John Chrysostom And His Time. Constantinople

492 Pages·1960·56.915 MB·english

by  John Baur

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
AND HIS TIME
BY
DOM CHRYSOSTOMUS BAUR, O.S.B.
VOL. II
CONSTANTINOPLE
Translated by Sr. M. Gonzaga, R.S.M.,
St. Joseph Mercy Hospital,
Ann Arbor, Mich.
THE NEWMAN PRESS
Westminster, Maryland
1
1
8
1
541gle
0o
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:45 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, INCLUDING THAT OF TRANSLATION
INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Nihil obstat: JOANNES M. T. BARTON, S.T.D., L.S.S.
CENSOR DEPUTATUS
Imprimatur: <f GEORGIUS L. CRAVEN,
EPOS SEBASTOPOLIS
V1c. GEN.
Westmonasterii, die 16* Oct,
© 1960 BY THE NEWMAN PRESS
Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 60-3807
MADE AND PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
BY NORTHUMBERLAND PRESS LIMITED
GATESHEAD ON TYNE
1
1
8
1
541gle
0o
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:46 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
TABLE OF CONTENTS ^ ^
1 Chrysostora becomes Bishop of Constantinople i
2 Chrysostom and the Reconciliation between
Flavian and Rome 18
3 Constantinople, the City and the People x1
4 Chrysostom and the Court 29
5 Chrysostom and Eutropius 41
6 Constantinople: Churches and Martyria 47
7 Chrysostom's First Reforms 56
8 The Liturgy and Divine Service 72
9 Chrysostom as Preacher and Author in Constanti-
nople 82
10 The Friends of the New Bishop 97
11 Political Storms: The Revolt of the Goths: Dis-
grace and End of Eutropius 104
12 Constantinople as a Patriarchate 129
13 Chrysostom's Journey to Ephesus 137
14 Severian of Gabala, the False Friend 155
15 Strife with the Empress Eudoxia 165
16 Bishop Porphyrius of Gaza, and Marcus, his
Deacon, in Constantinople 169
Resum£ of Chapters 13-16: A Chronological
Labyrinth 179
17 More Enemies in the Background 186
18 Quarrel of Theophilus with the "Tall Brothers"
(Quarrel with the Origenists) 192
19 Patriarch Theophilus' Summons to Constantinople 207
1
1
8
1
541gle
0o
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:46 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
vi Contents
20 The First Counterthrust—Epiphanius in Con-
stantinople 216
21 The Great Reversal 227
22 The Synod of the Oak 237
23 First Banishment and Return 262
24 New Intrigues 274
25 Bloody Easter and Second Banishment (404) 287
26 Chrysostom Writes to Rome 299
27 Burning of the Cathedral in Constantinople:
Investiture of Bishop Arsacius: Persecution
of the Johnites 305
28 Theophilus Reports to Rome 326
29 On the Road to Exile 341
30 Death of the Empress Eudoxia 354
31 Atticus Becomes Bishop 360
32 Chrysostom in Exile 366
33 Letters from the Exile 374
34 Chrysostom and the Pagan Missions 387
35 The Frustrated Council 396
36 Final Annihilation of the Adherents of St.
Chrysostom 408
37 Death of the Martyr 415
38 Chrysostom as a " Martyr" 431
39 "De Mortibus Persecutorum" 436
40 Chrysostom in the Diptychs 444
41 The Victor's Return 458
42 Chrysostom in later Centuries 467
Sources and Bibliography 476
Index 481
1
1
8
1
541gle
0o
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:47 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
CHAPTER I
CHRYSOSTOM BECOMES BISHOP OF
CONSTANTINOPLE
ON the 26th of September, 397, the word went from
mouth to mouth in Constantinople: Nectarius, the
eleventh Bishop and first "Patriarch" of Constanti-
nople, was dead.1 For sixteen years he had been the spiritual
overlord of the capital city. The rolling wave of a storm-
tossed time had elevated him suddenly and unexpectedly to
the first and most important episcopal see of the Eastern
Empire, after a saint, Gregory of Nazianzus, had had to yield
to unfavorable circumstances; the time was not ripe for
Gregory's fiery zeal. In his place had been chosen the yet un-
baptized state official, the Praetor Nectarius. His irreproach-
able private life and his bland and peace-loving character had
commended him at that moment to public attention.2 His
deeds corresponded to his life. He had not accomplished great
things. He was not especially noted either as an author, or
as an orator, or as a clerical statesman and leader. As a Bishop
he remained what he had always been: a correct official, who
took anxious care not to clash with any party. With his pre-
dominantly passive temperament, he had witnessed the course
of affairs rather than influenced it. Yet he had had the extra-
ordinary good fortune to be Bishop of the capital city just in
the reign of the great Emperor Theodosius. This Emperor
was so much the active principle both in religious and ecclesi-
astical affairs, that Nectarius, without too much trouble, was
content to let affairs and the Emperor go their way, and to
assume at least with dignity his place as the executive voice
in the existing situation.
So that was what he did. And even that was made easy for
him without his co-operation. For the same Fathers of the
Council who had made him Bishop in 381, had freed him from
practically every control through their agreement, of course
i
1
1
8
1
541gle
0o
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:47 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
i John Chrysostom and his Time
not sanctioned by Rome, that Constantinople should hence-
forth take second place among episcopal sees; for Constanti-
nople was New Rome.
So Nectarius was favored by fortune during the whole
period of his incumbency. Neither political wrangles nor
ecclesiastical disputes, nor any other complications or prob-
lems disturbed the calm of his spirit, nor in the two years
just past, under Arcadius and his ministers Rufinus and
Eutropius, had he in any way influenced the course of
events. He lived in peace and quiet, and in peace and quiet
he died.
Scarcely had Nectarius closed his eyes, when there began
behind the scenes a vital struggle for the vacant episcopal see
of the capital city. One must admit that it presented a strong
temptation for ambitious spirits. The Bishop of Constanti-
nople, especially if he was a man of ability, naturally surpassed
all the Bishops and Patriarchs of the Empire in actual influ-
ence. He was in constant communication with the Emperor,
the whole court and the highest officials; he was the man to
whom each Bishop turned when he wished anything at all
from the Emperor; he had at his disposal abundant ways and
means to help when he wished to do so, and to offer his pro-
tection to the oppressed. The Patriarch was invited to all
the court ceremonies; he blessed the marriage of the Emperor,
he baptized his children. He could be second to the Emperor
in influence and respect in the Empire, as he was henceforth
the first among all the Bishops of the world after the Pope, the
Bishop of Rome.
So whoever had a feeling for splendor and honor, could only
with difficulty withstand the temptation.
Unfortunately all too many people showed that they
possessed this feeling, but not sufficient virtue, to leave the
determination of a successor to Providence, and to the free
decision of those who were entitled to vote. The idea that the
episcopal see of Constantinople could be a dangerous gift, that
one moved in the Court on a very slippery floor, on which one
might eas11ily fall, and above all, that an enormous moral
responsib18ility was bound up with these dignities, none of this
was able 541to turn the eyes of mgleany priests and bishops away
from the d0azzling splendor ofo the exterior dignities of the posi-
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:47 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
Becomes Bishop of Constantinople 3
tion. Influential court officials at that time saw clergy enter-
ing their doors to recommend themselves to their protection.3
There were even some among them who were not ashamed
to advance their requests by gold and gifts, while a third class
of candidates flattered the people and made obeisance to
them.4 There may even have been candidates from the ranks
of the laity or the official class, who hoped to make their
fortune, as Nectarius had done earlier.
The fourth century was accustomed to much in this respect.
There were to be seen duly installed married men, like
Gregory of Nazianzus, the father of St. Gregory, and Paulinus
of Nola, mounting the episcopal throne all unprepared. State
officials, like Nectarius and Ambrosius, who but yesterday
were still pagans or catechumens, today were chosen as
spiritual leaders and shepherds of the Christian people. Sons
of rich and prominent families, like Hilary of Poitiers, Maxi-
minus of Trier, Basil of Caesarea, and others, as well as simple
artisans and weavers, like Zeno of Majuma, Severus of
Ravenna, and the shepherd Spyridon of Trimithus in Cyprus,
and monks from the simplest and poorest social strata, entered
into the ranks of the Bishops at that time. Occasionally even
their success in the care of souls stood in inverse ratio to the
extent of their education and their theological knowledge.
The Emperor Constantius in the year 356 appointed out of
hand one of his Guards officers named Eleusius to be Bishop
of Cyzicus—the shepherd's staff was held fast in the soldier's
strong fist—and a sergeant named Marathon, the paymaster of
the pretorians, was appointed offhandedly by Valens to be
Bishop of Nicomedia.
That was a new and practical method of rendering harmless
any suspicious officials or generals, or possible aspirants to the
throne, without being inhuman. When about the year 439
the people of Constantinople applauded their prefect Cyrus
at the racecourse louder than the Emperor, the unfortunate
man was quickly relieved of his office and deprived of all his
property, and dared only regard it as a favor, that he was
appointed11 Bishop of Smyrna by force. Of course this was not
a special 18mark of favor, for his four direct predecessors in the
shepherd541's seat at Smyrna hagled been murdered one after
another b0y their own mangy soheep.5
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:47 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
4 John Chrysostom and his Time
The fact that Constantinople was less dangerous to life, only
increased the number of candidates. "Only see," Chrysostom
had written about twelve years earlier, "what happens on the
great feast days, when according to the old custom the choice
of church officials takes place. Then all who have the right
to put in a word for the bestowal of a position, are split into
many parties, and the clergy are neither united among them-
selves nor at one with him who is chosen Bishop. Each one
goes his own way, each one gives his voice to someone different.
The result is, that no one pays attention to that to which all
should pay attention, namely, the virtue of the soul. So other
considerations are allowed to prevail, which should have
nothing to do with such dignities. For instance: Choose this
one, because he comes from a good and distinguished family;
or that one, because he is a convert and comes to us from the
adversaries. And one wants a bishop with whom he stands
well, another wants one who is a relative, and a third wants to
give the preference to one who understands nothing except
how to flatter. But no one looks at the one who is really suit-
able, whose virtue has stood the test."6
So it went in the smaller and more insignificant episcopal
cities. So one can imagine what strong passions were aroused
when the first episcopal see of the Empire was to be conferred,
at a time in which the people, the priests and the provincial
bishops were all entitled to vote, but in which the Emperor
and the court, more than once, asked or unasked, gave the
decision. So this temptation was especially imminent in Con-
stantinople, naturally.
Matters came to a crisis in the year 397. Foreign competi-
tors were interfering again in the choice of a bishop. The
Patriarchs of Alexandria knew only too well what influence
could be at the disposal of the bishop of Constantinople under
certain circumstances, and that Alexandria, on which the un-
disputed spiritual leadership of the Eastern Church had
devolved until that time, might lose very much through an
ambitious rival in Constantinople, or at least might be placed
definitely11 in the background.
On that a18ccount the Patriarch Peter, seventeen years before,
had attem541pted to place the Aglelexandrian Maximus on the
episcopal0 throne of the resideontial city (Constantinople). For
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:48 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP
Becomes Bishop of Constantinople 5
the same reason, the Patriarch Theophilus, who was very sen-
sible of the advantages of power, exerted himself to win
influence for the new enrichment of the see of Constantinople.
Theophilus wished to make Isidore, an Alexandrian priest
devoted to him, bishop of the chief city, although he was more
than seventy years old.7 Perhaps he wished to have him as a
place-holder for his nephew, who was yet too young. Isidore
had lived earlier as a monk in the Nitrian desert, and then
became a priest and the steward of the almsgiving and of the
guests' hospice in Alexandria.8 Theophilus believed that in
any case he would have nothing to fear from him, but would
always find in him a ready friend and advocate at court for
himself and his interests. Malicious tongues reported that
Theophilus had sent this Isidore several years before to Rome,
when Maximus was carrying on a war against the Emperor
Theodosius. At that time he had given Isidore, besides gifts,
two letters of congratulation, one to Theodosius, in case he
should win, and the other to Maximus, if the fortunes of war
should be favorable to him.9 Even if that story is not true,
it shows at least how Theophilus could be relied on. Palla-
dius, who otherwise grants Theophilus nothing at all, does not
know anything of this affair.
With what matter-of-factness, what publicity, what dissen-
sion and hatred, the pursuit of the episcopal throne in the
East was carried on, was portrayed thirty years later by no less
a man than the Emperor Theodosius II. When the ambassa-
dor of the Council of Ephesus, the Archimandrite Dalmatius,
on order of the Council, requested the Emperor to confirm
the deposition of Nestorius, the Emperor reminded him of
the affairs which had preceded the appointment of Nestorius.
"Shall I recall to you the omciousness, the running about, the
promises, and count the oaths of those who haggled over the
episcopal dignities? . . . The candidates were numerous and
not of the best. Each party exalted its candidates to heaven,
and blackened the others. You could not agree on a common
name. The monks were not at one with the priests; the priests
were not 11united among themselves. The bishops were divided,
the peopl18e the same. ... At last you left the choice to me,
and I thou541ght it would be besglet not to choose anyone from
here, so t0hat he would not haove the jealousy and hate of the
0o
6g
0d-
1p
2#
1.3se
cu
u_
7/ss
2e
0c
et/2g/ac
dl.handle.nathitrust.or
hh
p://ww.
MT / htthttp://w
22 08:48 Gdigitized /
2-e-
5-0ogl
1o
0G
on 2ain,
d m
eo
neratblic D
eu
GP