Heresy, Authority and the Bishops of Rome in the Fifth Century: Leo I (440-461) and Gelasius (492-496)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Heresy, Authority and the Bishops of Rome in the Fifth Century: Leo I (440-461) and Gelasius (492-496) by Samuel Cohen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto © Copyright by Samuel Cohen 2014 Heresy, Authority and the Bishops of Rome in the Fifth Century: Leo I (440-461) and Gelasius (492-496) Samuel Cohen Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto 2014 Abstract This dissertation investigates how two fifth-century bishops of Rome, Leo I (440-461) and Gelasius (492-496) understood and opposed heresy. More specifically, by stressing the contested character of heresy and the at times optative nature of the bishop of Rome’s opposition to it, this dissertation hopes to provide a new perspective on how Leo and Gelasius imagined and justified the authority of the Apostolic See in an uncertain world. To accomplish this task, this dissertation considers Leo and Gelasius’ opposition to various different heresies and details the methods by which they were opposed. This will be done through an examination of the records of synods, Roman law, other contemporary narrative sources, but especially through the letters and tractates of Leo and Gelasius themselves, carefully read and considered in their fifth-century context. Furthermore, it is argued that the history of the development of the ideas of heresy and orthodoxy were profoundly connected with Rome’s emerging importance as a locus of authentic Christian teachings; the history of the bishops of Rome cannot be told without examining the history of heresy and orthodoxy and vice versa. Because orthodoxy and heresy were not tangible historical phenomena but rather were malleable categories that emerged as part of a wider discourse of Christian identity construction, the bishops of Rome were not in every case the ii unqualified enemies of heresy. Instead, their definition of heterodox belief and their opposition to religious deviance were complex, often qualified and always historically contingent. This study seeks to investigate the way in which Leo and Gelasius mobilized the language of heresiology in order to convince Christians in the Latin west and the Greek east, as well as the imperial authorities, that Rome’s interpretations were legitimate and binding. iii Acknowlegements First, I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee who each contributed in countless ways to the production of this work. My supervisor, Nick Everett, has guided and encouraged me since the beginning of this project. He, together with Alexander Murray, introduced me to the history of Late Antiquity and their knowledge, advice, and corrections were crucial during each stage of research and writing. Giulio Silano was always generous with his time and he constantly pushed me to ask deeper (and often difficult!) questions. I valued our conversations over the years greatly. I would also like to thank Thomas F. X. Noble for his perceptive comments and criticisms which have already made an impact on this dissertation and will undoubtedly continue to influence my work in the future. I also wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge my appreciation for the help and encouragement I received from the professors and my fellow graduate students of both the Department of History and the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto. In particular, Joe Goering, Isabelle Cochelin, Mark Meyerson and Derek Penslar made my time as a student and as a teacher rewarding and enjoyable. I am especially indebted to George Rigg whose kindness and patience helped inspire in me an appreciation for the Latin language that I could not have imagined when I began this process. Here I must also mention Andrew Hicks who somehow managed to make me look forward to reading Macrobius. Sean Lafferty, with whom I shared many of the trials and tribulations of graduate school, was always supportive and willing to share his insights (and coincidentally was favourably disposed towards a pint). Thank you! A portion of the research that ultimately resulted in this dissertation was produced while I was a Graduate Fellow at Chancellor Jackman Humanities Institute at the University of Toronto. The JHI is an incredible institution and I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been a small part of it. During my time as a graduate student I also benefited from the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program. I wish to express my gratitude to both. On a personal level, I wish to thank my family – my aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephew and my grandmother Sheila – for their generosity and support. I appreciate that they at least pretended to be interested in my research and generally avoided asking me when I would iv (finally) finish my degree. In particular my sister Anna and her wife Kristi have been amazing neighbours, relatively good trivia partners, and generally loving and understanding in every way imaginable. Lastly, I must express my gratitude to Julie M. Anderson and to my parents, Steve and Louise Cohen. Simply put, without Julie none of this would not have been possible. Her kindness, sense of humour and tolerance sustained me while her intelligence, editor’s eye for detail, and insightful observations made this dissertation far better than it was otherwise destined to be. And there are, of course, no words that can adequately sum up the affection and appreciation I have for my parents. My mom and dad have been a source of unceasing support and unconditional love for my whole life; their sanguine resilience in the face of life’s obstacles continues to be a model of quiet determination I endeavour to emulate, however imperfectly. Above all, I am grateful for their decision to procreate. I am pretty sure that without them, I would not be here. It is to them that this work is dedicated. Samuel Cohen University of Toronto November, 2013 v Abbreviations Journal abbreviations throughout conform to those of L'Année philologique. AA auctores antiquissimi ACO Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Anon. Val. Anonymi Valesiani pars posterior APA Prosopographical Appendix, in Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, pp. 348- 485. Cambridge, 1997. CA Collectio Avellana, CSEL 35.1-2. ed. Otto Günther, Vienna, 1895-1898. Caspar, Gesch. des Papsttum Erich Caspar. Geschichte de Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. 2 vols. Tübingen, 1930-1933. CCSL Corpus Christianum, series Latina, Brepolis, 1954 - . CCSL 138/138a Sancti Leonis Magni Romani pontificis tractatus septem et nonaginta, 2 vols. ed. Antoine Chavasse, 1973. CJ Codex Iustinianus, ed. Paul Krüger. Berlin, 1963. Coll. Brit. "Die Papstbriefe der brittischen Sammlung." ed. Paul Ewald, 1880. CPL Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 3rd edition, ed. Eligius Dekkers,1995. CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, Vienna, 1866 -. CT Codex Theodosianus, eds. Theodor Mommsen and Paul Meyer. Berlin, 1905. de. haer. Augustine. Liber de haeresibus. ed. R. Vander Plaetse and C. Beukers. CCSL 46: 30-77. Turnhout, 1969. Dict. hist. de la papauté Dictionnaire historique de la papauté, ed., Philippe Levillain. Paris, 1994. ECC Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson. New York, 1997. Epiphanius, Pan. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion ep. epistula ET Edictum Theoderici regis ETV Epistulae Theodericianae Variae. ed. Theodor Mommsen. In MGH AA 12: 389-392. Berlin, 1894. Evagrius, Hist. eccl. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus frag. fragmentum vi Grillmeier, CICT Christ in Christian Tradition: CICT 1 vol. 1: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), Atlanta, 1975. CICT 2.1 vol. 2, part I: Reception and Contradiction: The Development of the Discussion about Chalcedon from 451 to the Beginning of Reign of Justinian. London, 1986. CICT 2.2 vol. 2, part II: The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century. London, 1995. Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Haer. Hippolytus of Rome. Refutatio Omnium Haeresium. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses. JK Jaffé-Kaltenbrunner, = Philipp Jaffé, Samuel Loewenfeld, Ferdinand Kaltenbrunner, and Paul Ewald. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 1885. Jones, LRE A. H. M Jones. The Later Roman Empire LP Liber Pontificalis. ed. L. Duchesne. 2nd ed. 1955- 1957. Loewenfeld Samuel Loewenfeld, ed. epistolae Pontificum Romanorum ineditae. 1885. LF Fragmentum Laurentianum Maassen, Geschichte Friedrich Maassen. Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des Canonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters. Graz, 1870. MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica NTh Liber Legum Novellarum Divi Theodosii, eds. Theodor Mommsen and Paul Meyer. Berlin, 1905. NVal Liber Legum Novellarum Divi Valentiniani, eds. Theodor Mommsen and Paul Meyer. Berlin, 1905. PCBE Prosopographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire, 3 vols., eds., Charles Pietri and Sylvain Destephen. 1999. PL Patrologia Latina PLRE Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. eds. J. R. Martindale, et. al. 1971-1992. Schwartz, PS Eduard Schwartz, ed. Publizistische sammlungen zum acacianischen schisma. München, 1934. SC Sources Chrétiennes, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1942 - . Thiel Andreas Thiel, ed. Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum. Braunsberg, 1868. Reprint, 1974. tr. tractatus Var. Cassiodorus. Variae. vii Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowlegements iv Abbreviations vi Table of Contents viii Introduction 1 Scope and Plan 9 Chapter One: Terminology and Context 13 Introduction 13 1. The Bishop of Rome in the Fifth Century 14 2. Rome’s Authority and Position in the Christian World 24 3. The Categories of Heresy and Orthodoxy 31 4. Heresiology 39 Chapter Two: Leo the Great Part I 45 Introduction 45 1. Sources for Leo the Great 46 a. Canon collections 49 b. Sermons 51 c. Modern Editions 52 d. Prosper and the Authorship of Leo’s sermons and letters 53 2. Leo the Great: Life and Context 55 3. Pelagianism 59 a. Pelagianism before Leo 59 b. Leo and Pelagianism 60 c. Jurisdiction and Church Discipline 62 d.