682-83; ed. Nairn p. 152-53). 4. Hom. 43, 1 in Gen. (54, 396). 5. Carmen de vita sua II, 1l, V. 303-308 (37, 1050). 6. Ibid. and Oratio 25, 4 (35, 1203). 7. Epist. 221 to the priest Constantius (52, 733). 8. Cavallera, Le schisme 213; Voisin 94; Mansi 3, 512. G. Bardy, Le concile d'Antioche, in: Rev. Ben. 45 (1933) 208-g. 8^. Ed. Schwartz, Zur Kirchengesch. des 4. Jh., in: Ztschr. f. neutest. Wiss. 34 (1935) 203, reproaches Pope Damasus with pur-suing a " policy of arrogant refusal " against the Meletians. Also, St. Ambrose is for him only " the ambitious bishop of Milan" (ibid. 205) and St. Basil the " proud hierarch, who punished his opponents with arrogant contempt" (P. 175 and 169). 9. Not until after the death of Meletius did the Emperor ordain, through the law of July 3o, 381, that in all disputed cases, bishops appointed for the purpose should decide who actually was a Catholic. For the Patriarchate of Antioch, those appointed for this were Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Tarsus. See Cod. Theod. 16, 1, 3 (ed. Mommsen 1, 2, 834); Hefele 2, 29. lo. Dialogus 5 (47, 18-lg); cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon ad a. 398 (Mon. Germ. Auct. Ant. XI. 65 and ML 51, 921). CHAPTER XVI THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE DEATH OF MELETIUS ELECTION OF FLAVIAN A N T I O C H was not the only city in which the Arian heresy 8 and the disunity of the Catholics had called forth a diffi-1 Xcult and long-lasting embarrassment. In the chief city itself, in Constantinople, scandalous things went on, in spite of the presence of the Emperor Theodosius. After the death of the Emperor Valens, in 378, at about the same time in which Meletius had returned to Antioch, the few Catholics still remaining in Constantinople had begged St. Gregory of Nazianzus to come to the chief city and take over the religious leadership of the congregation. Gregory came, and soon the group which listened to his sermons in the little Anastasia Chapel began to increase. In vain the angry Arians, who saw the end of their domination approaching, tried by every means to hinder this steady growth, even actually seizing his person and his congregation. Then a severe blow struck St. Gregory from an unexpected quarter. One day a remarkable man, who called himself Maximus, appeared among his listeners. He struck everyone by his appearance;l he wore the great white mantle of those who professed to be philosophers, and acknowledged himself a member of the school of philosophers called Cynics. His hair was dyed golden after the fashion of the time, and fell in long locks. In his hand he usually carried a stout stick. He said he came from Alexandria, and sprang from a family of Egyptian martyrs, and that he himself had suffered persecu-tion and banishment for the Nicaean faith. All that was a lie except that he came from Alexandria. The Catholics alone, deceived by the joy of having a confessor in their midst, believed it, and Bishop Gregory, whose sermons the long-haired philosopher praised in loud tones, believed it also. He 144 The Council of Constantinople 145 took the man into his confidence, and even invited him into his house and to his table. Indeed, when Maximus said one day that he must go to Alexandria, Gregory gave before his congregation a eulogy on the departing one. Several months later, when Bishop Gregory was resting in the country, some clergy who lived near the chapel of St. Anastasia noticed one day that, in spite of the early hour of the morning, there were people in the house of God. They investigated, and found to their astonishment a large number of Egyptian sailors in the chapel; and at the altar were several Egyptian bishops engaged in consecrating their old friend Maximus as Bishop of Constantinople. They made an uproar; the whole neighborhood, both Catholics and Arians, streamed in. Much to their displeasure the Egyptians had to interrupt their consecration ceremony and to depart, together with their half-consecrated Maximus. They retired to the dwelling of a flute-player, and there the peculiar ceremony was completed. Was this the foolish trick of an ambitious philosopher? No. To the boundless astonishment and scandal of the Catholics of Constantinople, and to the great wrath of St. Gregory, it was discovered that the Patriarch Peter of Constantinople was behind the whole remarkable proceeding of Maximus; to all appearances he had been glad to take advantage of the vacant see in the chief city, to bring one of his own men into the place. One can only wonder at the crude manner in which the Alexandrians sought to attain their object. Whether the Patriarch Peter so far forgot himself out of open jealousy in regard to the future-rich Constantinople, as to lend himself to this unworthy comedy with such notorious comedians, or whether he was, at least to a certain extent, the victim of the swindler Maximus, is very difficult to decide. At any rate he never cleared himself, through any frank declaration, from the general suspicion of being accessory to the affair. A year later (381) Peter died. The Catholic clergy and people in Constantinople naturally did not tolerate this, which was not an ordinary trick even in the East where anything can happen; they protested to the Emperor, who was staying in Saloniki at the time; and through Bishop Ascholius of Saloniki they informed Pope Damasus of what had happened. Of course Pope Damasus protested 146 John Chrysostom and his Timc against the assumption of power by Maximus, and he was expelled from the city in shame and disgrace. When the Emperor came to Constantinople in the autumn of 380, the regulation of the question of bishops in that city was one of the most important points on his program of ecclesiastical policy. It was-to come to a crisis at the impending council. The Council of Constantinople. This convened early in 381. Whether Bishop Paulinus was invited to it is uncertain. At any rate he did not appear. On the other hand, Meletius was not only invited, but appeared, accompanied by two of his most outstanding priests, Flavian and Elpidius.2 Meletius, on account of the absence of the Patriarch of Alexandria, had the distinction of being chosen to preside over the council. By this, the assembled bishops proved surely enough that they considered him the true and lawful bishop and Patriarch of Antioch. Only on this supposi-tion would the right of presiding be his. Immediately, at the first sitting, the consecration of Maxi-mus was declared null and void, and this was expressly laid down in the fourth canon.3 In his place St. Gregory of Nazi-anzus was chosen by the people, the Emperor and the Council. Patriarch Meletius oiSiciated at his installation as Bishop of Constantinople, amid the great rejoicings of Catholics. Death of Patriarch AIeletius. The joy over the reorganization of ecclesiastical relations in Constantinople did not last very long. Two events cast unex-pected shadows of grief over the Council. In the summer heat of June 381, Patriarch Meletius, the president of the Council, suddenly became very ill. After only a short time the angel of death entered the sickroom. Meletius died, and the entire Council mourned with one mind the loss of this outstanding man and " confessor."4 He was the most distinguished personality among the bishops of the Empire, and had the confidence and trust of the Emperor Theodosius in an unusual measure. Gregory of Nyssa spoke a splendid funeral oration in the Church of the Apostles in Constanti-nople, in the presence of the Emperor; this oration still survives.5 The Council of Constantinople 147 The man who had spent the greater part of episcopal rule in exile, and died far from his see, was at least to find his last resting place in Antioch. The people of Antioch requested that the body of the Patriarch whom they had honored in life as a saint, should be given to them, and the Emperor expressly ordered that on the way thither, in spite of the state laws, his body was to be carried all through the cities through which the road led. "All Constantinople"6 escorted the funeral procession of the departed one, and wherever the procession passed, the Catholics received the dead bishop with psalm-singing and mourning chants.7 In Antioch Meletius found his last resting-place in the Martyrium of his predecessor, the martyr bishop Babylas.S This Martyrium had been built by Meletius himself, near the city. The people of Antioch kept an extraordinary memorial of this extraordinary man. Every year, after his death, the whole city assembled, and a memorial oration was preached at his grave, on the anniversary of his death, for their beloved chief shepherd. One of these orations, spoken by his greatest pupil and admirer, St. Chrysostom, has come down to Us.9 It shows throughout a tone of very special warmth and love. Many Catholics gave their children the name of Meletius in memory of their heroically holy bishop; and long after his death, his picture could be seen on rings, seal-engravings, drinking- glasses and goblets, and on the walls of dwellings, as happened also in the case of the Emperor.l The Greek martyrology includes Meletius among the saints, and he is commemorated on the l2th of February.1l Prob-ably it was the date of his burial at Antioch. Patriarch Flavian. The question of the church schism was suddenly brought back again into the foreground by the unexpected death of Meletius. It is comprehensible that most of the bishops thought that the moment had finally come for ending the schism, which had endured much too long already. The simplest solution would naturally have been that the Meletians should henceforth recognize Paulinus as their bishop. The frequently reviewed question was only this, whether Paulinus 148 John Chrysostom and his Time would also "recognize" the Meletians. Until then he had persistently refused to justify his separated position by recog-nizing the Meletians as orthodox Catholics. On that point all earlier attempts at understanding and unity had been frus-trated, even in case either he or Meletius should die.'2 Could not Paulinus now, without condemning his earlier refusal, declare the Meletians orthodox? Without this declaration, the Meletians, who numbered about ninety per cent of the Catholics of Antioch, and on whose side the bishops of the entire Patriarchate stood, would not recognize Paulinus. Besides, he was already very old, and his personal abilities do not seem to have been such as one might wish for such a great and important bishopric as Antioch. That was doubtless the difficulty, which the one party of the Council misunderstood or underestimated; and the other party pleaded that the proposed solution was impracticable. The new president of the Council, St. Gregory Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople, did his utmost to move the Eastern bishops to recognize Paulinus, not because he regarded Paulinus as the hitherto legitimate Bishop of Antioch, but because he did not wish to let pass such a plainly favorable opportunity of putting an end to the long schism of Antioch.ls But all was in vain. The younger bishops of the Patriarchate who were present at the synod, many of whom had received their offices and their consecrations from Meletius, were not inclined to make Paulinus his successor, who had been his and their previous adversary, and besides they were accus-tomed to thinking of him as an illegally consecrated intruder. Also, sentiments of personal love and gratitude for Flavian might have influenced many of them. So they determined, under the leadership of Diodorus of Tarsus, an old colleague and fellow-sufferer of Flavian's, and with the assent of almost the entire Council, to elevate the priest Flavian to the Patri-archate of Antioch; he was present in Constantinople, and he was actually the most deserving and the most able priest in the Church of Antioch. This was actually done, as soon as the Council of Constanti-nople had ended its deliberations and the Eastern bishops had come to Antioch for the election and consecration. Dio-dorus. the Metropolitan of Tarsus, himself officiated at the The Council of Constantinople 149 consecration; he was an old colleague and friend of Flavian's.l4 That was in September or October 381. The list of important ecclesiastical events of this memorable year was however not yet ended. Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople. The proceedings of the Eastern bishops had vexed St. Gregory very much. Unfortunately, he himself, all through the whole affair, had neither taken the actual situation suffici-ently into account, nor had he kept the silence necessary in such a delicate affair. The numerous damaging expressions, which he, according to his own account,ls cast at his opponents, resulted in a rift between him and a part of the Council. This discord was subsequently utilized by the Egyptian bishops, who, with their new Patriarch Timotheus, had been sent to the Synod to get the better of Gregory; he had been persona non grata with them ever since the unfortunate affair of the philosopher Maximus. So it was very pleasing to them, when a canonical difficulty was found in Gregory's recent appointment as Bishop of Con-stantinople. The Council of Nicaea had decreed (325) in its fifteenth canon, that no bishop, priest or deacon should go or be transferred from one city (diocese) to another.ls The Synod of Antioch had renewed this prohibition (341) in its twenty-first canon.l' Since then, so many undisputed excep-tions to this rule had come up that St. Gregory very rightly said that the law was a dead letter. It did not help; his adversaries did not let their sacrifice escape, and Gregory, weary of many disappointments and annoyances, besought the Council for his release as Bishop of Constantinople. That the Council granted it so readily, pained Gregory for a long time.l8 After a splendid farewell address,l9 he left the chief city for ever, in order to bring the last years of his life to a close in the solitude of Nazianzus. Who would now assume the exceedingly difficult and impor-tant see of Constantinople? A bishop could not be considered, after they had invoked the Council of Nicaea against Gregory Nazianzus. Among the clergy of Constantinople, there was no outstanding personality, for almost all of them had been Arian for the preceding two years. 50 lohn Chryso5tom and his Time So they finally decided to choose a dark horse in the person of the imperial official, Nectarius. Nectarius. He was praetor of Constantinople at that time. The best that can be said of him is that he had not only never been ordained, but he had never even been baptized. He belonged to that class of cautious catechumens who let them-selves be baptized only on their deathbeds. Furthermore, the same Council of Nicaea, before which Gregory of Nazianzus had been summoned, in its Canon R expressly forbade a catechumen to be elevated to the priestly or episcopal dignity. But at that time circumstances were often stronger than law. And what had been considered right by St. Ambrose in Milan shortly before, could not be so wrong in Constantinople now. Nectarius' chief recommendation was his outstanding per-sonality. He was praised for his mildness, gentleness and for-giving spirit, and his good sense in dealing with people and affairs. He was very well acquainted with the imperial court and the labyrinthine intricacies of its politics; the religious and political circumstances of the chief city were well known to him, and yet he had not been involved in any interparty strife. It was said that Diodorus of Tarsus had drawn the attention of the Council and of the Emperor to Nectarius, which is quite credible, as Nectarius was a native of Tarsus.20 The Emperor finally decided for his praetor, the bishops agreed, and so the newly chosen hastened to comply with the usual procedure, he was baptized and consecrated. The lay-man and catechumen of yesterday suddenly sat in the episcopal seat of Constantinople, which henceforth was to be the most influential spiritual position in the Empire. From an ecclesiastical and disciplinary standpoint, it is to be regretted that Gregory of Nazianzus could not have governed the Church of Constantinople longer. Nectarius was much too weak and too vacillating for the confused and tangled situation in which Arianism had left the clergy and the people after its forty years' rule. If a good many things improved automatically, as it were, during the sixteen years of his incumbency under new circumstances, nevertheless many The Council of Constontinople 151 difficult embarrassments remained to cause his successor, St. Chrysostom, great cares and much misery. FOOTNOTES 1. K. Lubeck, Die Weihe des Kynikers Maximus 4. 2. Cf. the inscriptions under the Canons of the Council= Mansi 3,568 and=Journal of Theological Studies 15 (1914) 168. 3. Hefele, KG 2, 19. 4. Palladius, Dialog 5 (47, 18). 5- 46, 851-864. 6. Gregory of Nyssa (46, 861-63). 7. Sozomen 7, lo. Cf. Delehaye, Les origines 70. 8. Chrysostom, Eulogy on St. Babylas 3 (49, 533); Sozomen 7, lo (5 ~ 533) 9. 50, 515-520. This authentic Homily is not to be confused with the doubtful treatise De S. Babyla contra Julianum et Gentiles (50, 533-72). P. Delehaye, Sanctus, p. 16, cites the Homily as undoubtedly authentic, which it is. o. Chrysostom loc. cit. 1 (col. 515). 1l. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. Delehaye 459- 12. From this internal difficulty one might plead the principal argument against the admission of a formal pact against the two parties. The certain fact is only that vigorous attempts were made in this direction. Cf. Cavallera, Le schisme 232 ff. and 245 ff. . Carmen de vita sua 1572 ff. (37, 1138 f.). 14. The record of the Synod in Theodoret HE 5, 9 (82, 1217 B); Mansi 3, 585; Cavallera, 254 N. 3. . Carmen de vita sua 1572 ff. (37, 1138). 6. Hefele KG 1, 419. 7. Ibid. 519. 18. Epistola 96 and 97 (37, 169-172); Carmen de vita sua 1805 ff. (ibid. 1155 ff.). For this he shows his episcopal opponents very plain evidence, in: Poema 12 V. 35-40 (37, 1169). 19. Oratio 42 (36, 265-280). 20. Sozomen 7, 8 says, that Diodorus probably did not know that Nectarius was not yet baptized, which does not sound very probable. CHAPTER XVII CHRYSOSTOM'S ECCLESIASTICAL AND LITERARY ACTIVITIES DURING HIS DEACONSHIP A. Liturgical-Ecclesiastical Functions. < t H E future successor of Nectarius meanwhile busied him-self, as a new-made deacon, at the cathedral in Antioch.l , > As a deacon, John had, in a somewhat enlarged sphere of duty, liturgical and administrative duties, and above all charitable duties, with which to occupy himself. The principal office of the deacon was the service of the altar. Chrysostom, as a deacon, had the duty of serving the Patriarch Flavian, or, in his absence, the officiating priest, in offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice. He, with his colleagues, prepared the sacTed vessels and vestments, adorned the altar, and prepared the bread and wine for the Holy Sacrifice. He received the sacTificial offerings of the faithful, and distributed at the close the remaining offerings, called Eulogia, to the poor. During the Liturgy the deacon, before each reading of the Prophets or the Gospel, exhorted the people to observe silence; he called out to the people llpov fv, that is, " Let us pay attention," and before each prayer he called out " Pray to the angel of peace."2 The deacon also offered the prayer called the great Ektenie, the prayer of intercession for the bishop, for the living and dead members of the church, for the cate-chumens and especially for the all men. " We pray for the bishop (the clergy and the congTegation),3 that he may pro-claim the word of truth in purity, and for the those here present, as well as the brethren throughout the whole world."4 " We pray also for the dead, and for those who offer for them the Holy Sacrifice (zas ~ 4vetas)."5 Then followed the beautiful prayer of which the Antiochene text has come down to us through Chrysostom: "We pray earnestly for the catechu-mens, that the all-merciful and compassionate God will hear 152 Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 153 their prayers, that He will open the ears of their hearts and teach them the word of truth, that He will implant His fear in their souls, and establish his faith in their hearts; that He will manifest to them the gospel of righteousness, and bestow upon them a divine mind, a pure heart and a virtuous life, that they may always think what is His, consider what is His, give all their care to what is His, and walk in His laws day and night. " Let us earnestly pray that God will keep them from all base and wicked deeds, from every devilish sin and from every snare of the wicked enemy; that He may vouchsafe to them, on the day of their new birth, the forgiveness of their sins and the garment of immortality; that He may bless their com-ing in and their going out, and their whole life, likewise their houses and dwellings, and also increase and bless their children, lead them to full manhood and make them wise, and turn all their actions and their conduct to their benefit." Now the deacon calls on the catechumens to stand, and says: " Pray to the angel of peace, you catechumens, that you may serve peace, whatever happens to you; pray that today and all the days of your life may be peaceful for you, and your ambitions Christian, and your consciences directed to what-ever is good and salutary. Entrust yourselves to the living God and to His anointed (Christ)."6 After this prayer the deacon requested the catechumens to leave the church. " Whosoever may not partake of the prayer of the faithful, let him depart." The same summons went out to the public penitents: "All you who are under penance, depart."7 Before the kiss of peace he called out to the faith-ful: " Be reconciled with one another," and before the Thanksgiving (the Preface) began, the priest called on all those present to stand up 8 Before the Holy Communion he called out with upraised hand: " The Holy of Holies ! "9 Similar liturgical announcements and proclamations were always made by the deacon. At the end, he spoke the prayer of peace, and announced the end of Divine service with the words " Go in peace ! "10 Whether the reading of the Gospel in Antioch was done by the deacon is hard to determine. At any rate the deacon did not have the right to preach. At that time, in Antioch and 1$4 John Chrysostom and his Time Constantinople this was done only by bishops and priests. In Antioch not long before it had been considered something new when the Arian bishop Euzoius had allowed Aetius to preach when he was only a deacon.ll On the other hand, the deacons took part in the training of the catechumens.l2 Further, the office of "church police" belonged to the deacons. They had to maintain order among the faithful, and interpose if anyone chattered or slept during Divine Service. " If anyone behaves in an ungentlemanly way," says Chrysostom in a sermon in Constantinople, " and will not let himself be corrected, then they will call the deacon.''l3 The latter also had the duty of seeing to it that old and poor people secured a place to sit. However, he was not allowed to bestow sacraments.l3' Even the passing of the Chalice was reserved to the priests.l4 The deacons' service brought responsibilities with it: in the Address to the Deacon, Chrysostom wrote later in his commentary on St. Matthew the following exhortation: "Also I must turn to you with the prayer that you use the greatest care in the distribution of the holy gifts. For it will bring you no small retribution, if you knowingly allow one unworthy to participate in the Holy Supper. His Blood will be required at your hands. And even if a general, or a prefect, or the Emperor himself, should come forward, being unworthy, dismiss him; for your power is greater than his. For this pur-pose has God granted you a great distinction, by which you are set apart. In this lies your dignity, your privilege, your fame; not in the white and shining garments which you wear. But how shall I know such a one, you ask? I do not speak of those you know not, but of those you know. So take care, O servant of the mysteries, that you do not offend the Lord, if you do not purify His Body (the faithful).... Fear God and not man. And if you have not the courage, lead the people in question to me. I would rather give up my life than give the Blood of the Lord to one unworthy.''l5 So the deacons called out to the faithful before the distribu-tion of Communion: " No catechumen, no penitent, no curious person may come hither; none of those who dare not look on the Lamb that is to be eaten, those who dare not look upon the heavenly Blood which was poured out, for the for-giveness of sins; no one, who cannot touch with pure lips the Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 155 dread mysteryl So they call, while the angel voices from heaven sing: Holy is the Father, Who has willed that the fatted calf be slain, that knows no sin."lX At that time baptism was bestowed only at Easter and at Pentecost, and usually by the bishop himself, for only he had the right to receive anyone into the church. If there were a great multitude of candidates, or in the absence of the bishop, the priest baptized by his order, while the deacon assisted. In these liturgical functions, the deacon wore a long white garment, and over the left shoulder a stole called the " orarion."l7 The number of deacons, after the custom of apostolic times, was in most cathedrals restricted to seven. The Synod of Neo-Caesarea (between 314 and 325) had ruled thus, referring to the Acts of the Apostles (6, 1-6).'8 Also in Rome in the fourth century there were only seven deacons, as still today there are only seven Cardinal-deacons. The Alexandrians made an exception in their city on account of its size. In the beginning of the fourth century, nine deacons were able there to declare themselves for the heresy of Arius. It is not certain how many there were in Antioch. For the service of women, ecclesiastical deaconesses were assigned. These were widows, or older single women, who were consecrated by the bishop, in a special ceremony involv-ing the laying on of hands, and the donation of a stole or chalice for the liturgical service of the church. It was their special duty to keep order among the women at divine service; they gave them the kiss of peace, and also had to admonish the women who did not live as they should. They helped with the training of the women catechumens, anointed them at baptism, and also had the duty of bringing Holy Com-munion to sick women. In the Syrian church especially, this institution of " widow deaconesses " seems to have been unusually cultivated.19 Chrysostom speaks only once of " women who possess the dignity of the diaconate " (TO at a r77s oFaKoVTas). At any rate there were deaconesses in Antioch, for the aunt of Chrysostom, Sabiniana, was one of them. The role of the deacon in Antioch, however, was different from that assigned to it today. What gave their position a very special importance, and often gave the deacon a signifi- 156 John Chrysostom and his Time cance and influence far exceeding that of the priest, was the circumstance that the management of all the church property, as well as the care of the poor, the sick, and widows, for the upkeep of churches and cemeteries,l9^ in a word the entire government of the temporal affairs of the church, lay in the hands of the deacons, especially of the Archdeacon. The problems of the deacons' management were not small, since the number of dependents was about 3,ooo.l9b The property of the church in Antioch at that time must have been important. In his explanation of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chrysostom complains: " Nowadays the church possesses fields, houses, rents from dwellings, vehicles, pack-horses, mules, and much more of that sort of stuff." This seemed to him obviously a necessary evil. For really, he said, it should be so that the church should not need any property, that on the contrary the generosity of the faithful should take care of all its requirements. Only their niggardliness was to blame for the fact that the church had need of material possessions. That brought two deplorable evils with it: first, the faithful lose much merit, because they themselves do not need to give anything more, and second, that the clergy have to occupy themselves with things which do not belong to their spiritual calling. "Your fathers obviously feared that the multitude of widows, orphans and religious women might starve, since your whole minds and aspirations are directed to secular possessions, and only to taking, not to giving. Therefore they saw themselves compelled to care for them in institutions. So you have those who should be devoted only to prayer, forced to do the same as those who occupy themselves with worldly affairs. In that way everything is turned upside down.... So we dare not open our mouths any more, because the church does not do any better at it than business people of the world. Or have you not heard that the Apostles never accepted such money for distribution, which was col-lected entirely without any trouble? But now the cares of the bishops in this matter exceed those of overseers, admini-strators, and tradesmen; and while their whole thought and care should be for souls, they must employ themselves all day long with matters which should be taken care of by tax and rent collectors and finance experts and stewards. Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 157 " I say this not merely with regret, but with the purpose of changing these things for the better, that . . . you yourselves may become the rents and the properties of the church. See the poor there before your eyes! We will take care of as many as we can; what is over and above that, we will leave to you.... For this situation has become ridiculous for you and for us, because we, instead of praying, teaching, and giving ourselves to works of charity, must fool around all the time with wine and grain dealers and other merchants. From all this arises dissension and quarreling, daily insults, slander and ridicule; and every priest has a name conferred upon him, which is more suited to a profane building (either the winecellar, the grain warehouse, or something similar) . . . instead of giving us the name of nourishing the poor, defending the helpless, harboring strangers, aiding the persecuted, caring for orphans, defending widows, protecting virgins.... These are the treasures of the church, these the riches that belong to it . . . I estimate the number of the members of the congregation to be about a hundred thousand. If each ones gives a loaf of bread to a poor person, all will have what they need. And if each one gives only one obol, we would have no more poor, and we would not be compelled to endure so much insult and scorn in our management of Church property. " For now one might actually say to the administrator of the church, in regard to church property: Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and come follow me (Matt. 19, 21).... For we, who have been called to the mysteries of heaven, and have actually entered into the All-holy, give ourselves over to the cares of shopkeepers and merchants. The result of this is that the Holy Scripture is neglected, our prayer is hurried over, and all our other duties superficially discharged. For it is impossible that we should have an equal zeal for both sides."20 " Let us then not take shelter behind any subterfuges (in order not to have to give alms) nor hold ourselves excused by pointing out that the church is rich. For if you see the great-ness of its wealth, consider also what myriads of poor stand on its registers, and how many sick, and what numberless expenses they cause. Only ask, only inquire, no one will hinder you. On the contrary: we are ready to give you an 158 John Chrysostom and his Time account, and to show you that the expenses are not less than the income; indeed they much exceed it.... That the church is compelled to possess property is the fault of your lack of generosity. If all was done on the model of the Apostles' time, then your generosity would take the place of revenues. That would be the most secure storehouse and an inexhaustible treasure. But now you collect treasures on earth and lock them up in your own treasure chambers Therefore the church is compelled to care for the many widows, for the choirs of virgins, for the strangers who come in, for the requirements of those who travel, for the unfortun-ate prisoners, for the support of the sick and the infirm, and for other people of that kind. What else could it do? Should it send all those people away and close up the places of refuge? Then who will help all these shipwrecked ones, who will still these sighs, these cries of woe and anguish that rise up from all sides? We would not speak so inconsiderately of these things if we really had them at heartl Js21 The respect which the deacons attained on account of their administration of church property brought with it this result, that occasionally bishops and even synods had to remind them of their subordinate place.22 The Council of Nicaea forbade the deacon to take the Eucharist before the bishop or the priest, and reminded him that he was the "servant of the bishop and lower in rank than the priest."23 Therefore the bishops and priests watched carefully over this, that in an assemblage the deacons should remain standing in their presence, as ordered, or stand when they passed by.24 Con-cerning this, on one occasion an open controversy occurred between Chrysostom, or his deacon Serapion, and Bishop Severian of Gabala. Among the deacons themselves there was that kind of pre-eminence which depended on the wealth which the bishop's household had to administer. A deacon could easily acquire the influence of an episcopal secretary, not to say a " general vicar." Already in the fourth century these deacons held the title of " Archdeacon." According to the Apostolic Constitu-tions the deacons were to be no more and no less than the bishop's eyes, ears, mouth and heart, also his soul and his five senses! 25 That was quite a demand. Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 159 Chrysostom, all through his career, might have found employment for all his abilities in liturgical and charitable service. That he was active in charity as a deacon, one learns from the writings of his diaconate. To visit and assist the poor sick was one of the most exacting duties of the deacon. "Think," he said to his friend, poor Stagyrius, "of the old and sick Demophilus. He comes of a distinguished family, and now he has been sitting there for fifteen years, trembling and stammering, and yet with it all he has a clear understand-ing of his pitiful state. He has become very poor, and has no one with him but a young man who cares for him and feeds him. And think too of Aristoxenus of Bithynia, who for six years has suffered from chronic convulsions (epileptic seizures) which plague him by day and by night, and he endures dread-ful pain, in which his eyes, hands and feet are all convulsed together, and he is robbed of speech; then he cries out and groans, suffering more than a woman in labor, so that the neighbors swear it makes their sick suffer. He is poor too, and has not even a servant, and still less a doctor; all his old friends have left him, and if anyone does come, the foul odor drives them away again. Only one single woman cares for him, as much as a woman can who lives alone and must work for her own living. Or go to the hospital and look at the many sick there, or visit the prisoners and see their misery; or go to the public baths, where you can find people who are half dead with cold, hunger and sickness, and who often have only a little rubbish and straw for a bed, and no clothes to cover them. And don't stay there, but go to the poorhouse, outside the city, where you will see men suffering from elephantiasis, and close by, women suffering from cancer."26 These pictures of misery are obviously drawn from life. They show at the same time how little social care was under-taken hy the state at that time. The church was practically the only helper who cared for these miserable ones, as far as its means permitted. At another time Chrysostom pictured the difficulty which the care of the poor brings with it: there were many women, some of them widows, entered on the Church's register of the poor, and when an investigation was made, they were often found to be adulteresses, who disturbed the peace of their 160 John Chrysostom and his Time families, or persons who frequented disgraceful places. And what prudence and patience is required, when one has to deal with sullen and embittered poor, who insult one and complain for the slightest causel And then the chattering of so many widows, their troublesome crying, their groundless complaints, their misunderstanding, their ingratitude! And yet one dare not be impatient, for all this is chiefly the result of poverty and need. Those who are driven by hunger lie unashamedly, so that he who is entrusted with their care must not lose his patience, or he will become insensitive to their need. And he must actually distribute the money for the poor. Once a certain one, to whom the care of the poor and the widows had been entrusted, saved up much money and did not use it for them; he only distributed a little to those who were in need; he hid the greater part of it, and when the time of reckoning came, he had to go over to the adversaries (Arians?).27 Of course there was no lack of opportunity for charitable work in Antioch. In normal times the number of poor in the city was considerable, but it happened that Antioch, during the year that Chrysostom was deacon, was suffering from twice repeated bad harvests, with high prices and shortage of food. The first time, in 382, Philagrius Comes, the governor of the city, was able to end the famine, by having the bakers expelled from the city. The people believed that they had held back the grain purposely in order to be able to raise the price. However, it proved that the cries of the beaten bakers were not the best means of assuaging hunger. On the contrary. When two years later a new famine began, and the governor believed he would be able to relieve high prices by setting an official ceiling on the price of bread, the bakers fled out of the city into the mountains, to avoid a repetition of the former painful occurrence. As soon as the high prices were lowered again, they allowed themselves to return. Only the baker Antiochus was beaten, because he had sold too little bread.28 B. Literary Activity. Besides his official duties in the service of God, and his charitable activity, Chrysostom also carried on his literary Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 161 activity. This was principally concerned with the ascetical sphere, and that of the care of souls. Socrates states expressly that Ghrysostom wrote as a deacon the letters to Stagyrius, also the splendid work On the Priesthood, the treatise con- cerning the Syneisaktai (and the address On the Incompre-hensible God).29 Marcellinus Comes also writes that Chrysostom had, as a deacon, throughout five years produced " many godly books."30 Among these are doubtless included the treatises which belong to Chrysostom's earliest work. This literary activity is pointed out also by Palladius, who says: After Chrysostom had already distinguished himself by his fitness for teaching, he was ordained to the priesthood.3l Actual preaching during the diaconate hardly enters into the question; at the most, one thinks of the training of the catechumens, which devolved on the deacons in time of need. . The Letter of Consolation to Stagyrius.32 The first composition which comes to our attention here treated of patience in suffering. Chrysostom chose with this intent, the most pitiful case of earthly suffering he could think of; a sincere seeker after God, who is possessed by the devil. This composition may well have a historical basis; it is written in suitable literary style. A young man of good family, named Stagyrius, had become a monk and lived near Antioch, probably in the Asketerion of Diodorus. His all too strict asceticism edified his brethren but disturbed his health. One day, during the common prayer, Stagyrius suddenly fell to the floor. His arms jerked violently, his eyes stared wildly, foam appeared on his lips, his breath came shudderingly, his whole body trembled; for a long time the unfortunate man lay unconscious. Again the following night, and later quite often, these seizures were repeated; they were obviously of epileptic origin. At that time the art of the physicians was not of a very high order, and the medical knowledge of the monks was certainly still less than that of the doctors. The terrified brothers, accustomed to seeing invisible powers ruling all things, believed nothing else in this case but that the devil had entered into their poor Stagyrius.32& They called in the holiest 162 John Chrysostom and his Time among the monks and hermits, who had driven out many devils, but here their power failed. Stagyrius was comfortless over his situation. Was this his reward for having left the world and become a monk? Others had been possessed and had been cured; but he, despite increased fasting, night watching, and strictest asceticism, did not obtain release. What wonder if thoughts of suicide began to distress him? And woe to his mother, if she was not able to conceal the unfortunate condition of her son from his father, who possessed riches and influencel He would per-haps vent his whole wrath on the pious monks. In this sad state of affairs, John wished to console his friend. He wrote for him a special letter of consolation, explaining to him that as friend he experienced the same pain that he him-self did, and that God permits everything to happen for our own best good. The devil, said he, can only tempt us; he cannot force us to evil. So the more you bear your misfortune in the spirit of penance, the more surely will you attain the blessed eternal life. All the chosen servants of God must travel this way of suffering the Egyptian Joseph, David, Jeremias, Job, and St. Paul. Only trust in God's love and wisdom; in eternity each one receives his reward. Wonder not that you were first afflicted after you became a monk. In every combat the idle onlookers are left in quiet, while the adversary rushes upon those who courageously enter the fight. And consider how much your misfortune has purified you, compared to your previous state how zealous you are in doing good, how earnest and humble you have become I Your thoughts of suicide do not necessarily come from the devil; they may be a natural result of your sorrow and loss of courage. Only if you had been an evil man would you have had reason for discouragement. But you have led such a strictly ascetic life that already they had feared for your mind. As long as you have a clear conscience, what does it matter if the devil throws your body to the floor? Only sinners and the wicked are actually possessed by the devil. Concerning your father you need not fear anything; you are not responsible if he is angry. Rather mourn for him on account of his prodigality, his luxurious banquets, his proud and lordly disposition, and Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 163 his life of adultery. He has always considered you the black sheep of his family, merely because you became a monk. So do not be troubled as to whether you will be cured or not. In this world all is battle and affliction. Abel, who was murdered, proves that; Noah in the Ark; Abraham among strangers; Isaac, Jacob and the Egyptian Joseph; likewise Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, the prophets Elias and Eliseus, and before all others, St. Paul. And how much misfortune there is in our own days in the hospitals, the hospices, the prisons, the mines! Everywhere pain and sorrow and suffer-ing. It is not those who suffer evil but those who do evil who have real cause for sorrow. Your suffering is not a punish-ment, it is only a trial, which shall bring you the crown of victory. May these thoughts and your own earnest prayers help you to conquer your sorrowl To the early works of Chrysostom also belongs a little book written for children of the world and sinners, and called: On Contrition of Heart.33 When an outsider, says the author, contrasts the commands of Christ with our actual life, he must believe that there are no worse enemies of Christ than we Christians are. We do in all things so much the contrary to what He commanded. Do we not speak evil of our neighbors every day, carry wrath and enmity in our hearts, and still approach the Altar? We swear and curse, and, if we do anything good, it is done oftener for the love of ourselves rather than the love of God. We seek to amass treasures on earth, and set ourselves up as judges over others. Indeed, these errors offend worldly people, monks and clergy. We admit catchumens light-heartedly to baptism and Holy Communion34 and seek the wide and comfortable way when we should follow the narrow and strict one. Things were so with me at one time that I thought to be a monk. On the other hand, how many griefs and troubles merchants take upon themselves to win material gainsl The ardent love of a St. Paul is lacking in us; he who willingly endured hunger and thirst, prison and death, for the sake of heaven. Truly we need for this, not to be apostles, not to work miracles, but 164 John Chrysostom and his Time only to lead a Christian life and keep the commandments. But even that is too much for us. Notwithstanding, we do not think of repentance and atonement and searching grief of heart, no matter how necessary they may be for us. We are not able to understand the nothingness of all earthly things, because we are never able to withdraw ourselves from the jangle of worldly affairs and direct our eyes to God alone. That is what Paul did, when, altogether loosed from this world, he was lifted up to the third heaven like a burning fire. So also was King David minded, who did penance for his sin. Let us then imitate the example of these great men, that we may not be delivered unrepentant into the eternal fire. Concerning Virginity.35 By general agreement this beautiful treatise on the life of virginity belongs to the period of his deaconship. The chief thought is: Marriage is good, but virginity is better. For in the life of virginity one can attain salvation more easily than in marriage. True virginity, Chrysostom begins, was not known among the Jews, for they did not esteem it, nor among the heretics (that is, the Manichaeans, Marcionites and Valentinians), who enjoined it upon themselves. It was not the saving Christ, but the man-slaying devil, who spoke from their mouths. Such virginity, born of false doctrine, is worse than adultery itself; for the latter is a sin committed by men, the other a sin against God. The one sin stains the body, the other the soul. True virginity consists in this, that one should be holy both in soul and body. In establishing the relationship between marriage and virginity, Chrysostom of course proceeded on an assumption which cannot be proved correct. He said: Before the Fall, God did not create man for marriage. More, He would have created all men directly, as He created Adam and Eve. Then after the Fall, God permitted marriage, first for the increase of the human race, then second for the satisfaction and easing of carnal lust and desire which had awakened through sin. But afterwards, he says further, there were already so many men on earth, the first reason for marriage was canceled out. Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 165 There remains only the second, and that applies only to those weak ones who are not able " by fasting, night watches, hard beds and other mortifications, to subdue and conquer them-selves." Whosoever finds himself in this situation is called to virginity. Though marriage may be good for the weak, yet virginity is better for the strong, who also need the grace of God. Marriage also brings with it many physical and moral burdens and obstacles to the spiritual and religious life. A virgin, on the other hand, can attain salvation much more easily and freely. But if marriage is also difficult, it will not be meritorious on that account, because no one is bound to marriage. The virgin on the other hand has no cares, she has everything necessary and nothing superfluous; she is free from the troubles, trials and vexations of a housewife; she lives simply and without many needs, and receives for it a greater reward. These various original thoughts, distilled from life, as it were, were brought together, in a certain way, in the charming Consolatory Letter to a Young Widow,36 who after five years of happy marriage had lost her husband: To be a widow and remain so of one's free will is something so honorable that even the pagans wonder at it, as I discovered from my pagan teacher. He consoled you before, and he, your husband, faithfully cared for you; now God Himself cares for you. And your husband is better off in heaven than he could ever have been on earth. And if you live as virtuously as he did, you will see him again, not merely for five years, but for all eternity. And in heaven he is a thousand times more beautiful and splendid than he was on earth. And he smiles at you often at least in your dreams. What would you have, if he had reached a position of the highest honor? That has made many people unhappy. Consider the wife of the unfor-tunate Theodore of Sicily, and the pitiable Artemisial How many people have lost their husbands in war, and do not know where their graves are I Even an Emperor (Valens) was burned in a farmhouse. Why then grieve for his destiny? Keep the gaze of your soul continually directed to heaven, and no unhappiness will cast a shadow over your spirit. Live 166 John Chrysostom and his Time only as virtuously as your husband did, and you will see him again in the joy and splendor of heaven." There were indeed widows who grieved very much for their husbands in the beginning, and then afterwards opened their hearts to others. To them Chrysostom composed a little treatise in which he said: That one should not marry a second time.37 I can understand, he says therein, that one who is unmarried should long for marriage; but I cannot understand how one who has already been married should wish to marry again. A second marriage is indeed permitted, but it betrays a weak, carnal soul, inclined to earthly things. You cannot love the second husband as you did the first, and neither can he love you so wholly from the heart, if your love has already belonged to another. A shadow lies over such a marriage. And what trouble often arises, especially if there are children of the first marriagel Even worldly law forbids all exterior pomp, music, dancing and bridal crowning at a second marriage. You can manage your property very well yourself, and if your servants and stewards do not obey you, punish them. It is moreover questionable whether your second husband would be a good manager, and furthermore you would lose the freedom which you had attained. Your second husband will never love you completely, your children and maids will discuss you when your back is turned, and your children by the first marriage will take a distorted view of you and your second husband. Moreover, do not be always thinking of the difficulties of widowhood, but consider the heavenly reward of voluntary continence. May your bridegroom henceforth be Christ, to Whom be honor and praise for all eternityl Still another composition must be mentioned here, although its exact date cannot be determined, because of lack of interior and exterior indications. This is the double treatise Against the Syneisaktai,38 that is, against young women consecrated to God, who live in the same houses with men, and concerning those men who have such young women with them. This treatise touches on a special feature of the religious life of that time. Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 167 Since the first century there were Christian women who had consecrated themselves and their lives to God, but did not dwell together; they dwelt in their parents' houses, with relatives, or by themselves alone.39 " Cloisters " were not yet possible, even in the third century of persecution. These consecrated young women directed their own lives as seemed good to them. It was expected of a young woman " conse-crated to God " only that she should keep her vow of chastity39^ and give a good example in everything. She could keep her property and dispose of it as she pleased, she could have servants and slaves, and make visits where she wished. On the other hand, there were clergy and lay people who led voluntary celibate lives, and who often found themselves in the situation of having to seek for someone to look after their household. If they had no relatives, and a strange secular person might easily arouse suspicion, it often seemed a fortunate solution to take into the house a " young woman consecrated to God" who, through her vows of virginity, publicly made before the congregation, would keep her above all suspicion of evil. Sometimes it might happen that some one might be seeking such a solitary young woman to put in charge of their property and such matters, to stand by their side, as a steward, guardian or adviser, and whose good reputa- tion they would at the same time protect. Other such young women, through the necessities of poverty, might take places as servant maids. So it came about that various priests in the fourth century, and even monks, as well as simple laymen, dwelt under the same roof and kept in a certain sense the same household with these consecrated young women. This was called spiritual brother- or sisterhood, and such young women were called "Syneisaktai," or in Latin "subintroductae,"40 that is, those who dwelt together, or house companions. Certainly that was one among several possibilities of settling a difficult question. It was perhaps not the worst, certainly not the best. This intimate and long- continued occupation of the same house naturally offered its dangers, and what was begun in the spirit, with the best intentions, could easily end in the flesh, and then the scandal was all the greater. Moreover, the principal aim of the common practice was never attained. The suspicion of unchastity was not quenched 168 John Chrysostom and his Time by dwelling with a " maiden consecrated to God," but in many cases, through thoughtlessness, it was increased. Also it hap-pened that the suspicions and the scandal had foundation. Even in Antioch, something more than a hundred years before Chrysostom, the bishop of the city, Paul of Samosata (about 268) had given great scandal by his continual and frivolous association with young women. He actually kept three of them in his house, and even took them with him on journeys; indeed he allowed hymns of praise to himself to be sung by women in the church.4l A part of the clergy readily followed his bad example. Also St. Athanasius told a similar, very peculiar story of the late Arian Bishop Leontius of Antioch (344-347), during whose rule Chrysostom was born.42 Also the name "Syneisaktai" seems to have originated in Antioch.43 In Carthago (or Dionysiana), St. Cyprian, only a few years earlier (about 254) had occasion to denounce a similar situation.44 It is nothing surprising, then, that from the earliest times ecclesiastical synods had been called to deal with concubinage. The first known prohibition against it was made by the Synod of Elvira in Spain in 306.45 The Synod of Ancyra in Galatia made the same pronouncement in 314.45 The first general Church Council of Nicaea (325) extended this prohibition to the whole Church.47 In North Africa, toward the end of the fourth century, it was renewed by two Synods: in 393 at Hippo, and in 397 or 398 at Carthage.43 Again a Synod at Arles concerned itself with the question49 and in 506 it was taken up again by a second Synod at Agathe (Agde in France).s Even then the business was not settled. Pope Gregory the Great found it necessary in 594 to renew the first prohibition.~ l A whole series of ecclesiastical authors stepped to the side of the Councils and the Popes. Pseudo-Clemens, in the Syrian recension of the Epistola 1, lo ad Virgines52 (from the third to the fourth century); then Aphraates53 (about 336- 337), Gregory of Nyssa,54 Gregory of Nazianzus,55 Basil the Great,56 St. Jerome,57 the author of the Syntagma doctrinae,53 the Fides Nicaenas9 and the Tract " De Singularitate Cleri-corum"69 set their pens to work against this feminine peril. The long list of authors and authorities shows that the Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 169 subject considered here was connected with the social neces-sities of life. In fact, it concerned the question of " priests' housekeepers " in all its various forms through all the centuries of the church even to our own time, and it was easier to for-bid it by decree than to find a substitute. Naturally it was bad for monks and consecrated virgins to be living together. It happened that rich young women took monks into their houses as counselors and stewards. Also sometimes monks dwelling alone took solitary young women under their roof as "guardians" or "housekeepers." This seems to have been a widespread custom in the fourth century, especially in Syria and Asia Minor. So it is easily comprehen-sible that Chrysostom was applying his words to a theme which was very real at that time. Such a difficult point, which so deeply touched the honor of monasticism, could not leave him indifferent. In this regard Chrysostom possessed a much too temperate and realistic judgment of such "spiritual wives" to agree with Tertullian.el " Why," he asked, " do such people live together? Because lust draws them together, even though there is no sex relation. The fact that in spite of all scandal, they do not separate, proves this. And who then will persuade me that a young man, who dwells with a young woman day after day, will not be conquered by passion? That is no silly suspicion, and the scandal it causes is not groundless. Has not Job said (31, 1) that he would not even think upon a virgin? Peter and Paul spoke similarly. You say the virgin is alone in the world and needs a protector. But tell me, who will protect her from you? You advise others about poverty, and think only of increasing the wealth of your proteges. You should carry the cross and follow Christ, and instead you sit among distaffs and baskets of wool. In this we are becoming bewitched as women hunters, because you forget your dignity and humiliate your-selves by serving women as though you were eunuchs. " Either your young woman is rich and will remain so; in that case she would do better to marry. Or else she is poor, and then she does not need a steward for her property. Also, you can demonstrate your sympathy better in the case of poor men. And if you have more sympathy for women, why do you not seek out the old, the infirm and the blind, who would 170 John Chrysostom and his Tzme be far more deserving? If your purpose is entirely honorable, still the damage from scandal to the community is much greater than the value of your services to one particular person. But you wish that the young lady should take care of your clothes, look after your table, manage your householdJ kindle your fire, wash your feetJ and be prepared for all other services. A servant can do all that better and more cheaply. And how unseemlyJ to find in a monk's dwelling women's shoes, head-bands, distafls and such trumpery as mirrors, cosmetic bottles, perfumes and similar things, which often he himself purchases in the shops ! Secretly it makes the young woman desire him, when she sees how he flatters her and plays the lover, because her appearance pleases.him. Keep away from that which will only give scandal." (Book 2: ) Formerly the pagans wondered at us Christians on account of our virgins. Then the devil suggested, that it might be better if there were no more (consecrated) virgins. Many of them are pleasure-loving, worldly and frivolous in their attire and behaviorJ and there are even some who live in the same houses with married menJ and so give ground for every suspicion. An honorable marriage would be far better than being a young woman who is pointed out as being " the concubine of so-and-so.J' Better to renounce such service than to give scandal. I for my part do not believe that unchastity is the reason for such proceeding, but vanity, the special weak-ness of the feminine sex. Such women flatter themselves that it brings them honor and attention if a man is at their serviceJ especially if the man concerned enjoys respect œor any reason. In actual factJ however, people laugh at and despise both of them. And if men judge so, how much more Christ, the heavenly King and Bridegroom of the consecrated virgins ! In this regard a maiden should so conduct herself in public as though she were an angel come down from heaven. Christ the King awaits you. Think of that and your soul will become pure! 62 Among the group of treatises I include also the " Golden Book ": Concerning Pride of Life and the Education of Children. In the third book of his work " Against the Adversaries of Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 171 Monasticism" (No. 6) Chrysostom accuses parents of bringing up their children often to two especially evil passions, namely, avarice and the pride of life. Each individual is able, for himself alone, to destroy everything in the child. Concerning this, Chrysostom composed a little book. It is written in the form of a sermon, but however, on account of its contents and literary structure, it belongs to the class of treatises such as Chrysostom composed chiefly during the time before his ordination as a priest. S. Haidacher has done the great service of bringing this " Golden Book " back to honor by demonstrating its long misjudged authenticity.fi3 However, Haidacher erred in this respect, that he brought the beginning of the book into rela-tion with the tenth and eleventh Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians; in which Chrysostom complains of certain people, especially women, who out of offended vanity had gone over to the party of Paulinus or Evagrius, or threatened to go over. Haidacher, to connect these, had to assign the Treatise on the Education of Children to the year 393 at the earliest, in which year he considered the Commentary on Ephesians to have been produced. Stilting thinks this Commentary originated between 393 and 397; Montfaucon places it generally in the Antiochene period (386 to 397), and Bonsdorff (P. 70) considers 396 or 397 the probable time of origin. But at that time Evagrius, the successor to Paulinus, was already dead, and a successor had not been chosen. Also it would have been more than remark-able if Chrysostom, in the year 393 or later, should demand a better education for children as a remedy against the Anti-ochene schism, which was already sixty years old; and still should have so completely lost sight of his principal concern, this same Antiochene schism, that he did not mention a single word about it. In the Commentary on Ephesians Chrysostom directed his attacks against ambition and wounded vanity, which had cleaved the Church; here he writes against avarice, love of display, and the pride of life, which result in discord and loss of charity, and he demands that children be trained to simplicity, modesty and self-control. In these two composi-tions Chrysostom shows entirely different aims. 172 John Chrysostom and his Time Therefore nothing stands in the way of assigning the Golden Book on the Education of Children to the same time as the "Treatises." Even though it is written in the form of an oration or sermon, still it must not have been actually a sermon. It might well be considered a theological school exercise from the period of this theological education, or as a handbook for Christian parents, from the time of his deacon-ship or early priesthood. Unfortunately, however, it offers no exact chronological points of reference. One would be rather inclined, in view of its content and its scholastic organization and structure, to place it in the earlier period of Chrysostom's literary production. In its aim it follows chiefiy, as has been said, the tendency of the treatise " Against the Foes of Monasticism." In its substance, the little book enjoys the distinction, from the first page, of being a history of Christian pedagogy. It is actually the oldest comprehensive teaching on Christian educa-tion which is not exclusively directed to Christian children, but probably was thought of as a Christian companion piece to Plutarch's Treatise on the Education of Children.64 It may well be that other Christian writers have incidentally inserted shorter or longer discussions of children's education in their writings; but no one had yet supplied a complete and independent treatise on this subject. So this little book occupies a special place of honor in the history of Christian catechetics. The author has brought together in his treatise (Chapters 39 and 43) two standard catechisms for children, in order to demonstrate to parents, by means of these two examples, how they should train their children from early youth onward in the Holy Scriptures. The two children's catechisms drew upon the Biblical stories of Cain and Abel as well as those of Jacob and Esau. Chrysostom based his pedagogical textbook principally on a comparison which extends all through the treatise. Whoever wishes to bring up a child, to direct its spiritual development, he must act like a king who wishes to establish and colonize a new city. The city is the soul of the child; the city wall is the child's body, in which the soul is enclosed. The city gates consist of the five senses; speech, hearing, smell, sight and taste. Through these the citizens, that is, the soul's powers, Ecclesiastical and Literary Activities 173 communicate with the outside world. These citizens are grouped into three classes or conditions: the iv,ads, that is, the irascible resisting powers; the'E7r~ @v,a~ , the concupiscent resisting powers, and the /IOY6zFKOV~ the understanding and judgment. They dwell in three houses, namely, the heart (@vzos), the liver (e7rtAv,uca), and brain (AoyF Kov), This threefold division of the soul is taken from Plato's teaching on the soul.65 In his later writings Chrysostom never returned again so formally and scholastically to this threefold division,66 which also might be an indication that this treatise was composed near the period of his training in the school of philosophy. Among the Opuscula should also be classed the three related " vocational sermons " on marriage, the married life, and divorce. These three form a trilogy, and are too theoretical and general to be thought of as actual sermons. The whole forms a " Mirror for Candidates for Marriage."66& The apologetic treatise Proof to Jews and Pagans, that Christ is God marked the conclusion of the treatises, and also formed a bridge between the moral-ascetic tracts and the theological-homiletic writings. This composition is to all appearances incomplete. The second part, against the Jews, is missing, for in conclusion (No. 17) the author says that he now has dealt with the pagans, and that he would occupy himself with the Jews later.67 But also the part against the pagans produces only two proofs for the divinity of Christ: the actual extension of Christianity over the whole world, and its moral transformation by eleven poor uneducated men; and second, the predictions of the prophets, especially Jeremias, and Isaias, concerning the nature and life of Christ, and the prophecies of Christ Him-self concerning the propagation of the Church, which over-came the world in spite of all persecutions. Remarkably, the author omits the proofs of the miracles of Christ, because he says they would make no impression on the pagans; and furthermore, there is no offensive demonstration of the logical and moral weaknesses of the worship of the gods, such as he found among the old apologists of the second and 174 John Chrysostom and his Time third centuries. Also nothing is said of the virtuous life of the Christians; only a short discussion appears, on the exalted moral and virtuous teaching of Christianity. So much the more did the author hope for success (for the pagansl ) of the proof from the prophecies of the Jewish prophets and of Christ Himself. The treatise was produced after the death of Julian, who (n. 6) is mentioned as a contemporary. It also further men-tions that it is already the 400th year since the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. That would place it in the year 470, which does not agree with the contemporaneousness of Julian. A doubt as to its authorship by Chrysostom would have to be cleared up by a penetrating investigation of language and Stylen68 So Chrysostom as priest and deacon had developed a rich literary activity. It cannot be demonstrated that he made use of a system in the choice of the themes of which he treated. His treatises actually form a small select library of ascetic works, which appears to be intended almost systematically for the principal Christian professions and social classes, for each of whom it serves as a mirror of life. He thereby showed the Christian ideals of life and its conditions, for monks virgins, widows, married people, for unfortunate people and sinners, for fathers and mothers, and last for priests. That was an ample substitute for individual activity in the care of souls, which un