chapter three

POLEMIC AGAINST JULIAN OF ECLANUM (419–430)

The dispute with Julian of Eclanum, which occupied Augustine for the last ten years of his life, is undoubtedly the most extensive and the most pas- sionate literary exchange of arguments Augustine had ever been engaged in. Not in the ascetical Pelagius, who left for the East rather than arguing with Augustine, or his straightforward disciple Caelestius, who was con- demned quickly, but only in this bishop, a generation younger and with a classical education, who was among the elite of the Italian episcopacy (he was the son of Memorius, bishop of Capua, and the son-in-law of Bishop Aemilius of Beneventum; on the occasion of his wedding, Paulinus of Nola composed verses to celebrate the young couple1), did Augustine meet his match, not only in eloquence and tenaciousness, but also in the impor- tance he attributed to the polemic.2 Face to face with Augustine’s doctrine

1 See Paulinus of Nola, Carmina, 25: CSEL 30, 238–245; on Paulinus’ wedding song for Julian, see S. Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und soziale Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Göttingen 2002, 332f., 520f. 2 The  rst modern portrait of Julian was given by A. Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum. Sein Leben und seine Lehre. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pelagianismus, TU 15/3, Leipzig 1897. As for his approach and his results, this follower of Harnack did not difer fundamentally from his teacher: Julian is presented here as an heir to the peripatetic logic and Stoic ethics, who, despite his undeniable personal integrity, misses the substance of Christianity. Nevertheless, Bruckner mitigates Harnack’s conclusion concerning the Pelagian teaching as “essentially Godless (im tiefsten Grunde gottlos)” (A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, III,201), pointing out that Julian, who was willing to bear so much hardship for his conception of Christianity, must have truly believed in a righteous God (see A. Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum, 176). In the 20th century some attention was paid to the newly identi ed exegetical works by Julian and his translations of Theodore of Mopsuestia (e.g. Julian’s commentary on the minor prophets was acknowledged as a “forgotten pearl of old Christian literature”; see G. Bouwman, Des Julian von Aeclanum Kommentar zu den Propheten Osee, Joel und Amos. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese, Roma 1958, 137). An attempt to modify the image of Julian as a heretic and advocate of “radical rationalism in the Stoic vein rather than the Christian one” (as even H.-I. Marrou had it in his remark on the paradoxical occurrence of Julian in the medieval catalogue of saints by Petrus de Natalibus; see H.-I. Marrou, “La canonisation de Julien d’Eclane”, in: HJ 77, 1958, 434) was later made by F. Refoulé, a Dominican who showed an a nity between Julian’s conception of human nature and grace and the later teaching of Thomas Aquinas (according to his interpretation, both authors drew on Aristotelian philosophy connected with the Christian notion of grace raising the good nature to a new level; see F. Refoulé, “Julien d’Éclane, théologien et philosophe”, in: RechSR 52, 1964, 42– 298 part three: chapter three of grace and the anti-Pelagian campaign, which was gradually sancti ed in the Western church by several Roman bishops, Julian felt the need to oppose the “Manichaean” misinterpretation of Christianity originating from Africa3 and defend the good creator, the goodness of human nature and marriage, and the voluntary efort of men to achieve virtue and holiness as something meaningful. Augustine’s polemic against Julian includes four works: the second book of De nuptiis et concupiscentia; Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum (four books); Contra Iulianum (six books) and Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum (six more books).4 These seventeen books in total (the last treatise is the only work by Augustine not to be  nished), which take up more than nine hundred columns in Migne’s PatrologiaLatina (volumes 44 and 45), are both disconcerting and tiring to read. The positions of both sides are given in advance, the arguments have more or less been presented already, and their constant repetition does not quite reveal any new depths even if one regards them as two spirals of parallel monologues. It is actually a “conversation of the deaf”,5 i.e., a double soliloquy, cyclical and, on top of that, concerned with a curious topic, to put it mildly, albeit one determined by Augustine’s theology.

3.1. “I” and Concupiscence (De nuptiis et concupiscentia)

The point of departure of Augustine’s polemic against Julian of Eclanum was a request for an explanation of the Pelagian issue from the comes Valerius of Ravenna, to whom Julian turned in the tense atmosphere of the year 418 in order to ask for his support in the Pelagian matter at the imperial court.

84 and 233–247). A more sympathetic theological presentation of Julian’s faith in a good creator, which excludes the notion of hereditary guilt, was given by M. Lamberigts, “Julian of Aeclanum: a Plea for a Good Creator”, in: Augustiniana, 38, 1988, 5–24 (and other articles by the same author, see Bibliography). However, a genuine re-evaluation of Julian’s image is only applied in the extensive synthetic monograph by J. Lössl from 2001, in which Julian, a distinguished scholar of a similar calibre to Augustine, is presented as an heir to the late ancient philosophy and Antiochian exegesis, who was condemned not for his works, but for his protest against the anathematisation of the Pelagians, which he regarded as premature, and who went on to become a victim of the anti-Nestorian intrigue of Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus (see J. Lössl, Julian von Aeclanum). For an overview of modern research, see also M. Lamberigts, “Pelagius and Pelagians”, 267–272. 3 Contra Iul. III,17,31: NBA 18/1, 614. 4 The progress of the dispute is discussed by Augustine in Contra Iul. imp., praef.: CSEL 85/1, 3f.; see also Contra Iul. imp. IV,3: CSEL 85/2, 5; Contra Iul. imp. IV,5: CSEL 85/2, 10. 5 See A.-M. La Bonnardière, Recherches, 126.