Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 59(1-2), 11-48. doi: 10.2143/JECS.59.1.2023426 W© 2007EALTH by AND Journal POVERTY of Eastern IN T HEODORETChristian Studies. All rights reserved. 11
WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET OF CYRRHUS’ ON PROVIDENCE
GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS*
INTRODUCTION
The fifth-century Church Father Theodoret (ca. 393 – ca. 466), bishop of Cyrrhus in northern Syria, was an outstanding Christian scholar and a pro- found connoisseur of classical culture, his literary output being written in perfect Attic Greek. His most recognisable works and those to have gained more scholarly attention are his historical ones, Church History and Religious History. Theodoret’s work addressed various crucial issues of his time; the socio-economic inequalities could not have escaped his notice. Evidently, he never composed an entire work dedicated to a systematic approach to prob- lems concerning the grave socio-economic topics of his day, such as slavery, the unequal distribution of wealth, and the subsequent wide gap between rich and poor. Nevertheless, these problems were too ubiquitous and appar- ent to disregard, and an energetic shepherd like Theodoret was concerned about the well-being of the Christian flock. He also developed a specific view concerning fifth century socio-economic problems that arose at the level of social structures based on the presupposition of the providential di- mension of creation. In this respect, divine providence was associated with every worldly aspect, even with the division of human society into rich and poor.
* Dr. George N. Gotsis is Assistant Professor in the History of Social Sciences, University of Athens, Department of the History and Philosophy of Science. Dr. Gerasimos A. Merianos is Visiting Lecturer in Byzantine History, University of Peloponnese, Depart- ment of History, Archaeology and Management of Cultural Heritage. This paper is part of a research project on biblical and patristic economic ethics co-funded by the European Social Fund and National Resources (Pythagoras II – EPEAEK II) and supported by the Greek Ministry of Education and the European Union. This project pri- marily comprised a two-year Post-Doctoral Research Project undertaken by the Depart- ment of the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Athens, under the supervision of Professor Dr. P. Gemtos, former Rector of the University of Athens.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 11 23/10/07, 11:30 am 12 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
Under this perspective, it seems perfectly reasonable that Theodoret’s study on divine providence remains the most appropriate focal point for understanding his attitude towards poverty and wealth. Indeed, throughout the ten discourses constituting Theodoret’s On Providence (De providentia) sporadic fragments of his standpoint on the subject emerge, although the sixth discourse in particular discloses his methodical approach to poverty and riches. We will therefore focus here on this sixth discourse, and take notice of the more dispersed indications of his outlook that come into view within On Providence. Hence, we attempt to reply to certain queries con- cerning Theodoret’s stance: for instance, are his views on poverty and wealth typical of the earlier patristic tradition or are they notably differenti- ated? Is poverty a condition of providence or misery? Is it possible for pov- erty and wealth to co-exist within a Christian society or are they irreconcil- able notions? Does Theodoret defend or criticise the socio-economic struc- ture of his day? Prior to addressing these questions, we shall outline the spa- tial setting, as well as the social and intellectual context of On Providence, in order to proffer a more accurate representation of Theodoret and his milieu.
I. THE SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL SETTING
Theodoret of Cyrrhus was the last great Antiochene theologian and one of the most prominent Christian writers of his time. Author of numerous works, such as The Cure of Pagan Maladies1 (Graecarum affectionum curatio, a Christian apology abounding with classical quotations and perhaps his most important existing work), Eranistes2 ([Beggar] a mockery of the Monophysites), Religious History3 (Historia religiosa, a book consisting of the
1 Théodoret de Cyr, Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques, ed. and French transl. P. Canivet, vol. I-II, Sources chrétiennes, 57 (Paris, 1958). 2 Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes, ed. G. H. Ettlinger (Oxford, 1975). 3 Théodoret de Cyr, Histoire des moines de Syrie, ed. and French transl. P. Canivet and A. Leroy-Molinghen, vol. I-II, SC, 234 and 257 (Paris, 1977-1979). Susan Ashbrook Harvey in her Asceticism and Society in Crisis. John of Ephesus and the Lives of the Eastern Saints (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 1990), pp. 54-56, observes that Theodoret’s Historia religiosa lacks ‘a sense of unified ascetic vision that speaks to personal vows, public suffer- ing, and religious unrest’ due to the fact that the ascetic response was articulated ‘during a period of relative tranquillity’. Accordingly, Theodoret’s portrait of holy men and women was not reflective of these natural or political crises of the next century that accounted for the transformation of the inner meaning of ascetic practice in ‘a time when the needs of
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 12 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 13
biographies of approximately thirty monks), and Church History4 (Historia ecclesiastica, a celebration of the orthodox victory over Arianism, concerning the years 323-428).5 Furthermore, in more than 200 surviving epistles Theodoret examines various secular and religious issues.6 Theodoret was born into a wealthy family7 in Antioch in ca. 393.8 In a celebrated epistle addressed to Pope Leo I (440-461) he provides a hint about his well-heeled past by declaring that he divided his property upon the death of his parents.9 Furthermore, the social status of his family can be inferred from his apparent education and social associations revealed in his correspondence.10 In 423, he was ordained bishop of Cyrrhus, a city in the province of Euphratensis in Syria, against his own will according to him (ãkwn t®n t±v êpiskop±v êdezámjn xeirotonían),11 a statement which presumably is a topos. Heresies flourished in his diocese, therefore one of Theodoret’s major
the temporal world have become so pressing that the ascetic cannot afford the luxury of complete withdrawal’. See also D. Krueger, ‘Typological Figuration in Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Religious History and the Art of Post Biblical Narrative’, Journal of Early Chris- tian Studies, 5 (1997), pp. 393-419. 4 Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier, Die griechischen christlichen Schrift- steller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (= GCS), 19 (Leipzig, 1911). 5 On Theodoret’s most significant works, see B. Baldwin, ‘Theodoret of Cyrrhus’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (= ODB), ed. in chief A. P. Kazhdan, vol. 3 (New York – Oxford, 1991), p. 2049. An anthology of texts from all periods of Theodoret’s career, as well as a critical introduction to his life, legacy and importance in the history of Christian doctrine is offered in I. Pásztori-Kupán, Theodoret of Cyrus, The Early Church Fathers (London – New York, 2006). On very specific aspects of his theology, see for instance, J. A. Weaver, Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 11:26. Recovering an Early Christian Elijah Redivivus Tradition (New York, 2007), where the author discusses the nature and the de- gree of Theodoret’s appropriation of Jewish and Christian Elijah Redivivus tradition. 6 Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance, vol. I-III, ed. and French transl. Y. Azéma, vol. IV, ed. E. Schwartz, French transl. Y. Azéma, SC, 40, 98, 111 and 429 (Paris, 1955-1998). On Theodoret’s epistles, see M. M. Wagner, ‘A Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography: The Letters of Theodoret of Cyrus’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 4 (1948), pp. 119-181. 7 P. Canivet, Le monachisme syrien selon Théodoret de Cyr, Théologie Historique, 42 (Paris, 1977), pp. 37-38; T. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The Bishop and the Holy Man (Ann Arbor, MI, 2002), pp. 18, 21. 8 Baldwin, ‘Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ (see n. 5). Theresa Urbainczyk believes that the date of his birth is uncertain and even though it is often stated that he was born in 393, we have no precise evidence for this year (Urbainczyk, Theodoret [see n. 7], p. 10). 9 Théodoret, Correspondance (see n. 6), vol. III, ep. 113, p. 66.5-7. 10 Urbainczyk, Theodoret (see n. 7), p. 18. 11 Théodoret, Correspondance (see n. 6), vol. II, ep. 81, p. 196.8-9.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 13 23/10/07, 11:30 am 14 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
pastoral concerns turned out to be the abolition of false doctrines. It seems that he succeeded in this particular task, because by 449 he was able to de- clare that not a single heretic remained in his see (oûdè πn … meménjke hihánion).12 Nevertheless, his duties and responsibilities were not limited to the eradication of heresies; he was also actively engaged in the improvement of the welfare of the residents of his diocese. In his epistles he affirms that he maintained the public baths and built porticos, two bridges, and an aque- duct in Cyrrhus,13 and provided doctors for his see as well.14 Additionally, in the epistle to Pope Leo I he asserts that during the twenty-six years of his service as a bishop,15 he never obtained a residence, a plot of land, an obol, or a tomb, but embraced voluntary poverty, having divided his inheritance after his parents’ death.16 Theodoret never travelled west,17 but spent most of his life in the regions of Antioch, his native city, and Cyrrhus, his diocese, where he lived, preached and served the Church. Antioch on the Orontes (to be distinguished from the less important Antioch of Pisidia) was one of the largest cities of the empire, located be- tween the Orontes River and Mount Silpios. It was founded by Seleucus I, one of Alexander the Great’s generals, and, as a Greek foundation, its resi- dents (at least the upper classes) spoke Greek. Antioch was the principal city of Roman Syria, a cultural and commercial centre, whose port, Seleukeia Pieria, linked the trade routes from the East with the Mediterranean. Antioch was capital of the civil diocese of Oriens, provincial capital from ca. 350 of Coele-Syria, and from ca. 415 of Syria I, and seat of the magister militum for Oriens. The fact that during the fourth century it was an impe-
12 Ibid., vol. III, ep. 113, p. 62.17-28. 13 Ibid., vol. II, ep. 81, p. 196.15-19: Djmosíav stoàv êk t¬n êkkljsiastik¬n prosódwn ânéstjsa· gefúrav dúo megístav Öçkodómjsa, loutr¬n êpemelßqjn koin¬n· êk toÕ parar- réontov potamoÕ t®n pólin
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 14 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 15
rial residence (of Constantius II [337-361], Julian [361-363], Jovian [363- 364] and Valens [364-378]) contributed to the city’s expansion.18 Antioch was also a major ecclesiastical centre in the East, the seat of one of the origi- nal patriarchates, along with Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Its great importance and influence were to some extent due to its importance for Christianity, as it was here that Greeks converted in massive numbers and here too that they were first called Christians (Acts 11,26).19
18 On Antioch, see: A. J. Festugière, Antioche païenne et chrétienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 194 (Paris, 1959); G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, NJ, 1961); idem, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, NJ, 1963); J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Ox- ford, 1972); Eds. I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson, Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch. Papers from a Colloquium, London, 15th December 2001 (Oxford, 2004); M. M. Mango, ‘Antioch on the Orontes’, in ODB (see n. 5), vol. 1, pp. 113-116; A. Papadakis, ‘Antioch, Patriarchate of’, in ODB (see n. 5), vol. 1, pp. 116-117. Interestingly, A. F. Nor- man (Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius, Translated Texts for Historians, 34 [Liverpool, 2000]) offers pervasive insights into the values and views that shaped life in Antioch of Late Antiquity, as experienced and evidenced by Libanius in his speeches. Invaluable information on Antioch’s cultural development, especially with re- spect to the teaching of rhetoric, is provided in R. Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton, 2007). 19 Undoubtedly, the issue of table-fellowship generated serious conflict between Chris- tians of different origin and distinct views, but the Antioch Church was effective in seek- ing a proper solution that secured its survival over time. See for instance, M. Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E. Communion and Conflict, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series, 244 (London – Sheffield, 2003). On the subsequent divide between Christians and Jews in the process of formative Christianity, see M. Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch. A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (London – New York, 2003). See also, idem, Synagogue and Separation. A Social-Scientific Approach to the Formation of Christian- ity in Antioch (Lund, 2003). On the process of construction of distinct religious identities with respect to civic and political identities, social networks and a multiplicity of compet- ing religious allegiances, see I. Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch (Cambridge, 2007). On the process of Christianization of late Roman Antioch, see among others, J. L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity. John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge, 2006). Maxwell critically assesses the role of ordinary people in the process of transforming many aspects of life in the large urban centres of the Empire by focusing on the relationship between John Chrysostom, viewed as an influential and prolific church leader, and his specific Antiochene congregation. Cf. also, W. Mayer, ‘John Chrysostom as Bishop: The View from Antioch’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 55 (2004), pp. 455-466. Mayer dis- cusses an Antiochene perspective into the sequence of events prior to the episcopate of John Chrysostom at Constantinople.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 15 23/10/07, 11:30 am 16 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
About sixty miles northeast of Antioch was Theodoret’s diocese, Cyrrhus, a city of northern Syria in the province of Euphratensis and a suffragan of Hierapolis.20 As Urbainczyk points out, ‘…hardly anything is known about the city before Theodoret wrote about it’.21 According to Theodoret, his diocese included 800 churches,22 a rather high figure. In an epistle ad- dressed to the Prefect Constantinus, Theodoret provides some information about his region, as he notes that it was forty miles long and forty miles wide, with numerous high mountains, some entirely barren and others shaded by fruitless trees.23 Given that in this epistle and in several others Theodoret requests the reduction of taxation upon the farmers of Cyrrhus, it is evident that he attempts to lay emphasis on the infertility of a moun- tainous land. As a result, Theodoret probably exaggerates to an extent about the bareness of his region and paints a rather gloomy picture of Cyrrhus’ ter- ritory.24 Theodoret sympathised with the farmers of his diocese, as his corre- spondence shows. In several of his epistles, he addresses prominent persons and officials in an attempt to achieve a settlement of taxation that would relieve the farmers of the region of Cyrrhus. In another case, he addresses two of his epistles to Ariobindus, the consul of 434 and magister militum, who owned the village of Sergitheum (within the territory of Cyrrhus). Be- cause of a poor harvest, the tenant farmers of the village were unable to de- liver to Ariobindus the olive oil they owed him; Theodoret requested of him an abatement of their dues.25 This evidence, albeit minimal, is reflective of
20 On Cyrrhus and its surrounding area, see: A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1971), pp. 244, 252, 262-263, 268-269. For a brief overview of the city, see M. M. Mango, ‘Cyrrhus’, in ODB (see n. 5), vol. 1, p. 574. Evidence on the ruins of Cyrrhus and its surrounding area today is found in W. Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium (London, 1997), pp. 159-171. 21 Urbainczyk, Theodoret (see n. 7), p. 21. 22 Théodoret, Correspondance (see n. 6), vol. III, ep. 113, p. 62.25-26. 23 Ibid., vol. II, ep. 42, p. 110.9-12. 24 See I. G. Tompkins, ‘Problems of Dating and Pertinence in Some Letters of Theodoret of Cyrrhus’, Byzantion, 65 (1995), pp. 176-195, on p. 182, n. 27; Urbainczyk, Theodoret (see n. 7), p. 22. In the sixth century Cyrrhus revived to an extent, as Procopius of Caesarea records that Justinian I provided the city of Cyrrhus with a wall, a garrison, many public buildings and a roofed aqueduct (Procopius, Opera omnia, vol. IV: De aedificiis libri VI, II.11.2-7, ed. J. Haury and G. Wirth, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana [Leipzig, 1964], pp. 80.22-81.21). 25 For a precise and concise overview of these epistles, see Tompkins, ‘Problems of Dat-
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 16 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 17
Theodoret’s awareness of the socio-economic problems that his fellow-citi- zens faced in Antioch and his flock confronted in Cyrrhus in an era of se- vere socio-economic inequalities.
II. RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN THEODORET’S ON PROVIDENCE
Theodoret himself attests to his authorship of On Providence as in 449, in the aforesaid epistle to Pope Leo I, he provided a list of his works and among others he refers particularly to the work in question.26 Modern scholars deem that On Providence was composed subsequent to the Council of Ephesus and more precisely after 435, probably in 437.27 It is believed that Theodoret delivered the ten discourses comprising On Providence in his native city, Antioch (with the presumption that they were something more than written exercises), as their style and logical order imply a philosophi- cally minded audience, not likely to be anticipated in Cyrrhus.28 On Providence is Theodoret’s attempt (displaying his literary proficiency) at a high level popularisation of a subject scrutinised in the sixth chapter of his The Cure of Pagan Maladies,29 although there it is analysed with a more philosophically oriented approach, not infrequently resorting to quotations from numerous profane authors.30 These references reveal his broad ac- quaintance with Greek philosophy and especially his familiarity with Neoplatonism, as demonstrated in the sixth chapter of The Cure of Pagan Maladies, where he exalts the significance of Plotinus.31 As expected, On Providence abounds with biblical quotations, the backbone of Theodoret’s
ing’ (see n. 24), pp. 178-183. Cf. C. Morrisson and J.-P. Sodini, ‘The Sixth-Century Economy’, in The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. in chief A. E. Laiou, vol. 1, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 39 (Washington DC, 2002), pp. 171-220, on p. 182; N. Svoronos, H buhantinß eparxía. Pénte maqßmata (Athens, 1991), pp. 52-54. 26 Théodoret, Correspondance (see n. 6), vol. III, ep. 113, p. 64.9-16. 27 Theodoret of Cyrus, On Divine Providence, English transl. T. Halton, Ancient Chris- tian Writers, 49 (New York, NY/Mahwah, NJ, 1988), p. 3. Cf. B. Croke, ‘Dating Theodoret’s Church History and Commentary on the Psalms’, Byzantion, 54 (1984), pp. 59- 74, on p. 74. 28 Theodoret, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 3. 29 Théodoret, Thérapeutique 6 (see n. 1), vol. I, pp. 254-287. 30 Theodoret, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), pp. 3-4. 31 Théodoret, Thérapeutique 6 (see n. 1), vol. I, pp. 275.6ff.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 17 23/10/07, 11:30 am 18 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
primary sources – 130 Scriptural references are scattered throughout the ten discourses, and of these the majority are derived from the Old Testament. Yet, in striking contrast to The Cure of Pagan Maladies, where more than 100 classical authors are quoted, On Providence contains only two profane references, both apparently attributed to the second-century Greek medical writer Galen.32 Nemesius of Emesa’s On the Nature of Man (De natura hominis), which contains two chapters on divine providence,33 may have provided a useful source for On Providence, but this has been persuasively questioned by Sharples.34 As a work of both apologetics and homiletics, On Providence was in- tended for an audience which Theodoret wished to persuade first and fore- most by arguments from reason and everyday experience.35 Theodoret was seeking to proclaim God’s constant and caring governance of the world, contradicting those who believed that the existence of evil and misery is in- compatible with the beneficent providence of God. One of his objectives, among others, was to demonstrate that wealth and poverty alike are provi- dential as they are essential for the preservation of human society; he meets this goal for the most part in the sixth discourse of On Providence, under the title: ÊOti kaì ploÕtov kaì penía t¬ç bíwç xrßsimoi (‘That wealth and poverty both have their uses in life').36
III. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT: JUSTIFYING ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES
From the early Byzantine period, wealth became a criterion for social strati- fication.37 It is indicative that in legal documents the population was di- vided into two overall groups, the rich and the poor.38 The great gap be-
32 Theodoret, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 4. 33 Nemesius of Emesa, De natura hominis 42-43, ed. M. Morani, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1987), pp. 120-136. 34 R. W. Sharples, ‘Nemesius of Emesa and Some Theories of Divine Providence’, Vigiliae Christianae, 37 (1983), pp. 141-156. 35 Theodoret, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 7. 36 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, De providentia 6, PG 83, 644B. The English translation (hence- forth: ET) is taken from Theodoret, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 73. 37 A. Kazhdan and G. Constable, People and Power in Byzantium. An Introduction to Mod- ern Byzantine Studies (Washington DC, 1982), p. 159. 38 E. Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, 4e-7e siècles (Paris – Le Hague, 1977), pp. 25-35.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 18 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 19
tween rich and poor created a crucial social problem that could hardly be ignored, not infrequently attracting the interest of the Christian Fathers like Theodoret. What was at stake was primarily the need for justification of the existing institutional structures; otherwise these could turn into a source of social unrest and various upheavals.39 For the elites, the different levels and degrees of both wealth and power were constitutive of the societal order and could be invested with positive moral significance as deriving from higher order norms and principles obliging high status people. For the non-elites on the contrary, different levels of wealth and social influence could be re- duced to inequalities of moral probity, and the wealthier members were of- ten viewed as prone to moral corruption and degeneration. The rich were predominantly large landowners, with perhaps the exception of the mer- chants of Alexandria. The social ideal was the gentleman-farmer, who em- ployed others to look after and supervise his possessions.40 The poor, of course, surpassed the rich in numbers, but they did not form a single group. Greek and Latin made a distinction between two sub- groups of the poor: (a) the ptwxoí or indigentes, and (b) the pénjtev or pauperes.41 The first were the truly poverty-stricken, depending for their liv-
39 The theological controversies of this era were partly reflected in the need to establish an ideal of the social order, but they could by no means be reduced to a delineation of distinct or divergent social visions. As Brown emphatically observes: ‘Each side, in its dif- ferent ways, appealed to much the same basic image of a good and of an “ugly” society. But each was convinced that the views of its opponents ran counter to that vision. … For either side, it was the same model of solidarity that appeared to be placed at risk by the views of their opponents’ (P. Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire [Hanover – London, 2002], p. 108). The need of establishing social order was, among others, dictated by the fact that the Roman world witnessed numerous incidents of civic and social disorder: civic unrest was a widespread phenomenon, not infrequently reduc- ible to certain socio-economic factors, such as grain shortages. Urban uprisings primarily reflected a deterioration of living conditions, an ultimate lack of regular employment, or the abject poverty of the economically worse-off. A discussion of the larger social context of urban uprisings in the Roman world is provided in M. V. Hubbard, ‘Urban Uprisings in the Roman World: The Social Setting of the Mobbing of Sosthenes’, New Testament Studies, 51 (2005), pp. 416-428. 40 See A. D. Karayiannis and S. Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘The Greek Christian Fathers’, in Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice, eds. S. Todd Lowry and B. Gordon (Leiden – New York – Köln, 1998), pp. 163-208, on p. 166. 41 W. Scheidel, ‘Stratification, Deprivation and Quality of Life’, in Poverty in the Roman World, eds. M. Atkins and R. Osborne (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 40-59, places an emphasis on a possible distinction between different ‘poverties’: he focuses in particular on a con-
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 19 23/10/07, 11:30 am 20 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
ing on day-labour or begging.42 The latter practised various professions (they were artisans, farmers and small shop keepers), and since they owned some property and the tools of their trade they could expect a reliable in- come from the labour of their own hands.43 These small landowners, mer- chants, craftsmen and the like engaged in economic activities requiring manual labour. The respectable poor, peasant farmers, small traders and arti- sans had to engage in hard work for a living and consequently could not assume the responsibilities or undertake the duties of prominent citizens. The work performed by these groups was very different from that of the lo- cal elites, who were allowed leisure and other activities that precluded any remuneration at all, given that in the Hellenistic-Roman world professions that strived for wages failed to meet the occupational ranking criteria of an economic engagement that yielded honourable income.44 In addition, the mobility of labour was restricted in the sense that agricultural workers, craftsmen, and workers in the state manufacturing industries were prohib- ited from finding alternative employment – and so were their children.45
cept of relative poverty of a nation or a territory largely depending upon ‘…particular configurations of social, political, economic and ecological conditions that could be highly specific in terms of time and place’ (ibid., p. 59). 42 See J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh, 1998), pp. 56-58. Many of them had been deprived of their ability to pursue legitimate occupations because of the sharp inequities of the ancient social and economic system. 43 Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), p. 166. It was this kind of conjunctural or episodic poverty that threatened not the destitute or the needy but primarily the rural poor through indebtedness. Accordingly, impoverishment was perceived as an inability to repay existing (monetary) debts or taxes. See, R. Pinn, ‘Portraying the Poor: Descriptions of Poverty in Christian Texts from the Late Roman Empire’, in Poverty in the Roman World, eds. Atkins and Osborne (see n. 41), pp. 130- 144. Drawing on Theodoret’s Historia religiosa, the author provides textual evidence in support of the view that Christian almsgiving was in a position to reshape social relations among the rural poor (ibid., p. 142). 44 This was due to a sense of coercion and moral obligation inherent to any type of remu- nerative work since in antiquity those engaged in manual work were not perceived to act as free agents; the payment of wages made them no longer dependent upon themselves, as they entered into binding relations of personal subordination to someone else. See, on this subject, G. Vivenza, ‘Roman Thought on Economics and Justice’, in Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas, eds. Lowry and Gordon (see n. 40), pp. 269-331, on pp. 296- 297. 45 B. Gordon, The Economic Problem in Biblical and Patristic Thought, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 9 (Leiden – New York – Copenhagen – Köln, 1989), p. 96; Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), pp. 166-167.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 20 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 21
Evidently, the discrepancy between the rich and the poor was prevalent dur- ing the fourth and fifth centuries. Early Christianity was unique in effecting a substantial shift in the ethical paradigm that conceptualised attitudes and moral behaviours towards the poor and destitute members of society. Romans did not conceive of the poor as the object of a primary moral obligation, substantiated in specific forms of charitable giving to the destitute and the weak, beyond civic ben- efaction and patronage.46 Undoubtedly, the wealthy were expected to en- gage in public works fostering the common good, providing employment to daily labourers in large scale benefactions; not infrequently public authori- ties were striving to meet the needs of local populations in the case of ex- treme emergencies. In fact, there is no substantial evidence in support of the claim that Graeco-Roman beneficence convincingly extended beyond indi- vidual responses to immediate need or local authorities’ actions to prevent economic crisis that threatened social cohesion,47 i.e. by implementing pro-
On late Roman economy in general, see R. P. Duncan-Jones, ‘Economic Change and the Transition to Late Antiquity’, in Approaching Late Antiquity. The Transformation from Early to Late Empire, eds. S. Swain and M. Edwards (Oxford, 2004), pp. 20-52; M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce, AD 300- 900 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 28-41. 46 Christian charity was effectively based on an appropriate distinction of the poor as a specific group, upon whom new charitable practices were centred. See P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, NJ, 1992), pp. 71- 117. In his The Rise of Western Christendom. Triumph and Diversity, AD 200-1000 (Ox- ford, 1996), pp. 30-32, Peter Brown has convincingly argued that almsgiving accounted for a new process of circulation and mobilisation of wealth, thus ensuring that excess in- come flowed into the Church to be distributed to the destitute and needy of Roman soci- ety. Most importantly, this very concern about relief of the needy was rather unprec- edented in other entities, religious or political: it was sanctioned by the evangelical pre- cepts and culminated in the ideal of communal support and mutual aid. On a thorough and authoritative discussion of the Roman conception of the poor and of the appropriate means adopted in this context to alleviate poverty, see A. Parkin, ‘“You Do Him No Serv- ice”: An Exploration of Pagan Almsgiving’, in Poverty in the Roman World, eds. Atkins and Osborne (see n. 41), pp. 60-82. Other contributions in the same volume address a wide range of complex questions and seek to determine the changes in prevailing views and social perceptions of poverty, given that the rise of Christianity, as well as changing politi- cal situations, affected the specific ways the poor were treated in the Roman world. 47 Demetrios Constantelos, for instance, emphasizes that ‘…philanthropia in Greek an- tiquity depended mostly upon the policies of those in charge of the government. When their treasuries were exhausted, all forms of public assistance generally collapsed. As a rule no underlying and widespread spirit of philanthropia prevailed. What was current could
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 21 23/10/07, 11:30 am 22 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
visory policy measures to address specific cases.48 In this respect, the lack of a social or ethical imperative urging the wealthy to achieve an economic sur- plus for redistribution to the needy and destitute might have eventually ac- counted for the fact that no organised welfare provision in favour of these groups existed in Roman society. Graeco-Roman benefaction was not el- evated to a morally binding principle that justified a particular attempt to alleviate the needs of the poor, sometimes under the extreme form of re-al- location of surpluses through various means: generous individual charity, liquidation of property and riches, and even the abandonment of all mate- rial possessions, means that are substantiated in certain Christian responses to these problems. We shall briefly discuss the intellectual origins of such responses in the next subsection.
not be compared to what we encounter in the Graeco-Christian civilization of the Byzan- tine world – well-organized philanthropy, spontaneous expression of selfless love and compassion, church- or privately- or state-organized institutions. … While philanthropia in the ancient Greek world was mostly anthropocentric, in Christianity it became emi- nently theocentric. The principle of philanthropy was the love of God rather than the love of man’ (D. J. Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare [New Brunswick, NJ, 1968], p. 11). 48 See, for instance, P. Garnsey and C. Humfress, The Evolution of the Late Antique World (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 110-123. Indeed, patronage and good works were frequently practised by local officials and certain prominent citizens. See, for example, A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Ithaca, NY – London, 1968). See also, Brown, Poverty (see n. 39), pp. 3-6, 10-11. From another point of view, C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 37 (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 2005), draws an analogy between the public behaviour of bishops and the prevailing practices of the Graeco-Roman civic elites in a wide range of patronage activities (e.g. distribution of food, construction of buildings, provision of care to the needy), the difference between them being less quantitative than qualitative. More specifically, the rationale behind the public activities of bishops lies in their proper motivation as not originating in a desire for exhibition of their status and spiritual authority. In this respect, Christian motivation ap- pears entirely distinct from the underlying potential justifying public involvement of the wider civic aristocracy. On the one hand, the nature of spiritual leadership in the Church underwent a substantial transformation in the increasingly Christian world of late antiq- uity, reflecting a shift of emphasis upon the role of Christians as model citizens. On the other hand, the ethical paradigm of the monastic bishop gradually rose to dominance, partly as a reaction to the perennial threats of wealth and power accorded to and enjoyed by a privileged religion (see for instance, A. Stark, Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church. The Monk Bishop in Late Antiquity [Cambridge, Mass., 2004]).
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 22 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 23
IV. THE INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT: MITIGATING ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES
By the end of the third century, Christian Churches were effective in creat- ing social networks of welfare provision, serving as a basis for the develop- ment and proliferation of religious administrative structures that secured care for the needy and destitute.49 In administering these welfare funds, the Church was offering a wide range of opportunities from which the poor would benefit, and regular voluntary donations became the legitimate pur- suit of wealthy believers.50 Was there, however, any limit to the practice of conspicuous charitable giving by Christians? From the early third century in the urban environment of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria in his Who is the Rich Man That Shall be Saved? (Quis dives salvetur?) had elaborated a theological context for justification of such practices.51 Clement was con- cerned to identify the renunciation demanded by the evangelical precepts as that of human passions, not necessarily as one of material possessions and
49 See the detailed discussion in Brown, Poverty (see n. 39), pp. 76-79. Brown has every reason to assume that ‘…the novel availability of wealth to spend on the poor was less important than was the downward extension of the networks of patronage and protection associated with the bishop’s “care of the poor”’ (ibid., p. 78). This care, diffused to all those vulnerable to impoverishment, was decisive in the process of consolidation of bish- ops’ leadership at the local level. Ultimately, private patronage was integrated in, or ab- sorbed by, this more centralised system of organisation of charity. In Brown’s words: ‘“Care of the poor”, therefore, concretized the central tenet of an austerely transcendent monotheism – the dependence of all creatures on the generosity of an all powerful giver’ (ibid., p. 87). 50 Ibid., pp. 46-51. Brown draws on recent archaeological evidence that challenges the conventional image of the later Roman social structure as oversimplified: in this respect, the existing divide and the concomitant polarity between rich and poor that takes for granted the massive increase in impoverishment of the many, does not entirely correspond to the actual late Roman social relations. This picture appears to overlook those situated in the middle of Roman society, between the very rich and the very poor, as this class was far more differentiated than it was assumed before. Brown argues: ‘In a world where so many persons thought themselves to be “social paupers”, Christian talk “of care of the poor” and the all-embracing ideology that went with it, could come to mean far more than mere charity to the destitute’ (ibid., p. 49) (italics ours). In such an environment, the Christian church offered a ‘safety net’ of protection primarily designed for the inhabitants of the cities. In the case of the countryside however, where real poverty drastically ac- crued, the structures of Christian relief services were partly ineffective in adjusting to the regional transformations, due to the lack of adequate resources to alleviate local poverty. 51 For further discussion, see, among others, E. Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (Cam- bridge, 2005), pp. 251-253.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 23 23/10/07, 11:30 am 24 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
property. Wealth is legitimate, Clement contended, if acquired prior to one’s conversion through the practice of thrift, of a proper stewardship of eco- nomic resources, through the administration of one’s property.52 Clement was not demanding complete material poverty but was advocating posses- sion of a moderate level of material goods, thus reserving his criticism of the extravagant excesses of vast wealth.53 This moderate prosperity envisioned by Clement was akin to a conception of the wealthy as legitimate members of the Christian community. Both groups, rich and poor, Clement argued, would potentially benefit from the practice of almsgiving: charitable giving was a compensation for sin, a remedy for greed and avarice of the affluent, and the recipient was in a position to reciprocate the gift, either in the form of spiritual advice or by praying for the donor. In Clement’s considerations, the moral polarity between rich and poor appears slightly moderated: poverty is not a virtue by itself, since sin does not necessarily originate with riches. Similar views permeate, albeit not to the same extent, the early Christian literature.54 Among the Apostolic Fa-
52 Underlying this proper use of wealth is Clement’s conception of riches as a mere in- strument that can foster and serve either justice or injustice, the outcome depending on human freedom of will, on man’s free choice of the mode of administering his possessions (Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur? 14.1, ed. O. Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. III, GCS, 17 [Leipzig, 1909], p. 168.23-27). 53 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.3.39.1-4, ed. O. Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. I, GCS, 12 (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 180.21-181.13. For Clement, human attachment to superfluous riches is inimical to a proper attitude toward Christian wealth (Quis dives salvetur? 25.1-8 [see n. 52], pp. 175.28-176.26). 54 Clement of Alexandria, as discussed above, was admonishing the economically well-off of his congregations not to be ignorant of their responsibilities towards those in need. These exhortations represented a call to effectively perform the evangelical precept of de- tachment from worldly possessions. This is also the case in the Shepherd of Hermas, in which neglect of personal responsibility to the poor was vehemently condemned as typical of the wealthy individualist (Shepherd of Hermas, Mandata 2.4, Similitudines 9.26.2, ed. and English transl. B. D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, II, Loeb Classical Library [= LCL], 25 [Cambridge, Mass./London, 2003], pp. 238 and 448 respectively). In both cases, the ideal that emerges from these works was substantiated in a pattern of complementarity of the respective roles of both groups. At the level of local churches, the construction of this ideal was rooted in the Pauline collection for the saints at Jerusalem (1 Cor 16,1-4; 2 Cor 8-9; Rom 15,25-28; Gal 2,10) as typical of an act of equity, or bal- anced reciprocity, between the churches. More traditional views on help towards the needy, were akin to the Jewish-Christian paraenetic literature (cf. Jas 1,27; Didache 4.8; Ignatius, To the Smyrneans 6.2).
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 24 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 25
thers, the Epistle of Barnabas urges believers not to be avaricious,55 not to seek for more possessions; the exhortation to share all things, both perish- able and imperishable, with one’s brethren pertains to the truly salvific pur- suits of Christians.56 The letters of Clement are also aligned with such views in advancing the concept of mutual humility and submissiveness: the wealthy should provide what is needed to the poor and the poor should re- ciprocate this offer by praising God, Who gave them someone to supply their needs.57 If this is not the case, individual enrichment generates social injustice and economic surplus is achieved only at the cost of detriment to the faithful.58 Likewise Polycarp, in his Letter to to the Philippians, con- stantly admonishes Christians to refrain from the ‘love of money’, and con- siders avaricious behaviour as tantamount to idolatry and ignorance of God.59 Evidently, the commonly held view of those who perpetrate injustice is reminiscent of literary conventions in which profit-seeking and the pur- suit of wealth necessitate oppression of the afflicted and a lawless condem- nation of the impoverished.60 On the contrary, only those who are willing to use their own abundance to support the needy or provide for the destitute from the possessions they have received from God are true imitators of God’s kindness:61 ‘For hapiness is not a matter of oppressing your neigh- bors, or wishing to have more than those who are lowly, or being wealthy and coercing those who are in need’.62 These sources are, among others, typical of early Christian attitudes to- ward wealth and possessions and exemplify complex interactions between the prosperous and the needy. But it is in the Shepherd of Hermas where the reciprocal relations between the affluent and the indigent are most concep- tualised. In this context, wealth poses a problem to the existing societal or-
55 Epistle of Barnabas 19.6, 20.1, ed. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, II (see n. 54), pp. 76 and 80 respectively. 56 Ibid. 19.8, p. 78. 57 1 Clem. 38.2, ed. and English transl. B. D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, I, LCL, 24 (Cambridge, Mass./London, 2003), p. 102. 58 2 Clem. 20.1, ed. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, I (see n. 57), p. 198. 59 Polycarp, To the Philippians 11.1-2, ed. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, I (see n. 57), p. 346. 60 Didache 5.2, ed. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, I (see n. 57), p. 426. 61 Epistle to Diognetus 10.6, ed. Ehrman, Apostolic Fathers, II (see n. 54), p. 152. 62 Ibid. 10.5, pp. 152-153: oû gàr tò katadunasteúein t¬n pljsíon oûdè tò pléon ∂xein boúlesqai t¬n âsqenestérwn oûdè tò ploute⁄n kaì biáhesqai toùv üpodeestérouv eûdai- mone⁄n êstín,…
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 25 23/10/07, 11:30 am 26 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
der only in the case of a believer entirely succumbing to the temptations of greed, covetousness or parsimony.63 Avaricious behaviour is typical of those engaging in business affairs64 or enjoying abundance of goods and extrava- gant wealth,65 but the text never ceases to imply defrauding and exploitation of others as forms of negative reciprocity, of an antisocial extreme that vio- lates the precepts of self-sufficiency, of a virtuous autarkeia. However, there are no specific ordinances that impose an overall redistribution of wealth beyond the ethical injunction of charity. The rich are urged to share their excess income and surplus with the needy and to support the poor, allowing that both groups are inextricable parts of an orderly society, thus contribut- ing to its proper functioning.66 Almsgiving does not denote a mechanism that enhances social equity, but primarily a practice of redemptive value for the donor.67 These views exemplified in both the Shepherd of Hermas and Clement of Alexandria’s Who is the Rich Man That Shall be Saved? may provide a context for a deeper understanding of Theodoret’s On Providence, but they do not recapitulate the wide range of solutions to the problems of poverty and wealth. Other approaches to these issues were substantiated in ascetic trends68 that evoked the anchoritic ideal of retaining no individual property
63 See, for instance, Sim. 9.30.5 (see n. 54), p. 458. 64 Ibid. 9.20.1-2, p. 438. 65 Mand. 8.3 (see n. 54), p. 268; 8.5, p. 270. 66 For further discussion and for a comprehensive overview of these issues, see C. Osiek, Rich and Poor in the Shepherd of Hermas. An Exegetical Social Investigation (Washington DC, 1983). In her commentary on the Shepherd of Hermas (The Shepherd of Hermas. A Commentary, Hermeneia [Minneapolis, MN, 1999], p. 164), Osiek argues convincingly that Hermas elaborates a model of the right use of wealth that is irreducible to a simple necessity of social cooperation between rich and poor. The wealthy represent a substantial group in the community, and their contribution to the common good goes far beyond the need for social responsibility, as it is raised to the level of ministry or service (diakonia) in favour of the poor. Wealth is morally justified by this specific mission of the rich, which abolishes the stereotypical antagonism between the two groups and secures the complementarity of social roles. Hermas, Osiek argues, effectively combines two biblical traditions, that of a preferential treatment of the poor against the wicked wealthy and that of a primary obligation of the rich to share excess wealth with the needy and indigent. 67 See R. Newhauser, The Early History of Greed. The Sin of Avarice in Early Medieval Thought and Literature (Cambridge, 2000), p. 16. 68 Monastic communities, under various forms, flourished in the late fourth century and were disseminated in the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, tending to reinforce the ascetic worldview of a complete renunciation of riches, social status and family ties, a withdrawal
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 26 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 27
and possessions, placing an emphasis on the danger of riches and wealth,69 and favouring an complete detachment from all superfluities of life. There was no doubt, however, that proper grounds for a more balanced position still existed, exemplified in the contributions of the Cappadocian Fathers.70 In his demarcation of the licit use of wealth, Basil the Great did not con- sider abandonment of property and riches as a prerequisite for inheriting the heavenly kingdom.71 The illicit use of wealth is implied in one’s lack of care for the needs of others and is occasioned by the avaricious desire for excess wealth, associated with profit-seeking activities that substantially reduce the welfare of others.72 In doing so, Basil formulates very precisely the premises of the ethical paradigm of Christian charity incorporated into his ascetic vi- sion of a good governance of one’s riches. Gregory of Nyssa also focuses on almsgiving as a means that counteracts worldliness73 and indicates that the wealth of one household may suffice to provide relief to many of the needy
from the world viewed as a specific kind of bearing witness to Christ. For a short overview of these developments, and their consequences for the elaboration of an ideal favouring rejection of property and wealth, see Newhauser, History of Greed (see n. 67), pp. 47-69. 69 In the late western Roman world in particular, this eschatological perspective was el- evated to a universally binding principle of inexorable criticism of the perversity and the iniquity of the urban ruling classes. These injustices perpetrated by the wealthy and the concomitant exploitation of the poor are perfectly exemplified, for instance, in Salvian’s view of late Roman society as one indulging in corruption and facing perdition. The ex- cesses of the patronage system are no more condemned than the frivolity of the poor, as the latter seem to be no less incriminated than the rich. Interestingly, the renunciation of wealth and riches originates not in the practices of a marginalised social group but in a specific approach to history that justifies the working of a supposedly benevolent divine providence, which accounts for the afflictions to which both groups, rich and poor, are exposed in an era of barbarian intrusions. See the thorough analysis of R. A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 168-171. 70 R. Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia (Philadelphia, 2003), has made a very interesting attempt to illumine the personal relationships of the Cappadocian Church Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus), provid- ing notable prosopographical information. 71 One should distinguish, however, between ‘superfluity’ and self-sufficiency, the former being a stumbling block to the road to salvation (Basil the Great, Homilia in divites 2, PG 31, 284A-B). On the necessity of alms, see for instance idem, Hom. in div. 1, PG 31, 281A-C. 72 Basil the Great, Homilia in illud Lucae 7, PG 31, 276B-277A. Cf. also, idem, Hom. in div. 9, PG 31, 304A; Hom. in illud Lucae 4, PG 31, 268C-269C. 73 Gregory of Nyssa, De beatitudinibus 5, PG 44, 1252A; De pauperibus amandis 1, PG 46, 457C, 461B-D.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 27 23/10/07, 11:30 am 28 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
and destitute.74 Gregory of Nazianzus is concerned with the beneficial con- sequences of charitable acts while he denounces the excesses of the wealthy, who are called not to relinquish all their material possessions but primarily to orient their interests towards aiding the poor and sharing with the needy.75 Almsgiving is elevated to an effective means for diminishing or doing away with social injustice in John Chrysostom’s view.76 In addressing the problem of socio-economic inequalities in fourth-century eastern Roman society, John Chrysostom reiterates the issue of almsgiving as a salvific occa- sion for the rich. In a society comprising both groups, the affluent and the indigent, each one of them claims a legitimate function in maintaining sta- bility and order. Wealth is perceived as a neutral entity whose moral signifi- cance primarily depends on its proper use.77 The acquisitive drive is not only typical of the wealthy, and Chrysostom ultimately concedes the very possession of property and riches if they provide opportunities for generous alms.78 The retention of wealth does not constitute a form of anti-social be- haviour if it is associated with correct motivation, centred on the attempt to alleviate the needs of others.79 These arguments progressively prevailed in
74 Almsgiving should be proportionate to one’s income or possessions. See De pauperibus amandis 1, PG 46, 460B. 75 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 14: De pauperum amore 38, PG 35, 908C; Oratio 40: In sanctum baptisma 31, PG 36, 404A. 76 See Newhauser, History of Greed (see n. 67), p. 38. 77 Ibid., p. 162, n. 55. 78 John Chrysostom, In Ioannem homilia 77.5, PG 59, 420. On the persistence of greed among those striving for possessions, see idem, In epistolam I ad Timotheum homilia 7.3, PG 62, 538. Newhauser, History of Greed (see n. 67), p. 39, underlines the convergence of views between Chrysostom and Hermas on this issue. On Chrysostom’s attitude towards wealth and economic prosperity, see A. M. Hartney, John Chrysostom and the Transforma- tion of the City (London, 2004), pp. 133-181. 79 In her comprehensive discussion of these matters, Margaret Mitchell argues that Chrysostom perceives almsgiving ‘…as an ethical act of redistribution of wealth mandated by the gospel’, even ‘…as the only necessary ingredient of a just society’ (M. Mitchell, ‘Silver Chamber Pots and Other Goods Which Are Not Good: John Chrysostom’s Dis- course against Wealth and Possessions’, in Having. Property and Possession in Religious and Social Life, eds. W. Schweiker and C. Mathewes [Grand Rapids, MI, 2004], pp. 88-121, on p. 113). Almsgiving in Chrysostom is not only an effective means to alleviate poverty, but, even more, it is elevated to a principle of achieving a just social order because of its efficacy in resolving social inequities. The practice of giving alms, however, requires a proper disposition on behalf of the wealthy as the latter are either distracted by the pur-
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 28 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 29
early Christian justification of a level of moderate wealth; furthermore, they will be adopted as a part of typical attempts to accommodate the Church to more secular pursuits. Theodoret partly draws on a pool of arguments of this type, as we shall demonstrate in the following section.
V. T HEODORET’S VIEWS ON POVERTY AND WEALTH
1. The Theological Premises Theodoret shared the Greek Christian Fathers’ belief80 that providence is the divine act by which God sustains everything in existence, guiding the uni- verse in His wisdom to its supreme end. This was a long-standing idea even before the emergence of Christianity. The doctrine of divine providence de- rives primarily from Greek81 and Semitic beliefs.82 The Greeks employed the
suit of wealth or, being engaged in conspicuous consumption, they are governed by sinful and foolish desires. 80 By the term ‘Greek Fathers’ we define those who wrote in Greek and flourished in the eastern part of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. 81 The Greek word pronoia was primarily employed in the sense of one’s ability to pro- ceed to practical judgements, appropriate to time and circumstances. It was later applied to God’s governance of the natural world as reflective of a divine design, by Herodotus (Historia III.108.2) and Xenophon (Memorabilia I.4.5-6). Providence in Plato denotes cosmic justice that is not conducive to a predetermination of free will but is retributive of human deeds (Laws X.901d-904a). It was in Stoicism, however, that providence was iden- tified with all-pervasive fate that governs both the cosmos and human deeds (Cicero, De natura deorum II). Cicero advances the Stoic conviction that the world was designed and governed by divine providence (De natura deorum III.92), by the very will of the gods (De natura deorum II.80). The term sometimes acquired political relevance: according to Simon Swain, Plutarch believed that ‘…the rise of Rome and her continuing success were due to a guiding providence’ (S. Swain, ‘Plutarch: Chance, Providence, and History’, The American Journal of Philology, 110/2 [1989], pp. 272-302, on p. 272). On providence in Stoicism, see M. Dragona-Monachou, The Stoic Arguments for the Existence and the Provi- dence of the Gods, PhD diss. University of London, S. Saripolos Library, 32 (Athens, 1976); eadem, ‘Providence and Fate in Stoicism and Prae-Neoplatonism. Calcidius as an Authority on Cleanthes’ Theodicy (SVF 2, 933)’, Filosofía, 3 (1973), pp. 262-306. See also, A. P. Bos, Providentia Divina. The Theme of Divine Pronoia in Plato and Aristotle (Assen, 1976). 82 For the notion of providence in Judaism, see H.-F. Weiss, Untersuchungen zur Kosmo- logie des hellenistischen und palästinischen Judentums, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 97 (Berlin, 1966). Admittedly, the influence of Philo of Alexandria on patristic appropriation of this concept was decisive. Clement of
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 29 23/10/07, 11:30 am 30 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
term pronoia (prónoia) to denote providence, whereas the Hebrews had no single word for this concept.83 Nevertheless, the notion of providence is of- ten reflected in the Old Testament,84 and constitutes one of the most fre- quent subjects in the New Testament.85 Divine providence in all cultures presupposes the existence of a provident Deity, God (or gods), who above all is active. In the biblical tradition, this concept implies the existence of a Creator who maintains the creation eter- nally, from the orbits of the planets to the composition of the human body; from the succession of day and night to the stratification of human societies. However, everyday life in Antioch, Theodoret’s native city, as well as in the other major cities of the empire, provided a well of arguments in support of a wider scepticism concerning the existence of providence. Slavery, scarcity, the huge discrepancy between rich and poor, the excessive wealth and pro- voking wickedness of some of the prosperous and the grinding poverty of the greater part of the populace made the Christians sceptical about divine providence. These extremes led one to wonder ‘…how God could be provi- dent and yet allow such anomalies to continue’.86 Unquestionably, the problem was not new: John Chrysostom, among others, wrote about the subject.87 Theodoret was so much aware of these is- sues as to write a treatise on divine providence himself, his aim being in some cases to repel and in others to persuade those who denied the existence of divine providence. According to Theodoret, nobody should object to the notion of providence, especially if one recognises a Creator, since every vis- ible object, phenomenon, and part of creation embodies design, beauty, har- mony, and utility.88 In the same context, Theodoret considers the Incarna-
Alexandria for instance (Paedagogus 1.8) draws on Philo’s elaboration of providence. Cf. P. Frick, Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria (Tübingen, 1999). 83 Theodoret, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 5. 84 Job 38,37; Isa 66,18; Wisd 14,3; 17,2. 85 Matt 6,25-33; 7,7-11; 10,28-31; Luke 11,9-13; Acts 17,24-28; 1 Cor 12,6. Cf. 1 Clem 20. For a detailed discussion, see P. Helm, The Providence of God (Leicester – Downers Grove, 1994). Cf. the interpretation advanced by J. Sanders, The God Who Risks. A Theol- ogy of Providence (Downers Grove, 1998). 86 Theodoret, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 6. 87 Jean Chrysostome, Sur la providence de Dieu, ed. and French transl. A.-M. Malingrey, SC, 79 (Paris, 1961). 88 Theodoret, De providentia 1, PG 83, 561B-C.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 30 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 31
tion of Christ to be ‘the summit of God’s providence toward men’,89 an un- doubtedly widespread idea.90 Apparently, Theodoret was familiar with the criticism of some Pagans and the constant complaints of the Christian flock which inevitably led to the denial of divine providence. Therefore, he inaugurates the sixth discourse of his treatise with the following words: ‘To the wicked I have often quoted the words of the prophet: Do not act wickedly, and to sinners: Lift not up the horn. Lift not up your horn on high, speak not iniquity against God91 by saying that God has created the world but has left it to look after itself.’92 A few lines further, he continues: ‘Now such people, while enjoying these mani- fold blessings, rebel and rave, calling all this care a want of care, throwing aside riches and poverty and complaining about the inequalities of life.’93
2. The Economic Implications: The Rhetoric on Economic Inequalities It would not be difficult to assume from Theodoret’s polemical overtones that the inequality of wealth turned into a major argument against divine providence. Indeed, as the problem of scarcity haunted ever larger sections of the populace day by day, it was provoking to see the more fortunate living in luxury. Greek Christian Fathers were always very sensitive to the unequal dis- tribution of wealth,94 and not infrequently they addressed social issues in terms of moral directives, thus attempting to delineate a range of potential solutions to the economic problem that derived primarily from their sense of social responsibilities. From the fourth century, these solutions to the prob- lem of scarcity were based on charity (the preferred solution of the Cappadocian Fathers) and agapé-driven communism (John Chrysostom’s
89 Theodoret, De providentia 10, PG 83, 745C (cf. Eph. 1:10). ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 139. See also the French translation of the text, which includes a very en- lightening introduction: Théodoret de Cyr, Discours sur la providence, transl. Y. Azéma (Paris, 1954). 90 See Rom 5,8; 8,32. 91 Ps. 75(74),5-6. 92 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 644B. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 73. 93 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 644C-D. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), pp. 73-74. On this common objection to divine providence, see also Titus of Bostra, Adversus Manichaeos 2.8, PG 18, 1148A-C; John Chrysostom, Sermones de Anna 5.3-4, PG 54, 672-674. 94 See Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), p. 164.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 31 23/10/07, 11:30 am 32 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
favourite solution).95 It is noteworthy that after the adoption of Christianity by Constantine the Great (324-337), the Church became a major factor in the life of the empire, especially in the East.96 The identification of Christi- anity with the empire97 and the Church’s increasing intervention in public affairs engendered responsibilities, especially towards the deprived.98 The Christian flock was no longer a minority within the empire; it constituted the empire,99 and socio-economic problems became the particular problems of a Christian society. Church Fathers knew that poverty was a heavy burden for someone to carry, but they did not consider it to be an anomaly, something unnatural and incompatible with divine providence. On the contrary, inequality of wealth could be considered as providential. The condition of necessary pov- erty that stemmed from such inequality was primarily a means for the salva- tion of the rich. The prosperous should engage in charitable acts toward the deprived, as discussed earlier, and thus obtain an opportunity to save their souls. On the other hand, necessitous poverty was beneficial even to the poor because their penury forced them to work. Accordingly, they entered into a compulsory state, a form of coercion, which secured them from the evils of idleness.100 John Chrysostom agreed with this view:
Eî gàr metà t±v prosjkoúsjv gnÉmjv, kaì peponjménjv dianoíav kaì taÕta êzetáhein ≠qelev, eî kaì mjdèn ∏teron ¥n tò sunist¬n t®n toÕ QeoÕ
95 Gordon, Economic Problem (see n. 45), pp. 101-111. See also, Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), pp. 186-190. 96 See Gordon, Economic Problem (see n. 45), pp. 90-91. 97 On this subject, the view of Eusebius of Caesarea is very interesting, although not typi- cal of the Fathers. According to Cranz, for Eusebius, ‘…Roman empire and Christian ecclesia are not only essentially connected; they move towards identity’ (F. Edward Cranz, ‘De Civitate Dei, XV, 2, and Augustine’s Idea of the Christian Society’, Speculum 25 [1950], pp. 215-225, on p. 220). Furthermore, Eusebius seemed to believe that ‘Constan- tine partook of the divine logos and communicated it to the Empire, in a process which parallels Christ’s rule over the universe’ (C. Rapp, ‘Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on Constantine as “Bishop”’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS, 49 [1998], pp. 685-695, on p. 693). 98 Gordon, Economic Problem (see n. 45), pp. 91-92; A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, vol. II (Oxford, 1964), pp. 934, 971-972. 99 Cf. Jones, Later Roman Empire (see n. 98), vol. II, p. 979. 100 Gordon, Economic Problem (see n. 45), p. 110.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 32 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 33
prónoian, ö ploÕtov kaì ™ penía taútjn ån málista saf¬v âpédeizen. ÂA n gàr ânéljÇv t®n penían, toÕ bíou t®n sústasin âne⁄lev †pasan, kaì diéfqeirav ™m¬n t®n hwßn· kaì o∆te naútjv, o∆te kubernßtjv, oû gewrgóv, oûk oîkodómov, oûx üfántjv, oûx üpodjmatoÄÅáfov, … oûk ãllov tiv t¬n djmiourg¬n ∂stai toútwn· toútwn dè oûk ∫ntwn, pánta ™m⁄n oîxßsetai. NÕn mèn gár, kaqáper didáskalóv tiv ârístj, ëkástwç toútwn êpikaqjménj ™ t±v peníav ânágkj, pròv tà ∂rga kaì ãkontav sunwqe⁄·…101
In the same context, Theodoret considers wealth as a kind of grave im- pediment to an upright life, in so far as the rich man succumbs to his pas- sions, living without measure; in this respect, the wealthy ‘turns the master of the passions into a slave’ (doÕlon t¬n paq¬n tòn ™gemóna poi¬n).102 In the patristic worldview, it was quite difficult (albeit not impossible, as demon- strated earlier) for a rich man to live in virtue;103 on the contrary, the poor enjoyed a significant advantage, as his poverty was the only certain road which led to virtue. Theodoret regards poverty almost as a gift, an utterly beneficial condition for the soul, and he presents three main functions of it: the passions submit to reason, the soul rules the passions due to its freedom
101 John Chrysostom, Sermones de Anna 5.3, PG 54, 673. ET, Economic Problem (see n. 45), pp. 110-111: ‘For if with a fitting knowledge and with well considered reflection, you were willing to examine this point too, even if there were nothing else which con- firms the providence of God, riches and poverty would evince this most clearly. For if you take away poverty you would take away the whole basis of life, and you would destroy our [manner] of life, neither will there be sailor, nor pilot, nor farmer, nor mason, nor weaver, nor shoemaker … nor any others of these workers; and if these did not exist, all things would perish for us. For now like the best kind of mistress, the compulsion of poverty sits on each of these, and drives them to work even against their will’. 102 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 648C. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 76. The rich usually succumb to the sin of avarice, among others, which Theodoret strongly condemns: see, for instance, his In Michaeae 6.11-12, PG 81, 1777C; In Habacuc 2.9, PG 81, 1821A. On Theodoret as exegete of the Scriptures, see J.-N. Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, Théologie Historique, 100 (Paris, 1995). Theodoret adopted the typical Antiochene approach to biblical exegesis that reflects a commitment to pasto- ral care, along with a mode of treating biblical texts as literature of divine origin, yet pro- duced by humans to serve the needs of other human beings. On the ‘Antiochene’ ap- proach of Theodoret’s Old Testament commentaries (along with those of Diodore of Tar- sus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom), see R. C. Hill, Reading the Old Tes- tament in Antioch, The Bible in Ancient Christianity, 5 (Leiden – Boston, 2005). 103 On the divine retribution against the wealthy, see Theodoret, In Sophoniae 1.18, PG 81, 1845A.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 33 23/10/07, 11:30 am 34 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
from burdens and external cares, and finally, toil assists reason to regulate the passions. In this respect, compelling want is viewed as a spur to industry, while a shortage of the necessities of life encourages productive activity, and hardship resulting from toil quenches the passions.104 We should not arrive at the conclusion, however, that Theodoret de- nounces wealth per se. For him poverty and wealth alike are mere instru- ments provided by God. Men, like sculptors, create with these tools figures of virtue or evil. Therefore, one should not blame poverty or riches, but those who misuse them.105 In the ninth discourse of his study on provi- dence, Theodoret delineates the licit use of wealth: ‘The Guardian of the universe has not given men wealth to squander on luxury, or to use for im- moral purposes, but rather to administer it wisely and well so as to provide the necessities of life for themselves and to give what is over and above to those in need.’106 We should stress at this point that Theodoret in several of his works ac- centuates two essential and mutually connected aspects of riches, reinforcing his point that wealth is an instrument provided by God, belonging to no one but Him. The first characteristic is the mobility of wealth, which leads many people to fall from riches to poverty and vice versa.107 Wealth’s subse-
104 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 648D-649B. Theodoret, In Isaiae 14.6, PG 81, 360C, presents poverty as a means of curing the excesses of prosperity, given that a state of affluence generates dissipation and leisure. 105 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 652A. In his Interpretatio epistolae ad Hebraeos 13.5, PG 82, 780C, Theodoret asserts that God does not disallow possessions (oû t®n kt±sin âpjgóreusen), but being enamoured of money (âllà tò xrjmátwn êr¢çn), portray- ing it as the origin of greed (ênteÕqen gàr ™ pleonezía genn¢tai). Hence, Theodoret op- poses the ideal of self-sufficiency (êpainouménj gàr ™ aûtárkeia), in which one is content with the necessary (ârkoúmenoi to⁄v paroÕsin), to individual enrichment (a∆zein tà ∫nta spoudahétw mjdeív). In the same context, in Interpretatio epistolae I ad Timotheum 3.3, PG 82, 805D-808A, Theodoret adds that one who enjoys material possessions (dunatòn gàr kekt±sqai mén) should attempt to administer them properly (oîkonome⁄n dè taÕta deón- twv); he actually elaborates an ideal of stewardship of economic resources (m® douleúein toútoiv, âllà toútwn despóhein). 106 Theodoret, De providentia 9, PG 83, 720B. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 121. Cf. idem, Interpretatio epistolae II ad Corinthios 8.13-15, PG 82, 425B; Inter- pretatio epistolae I ad Timotheum 6.18, PG 82, 829A. Theodoret, In Aggaei 2.9, PG 81, 1868C-D, stresses that the misuse and ignorance of divine blessings by the wealthy are conducive to their perdition. 107 See, for instance, Theodoret, Oratio de divina et sancta caritate, PG 82, 1512D. Here
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 34 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 35
quent feature is precariousness, given that there is a constant mobility of riches from one person to another according to the divine law.108 Hence, people do not really posses riches; they are rather provided with the oppor- tunity to administer them properly. Theodoret’s justification of property and wealth is not at all unprec- edented, as it draws heavily on the earlier patristic tradition.109 His percep- tion of poverty and wealth as mere instruments resembles that of Clement of Alexandria, who asserts that:
Oûk ãra âpoÄÅiptéon tà kaì toùv pélav ÖfeloÕnta xrßmata· ktßmata gár êsti ktjtà ∫nta kaì xrßmata xrßsima ∫nta kaì eîv xr±sin ânqrÉpwn üpò toÕ qeoÕ pareskeuasména, ° d® parákeitai kaì üpobébljtai kaqáper Àlj tiv kaì ∫rgana pròv xr±sin âgaq®n to⁄v eîdósi.110
Nevertheless, Theodoret makes a necessary elucidation: to the degree he does not consider these two instruments to be equally benevolent, he gives precedence to poverty. In the case of riches, he contends, very few persons ‘…can fashion even a few parts of virtue while with poverty it is possible for
Theodoret has in mind an eventual reversal of social status, reputation and honour: many wealthy people risk losing their prosperity (polloì mèn gàr êz eûporíav metapíptousin eîv penían êsxátjn); many poor on the contrary may ultimately join the ranks of the wealthy (polloì dè êk penßtwn eîv tòn t¬n plousíwn katálogon ânabaínousi). 108 See, for example, Theodoret, Interpr. epist. I ad Tim. 6.17, PG 82, 828D: NÕn mèn gàr parà toútwç foit¢ç, nÕn dè pròv êke⁄non metabaínei· kaì polloùv ∂xwn kuríouv, oûdenóv êsti kt±ma. See also idem, Interpretatio epistolae I ad Corinthios 7.31, PG 82, 281D: E¤ta deiknùv t¬n paróntwn tò próskairon, êpßgage· ‘Parágei gàr tò sx±ma toÕ kósmou toútou.’ Oûkéti gàr gewrgía kaì nautilía, oûkéti basile⁄ai kaì stratjgíai, oûkéti douleía kaì despoteía, oûkéti téxnai kaì êpist±mai, oûkéti penía kaì ploÕtov. Theodoret seems to have in view the precarious nature not only of wealth but also of any other form of hu- man activity in organised societies. 109 Some Church Fathers were not opposed to the possession of wealth but rather to its gluttonous accumulation. On this, see for example John Chrysostom, In Ioannem homilia 64.4, PG 59, 360. Cf. Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), p. 198. 110 Clement, Quis dives salvetur? 14.1 (see n. 52), p. 168.23-27. ET, Economic Problem (see n. 45), p. 87: ‘We must not cast away riches which can benefit our neighbour. Posses- sions were made to be possessed; goods are called goods because they do good, and they have been provided by God for the good of men: they are at hand and serve as the mate- rial, the instruments for a good use in the hand of him who knows how to use them’.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 35 23/10/07, 11:30 am 36 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
many to make them all’.111 In this respect, poverty remains the finest way to the acquisition of virtue. Not unexpectedly, someone could pose the question: if wealth is only an instrument given by God, why then is it not distributed equally among all people? Theodoret replies to such a question by resorting to an organic anal- ogy, invoking the celebrated example of the diversity of functions in the parts of the human body: the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, and so on have different faculties granted to them wisely by the Creator with the one purpose that they collaborate and contribute to the perfection of the body as a whole (eîv ënòv sÉmatov suntele⁄ teleiótjta).112 To strengthen his point Theodoret quotes Paul (1 Cor 12,21-23):
…Oû dúnatai ôfqalmòv eîpe⁄n t±Ç xeirí· Xreían sou oûk ∂xw· Æ pálin ™ kefal® to⁄v posí· Xreían üm¬n oûk ∂xw· âllà poll¬ç m¢llon tà dokoÕnta mélj toÕ sÉmatov âsqenéstera üpárxein ânagka⁄á êsti, kaì ° dokoÕmen âtimótera e¤nai, toútoiv perissotéran tim®n peritíqemen.113
In proportion, God confers different functions to persons (‘the bodily parts’), commensurate with their natures and abilities, and by this wise plan- ning each person proves to be an integral part of the community (‘the body’).114 Theodoret seems to exalt the social character of the division of la-
111 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 652A. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 78. Likewise, in Interpr. epist. II ad Cor. 8.13-15, PG 82, 425B-D, Theodoret equates the denouncement of property and possessions with perfection. 112 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 652D-653A. 113 Ibid., 653B. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 79: ‘The eye cannot say to the hand: I need not your help. Nor again the head to the feet I have no need of you. Yes, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body are more neces- sary. And such as we think to be the less honorable members of the body about these we put more abundant honor’. 114 John Chrysostom emphasizes the fact that people need each other (In epistolam II ad Corinthios homilia 17.2, PG 61, 520; In Acta Apostolorum homilia 37.3, PG 60, 266). In the same context, Theodoret in his fourth discourse on providence presents the beneficial interdependence of the crafts: ‘Behold, then, all the crafts borrowing something useful from one another: the contractor gets his tools from the smith; the smith gets his house from the contractor; both get food from the farmer; the farmer gets the equipment for his house from them and also what can help him in his agricultural pursuits’ (De providentia 4, PG 83, 616D-617A). ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 54. Cf. John Chrysostom, In Matthaeum homilia 52.4, PG 58, 523.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 36 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 37
bour – due to necessity – that is beneficial to the whole community. If wealth were equally distributed, nobody would be eager to serve others and assume the various professions essential for human survival, (those of a farmer, an artisan, or a merchant, for example).115 As a result, there would be two eventualities: either ‘…everybody would eagerly take to every kind of work through necessity, or we would all perish simultaneously through lack of the necessities of life’.116 The first case seems to be unachievable be- cause, as Plato has convincingly demonstrated,117 it is impossible for a single man to master every craft.118 Inevitably, ‘if there were equal provision of wealth, the result would be that all would face annihilation’.119 Undoubt- edly, we can infer that Theodoret strongly supports division and specialisa- tion of labour, which prevents lack of skill. In Theodoret’s view, divine providence ensures, through inequality in wealth, the proper foundations of human co-existence. Theodoret is not ig- norant of the fact that rich and poor, apart from this disparity, are equal in terms of natural law:120 all live on earth and share a common roof, the sky;121 all are provided with the same kind of bodies, even if the poor have stronger bodies, ‘for “want is the mother of health,” according to the wisest of medical men, and “toil and exercise are the attendants of health,” accord- ing to this same authority’.122 Here Theodoret follows the patristic trend of
115 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 656A-B. 116 Ibid., 656B. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 81. 117 Plato, Republic II.370b-c: ‘One man is naturally fitted for one task, and another for another. … more things are produced, and better and more easily when one man per- forms one task according to his nature, at the right moment, and at leisure from other occupations.’ ET, The Republic, vol. I, transl. P. Shorey, LCL (London – Cambridge, Mass., 1946), pp. 151-153. On the patristic argument that the variety of natural inclina- tions leads to the division of labour, thus generating social life, see Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), p. 174. 118 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 656C: ÊOti dè pásav ãnqrwpon ∏na metelqe⁄n téxnav t¬n âdunátwn, oû de⁄ lógwn, marturoúsjv t±v peírav. Cf. John Chrysostom, In Acta 37.3, PG 60, 266; In Matthaeum 77.6, PG 58, 710. 119 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 656C: ¨Upeleípeto toínun †pantav panoleqrían üpome⁄nai, dià t®n ÷sjn t¬n xrjmátwn eûporían, … ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 81. 120 On God’s fairness in distributing the primary necessities of life, cf. John Chrysostom, De Statuis 2.6, PG 49, 43; In epist. II ad Cor. homil. 12.5, PG 61, 488. 121 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 657A. 122 Ibid., 657A-B. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 82.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 37 23/10/07, 11:30 am 38 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
the justification of labour,123 which benefits both body and soul.124 Moreo- ver, rich and poor alike share the same human nature: they have souls of the same essence and they all get married to reproduce;125 all infants are ‘…brought forth in nakedness; the rich man’s baby is not clad in purple or the poor man’s in rags; both come forth naked, since the Creator has pro- claimed equality’.126 And all have the same end, for death awaits them.127 Therefore, all humans were created equal and inequality is nothing else but a form of social organisation, making life easier, since it compels rich and poor to provide each other with what they are short of, thus satisfying their complementary needs.128 It would not be difficult to describe the kind of services the poor render to the rich: they offer the products of their crafts. But what service would the rich offer to the poor in return? Theodoret re- plies: ‘money’, which may denote the creation of a market for their prod- ucts.129 According to his words:
123 See Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), pp. 172-175. 124 Cf. Clément d’Alexandrie, Les Stromates 1.1.12, ed. and French transl. M. Caster, SC, 30 (Paris, 1951), p. 52; John Chrysostom, De poenitentia 5.4, PG 49, 312; idem, In Acta 16.4, PG 60, 134. Moreover, Theodoret in his seventh discourse praises toil as the means to obtain every human blessing (De providentia 7, PG 83, 680C). Cf. idem, Interpretatio epistolae I ad Thessalonicenses 4.11, PG 82, 645C-D. Theodoret strongly opposes a life of leisure (tò ên ârgíaç h±n) in so far as one is devoid of honourable income that labour yields (tò m® êz êrgasíav t®n xreían poríhesqai), being dependent upon others (t®n ãllwn prosménein filotimían). Theodoret, in Interpretatio epistolae II ad Thessalonicenses 3.11, PG 82, 672C, also states that a life of leisure entails sinful behaviour exemplified in daily practices. Finally, in Interpretatio epistolae ad Ephesios 4.28, PG 82, 541A, he makes a dis- tinction between two kinds of labour, good (âgaq® êrgasía) and wicked (ponjrà êrgasía), theft being an example of the latter. On the contrary, praise worthy labour seems to counteract the harmful consequences of leisure. 125 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 657B. 126 Ibid., 657D. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 82. 127 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 657D. 128 J. Viner, ‘The Economic Doctrines of the Christian Fathers’, History of Political Economy, 10 (1978), pp. 9-45, on p. 19. 129 Ibid. Though there undeniably was a productive element in peasants and small farm- ers who operated their productive strategies above subsistence levels, there is little evi- dence of small producers supplying urban centres, because of the limited opportunities of these groups to sell directly to external markets, the latter requiring the intermediatory role of itinerant traders and merchants. Only the tenants were afforded the opportunity to be involved in market relations allowed by their landlords. The limitations of the existing product markets unavoidably restricted the range of opportunities in which small farmers and peasants were engaged. However, as Paul Erdkamp has thoroughly demonstrated, in
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 38 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 39
¨Omoíwv gàr t±v t¬n plousíwn periousíav oï peníaç suh¬ntev tugxánousin. ¨O gàr toútwn kâkeínwn Djmiourgóv, téxnaiv pantodapa⁄v t®n penían êkósmjse, di´ °v parà tàv t¬n penßtwn qúrav foit¬sin oï ploúsioi, kaì xrßmata didóntev, tàv ânagkaíav par´ aût¬n komíhontai xreíav, kaì pleiónwn dià tòn ploÕton deómenoi, pásjv spaníhousi xreíav.130
Theodoret does not consider poverty inferior to wealth, a state of misery that everybody should be unwilling to bear. Quite the opposite, he praises poverty and constantly points out that the wealthy benefit from it (in fact, they need the products of the poor), given that such poverty sustains their lives. It is noteworthy that towards the end of his sixth discourse Theodoret underlines the advantages of being in poverty, of which the rich are presum- ably deprived: good health and endurance in illness – a patristic concept that was very common!131
the Roman world ‘…they [peasants] were not primitive, autarkic cultivators who lived and worked isolated from a non-peasant economy. Peasants are to be understood as inte- grated in and determined by a wider market economy’ (P. Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire. A Social, Political and Economic Study [Cambridge, 2005], p. 322). Accordingly, ‘…a high level of labour input in small-scale farming, leading to a low level of labour productivity’, combined with an insufficient level of demand for goods and services, implied that ‘alternative strategies were limited and risky’ (ibid.). 130 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 660B-C. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 83: ‘Those who live in poverty derive their equal share of enjoyment from the wealth of the rich. For God who created both classes equipped the poor with all kinds of crafts which cause the rich to come to their doors and give them money to get what they want from them. And since their wants are proportioned to their wealth, they are in need of every necessity of life’. 131 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 664B-665A. Cf. Titus of Bostra, Adversus Manichaeos 2.8, PG 18, 1148D-1149A; John Chrysostom, Sermones de Anna 5.4, PG 54, 673-674; idem, In epist. II ad Cor. homil. 12.5-6, PG 61, 488-490. Unsurprisingly, Theodoret in his seventh discourse applies a similar analysis to the relations of masters and slaves, in order to justify the social organisation of his day. In his attempt to repel objections to slavery, as he has already done with those to poverty, he declares that al- though the Maker created all persons equal, the division into masters and slaves, rulers and the ruled is natural and necessary, deriving from the sinfulness of the human race and consequently the need to safeguard social order. However, a slave’s life has many advan- tages, according to Theodoret, and is often more enviable than his master’s. The latter is overwhelmed by many worries: to provide for the needs of his slaves, to pay the state taxes, or to sell the surplus of his produce and buy what he lacks, just to name some. The slave, on the contrary, has better health, enjoys his food and sleep, has no responsibilities and lives a carefree life. Furthermore, Theodoret gives examples from Scripture of masters who worked as hard as their slaves, showing that toil is common to masters and slaves
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 39 23/10/07, 11:30 am 40 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
3. Theodoret’s Social Ethics: The Need for Social Cooperation In this respect, it should not be implausible to assume that Theodoret re- gards inequality as the foundation of the extant economic society, which he strongly defends. Every aspect of this society demonstrates the providence and care for humanity by God who, ‘…by giving money to some and crafts to others, unites them by their needs in harmonious friendship’.132 Eco- nomic inequalities are constituent parts of the social system and guarantee social harmony. In this view, the wealthy and the poor are conceptualised as the two func- tional parts of an overarching social entity. In modern parlance, these two groups seem to represent the two poles of an informal dyadic contract that does not necessarily acquire institutional shape (as in patron-client relation- ships) but rather serves as an analytical category appropriate to our objective of reconstructing Theodoret’s conceptual framework. This concept appears consonant with the social rhetoric employed in Theodoret’s text as reflective of an attempt to eliminate social disruption by recalling the mutual obliga- tions of the respective groups imposed upon them by God. Ultimately, Theodoret’s rhetoric was not at all bereft of normative implications. Issues of normativity that arise as ethical dilemmas, originating in the relevant so- cial choices enacted by the two groups, could hardly be dismissed. Theodoret was not ignorant of this moral dimension, and this was reflected in his attempt to search for a convincing answer to another objection: the fact that the majority of the rich lives unjustly. Theodoret responds by plac- ing an emphasis on human freedom of will, once again employing the argu- ment that poverty and riches are like raw materials provided by God, albeit neither of them implies lack of human responsibility, ultimately becoming an excuse for evil living.133 Precisely at this point he draws a distinction be- tween the unjust and the just, either rich or poor; the actions of the unjust are somehow counterbalanced by the actions of the just: (albeit the latter do not share in their masters’ worries), thus rejecting the condemnation of slavery due to toil (De providentia 7, PG 83, 665C-685C). 132 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 661A. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 84. 133 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 664A: ˆEpeid® dè proúqjke mèn penían kaì ploÕton eîv méson, ofión tinav Àlav, ö Poijtßv, xr¬ntai dè toútoiv tinèv mèn eîv âret±v kt±sin, tinèv dè eîv kakíav üpóqesin, o∆te plousíoiv, o∆te pénjsi kakíaç suh¬sin üpoleí- petai suggnÉmjv prófasiv.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 40 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 41
Oÿ te gàr tòn ploÕton eŒ kaì kal¬v oîkonomßsantev, kaì mßte sumfora⁄v âllotríaiv toÕton aûzßsantev kaì koinwnoùv t±v eûporíav toùv deoménouv labóntev, âpoxr¬sin eîv katjgorían t¬n âdíkwv kaì pleonektik¬v xrjsaménwn t¬ç ploútwç· oÿ te t®n penían filosofíaç kerásantev, kaì karterik¬v aût±v kaì gennaíwv tàv prosbolàv ênegkóntev, âljqe⁄v katßgoroi t¬n ên peníaç t®n kakourgían memaqjkótwn genßsontai.134
The case of the rich appears to be far more interesting, since it allows reading between the lines and interpreting Theodoret’s words in a context of social roles and responsibilities: wealth is morally justified in so far as cur- rent inequities emerge as a by-product of personal rather than institutional weaknesses.135 As people are gifted with free will, and poverty and wealth are nothing other than mere instruments, there is no sufficient reason to blame providence or the social organisation, but only human faults and shortcomings. Theodoret evidently defends the existing economic situation as providen- tial. An interesting aspect of his analysis is that, unlike other Fathers, he does not relate it to the Fall of man.136 The usual patristic view considers the expulsion from Paradise to be the origin of scarcity, lack of adequate re- sources, and consequently inequality.137 Scarcity is a conceptual category employed to denote scant material re- sources. According to Gordon, it emerges as the social corollary of the Fall of Adam: God initially bestowed every mean for sustaining life in Eden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being the striking exception to this rule (Gen 2,9.16-17).138 But instead of being satisfied under God’s benefi-
134 Ibid., 664A-B. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 85: ‘Those who husband their riches properly, and do not increase them at the expense of other people’s misfortunes, but rather share all they have with those in need, are a sufficient reproach to those who spend their wealth on wickedness and in a spirit of selfishness. Those, too, who accept their pov- erty philosophically and endure its attacks with courage and patience, are standing re- proaches to those who have learned evil doing while living in poverty’. 135 See Viner, ‘Economic Doctrines’ (see n. 128), p. 19. Theodoret views injustice as originating in the excesses of impious life (In Amos 5.11-12, PG 81, 1689B). 136 Viner, ‘Economic Doctrines’ (see n. 128), p. 18. 137 Cf. Karayiannis and Drakopoulou-Dodd, ‘Greek Christian Fathers’ (see n. 40), p. 186. 138 Gordon, Economic Problem (see n. 45), p. 2. Dov Paris disagrees with the idea that ‘the pre-expulsion Paradisic world’ was ‘free of the economic problem’. Adam and Eve being within the abundance of Eden ‘…had a limited capacity to consume and did have to
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 41 23/10/07, 11:30 am 42 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
cence, Adam and Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit, or as Gordon notes: ‘…humans decide to take control of the entire range of their choices as con- sumers of the fruits of creation’.139 Since Adam and Eve chose independence by this act, God freed the ancestors of humankind from the state of depend- ent consumers, the price for their independent way of life being their expul- sion from Paradise. By leaving Eden, mankind has constantly been con- fronted with the problem of scarcity. However, outside Eden nothing is anymore freely available; in order to survive, humans must use their innate abilities to work and innovate, as they were created in the image of God who works.140 Nevertheless, Viner notes that Theodoret treats social issues in these ten discourses in a way that is more naturalistic than early Christian,141 since he declares that even the Pagan Greek philosophers, being taught by the law of nature and not by the divine precepts, assert that it is much easier to achieve virtue in poverty than in wealth. Hence, the divine law does not proffer new principles, but recalls to mind the laws of nature.142 Indeed, Theodoret offers a rational argument, justifying poverty on the basis that its appreciation should not be a dogmatic matter, since even the Greek philosophers, who were ignorant of Christian faith, pursued poverty to acquire virtue, the natural order simply being their guide to this pursuit. The value of poverty, according to Theodoret, is thus self-evident. This atti- tude toward nature is not unexpected, given that Theodoret is a Christian writer who regards nature as God’s creation: it manifests visibly His power and divinity;143 its laws are basically the directives that God Himself has set.
choose, to “allocate” it, over the infinite domain of goods. Thus, to choose what to eat per time unit from the unlimited menu, they had to optimize with marginal utilities, rates of substitution etc.’ (D. Paris, ‘An Economic Look at the Old Testament’, in Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas, eds. Lowry and Gordon [see n. 40], pp. 39-103, on p. 51). 139 Gordon, Economic Problem (see n. 45), p. 2. 140 Ibid. In the second chapter of Genesis (2,15) it is clearly stated that God settled man in Eden ‘to work it and keep it’. Therefore, man had work to do in the Garden; even in his initial pre-expulsion state work was not alien to him. Cf. R. Attfield, ‘Christian Atti- tudes to Nature’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44 (1983), pp. 369-386, on p. 374. 141 Viner, ‘Economic Doctrines’ (see n. 128), p. 18. 142 Theodoret, De providentia 6, PG 83, 649B-C. 143 Cf. Rom 1,20-21.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 42 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 43
In the fifth discourse, Theodoret relies on another celebrated example from nature: life in a beehive as a model of social harmony.144 Bees do not own private property, since riches are common and possession is undivided. They do not harm one another, they do not desire more than their share, and they persistently work. Consequently, they expel the drones, which avoid toil and prefer to live on that of others. Finally, they abhor the rule of many and democratic rule as well, obeying one leader instead.145 Theodoret continues after a few lines:
Manqáneiv gàr parà t¬n âlógwn ö logikóv, tòn mèn ârgòn Üv blaberòn bdelúttesqai bíon, toùv dè t±v âret±v pónouv proqúmwv metadiÉkein, kaì pantaxóqen t®n taútjv êraníhesqai kt±sin· ârxßn, t®n mèn oû prosßkou- san, Økista hjte⁄n, t®n dè prosginoménjn, ôrq¬v kaì dikaíwv oîkonome⁄n, koinà tà ∫nta nomíhein, protiqénai to⁄v deoménoiv t®n toútwn âpólausin.146
Due attention should be paid to certain points of Theodoret’s depiction of the life in a beehive, which he admires: the absence of private property, the appreciation of productive toil, the aversion to ‘democratic’ rule, and the subsequent predilection for submission to one leader. Furthermore, Theodoret’s last words condense his views on the indispensable conditions for harmonious social organisation: aspiration for beneficial labour, preser- vation of the social structure and hierarchy (no one wishes to surpass his rank, yearning for power to which he is not entitled), and endorsement of the view that everything is common property. We should underline that this concern to justify and above all to prove that the extant socio-economic or- ganisation should remain unaltered is also found elsewhere in his œuvre. In another work, Theodoret asserts that he who desires to acquire riches, falls into sin, but not he who is already wealthy by status. For him, inherited
144 Cf. John Chrysostom, Stat. 12.2, PG 49, 129; Basil the Great, In Hexaemeron 8.4, PG 29, 172D-176A. 145 Theodoret, De providentia 5, PG 83, 625C-D. 146 Ibid., 628A. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 62: ‘You, a rational creature, learn from the irrational creatures to abhor an idle life as dangerous, pursue works of vir- tue with zeal, and collect this treasure from every source; not to seek for power that does not become you, but administer what you have with integrity and justice, bear in mind that what exists is common property, and extend its enjoyment to those who stand in need of it’.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 43 23/10/07, 11:30 am 44 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
wealth, if it is administered according to the divine laws, is completely justi- fied and free of accusations, in sharp contrast to enrichment (especially in the case of a former poor), which leads to sin.147 According to Theodoret, a virtuous way of living must incorporate the afore-mentioned precepts. Nevertheless, objections to divine providence do not cease to emerge, especially with regard to the unrewarded efforts of the virtuous. In the ninth discourse of his treatise Theodoret recapitulates the main arguments for the dubious usefulness of a righteous living, which does not guarantee any apparent advancement in one’s status in return.148 Theodoret replies to such criticism in the following way:149
O∆te gàr toùv douleúein laxóntav †pantav êleuqeríav ∂stin îde⁄n âpolaúontav, o∆te toùv peníaç mèn sugkljrwqéntav, âret±v dè frontistàv gegenjménouv, eîv tòn t¬n plousíwn metabántav ör¬men katálogon, âll’ ên t±Ç protéraç toùv pleístouv talaipwríaç diamemenjkótav. ˆA llà sù mén, √ talaípwre kaì xamaíhjle, t±Ç gastrí, kaì t±Ç gnáqwç, kaì ta⁄v ôfrúsi t®n eûdaimonían metre⁄v, kaì ºron eûprazíav e¤nai nomíheiv heÕgov ücjlón, kaì dorufórouv, kaì êfestrída lamprán, … kaì tãlla ºsa oï tòn ügrón, kaì âneímenon, kaì äbrodíaiton êpitjdeúousi bíon. TaÕta dè pánta t¬n eŒ fronoúntwn ∏kastov, oû mónon oûk eûdaimonían, âllà kaì kakodaimonían êsxátjn, kaì dusprazían e÷wqen ônomáhein.150
147 Theodoret, Interpr. epist. I ad Tim. 6.9, PG 82, 825A-B. Theodoret seems to oppose enrichment (oï boulómenoi ploute⁄n) to a moral justification of property out of inherited wealth (êàn gár tiv tòn êk progónwn diadezámenov ploÕton, katà toùv qeíouv nómouv toÕton oîkonome⁄, katjgoríav êleúqerov). On the contrary, the poor indulging in such a desire for enrichment (ö dè êk penßtwn mèn fúv, ploútou dè êfiémenov), appears to succumb to an insatiable need for acquisition (kóron mèn t±v êpiqumíav oû lßcetai), achieved at any pos- sible cost (pánta póron eîv t®n toútou ktísin kin¬n). 148 Theodoret, De providentia 9, PG 83, 717C-720A. 149 Theodoret’s response to this issue is partly reminiscent of an older ethical tradition. Consider for instance 2 Clem 20.4 (see n. 58), p. 199: ‘For if God were to reward the upright immediately, we would straightaway be engaged in commerce rather than devo- tion to God. For we would appear to be upright not for the sake of piety but for a profit.’ 150 Theodoret, De providentia 9, PG 83, 720A-B. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 121: ‘Admittedly we do not see all slaves gaining their freedom, nor all who are poor but upright joining the ranks of the wealthy; no, we see the majority of them remaining in their lowly state. But you, you worldly wretch, measure happiness in terms of what you eat, and taste, and see; your idea of well-being is a lofty carriage, a string of slaves, an elaborate wardrobe, … and all the other trappings of a life of softness, license, and luxury.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 44 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 45
Theodoret disagrees with the current view on happiness and argues that the standard of characterising someone as blissful should not be his material possessions. According to Theodoret, everyone would agree that luxury should not be considered as well-being but only a just and tempered way of life should be praised, deserving the highest honour in the present life. It is noteworthy that although he states that an upright life led by a poor or a rich man is equally praiseworthy, he declares once more that poor people merit having the precedence in praise as they come to show greater patience, despite their misfortune. But what kind of reward belongs to the righteous’? Theodoret here embraces the common Christian belief that earthly posses- sions are not the reward of a virtuous life nor should the righteous expect this kind of prize; they long instead for the divine recompense such as the resurrection of the body, the ascent into heaven, and most of all, the eternal beatific vision.151 Theodoret concludes that not all who seek after virtue earn admiration and honour in this life. Indeed, some are famous and set an example, while others are anonymous and ‘…resemble a pearl buried in the deep or an ostrich in the sand’.152 However, it is remarkable that for Theodoret the fact that not all virtuous people get equal returns offers a proof of future life, where God fairly distributes punishments and rewards. In Theodoret’s view of theodicy and retribution the certainty of the afterlife appears unchallenged: all those who here escape punishment will pay the due penalty, whereas those who enjoyed no return for their efforts at virtue in the present life will obtain the reward of their strivings.153 It seems at this point that there is no better manner to demonstrate Theodoret’s concept of divine providence than these last words, which can be interpreted to mean that people should struggle to obtain virtue: even if they are suffering under the yoke of poverty, slavery, or another kind of mis- fortune, they should be patient and trust in God, since sooner (in this life), or – more likely – later (in the future life) their efforts will be rewarded.
Those who practise virtue, on the other hand, usually label these things not as happiness but as the greatest unhappiness and misfortune’. Cf. idem, Oratio de divina et sancta caritate, PG 82, 1512C: …oûdè dusprazían t®n penían prosagoreúei, oûdè ploútwç kaì truf±Ç t®n eûdaimonían öríhetai·… 151 Theodoret, De providentia 9, PG 83, 720C-721B. 152 Ibid., 725D-728A. ET, On Divine Providence (see n. 27), p. 125. 153 Theodoret, De providentia 9, PG 83, 728B-D.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 45 23/10/07, 11:30 am 46 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
Under this perspective, both rich and poor (especially the latter) should en- dure their sufferings without attempting to alter their status or amend in- equalities because all these comply with God’s eternal design. The vindica- tion of the righteous and the sufferers is not a human, but undoubtedly a divine task.
CONCLUSION
On Providence is not intended to offer pervasive insights into the socio-eco- nomic reality of Thedoret’s era, apart from the overall antagonism between the very wealthy and the poor. The actual economic relationships are inte- grated, although not entirely reflected in his social rhetoric. This is not ulti- mately unexpected, given the rhetorical function of the text and the particu- lar aims and objectives of the author. In his defence of divine providence with respect to economic issues, Theodoret draws on earlier patristic ap- proaches to the problems of wealth creation, retention and accumulation, as well as of the impoverishment of the economically worse-off. In doing so, he elaborates a coherent system of thought in which both poverty and riches are considered to be mere instruments that should be properly evaluated de- pending on human inward dispositions and inclinations. His conception does not substantially differ from that of Clement of Alexandria and his organicist view of the social structure resembles that in the Shepherd of Hermas. Though not innovative, Theodoret’s perception of the complex re- lations between the rich and the poor seems to be slightly differentiated from the mainstream patristic literature in that it appears not to be invested with a strong call to almsgiving, to that generous individual charity man- dated by the Jewish-Christian paraenetic literature. Allocation of productive resources and division of labour are constantly being alluded to, but specific issues of distribution of economic surplus generated by respective economic activities are hardly taken into consideration. The absence of references to the almost salvific necessity of charitable practices is by no means a paradoxical feature of On Providence. Theodoret’s stance is far from addressing issues of a structural or enduring poverty that might be conducive to deprivation, ultimately to destitution. Theodoret’s poor seem not to be those at the margin of subsistence, or those lacking regular employment as constantly exposed to the risk of starvation. Con-
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 46 23/10/07, 11:30 am WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THEODORET 47
ceivably, Theodoret does not have in mind those not afforded the opportu- nity of a profession, being entirely dependent on the market, but the major- ity of those enhancing their inherent capabilities through productive labour. Undoubtedly, the language of poverty employed by Theoodoret in his On Providence offers little specification of beggars, widows and orphans; the poor in question appear to be small landowners or craftsmen at the risk of indebtedness rather than the irredeemably destitute. The existing divide be- tween the destitute and the self-sufficient is properly relocated and reshaped, as one between two distinct groups with different degrees of access to scant resources. Arguably, Theodoret’s poverty emerges as a by-product of an eco- nomic rather than of a social problem: it is a matter of inadequate resources, not one of inequity, of maldistribution of the economic surplus. In this respect, Theodoret appears not to be primarily concerned with almsgiving as a moral justification of property and wealth. Presumably, there is a partial shift of emphasis from distributive to productive economic mechanisms. Theodoret focuses on the underlying dimensions of social or- der, harmony and stability, as well as on the premises that secure social co- operation. Order is undoubtedly elevated to a societal ideal that an overall antagonism between competing social groups who have unequal access to economic resources might eventually threaten. By defending the prevailing structures as providential, Theodoret’s social ideal is not confounded by the divisive effects of the existing inequity. Reciprocities arise in this context of mutual obligations between rich and poor, in the absence of which an inclu- sive network of social relationships would be hard to sustain. Despite its sharp socio-economic inequalities, the existing societal order is far from be- ing a product of mere chance, an outcome reflecting the operation of blind social forces, or the action of contingent social laws. On the contrary, hu- man intentions and motives are modeled in a normative context that justi- fies any part of a social entity as integral to a meaningful and purposive uni- verse. The contemporary relevance of the text lies at the level of these under- lying assumptions of social cooperation: resorting to divine providence, Theodoret aspires to denote divine sanctioning mechanisms that restrict selfish behaviour and serve as a precondition to overcome major social di- lemma situations by effectively mitigating the consequences of social con- flicts. A contemporary reading of Theodoret should not, in our view, disre- gard such possibilities implied in his social rhetoric. Apparently, the argu-
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 47 23/10/07, 11:30 am 48 GEORGE N. GOTSIS - GERASIMOS A. MERIANOS
ments that Theodoret employs to endorse the extant socio-economic status quo as providential furnish On Providence with a special theological apolo- getic character.154
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of divine providence forms the core of the Church Fathers’ teach- ing: creation is under the constant governance of God, who directs the course of humanity and its affairs with benevolent design and utter purpose. In On Providence Theodoret of Cyrrhus utilises divine providence to justify the exist- ence of poverty and wealth. This essay studies his reasoning, its relation to earlier patristic tradition, and his stance toward the socio-economic structure during a transitional period characterised by sharp socio-economic inequalities.
154 Cf. Viner, ‘Economic Doctrines’ (see n. 128), p. 20.
0397-07_JECS07_02_Gotsis 48 23/10/07, 11:30 am