THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO BECAUSE IT IS NEW ROME: THE AUTHORITY OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 379-553 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY BY JASON OSEQUEDA CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MARCH 2018 Table of Contents Abbreviations iii List of Patriarchs of Constantinople iv Introduction 1 1 Orthodoxy and the Construction of Authority 17 2 Chalcedon: A New Orthodoxy 72 3 Proving Holiness: Miracles and Relics 117 4 Boundaries of Authority between Emperor and Patriarch 154 5 Conclusion 210 Bibliography 223 ii Abbreviations ACO = Acta Conciliorum Oecomenicorum CA = Collectio Avellana CIus = Codex Iustinianus CT = Codex Theodosianus EH = Ecclesiastical History (various authors) PG = Patrologia Graeca PL = Patrologia Latina PLRE = Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire PO = Patrologia Orientalis iii Patriarchs of Constantinople 379-565 Gregory of Nazianzus 379-381 Nectarius 381-397 John Chrysostom 398-404 Arsacius 404-405 Atticus 406-425 Sisinnius 426-427 Nestorius 428-431 Maximian 431-434 Proclus 434-446 Flavian 446-449 Anatolius 449-458 Gennadius 458-471 Acacius 472-489 Fravitas 489-490 Euphemius 490-496 Macedonius II 496-511 Timothy 511-518 John II the Cappadocian 518-520 Epiphanius 520-535 Anthimus 535-536 Menas 536-552 Eutychius 552-565 iv Introduction However we laughed at them wanting prerogative to be provided to Acacius because he was the bishop of the imperial city. Is it not well known that the emperor resided in Ravenna, in Milan, in Sirmium, and in Trier? Have the priests in those cities usurped anything to add their dignities beyond the measure handed down to them from antiquity? 1 – Pope Gelasius, 1 February 496 Pope Gelasius’ comment highlights two problems of the patriarchate of Constantinople: it relied upon the emperor for its position and it lacked apostolic succession from which it could claim transcendent authority. This was a problem because it implied that the patriarch’s authority derived from the emperor instead of God, which compromised the perception of the patriarch’s legitimacy as a metropolitan bishop. Gelasius saw no reason for allowing the civic position of a bishop’s city to endow him with any higher authority or influence within the Church. Yet, by the time of Gelasius’ letter in 496, such a criticism was an anachronistic polemic, because by then the patriarchate had established a basis of authority independent from the emperor, without having to construct a fictive history of apostolic succession. All of the sees that would later become patriarchates could claim apostolic succession, except for Constantinople. Rome and Antioch claimed succession from Peter, Alexandria from Mark, and Jerusalem claimed succession from James. Constantinople could not claim descent from any apostle and in its early decades partly justified its position by virtue of the secular position of its see, New Rome. Yet, this was an insufficient justification in many ways, largely because it admitted that the patriarch relied upon the emperor for power. To mitigate this 1 Gelasius, Ad Dardanios, CA 95.53, p. 387. Risimus autem, quad praerogatiuam volunt Acacio conparari, quia episcopus fuerit regiae civitatis. Numquid apud Ravennam, apud Mediolanum, apud Sirmium, apud Triueros multis temporibus non constitit imperator? Numquidnam harum urbium sacerdotes ultra mensuram sibimet anitquitas deputa tam quippiam suis dignitatibus usurparunt? *Note: All translations of foreign text into English are those of the author, unless otherwise noted* 1 problem, patriarchs constructed and reinforced an authority autonomous from the emperor by connecting their office with orthodoxy. Further, they cultivated stories about their spiritual prowess, as evidenced by extant tales of miracles and the obtainment of relics. Finally, because patriarchs used imperial military and legal powers, the relationship of the patriarchate to the imperial office became obfuscated. Throughout the myriad challenges to its episcopal authority that the patriarchate faced, patriarchs nonetheless succeeded in claiming the highest ecclesiastical authority in the East and autonomy from the imperial office. Authority in this study specifically refers to episcopal authority. Pertinent to this study is the fact that the patriarch’s authority was greater than ordinary bishops by virtue of its hierarchical position that the Council of Nicaea established in 325. And although the patriarch of Constantinople seemed to operate within the framework offered at Nicaea, it had not yet come into existence. Officially, in ecclesiological terms, the patriarchate did not come into existence until the Council of Chalcedon instituted it in 451. Claudia Rapp, in her study of episcopal authority, notes that it is “a multifaceted and ever mutating construct…The main components that define episcopal authority, however, remained the same. What changed was the relative weight of these components, or in which way they were combined.”2 Here, Rapp is referring to her schema – the spiritual, ascetic, and pragmatic components of a bishop’s authority. While using some of these notions to inform the interpretation of evidence in this study, it does not adhere to them strictly. More pertinent, Rapp brings up an important point, that there were some underlying notions about the episcopacy that remained fixed in Christianity. 2 Rapp 2005, 16. 2 The first generation of Christians had already developed criteria for who could be a bishop and what their duties were. In his letters, Paul offers some guidelines for this. Among these are character qualifications, the episcopal candidate had to be “beyond reproach…hospitable, kindly,” and as part of his duties he was to encourage sound doctrine and teach the wayward their error.”3 Such qualities again appear in 1 Timothy 3:1-7; good character with the ability to teach, with the addition that a candidate should have demonstrated he could manage the affairs of his own household properly before managing that of God’s. Some decades later, The Didache offers standards for the selection of bishops using the similar criteria found in Paul’s letters.4 Here too, along with the ethical characteristics is the requirement of teaching. As these early works show, from the beginning one of a bishop’s primary roles was to teach doctrine and correct those in error. Such abilities, along with the requisite characteristics, were the qualifications for the office of bishop. Conversely, Christian communities came to expect these functions and traits in their bishops. The holder of any local bishopric then had the institutional authority to teach and correct doctrine and the Christians of the city accepted this, mostly. This last point is of crucial interest for this dissertation. In teaching doctrine and correcting those with erroneous beliefs, patriarchs were fulfilling some of their office’s oldest functions. And as bishops, they had the authority to teach doctrine. In turn, operating in a sort of feedback loop, when the teachings of the office became associated with the office itself, doctrine gave patriarchs even greater authority. Specifically, when the content of Christian belief became institutionally defined by a corporate body of these teachers (bishops) at the Council of Nicaea, 3 Titus 1:7-9. 4 The Didache 15.1-2. 3 many bishops became associated with the Nicene articulation of faith, such as Ambrose, Athanasius, and Basil of Caesarea. Of course, Constantinople, a subordinate see in 325, lacked a tradition of teaching Nicene doctrine, in addition to lacking apostolic succession. This is why, as this dissertation will show, patriarchs routinely cultivated an association with orthodoxy to bolster their office’s authority. Underpinning patriarchs’ claims to religious authority were elements inextricably mixed with the Christian community. Conversely, these same elements enabled dissenting Christians to contest patriarch’s authority. Among these elements were martyrs, persecution, orthodoxy, heresy, and miracle working. These could provide proof of a person’s holiness and capabilities to teach doctrine; that is, they could demonstrate a man’s worthiness for the patriarchate. Terms, methods, and sources This dissertation uses the word “patriarch” as a term for the holder of the episcopal office in Constantinople. While this term is technically anachronistic for the period before 451,5 because this study is diachronic in nature one term is used to refer to the holder of the office for sake of consistency and to mitigate any possible confusion for the reader. Ancient source material refers to patriarchs in various terms: bishop (ἐπίσκοπος)6; archbishop (ἀρχιεπίσκοπος)7; 5 See Dagron 1974, 456. 6 Socrates, EH, 7.21: The bishop Atticus. ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ἀττικὸς. 7 Constantine VII, De ceremoniis, 1.90: Anatolius the archbishop of Constantinople. Ἀνατόλιος ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. 4 master (δέσποτα)8; president (πρόεδρος)9; chief priest (ἀρχιερεὺς)10; and, patriarch (πατριάρχης)11. While these terms continued to describe the patriarch of Constantinople in literature throughout Late Antiquity, in the sixth century the appellation ecumenical patriarch came into use (οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης).12 Today, Ecumenical Patriarch is the official title of the man occupying the office. The scope of this study is roughly to 380 to 553 CE. For the beginning date, 380 was the year that the emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and also