UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Non aliud iure dici debeamus quam Christiani: Heresy and Orthodoxy, Catholicity and Schism in the Late Fourth Century Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/66b056tx Author Whiting, Colin Mathew Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Non aliud iure dici debeamus quam Christiani: Heresy and Orthodoxy, Catholicity and Schism in the Late Fourth Century A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History by Colin M. Whiting June 2011 Thesis Committee: Dr. Michele R. Salzman, Chairperson Dr. Randolph Head Dr. Sherri Johnson Copyright by Colin M. Whiting 2011 The Thesis of Colin M. Whiting is approved: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Amicis meis iv Contents Introduction.................................................................. 1 i. The Problem 2 ii. Historiography 5 iii. Outline of Thesis 15 I. Historical Background........................................... 17 i. The ‘Arian Crisis’ 17 ii. The Libellus Precum and the Luciferians 25 II. Moderate Views.................................................... 30 i. Schismatic? 30 ii. Catholic? 35 III. Accusations of Heresy......................................... 40 i. Unsubstantiated Accusations 40 ii. Baptism and Rebaptism 45 IV. The Luciferian Petition........................................ 55 i. Penance 55 ii. Ordination 62 iii. Communion 68 iv. A Friendly Disagreement? 75 v. Asceticism 78 vi. Violence 91 v V. Conclusion............................................................ 109 i. Satire and Identity 111 ii. A Luciferian Social Network 114 Bibliography of Primary Works................................. 125 Bibliography of Secondary Works............................. 129 Appendix I: Translation of the Confessio Fidei......... 138 Notes 140 Appendix II: Translation of the Libellus Precum...... 141 Notes 196 Appendix III: Translation of the Lex Augusta.......... 203 Notes 206 vi Commonly-Used Abbreviations ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. New York: Christian Literature Co., 1886-1897. Reprint: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. Turnholt: Brepols, 1954 to date. CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Prague- Vienna-Leipzig: 1886 to date. GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Leipzig and Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1897 to date. LCL Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1911 to date. PG Patrologiae cursis completes, series Graeca. Edited by J.P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857-1866. PL Patrologiae cursis completes, series Latina. Edited by J.P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844-1864. SC Sources chrétiennes. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1942 to date. vii Introduction. Non solum te vicisse existimes, vicimus utrique, uterque nostrum palmam refert: tu mei, ego erroris. Utinamque mihi sic semper disputare, contingat, ut ad meliora proficiens, deseram quod male tenebam. Unum tamen tibi confiteor, quia mores meorum apprime novi, facilius eos vinci posse, quam persuaderi.1 You should not think that you alone are victorious; we are both victorious. Both of us carry back the palm [of victory] – you over me, and I over my error. May it always happen for me to argue in this way, that in advancing to better things, I abandon that which I was holding in error. However, I admit one thing to you, because I know the customs of my own best: they are more easily conquered than persuaded. With these words, the „Luciferian‟ in Jerome‟s Dialogus contra Luciferianos surrenders to his transparently-named opponent, Orthodoxus. The dialogue, probably composed sometime in the late 370s, is one of Jerome‟s earliest works.2 It concerns a Christian group which Jerome and other authors refer to as the “Luciferians,” after Lucifer of 1 Dialogus contra Luciferianos 28 (SC 473, ed. Canellis:200-201). The best edition of the text is Débat entre un Luciférien et un Orthodoxe (SC 473, ed. and trans. Aline Canellis; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2003). The dialogue is referred to variously as the Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi and the Dialogus contra Luciferianos. I have chosen to use the latter, as it better represents Jerome‟s purpose in writing the work. I have provided all translations throughout, except where noted. 2 For the longstanding discussion of its date, see Aline Canellis, ed., Débat entre un luciférien et un orthodoxe, 28-34 and Ibid., “Saint Jérôme et les Ariens, Nouveaux éléments en vue de la datation de l‟Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi?,” in Les Chrétiens face à leur adversaires dans l’Occident latin du 4ème s (ed. Jean Michel Poinsotte; Rouen: Publications de l‟Université de Rouen, 2001): 155-194, especially 156 and n5. The classic argument for a slightly later date, in the early 380s during Jerome‟s stay at Rome, is Paul Batiffol, “Les sources de l‟Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi de St Jérôme,” in Miscellanea Geronimiana (Rome: Vatican Press, 1920), 97-113. Previously posited dates are the mid-370s, 378/9 while Jerome was near Antioch, in 382 while in Constantinople, in 382-386 while in Rome, or in 387/8 while in Bethlehem. Rome is a compelling choice, because there was a large Luciferian community in the city, but there were Luciferians throughout the Mediterranean as well. Bethlehem is also a tempting choice, because the Luciferians in their writings do not seem aware of the dialogue‟s existence. However, on the basis of his other writings, as well as certain stylistic elements, Cavallera, Kelly, and Canellis all agree on a date in the 370s: F. Cavallera, Saint Jérôme, sa vie et son oeuvre (Louvain and Parus: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense/Honoré et Édouard Champion, 1922), 1.1.56-58; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1975), 62-64; and Canellis, “Saint Jérôme et les Ariens,” 193-194; Kelly‟s argument about its relative placement in Jerome‟s notice about his other works in his De viris illustribus is particularly convincing. Canellis argues for a date perhaps even before 376 on a comparison with the attitude towards Arianism presented in the dialogue and in Jerome‟s Chronicon. 1 Cagliari. The very name “Orthodoxus” implies that for Jerome, at least, there is something „unorthodox‟ about his unnamed Luciferian opponent. But who were these Luciferians? Were they catholic, schismatic, or heretical? Is that even the right question to ask? i. The Problem. Stark and Bainbridge, in A Theory of Religion, define a sect as “a deviant religious organization with traditional beliefs and practices,” created by a schism, which is defined as “the divison of the social structure of an organization into two or more independent parts.”3 This definition is in contrast to that of a cult, which Stark and Bainbridge define as “a deviant religious organization with novel beliefs and practices.”4 Thus a sect, formed by a schism, retains the same beliefs and practices as its source, but with a new and separate social structure. While the model‟s imperfections shall be discussed, it serves as an example of the meanings modern scholars (and others) attribute to these terms. Modern scholars generally describe the Luciferians as schismatic, conflating the terms (as defined by Stark and Bainbridge) „sect‟ (meaning the organization) and „schism‟ (meaning the formation of said organization). The title of Gustav Krüger‟s Lucifer: Bischof von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer says as much.5 Manlio Simonetti‟s classic La crisi ariana nel IV secolo likewise refers to them as “lo scisma 3 Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, A Theory of Religion (New York: Peter Lang, 1987): 124; 128. 4 Ibid., 124. 5 Gustav Krüger, Lucifer, Bischof von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferianer (Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von Breitkopf und Härtel, 1886). 2 luciferiano.”6 R.P.C. Hanson‟s English work on the same subject, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, uses the term “sect” to describe the Luciferians.7 Recent scholarship has continuted to describe the Luciferians as „schismatic.‟ Giuseppe Corti calls them the “scisma luciferiano” just as Simonetti does.8 Aline Canellis, in her critical editions of Jerome‟s Dialogus and a Luciferian treatise, the Libellus Precum, refuses to pass judgment, merely pointing out what other ancient authors said on the subject.9 Javier Pérez Mas, in a very recent work, refers to them as a „cisma.‟10 Despite the apparent readiness in modern scholarship to call the Luciferian faction a „schism,‟ this is a remarkable simplification of how the surviving sources treat the Luciferians. Aside from Canellis, these scholars are ascribing modern terms to the Luciferians were without clearly taking into account the wide variety of opinions present in the fourth through the sixth centuries. This is not to suggest that the Luciferians were not a schism (although the conceptual wall drawn between the Luciferians and other Christians by the word „sect‟ or „schism‟ is far more porous than the theoretical model Stark and Bainbridge propose), or that they held certain