1

Table of Contents

Introduction: Preaching and Christianization in Late Antiquity: 2 The North Italian Context

“We Ought To Abstain By All Means From Vices”: Exclusionary Rhetoric and Virtue in the Sermons of Chromatius of Aquileia 10

“Errors,” “Iniquities,” and “Wickedness”: Gaudentius and the Gentiles, Jews, and Heretics of Brescia 24

“As a Farmer Prunes the Twigs of the Vine”: Pagans, Jews, and Christian Discipline in Maximus’ Turin 39

A Tale of Three Bishops: Geography and Exegesis in Northern Italy 54

Conclusion: Bishops in the Shadows? 69

Bibliography 72

2

Introduction:

Preaching and Christianization in Late Antiquity: The Northern Italian Context

In 397, three Christian clerics traveled to the area of Val di Non in the Italian Alps, near what is today the city of Bolzano. Their names were Alexander, Martyrius, and Sisinius, and they were sent by Vigilius, the bishop of Tridentum, to minister to the Christian community already present there and to convert the rural pagan population to Christianity.1 Upon arriving in the region, they must have had some initial success in winning over the locals as they began to construct a church. But this initial victory was short-lived: in a sudden outburst of violence, the pagan population attacked the clerics, beat them to death, and razed the church to the ground, burning their bodies along with it.2 News of their death soon spread across northern Italy, and their ashes began to be venerated as relics of devotion.3 It was not long before the clerics were hailed as martyrs by the bishops in the region.

Maximus of Turin in particular used the story of Alexander, Martyrius, and Sisinius to his advantage. In two sermons, preached one after the other, he recounted the story of their martyrdom and its relevance for his own congregation. They were to be especially hailed as saints and venerated because, unlike the martyrs of the persecutions in the pre-Constantinian era, they bore witness to the faith as contemporaries of Maximus and his congregation.4 According

1 Rita Lizzi and Michele Salzman argue that despite the abundance of paganism in the region emphasized by the sources there must have been a sizeable Christian community in the region for Vigilius to send three clerics there. See Rita Lizzi, “Ambrose’s Contemporaries and the Christianization of Northern Italy,” The Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990): 156-173, 170-1; Michele Renee Salzman, “Rethinking Pagan-Christian Violence,” in Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 265-85, 269. 2 Descriptions of the event can be found in two letters of Vigilius of Tridentum and two sermons of Maximus of Turin, though these clearly have a hagiographic intent. See Vigilius of Tridentum, Epp I-II, in Patrologia Latina (henceforth PL) 13, 549-558; Maximus of Turin, Sermons 105-6, in The Sermons of Maximus of Turin, trans. Boniface Ramsey (New York: Newman Press, 1989), 232-5; Lizzi, “Ambrose’s Contemporaries,” 170. 3 Gaudentius of Brescia lists the ashes of the three martyrs as among the relics which he had brought to Brescia for the dedication of the church of the Council of the Saints. See Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 17:13, trans. in Stephen L. Boehrer, “Gaudentius of Brescia: Sermons and Letters,” (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1965), 193. 4 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 105:1, in Ramsey, 232-3. 3 to Maximus, “the Christian name had not been known before” among the inhabitants of the Val di Non.5 The clerics traveled to this region attempting to spread Christianity and to correct the pagan errors of the locals. The inhabitants, however, “drunken more with rage than with wine,” attacked and killed the priests.6 After destroying the church, they constructed a pyre from its beams and burned the clerics’ bodies. Maximus quickly emphasizes that they did not die in vain; their death led to the conversion of the region, which apparently enjoyed a sizeable Christian population by the time of Maximus’s preaching.7

Maximus did not stop there. Shortly afterwards, he preached further about the lives of the three martyrs and the example that they provided for his own congregation. He begins by insisting that Alexander, Martyrius, and Sisinius were not killed because of their Christian faith, but rather because they rebuked the people for their pagan practices. They were willing to accept death in order that the people to whom they were ministering would know that their actions were sinful and incompatible with a Christian lifestyle.8 Maximus insists that his congregation ought to show similar courage by eradicating the pagan practices still present within their community.

Whoever allowed these practices, he insists, is just as guilty as those who commit them, for “as hindering the sacrilege makes righteous the one who speaks out against them, so also pretending that you do not see what you do see sullies the one who keeps silence.”9 This reproach was not uncommon in Maximus’ sermons; he often complained about the physical presence of pagan idols (altars, statues, etc.) as well as the continuation of pagan sacrifices and ceremonies on the

5 “...christianum nomen cognitum antea non fuisset...” Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo105:2, in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (henceforth CCSL), 414. 6 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 105:2, in Ramsey, 233. 7 “Thus where Christ once suffered persecution in three martyrs, now He rejoices in the many Christian people of that place.” Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 105:2, in Ramsey, 234. 8 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 106:1, in Ramsey, 234. Specifically, he refers to a lustrum, or a procession of sacred objects that was meant to purify a particular place. See note 5, 356. 9 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 106:2, in Ramsey, 235. 4 landed estates of the wealthy Turinese.10 In a sequel to the sermons on the Val di Non martyrs,

Maximus stresses that it is the landowners’ responsibility, under penalty of sin, to stop the pagan practices occurring on their lands, “for whoever realizes that a sacrilege is being committed on his property and does not forbid it from taking place has himself ordered it in a certain way....”11

Alexander, Martyrius, and Sisinius thus stand as an example of how the Christian is supposed to act in the face of pagan practices: boldly and uncompromisingly.

Maximus’s manipulation of the Val di Non martyrs to promote Christian ascendency over paganism is not uncommon among episcopal sermons in late fourth and early fifth-century northern Italy, and it is characteristic of the bishop’s elite status over his community. Bishops occupied a unique place in late antique society, particularly in northern Italy. As the imperial structures of the Roman Empire began to collapse, Christian bishops became a source of unity and spiritual, if not temporal, authority among the local populations. While Constantine legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313 and Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the sole legal religion of the empire by 380, paganism still persisted in the cities and remained dominant in the countryside.12 Bishops faced the daunting task not only of nurturing their faithful (and sometimes unfaithful) Christian community but also of spreading Christianity beyond the limits of the churches and the cities into the countryside.

10 In particular, see sermon 42 for Maximus’ chastisement of Christian landowners for not eradicating pagan practices among their subjects; sermon 63 for a description of the pagan festival of the Kalends of Januray, which was still active during Maximus’s time; and sermon 91 for Maximus’s description of the physical signs of idolatry still present in the countryside. 11 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 107:1, in Ramsey, 236. 12 It should be noted here that, while the form of Christianity promoted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 became the orthodox position of the bishops in northern Italy, there were other Christian groups in the region as well, particularly Arianism, which denied the decree of the Council of Nicaea that Christ was of the same essence of the Father. The struggle between these two factions of Christianity and the process of defining heresy played a significant role in the Christianization of northern Italy, a role which I will elucidate further in this paper. For an overview of the conflict between Nicene and Arian Christians in northern Italy during this time, see Daniel H. Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). 5

Their primary way of doing this was through preaching and scriptural exegesis, or interpreation. One of the most educated exegetes of the region was Gaudentius, bishop of

Brescia.13 Of his twenty-one extant sermons and tracts, seven deal specifically with the Christian interpretation of the Passover story in the book of Exodus. Gaudentius systematically interprets the key components of the Passover meal within a Christian context, including the lamb, the blood of the lamb, the time of year for the Passover, the staff, the shoes, the unleavened bread, and the yeast.14 Throughout this series, he condemns pagans, Jews, and heretics for their obstinacy in sin and encourages Christians to set themselves apart from them. In tract four, he describes how Jews even in his own time are filled with the spirit of Barabbas, “that seditious murderer,” for they “raised these disturbances against the apostles, and even now, wherever they find opportunity, they do not cease to raise them against all the saints.”15 In the same tract, when addressing the neophytes, he insists that they must “flee from every abomination of the Gentiles and from all paths of idolatry” and lists specific practices which they ought to avoid: “poisons, enchantments, pacts, falsehoods, auguries, lots, the observance of omens, and feasts in honor of dead relatives.”16 Finally, at the conclusion of the series on Exodus, he entreats his congregation not to submit to the “errors of the Gentiles, or to the iniquity of the Jews, or to the evil of the heretics.”17 Gaudentius, then, interprets Scripture in a way that fits his desire to promote an orthodox Christian community in opposition to perceived threats of unity—namely, pagans, heretics, and Jews.

Another of Gaudentius’s contemporaries used scriptural exegesis not only to set

Christians apart from pagans, heretics, and Jews, but also to promote Christian virtues and an

13 The exact dates of his episcopacy are unknown and will be discussed further in this paper. 14 See Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 1-7, trans. in Boehrer, 51-97. 15 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 4:8 in Boehrer, 76. 16 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 4:13-14, in Boehrer, 77-8. 17 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 7:21, in Boehrer, 96. 6 ideal way of life. Chromatius was bishop of Aquileia, a port city near present-day Trieste which enjoyed a thriving trade economy and was one of the earliest sites of Christianity in northern

Italy.18 As a result, by the time of Chromatius’s episcopacy the Christian community in Aquileia was substantial and possibly quite wealthy.19 Robert McEachnie has recently argued that

Chromatius attempted to solidify this community against outsiders through his rhetoric on Jews, heretics, and barbarians and to assert its dominance over the community of Aquileia.20 Like

Gaudentius and Maximus, Chromatius used scriptural exegesis in his sermons to justify his condemnation of these groups.21 Yet while defining what a Christian was not, he also defined the necessary virtues and practices which every Christian ought to live out, especially chastity, generosity, and devotion to saints. The Christian was supposed to follow the example of the apostolic Church and “study peace, concord, and agreement,” seeking to be charitable and generous towards others in all things.22 Thus, each Christian was supposed to climb the ladder of virtue and ascend to heaven.23 Chromatius’ approach to Christianization, then, was multi-faceted and included both rhetorical diatribes against outsiders and earnest entreaties to follow the path of virtue and faith.

While Maximus, Gaudentius, and Chromatius and intended that their communities would lead a disciplined orthodox Christian life, completely rejecting pagan ways of life and practices, as well as influences from Jews and heretics, they pursued this goal through different styles of

18 Mark Humphries, Communities of the Blessed: Social Environment and Religious Change in Northern Italy, AD 200-400 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 73-9. 19 Humphries, 77-8. 20Robert McEachnie, “Constructing Christian Community: The Sermons of Chromatius of Aquileia, 388-407” (PhD diss., University of Florida, 2013). McEachnie also includes an English translation of Chromatius’ sermons which I have used for this paper. 21 See, for example, Chromatius’ interpretation of the expulsion of the traders from the temple in Matthew 21 in Sermon 4, in McEachnie, 243. 22 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 31:4, in McEachnie, 355. 23 For Chromatius’ explication of the ladder of virtue as the Beatitudes, and its connection to Jacob’s ladder, see Sermon 41, in McEachnie, 384-91. 7 preaching. The primary purpose of all three bishops’ sermons was Scriptural exegesis, but

Chromatius and Gaudentius employed allegorical interpretations much more often than

Maximus, whose exegesis was more literal and less complex. In this thesis, I argue that this difference in preaching style is a reflection of the specific circumstances and pastoral concerns that each bishop faced in Aquileia, Brescia, and Turin. Only when the sermons of Chromatius,

Gaudentius, and Maximus are examined and analyzed within their cultural and urban context can they be properly understood.

I have divided this thesis into four chapters. The first three chapters will analyze the extant sermons of Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus respectively, looking primarily at the rhetoric, exegesis, and popular themes that each bishop presented. Chapter Four will seek to place these sermons within their cultural context, discussing the region of northern Italy as a whole and evaluating Mark Humphries’ conceptualization of the “north Italian human environment” as an effective model for understanding northern Italy in the late fourth and early fifth century.24 This chapter will also include an overview of exegesis in late antiquity in general, and specifically the sermons of Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus. A conclusion will attempt to tie together and summarize the main points presented in each chapter and return to a broader discussion of the role of the bishop in the Christianization of northern Italy in late antiquity. In my analysis of the bishops’ sermons, I am indebted to Robert McEachnie, Stephen

Boehrer, and Boniface Ramsey, who have translated the sermons of Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus, respectively, into English. I rely heavily on their translations throughout this work. However, I have also conducted my own translations from Latin of some of the sermons and whenever important for my argument I have used my own translations of key passages.

24 Humphries, 21. 8

These I have indicated by including the Latin text in the footnote in addition to the citation of the critical Latin edition.

A note should be made about the terminology used in this paper, specifically the terms

“pagan,” “Christian,” and “heretic.” The use of the term pagan is problematic as it implies a uniformity of belief and practice among very diverse groups of people within the late Roman

Empire. The search for a different term, however, is equally problematic and complex. To use the term “non-Christian” would negatively define these individuals based on what they are not, and still assumes uniformity among them. Besides being a primarily political and social term,

“Roman” equally encompasses Christians as well as pagans, and excludes from the discussion any Christians or pagans outside the boundaries of the empire. For simplicity, this essay shall simply use the term “pagan” when referring to non-Christian cults, practices, and beliefs, though not in any pejorative sense and recognizing the plurality of groups this encompasses. As there were several divergent sects of Christianity present in late antique northern Italy, most notably the Arians and the Nicenes, the use of the terms “Christian” and “heretic” are equally problematic. No Christians referred to themselves as heretics. By the late fourth and early fifth century, however, Arian Christianity had lost any major imperial support, and Nicene

Christianity began to dominate the landscape.25 Heretics were, in fact, defined by law in 380 under Theodosius as those who rejected the creed formulated and affirmed at the Council of

Nicaea in 325.26 Since Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus were ardent Nicene Christians, this sense will be implied in any future use of the term Christian. Likewise, the term heretic should be understood to refer primarily to Arians, though other Christian sects which fall outside of Nicene Christianity are implied as well. The reader should be familiar with the problems that

25 See Williams. 26 Susan Wise Bauer, History of the Medieval World (New York: Norton, 2010), 57. 9 these terms represent, and consider them as complex entities rather than simple uniform or united groups.

Much of the scholarship on this period and region has centered on the dominant figure of

Ambrose, bishop of Milan from 374 to 397. As a result, bishops such as Chromatius,

Gaudentius, and Maximus have often been studied in his shadow as suffragan bishops heavily influenced by his preaching, writing, and dominant persona. It is my hope that this study will renew interest in the lesser-known bishops of northern Italy in their own right, drawing them forth from the shadows and presenting them as prominent figures in the Christianization of the region as a whole in its transition from the ancient to the early medieval world.

10

“We ought to abstain by all means from vices”:

Exclusionary Rhetoric and Virtue in the Sermons of Chromatius of Aquileia

No city in northern Italy can boast of archaeological remains like Aquileia. Strategically situated at the head of the Adriatic Sea, it was one of the largest, most bustling port cities in the

Roman Empire. The late Roman author Ausonius claimed it to be the ninth largest city in the empire.27 The source of the city’s wealth was primarily trade; three major trade routes converged in the city in antiquity, connecting the western regions of Lombardy and Piedmont, the eastern regions of Istria and Pannonia, the northern regions of the Danube, and the Adriatic Sea.28 Its population, naturally, was very diverse and similar to other urban environments in the Empire: individuals of almost every religious and cultural identity could be found within the city walls. It is in part the economic importance of the city which explains the rise of Christianity in Aquileia.

Its episcopal see dates to the middle of the third century.29 The earliest basilica in the city was built near the market district by Theodore, the bishop of Aquileia who attended the Council of

Arles in 314, and provides evidence for a substantial and wealthy Christian community in the city by the time of his episcopate.30 By the end of the fourth century, during Chromatius’ episcopate, three new churches were being built in Aquileia and one in the neighboring city of

Concordia.31 Chromatius, thus, was the spiritual and temporal leader of a large, well-established, and probably well-endowed Christian community in Aquileia.

27 Michael Mascari, “Zeno, Gaudentius, and Chromatius: The Dynamics of Preaching in Northern Italy, 360-420,” (Ph.D. diss, Catholic University of America, 1996), 20. 28 McEachnie, 33. 29 Mascari, 98. 30 Humphries, 74-9. 31 Mascari, 99. 11

Chromatius left behind forty-three sermons (thrity-one of which are complete) and a tractate on the gospel of Matthew.32 Most of his sermons had been lost or misattributed to other writers until Joseph Lemarié and Roger Etait established a corpus of his sermons in the 1970’s.33

An important analysis and English translation of Chromatius’ sermons have recently been done by Robert McEachnie.34 Drawing on ethnic and identity theory, McEachnie argues that

Chromatius’ sermons sought to define Christians in opposition to outsiders, particularly heretics, barbarians, and Jews. By doing this, he created the conception of a unified Christian orthodoxy in Aquileia. Furthermore, Chromatius tried to entice elites and other Romans to join the ranks of the church by adapting certain pagan concepts, such as euergetism, to a Christian context.

Building on McEachnie’s analysis of Chromatius’ preaching, I wish to expand on his preaching on virtue as a means of Christianization. Chromatius defines his Christian community in opposition to outside groups while at the same time emphasizing the centrality that Christian practices and virtues ought to have in one’s life; for Chromatius, the Christian ought to be steadfast in advancing in holiness, and it is this ideal that he presents to his congregation through his sermons.

While we have no evidence of Chromatius’ birth, we do know that he was already ordained a priest by the year 370.35 Eighteen years later in 388 he was ordained bishop by

Ambrose. As a bishop, Chromatius maintained contacts with several prominent bishops in the late antique world. Much of our information about Chromatius comes from Jerome and Rufinus, both of whom regarded him highly and often exchanged letters with him. Chromatius even acted

32 I do not consider this tractate in my analysis. For this tractate, see Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Tractatus in Mathaeum, in CCSL 9A, 183-498. 33 For an overview of the historiography of Chromatius’ sermons, see McEachnie, 12-26. 34 See note 2 above. I am grateful to McEachnie for his translation of Chromatius sermons, and have used it often throughout this paper. I have noted my own translations of Chromatius’ sermons by providing the Latin text in the footnotes. 35 McEachnie, 39. 12 as mediator between them when their friendship dissolved over the Origenist Controversy.36

John Chrysostom wrote a letter to Chromatius asking for help after he was deposed as bishop of

Constantinople by the Emperor Arcadius in 404. Chromatius responded by attending the synod in Rome at almost seventy years of age and writing a letter to the western emperor Honorius in support of Chrysostom.37 He also led what appears to be a group of ascetics in Aquileia. He died in 407 after nearly twenty years on the episcopal throne.

McEachnie makes a compelling argument for the way in which Chromatius creates a dichotomy between outside groups—specifically, heretics, barbarians, and Jews—and Christians in order to establish and strengthen a Christian community in Aquileia. In terms of heretics, he shows how Chromatius distinguished heresy from orthodoxy in order to establish orthodoxy as the norm for Christians. Chromatius’ dialogue of heresy presupposes a unified orthodox

Christianity from which deviant strains could emerge. In this way, “heretic” was a power term because it gave the bishop the authority to define what was orthodox and what was not.38 With this authority, Chromatius could create a false history of heresy and extend orthodoxy all the way back to Christianity’s roots in the Acts of the Apostles. In one sermon, he links two very different heretics together, the Manichaeans and Marcion, in a passing reference, emphasizing this Christian-heretic divide.39 All heretics could be lumped together into one group because they rejected the orthodoxy of the church. Additionally, Chromatius used heresy as a rhetorical device to emphasize key Christian teachings. In a fragment of a sermon on baptism, Chromatius explains how baptism is a work of all three members of the Trinity, using heretics as a trope:

36 For an overview of Chromatius’ friendship with Jerome and Rufinus during the Origenist Controversy, see McEachnie, 61-6. 37 McEachnie, 60-1. 38 McEachnie, 89. 39 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 26:4, in McEachnie, 335. For McEachnie’s analysis of this sermon, see 84-5. 13

And how have the heretics dared to deny that the Holy Spirit is God, although they see that the Holy Spirit is declared God by the undoubted Son of God? Therefore, our spiritual birth is not without the Holy Spirit, and not without cause, because just as our first shaping was through the Trinity, so our second shaping is through the Trinity. No work of the Father is truly without the Son, nor without the Holy Spirit, because the work of the Father is the work of the Son, and the work of the Son is the work of the Holy Spirit.40

Here, Chromatius’ intention is not to counter the beliefs of heretics but rather to assert the centrality of baptism in God’s saving plan. Baptism is really a new creation, a pivotal moment in an individual’s life in which God is completely present. Chromatius takes this further in another sermon, emphasizing the necessity of belief in the Trinity for baptism. Without right belief in the Trinity, baptism is ineffective and there is no remission of one’s sins.41 By asserting the centrality of right belief, he both denies the spiritual benefits of heresy and firmly roots the authority to baptize in the orthodox Christian church.42 In this way, not only does Chromatius create a divide between Christians and heretics, but he also establishes his Christian community as that which follows the true Christian faith.

Chromatius uses a similar strategy in his language relating to barbarians, as McEachnie argues. Following in the footsteps of classical Roman authors, Christian authors in the late

Roman Empire understood Romans and barbarians as two opposing identities. What was innovative was that they adapted this dichotomy to their own religious purposes, linking

Christian identity with Roman identity.43 McEachnie argues that Chromatius’ barbarian rhetoric was really used to contrast the barbarians with the Jews. Barbarians were on the limits of being

Roman (and thus Christian), but it was still possible for them to accept Christianity. Indeed,

40 “Nativitas ergo nostra spiritalis non sine Spiritu sancto est, et non immerito, quia sicut prima figuratio nostra per Trinitatem, ita secunda figuratio per Trinitatem. Nullum enim opus Patris sine Filio, nec sine Spiritu sancto, quia opus Patris opus Filii est, opus Filii opus Spiritus sancti est.” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo XVIII A, in CCSL 9A, 87. 41 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 34:2, in McEachnie, 368. 42 McEachnie, 86. 43 McEachnie, 136. 14 some had done so. Furthermore, because barbarians were ignorant of Christ, they could not be held as morally responsible for their actions as were the Jews, who knew Christ and chose to reject him.44 The fact that Chromatius would have referred to barbarians in his sermons is not surprising. As a city on the crossroads between east and west, north and south, Aquileia was often confronted with the threat of barbarian invasions. Alaric the Goth laid siege to the city in

401 during his invasion of Italy, and the city ultimately fell to barbarians in 452. This rhetoric would have resonated strongly with his congregation and made clear just how much of a threat

Jews were to his Christian community.

McEachnie does not examine in depth Chromatius’ rhetoric regarding pagans, probably because there is very little of it in his sermons. These very few references are usually made in passing and appear to be rhetorical tropes rather than criticism of ongoing pagan practices. In a sermon on the meaning of the word Alleluia, Chromatius refers to the former pagan practices of his congregation—in this instance, singing—and opposes it to their new life in Christ:

For we ought to sing ‘to He Who is,’ we who, a little while ago, used to sing to those who were not, that is, the gods of the nations and the images of idols. But then we sang in vain, because we worshiped that which was vain. We used to sing in vain when we would utter nasty things, when we would praise the gods of the nations, when we would build up illicit and profane loves for the gods of the Gentiles....Therefore, we sang in vain a little while ago, but after we came to belief and divine knowledge, we began to sing “to He Who is,’ that is, God, the omnipotent creator of heaven, the founder of the earth, the creator of the world, the creator himself of man....45

Chromatius’ intent here does not appear to be eradicating pagan practices; indeed, he seems to imply that such practices had largely disappeared among the Christians in Aquileia by the time he delivered this sermon. But he does use the memory of paganism—much like the memory of

44 McEachnie, 137-41. 45 Debemus enim cantare ‘ei qui est’, qui dudum cantabamus his qui non erant, id est diis gentium et simulacris idolorum. Sed vane tunc cantabamus cum turpia loquebamur, cum deos gentium laudaremus, cum illictos et profanos amores deorum gentilium adstrueremus....Vane itaque dudum cantabamus, sed postquam venimus ad credulitatem cognitionemque divinam, cantare coepimus ‘ei qui est’, id est Deo omnipotenti creatori caeli, conditori terrae, factori orbis, ipsi hominis factori....” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo XXXIII, in CCSL 9A, 150. 15 heresy—to juxtapose it to the true Christian faith which his congregation now possesses.

Similarly, in a sermon interpreting a passage from 1 Corinthians, Chromatius presents philosophers, along with Jews and heretics, as competitors in the race for the crown of eternal life. The philosophers “run according to empty wisdom,” and just like the Jews and heretics, will not win the crown at the end of the race.46 Here again, pagan philosophers are intended simply as a group who are excluded from the Christian community because they do not know

Christ. Finally, in a sermon given on the Easter Vigil, he observes how all creation, including the pagans and Jews, celebrates the feast of Easter.47 Again, he does not provide any information about pagans in Aquileia at the time, nor does he criticize his congregation for participating in pagan practices. It would seem, then, that references to pagans in his sermons serve a largely rhetorical purpose.

This was not necessarily the case in Chromatius’ references to Jews. Of the three groups,

Chromatius saves his harshest criticisms for the Jews, mentioning them in eighteen of his forty- two extant sermons.48 As in the case of the heretics, barbarians, and pagans, he sought to define

Christianity as separate from Judaism by asserting the right belief of Christians in contrast to the erroneous beliefs of the Jews. Like Gaudentius, he often uses biblical exegesis as a means of emphasizing this separation. In a sermon explaining the spiritual meaning of a passage from

Psalm 13, Chromatius links the fools mentioned in the psalm to the Jews.49 The psalmist, or rather God through the psalmist, prophesied that the Jews would be unfaithful to God even up

46 “Currunt Iudaei per legem, currunt philosophi per inanem sapientam, currunt et haeretici per falsam annuntiationem, currunt catholici per veram fidei praedicationem: sed de his omnibus unus coronam accipit, id est populus catholicus qui recto fidei cursu, tendit ad Christum, ut ad palmam immortalitatis coronamque perveniat.” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo XXVIII, in CCSL 9A, 129. 47 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 16:3, in McEachnie, 293. I disagree with McEachnie that this passage provides evidence for the presence of pagans and Jews at the Easter Vigil service, a point on which I will expound later in this chapter. 48 McEachnie, 156. See also n.27 on that page for the sermons McEachnie does not include in that count. 49 This is now Psalm 14 in the modern Bible: “‘The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt and make themselves cursed in their sins.’” Ps. 14:1, quoted in McEachnie, 259. 16 until the time of Christ. In fact, the psalmist himself prayed for the coming of Christ to save the righteous from the treachery of the Jews.50 The Christians, then, like a new Jacob, supplant the

Jews from their original birthright: “For first, when we come to belief and are born out of the womb of our mother, the church, we are made Jacob, that is supplanters. For we supplant by our faith the prior treachery of our brothers, that is the Jews, and thus from the less, we are made first.”51 This same theme is present in a sermon explaining the meaning of the parable of the wedding feast.52 The king, or God the Father, invited the Jews to participate in the marriage of

Christ to his church, but the Jews refused. For this reason, God invited “all the nations” to come to the feast, “out of which we are, we who came to the grace of Christ.”53 Thus, because of their infidelity and persistence in error, the Jews are replaced by the Christians as the chosen people of

God.

Although Chromatius uses common patristic themes when describing the Jews, he does not descend to the level of moral invective that is common among other patristic authors of the time, most notably John Chrysostom.54 One theme recurring in other authors of this period is that of the Jews of Chromatius’ time as responsible for the death of Christ. Chromatius affirms in sermon 13 that Jews in Aquileia bear the same responsibility as their forbears because they

“do not believe the words of the prophets or the just about Christ.”55 Indeed, this was their greatest sin: the fact that they refused to believe Christ and betrayed him when he came.56

However, Chromatius did not criticize the moral nature of the Jews of Aquileia, as was common in this period. John Chrysostom, for example, described in detail how the impiety of the Jews

50 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 9:5, in McEachnie, 262-3. 51 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 9:6, in McEachnie, 263. 52 Mt. 22:1-14. 53 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 10:4, in McEachnie, 267. 54 For an overview of John Chrysostom’s sermons against Jews, see Robert L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). 55 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 13:1, in McEachnie, 280. 56 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 9:3, in McEachnie, 261. 17 could be likened to drunkenness.57 While avoiding such harsh criticisms, Chromatius nevertheless saw the Jews as the most real threat to his attempt to build Christian community in

Aquileia and used his rhetorical training to cast them as opponents of Christians and rejected by

God.

McEachnie argues that the main purpose of Chromatius’ strong rhetoric was to chastise those Christians who attended both the church and the synagogue.58 Given the liturgical context in which sermons were delivered and the fluid urban religious environment of the fourth century, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of Chromatius’ audience attended both Jewish and

Christian services.59 There was, in fact, a Jewish synagogue and a substantial Jewish population in Aquileia at the time when Chromatius was preaching, increasing the probability that the two religious groups comingled.60 Furthermore, the phenomenon of individuals attending diverse religious services was not uncommon in the East.61 Thus, for any bishop attempting to create a unified Christian community, the presence of such a substantial Jewish community would have been a major threat. In this context, one can more easily understand why Chromatius would preach so frequently and so critically against the Jews.

Although Chromatius used his sermons to emphasize what Christianity was not—i.e., heresy, paganism, barbarism, and Judaism—he equally emphasized the positive virtues that defined Christians both as individuals and as a community. In one of his most famous sermons,

Chromatius discusses each of the eight Beatitudes in the gospel of Matthew and shows how they

57 Wilken, 118-21. 58 McEachnie, 152-6. 59 For understanding the liturgical context of episcopal sermons, see Wendy Mayer, “John Chrysostom: Extraordinary Preacher, Ordinary Audience” in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. Mary Cunningham (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 105-37. For the fluid nature of urban religion in late antiquity and its impact on Jews and Christians, see McEachnie, 152-5. 60 For the synagogue in Aquileia, see McEachnie, 166-9; Lelia Cracco-Ruggini, “Il Vescovo Cromazio e gli Ebrei di Aquileia,” in Aquileia e l’Oriente Mediterraneo (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1977) 353-81. See also 57 below. 61 Jaclyn L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and his Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 140. 18 build on each other: “Our Lord and Savior lays out in a certain way the most firm and certain steps from these precious stones, through which the holy souls and the faithful may be able to crawl and ascend to that highest good, that is, the kingdom of heaven.”62 He then goes through each of the Beatitudes in order, explaining how one cannot achieve one of the virtues without first mastering those which preceded it. For instance, a Christian must first become poor in spirit if he wishes to then become meek, for “how therefore will the spirit placed among riches, among cares and worldly anxieties...be able to be meek and calm among these disturbances unless it first cuts itself off and renounces all causes of anger and opportunities of quarrels?”63 The ultimate goal of this progression was to be able to endure persecution for the sake of Christ. Then, the

Christian, like the apostle Paul, “would arrive at the higher step of martyrdom.”64 Chromatius likened these steps to Jacob’s ladder, “whose top reaches to heaven from earth, through which he who ascends comes to the gate of heaven, and having entered through this gate, will stand happy in the sight of Lord without end, praising the Lord with the holy angels for eternity.”65 In another sermon, he considers Jacob’s ladder a type for the cross of Christ upon which “many steps of virtues have been inserted,” allowing the Christian to ascend to heaven.66 His preaching on virtue has led some scholars to consider him a proto-monastic, though monasticism in the

West would not develop into its familiar medieval form until much later.67 Nonetheless, he clearly attempted to encourage and educate his congregation on the Christian life by emphasizing virtue in his sermons.

62 “Gradus quosdam firmissimos ex lapidibus pretiosis sternit quodammodo Dominus Saluator, per quos sanctae animae et fideles repere possint et ascendere ad summum illud bonum, id est regnum caelorum.” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo XLI, in CCSL 9A, 176. 63 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 41:2, in McEachnie, 386. 64 “...ad gradum sublimiorem martyrii perveniret.” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo XLI, in CCSL 9A, 179. 65 “Ostensa est illa scala Iacob, cuius cacumen de terra pertingebat ad caelum, per quam qui ascendit portam invenit caeli, ac per eam ingressus, sine fine in conspectu Domini laetus adstabit, laudaturus Dominum cum sanctis angelis in aeternum.” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo XLI, in CCSL 9A, 179. See McEachnie, 196-7. 66 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 1:6, in McEachnie, 229. 67 For a scholar who likens Chromatius to a monastic, see Mascari, 205-54. 19

Two practices which he presented to his congregation were fasting and almsgiving.

Chromatius believed that fasting and almsgiving were not specifically Christian acts, but were written on all human hearts. In a sermon lauding the virtues of Cornelius, a centurion in the Acts of the Apostles, Chromatius noted how even “before he believed, he preserved the justice of God by the natural law, serving God through fasts, prayers, and almsgiving.”68 Fasting and almsgiving, then, are virtues written on the human heart by God, regardless of whether or not one is a Christian. Since even pagans were capable of fasting and giving alms, it is little wonder that one of Chromatius’ few chastisements of his congregation is directed towards their lack of fasting and almsgiving:

Hence he [Cornelius] rightly merited to see an angel of the Lord in his house, saying to him, just as the present reading retold: “Cornelius, your prayers have been heard, and your alms have risen as a memorial before God.” [Acts 10:4] But I do not know whether any of us deserves to hear this from the angel, we who are devoted neither to fasting, nor to prayers, nor to almsgiving. Fasting has been prescribed recently, but few have fasted. People proceed to church and attend to idle talk or earthly business rather than prayers. The poor complain of their lack and their need, but no alms are given. And we are astonished if we have to suffer different tribulation, when all have a hardened spirit.69

Rarely does Chromatius address his congregation as directly as he does in this sermon. The lack of sincere Christian devotion among his congregation is the sure cause of their suffering. In another sermon, he insists that they should not complain about fasting since they have spiritual food, namely the Gospel.70 As in the case of Maximus’ numerous rebukes of his congregation in

Turin, Chromatius hopes to challenge his congregation to a deeper Christian faith through his chastisements, though they may be few.

Fasting and almsgiving were practices that could promote virtues in an individual, including chastity, and counter vices, such as greed. The purpose of fasting was to discipline the

68 “...qui etiam antequam crederet, iustitiam Dei naturali lege seruabat, seruiens Deo ieiuniis et orationibus et eleemosynis.” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo III, in CCSL 9A, 14. 69 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 3:1, in McEachnie, 237. 70 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 25:6, in McEachnie, 331. 20 body to allow it to achieve ever greater virtue, and it therefore had a necessary spiritual component. Physical fasting was not enough; one also had to abstain from “all means of vices” at the same time that was fasting from food.71 In a sermon on the Acts of the Apostles,

Chromatius notes how the apostles shared everything in common, “imitating the community of future glory where the reign of the saints will be common to all, where no one struggles over boundaries, possessions, or houses.”72 In contrast, Chromatius’ own congregation is possessed by a “zeal for greed.”73 To what extent this is simply a rhetorical device or a reflection of

Chromatius’ sincere concern for what he believes to be a spiritual problem in his community is unclear. What is clear is that he proposes almsgiving as a virtue contrary to the vice of greed and as a means to re-establish the harmony of the apostolic age:

And for this reason we ought to come to the aid of the needs of our brothers and the poor who suffer as if we shared in their afflictions, because we have in common on God and Father, and one Lord, the only begotten son of God, and one Holy Spirit, and one faith, and the grace of one baptism through which we are born again by God into eternal life.74

In this case, almsgiving is promoted as the means to achieve a greater virtue—the virtue of harmony—just as fasting is emphasized as a way to achieve chastity. Both fasting and almsgiving then fit within Chromatius’ framework of virtue as a spiritual ladder that leads to heaven, a framework which he presented both subtly and explicitly to his congregation.

For Chromatius, devotion and virtue were intended to center the Christian’s life completely on God, and indeed, not only the Christian’s life, but time itself. On the greatest

Christian feast of the year, the Easter Vigil, Chromatius preached two sermons that highlighted the feast’s great importance not only for Christians, but for all people, even Jews and pagans.

71 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 35:4, in McEachnie, 373. 72 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 31:4, in McEachnie, 354. 73 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 31:4, in McEachnie, 354. 74 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 31:4, in McEachnie, 355.

21

Even these groups, so opposed to Christian virtue and teaching, “are not without joy, because they are conquered by a secret grace and goodness which comes from the name of Christ who reigns over everything. Many Pagans and Jews celebrate the festival of our vigil as their own, both with glad hearts, if not with religious practices.”75 McEachnie assumes that this reference indicates the presence of Jews and pagans at the Easter Vigil.76 While this may in fact be the case, Chromatius’ words do not necessarily indicate this. Rather, it is more fitting to view this reference as a rhetorical device used to assert the centrality of the Easter Vigil for all creation.

Earlier in the sermon Chromatius observes how even “the angels in heaven, men on earth, and the souls of the faithful in hell all celebrate this vigil of the Lord.”77 Jews and pagans, then, would naturally be affected by the vigil of Christ’s Resurrection, even if they were not in the church for the celebration.

If all creation celebrated the vigil of Christ’s Resurrection, whether willingly or not, then

Chromatius makes the natural conclusion, in the next sermon, that all time should be counted from the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the moment of the Christian’s salvation and the start of his new life in Christ: “We should begin to call this month the first month for in it we are saved from death.”78 Indeed, nature itself reflects this transition from death to life; it is at Easter time that “the grass of the meadows rises as if from the dead, now the flowers are in the trees, now the vines have buds....”79 Chromatius contrasts this with how the pagans err by placing the start of the year in January, for “how can January be the first of the year when the whole world is hidden dry and without beauty?”80 Thus Chromatius’ sermon serves a dual purpose: it reiterates

75 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 16:3, in McEachnie, 293. 76 McEachnie, 159. 77 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 16:2, in McEachnie, 292. 78 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 17:3, in McEachnie, 296. 79 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 17:3, in McEachnie, 296. 80 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 17:3, in McEachnie, 296. 22 the centrality of Easter to the life of the Christian, who ought to order his life around the celebration of his salvation, and is meant as a point of contrast between Christians and pagans.

One final aspect of Chromatius’ approach to Christianization can be seen in his sermons relating to saints. Chromatius promoted devotion to saints as a necessary aid in reaching heaven.

In a sermon on Peter’s escape from prison in the Acts of the Apostles, Chromatius explains how the servant girl Rhoda who meets Peter at the door of the house of Mary—in this case, the church—after his escape is a type for “the congregation of saints which shines with the blood of glorious martyrs like a precious rose....”81 Only upon meeting her at the door can the Christian then enter the house of Mary.82 Thus, in order to be a member of the Christian community in

Aquileia, devotion to the saints was crucial. Furthermore, saint relics aided in the expansion of episcopal power for the bishop of Aquileia, as he used them to establish new episcopal sees.

Alan Thacker has argued that the cult of martyrs did not have a deep memory in the bishoprics surrounding Aquileia in the late fourth century, thus allowing Chromatius to use them as a means of establishing Aquileia as a metropolitan authority.83 Chromatius delivered a sermon on the day of the dedication of the new basilica in Concordia, possibly as the ranking prelate.

The church of Concordia, therefore, was adorned with the gift of the saints, the construction of a basilica, and the office of the highest priesthood. For this holy man, my brother and co-bishop, merited to be honored with the highest priesthood, he who honored the church of Christ the eternal priest through the gift of the saints of this sort.84

The rest of the sermon goes on to explain each of the “gift of the saints”—the relics which will be housed in the basilica. These relics included the remains of John the Baptist and of the

81 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 29:4, in McEachnie, 347. 82 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 29:4, in McEachnie, 347. 83 Alan Thacker, “Popes, Patriarchs and Archbishops and the Origins of the Cult of the Martyrs in Northern Italy,” Studies in Church History 47 (2011): 51-79. 84 “Ornata est igitur ecclesia Concordiensis et munere sanctorum, et basilicae constructione, et summi sacerdotis officio. Meruit enim sanctus vir, frater et coepiscopus meus, summo sacerdotio honorari, qui per huiusmodi munera sanctorum, honoravit ecclesiam Christi sacerdotis aeterni.” Chromatius of Aquileia, Opera, Sermo XXVI, in CCSL 9A, 119. 23 apostles Thomas, Andrew, and John the Evangelist, whose relics had been in Chromatius’ church in Aquileia for some time.85 Closely tied to this sermon on relics and the construction of the basilica is the ordination, apparently by Chromatius himself, of a new bishop to the see of

Concordia. Thus, similar to Ambrose’s strategy in Milan, the promotion of the cult of the saints and the spread of their relics played an important role in the Chromatius’ consolidation and expansion of his episcopal authority.

Chromatius truly tackled Christianization from all fronts. He was persistent and unrelenting in his rhetoric against heretics, barbarians, pagans, and Jews as a means of constructing his Christian community and defining what it meant to be Christian. McEachnie aptly demonstrates this in his analysis of Chromatius sermons. Yet Chromatius did not limit himself to simply exclusionary rhetoric; he also had to define who a Christian was. This he did through his preaching on virtue, in which he laid out the path to holiness for his congregation and consistently urged them to follow it. Chromatius then provides an example of a strong spiritual leader and teacher, one who could almost rival the powerful Ambrose in his reach and influence.

85 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 21:4, in McEachnie, 314. 24

“Errors,” “Iniquities,” and “Wickedness”:

Gaudentius and the Gentiles, Jews, and Heretics of Brescia

In the center of the Po River Valley, in what is today the Italian state of Lombardy, there lays the city of Brescia. Although an unassuming city by modern appearances, Brescia (Latin,

Brixia) has a long and extensive history as a regional urban center in northern Italy from the time of Augustus and the early Roman Empire. To this day, one can visit Brescia to see the remains of the Roman forum, as well as the archaeological museum containing several pre-Roman and

Roman era pottery shards, sarcophagi, friezes, and building ruins. Brescia was fully integrated into what Humphries calls the “north Italian human environment.”86 The city was of considerable size during much of the Roman period and was home to a substantial middle class; however, its population and economic importance began to decline in the fourth century.87 By this time, Brescia was not unfamiliar to Christians; in the museum of Brescia, one finds Christian scenes depicted on sarcophagi beginning in the third century, when it is generally believed that the first Christians arrived in Brescia.88 Episcopal lists seem to indicate that Gaudentius was the ninth bishop of Brescia, though the credibility of these lists has been called into question by

Humphries.89 Nevertheless, it is safe to say that Brescia had a sizeable Christian population by the time of Gaudentius’ ordination as bishop.

Very little is known about the life of Gaudentius, and much of what is known comes from one of his own sermons, delivered on the day of his ordination. Upon hearing of his election while traveling in the Greek East, Gaudentius initially refused to become bishop. Appealing to

Ambrose, however, the people of Brescia insisted, and eventually the eastern bishops threatened

86 Humphries, 21. 87 Mascari, 18. 88 Humphries, 82-3; Mascari, 92. 89 For a discussion of the episcopal lists of Brescia and their credibility, see Humphries, 58. 25 him with excommunication if he did not accept the election.90 Ambrose of Milan was present for the celebration, most likely as the presiding prelate and principal homilist.91 The exact date of his ordination is unknown. According to Glueck, he must have been ordained sometime between

385, the death of his predecessor Philastrius, and 397, when Ambrose died.92 His episcopacy probably extended for at least fourteen years because he delivers a sermon on the fourteenth anniversary of Philastrius’s death.93 He was highly educated, having been trained in classical literature (though it is not known where this training took place), and, according to Rufinus, was fluent in Greek: in his preface to Clement’s Recognitiones, which he addresses to Gaudentius,

Rufinus notes how the bishop read this work in its original Greek.94 Such a skill was becoming increasingly rare in the Latin West.95 His episcopacy must have extended at least to the year 405 since he played an active role in the controversy between John Chrysostom and the emperor

Arcadius in that year, having been chosen as a papal delegate to re-instate Chrysostom as bishop of Constantinople.96 Despite his efforts, he never reached Constantinople; he was detained in

Greece, had all his letters from the pope and Ambrose confiscated, and was subsequently sent back to Rome.97 After this event, Gaudentius disappears from the sources, and the date of his death is unknown.

Gaudentius’s only surviving works are twenty-two sermons and tracts, collected and delivered to a certain Benivolus, a Master of Records (magistrum memoriae) and civic leader in

90 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 16:2, in Boehrer, 185. 91 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 16:9, in Boehrer, 187. 92 Glueck, Prolegomena, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (henceforth CSEL) 68, IX. 93 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 21:14, in Boehrer, 238. 94 “Aequum est sane tibi qui haec etiam Graece legeris, ne forte in aliquibus minus a nobis seruatum translationis ordinem putes, interpretationis nostrae indicare consilium.” Rufinus of Aquileia, Prologus in Clementis Recognitiones, in CCSL 20, 281. cf. Mascari, 156-7. 95 This would in part explain his selection as the principal papal delegate in the controversy between John Chrysostom and the emperor Arcadius in 405. 96 This also seems to point to strong connections between northern Italy and the Greek East, and particularly between Gaudentius and the bishops of the East. 97 Boehrer, 17-26. 26

Brescia who had supported Ambrose against the empress Justina.98 According to Gaudentius’ praefatio, he was a catechumen and had been unable to attend the Easter liturgies because of illness and had requested that Gaudentius send him a written copy of his sermons from that time.99 Thus, his writings as they have come down to us were prepared post factum and are representative of only a small portion of Gaudentius’s sermons. Nevertheless, the fact that

Gaudentius desired to preserve these sermons in writing is an indication that they reflect important aspects of his theological, exegetical, and spiritual thought. The collection includes ten exegetical sermons delivered during the Paschal season—eight on the Exodus story, two on lessons from the Gospels—as well as four exegetical sermons on the Gospels; a sermon on

Maccabees; one sermon each for the day of his ordination, the dedication of a basilica, and the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul; two letters; a eulogy on the anniversary of Philastrius’ death; and the preface addressed to Benevolus. Similar to Chromatius, Gaudentius launched persistent attacks against heretics, pagans, and especially Jews, and often portrayed these groups in complete opposition to the Christians in his congregation in an attempt to define the Christian community of Brescia.

In his efforts to stamp out the perceived threat of heresy in Brescia, particularly Arianism,

Gaudentius used scriptural exegesis to prove the divinity of Jesus and the co-equal unity of the three persons of the Trinity. In a sermon on the coming of the Paraclete (Jn. 14:25-26),

Gaudentius first sees the need to ensure that his audience correctly understands the Gospel

98 Gaudentius of Brescia, Praefatio 2, in Boehrer, 36; Neil McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (Berkeley: University of Califronia Press, 1994), 221. 99 Gaudentius of Brescia, Praefatio 7-10, in Boehrer 37-8. The twenty-two extant writings of Gaudentius have been published as a volume in Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) and in Patrologia Latina. An unpublished translation of the sermons was completed in 1966 by Stephen Boehrer as a doctoral dissertation at the Catholic University of America. While I have relied on this English translation, at times I have referenced the original Latin and have indicated which translations are my own by including the Latin text. The footnotes to specific passages from his sermons refer to the sermon and section number. This is the same for both the CSEL and the Boehrer translation. 27 passage to mean that the Holy Spirit was not “only in heaven and not on earth, nor was the Son to ascend to the heavens so as to leave the earth, nor does the Father possess only a heavenly throne, to which the Son is shown to return and from which the Holy Spirit is shown to come.”100

He wants it to be clearly understood that the unity of the Trinity was not disrupted by the Son’s

Incarnation nor the Holy Spirit’s coming to earth. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united, and thus one must be where the others are: if the Son is on earth, then so is the Spirit on earth. As evidence of this, he cites Psalm 139, in which “the most blessed prophet addressed a confession of this nature to the Father: ‘Where shall I go,’ he says, ‘from your spirit, and where shall I speed from your face...if I will take my wings in a straight line and dwell in the farthest reaches of the sea.’”101 Gaudentius then briefly shifts his interpretation to this Psalm, indicating that these “wings” refer to the “wings of faith” which allow the believer to come to know fully the mysteries of God.102 The heretics, however, do not possess such wings, and thus cannot truly know “the immeasurable divinity where none but the faithful mind alone has access, that mind which perceives, believes, confesses, and preaches the unity of the adorable Trinity.”103 By making this clear distinction between the heretic and the believer, Gaudentius tries to eliminate any middle ground between the two groups: either you possess the “wings of faith” and are counted among the true believers, or you are outside of the Christian community.

In his desire to create a unified Christian community, Gaudentius found it necessary to stretch the limits of exegesis and clarify certain scriptural passages that seemed to conflict with

Nicene orthodoxy.104 In a sermon on the Exodus, Gaudentius calls to mind how some heretics,

100 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 14:5, in Boehrer, 171. 101 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 14:5, in Boehrer, 171. 102 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 14:6, in Boehrer, 171. 103 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 14:7, in Boehrer, 171-2. 104 One of the most famous verses often cited by Arians against Nicenes is John 14:28 in which Jesus says “The Father is greater than I.” Gaudentius devotes an entire letter on the interpretation of this scripture within a Nicene 28 namely Marcion and Mani, denied the canonical status of the Old Testament readings on the basis that the god of the Old Testament was evil while the god of the New Testament was good.105 In an attempt to address these heretics, he interprets a passage from the Gospel of Mark where Jesus supposedly separated himself from God the Father by saying that only God was good. Gaudentius explains that, rather than a denial of the Trinity, Jesus was actually alluding to two different understandings of “goodness,” the perfect goodness of God and the imperfect goodness of creatures. The man who called Jesus good thought only in human terms, while

Jesus, who is both God and man, understood goodness from a divine perspective and used this opportunity as a teaching moment on Jesus’ true nature:

But God, the Son of God, possessing perfect goodness with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, and knowing the goodness of the divinity to be one as the divinity is one, held Himself to be unworthily called good according to the standard of creatural goods; and He says: Why do you call me good? In other words, I do not wish you to call good one whom you do not know. Know first who I am and when you know the true God I would welcome that you say “good” because no one is good but God alone. For that particular Jew had spoken to the Son of God, God and man, as if he were speaking to a mere man, though admitting the man to be a good teacher, saying: Good master, what must I do to possess eternal life? It is because of this that the Lord says to him: Why do you call me good? No one is good but only God.106

Gaudentius later ties this discussion of heresy to his overall exegesis of the Exodus story; the yeast which the Israelites cannot use in the Passover bread is a type for the “wickedness of corrupting doctrine” which the Christian ought to avoid.107 He then explains this to mean that the Christian ought not to “be persuaded to assent to the errors of the Gentiles, or the iniquities of the Jews, or the wickedness of the heretics.”108 Gaudentius, using his skill and training in rhetoric and exegesis, was thus able to reinterpret a verse that was challenging to his theological orthodox theology, asserting that Christ is speaking of his humanity at this point rather than his divinity. For Gaudentius’s letter, see Tractatus 19. 105 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 7:3, in Boehrer, 91. 106 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 7:4, in Boehrer, 92. The verse in question is Mark 10:18. 107 “...corrumpentis doctrinae nequitia....” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 7:19, in CSEL 68, 58. 108 “Videte itaque, ne vel in modico, suadeamini adquiescere aut errori gentilium aut iniquitati Iudaeorum aut hereticorum nequitiae....” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 7:21, in CSEL 68, 59. 29 position and tie it into a broader condemnation of all those who reject the unity of the Nicene

Christian church.

Several of his sermons include similar repudiations of heresy and emphasis on Trinitarian doctrine. In a sermon on the wedding feast of Cana, he argued that Christ’s presence at the wedding actually testified to his divinity since Jesus is the same God of the book of Genesis who made man and woman.109 Again, he references a specific heretical group—this time, the

Manicheans—who “do not wish to live according to the teaching of the Apostle, Paul, so that every man might have his own wife and every woman her own husband.”110 At the end of the same sermon, he insists that “for similarly, they who were estranged from the apostolic faith and the Catholic Church also cannot now be saved at all.”111 One of his letters to a deacon, presumably in Brescia, focused entirely on explaining the proper meaning of the verse “For the

Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) Gaudentius argued that all of Christ’s life was a testimony to either his divinity or his humanity, and then proceeded to offer several examples from the gospels that demonstrated this.112 Since all of his sermons, including this letter, were written after the Council of Constantinople in 381, which affirmed Nicene orthodoxy, but before the

Council of Chalcedon pronounced that Christ had two substances—human and divine—in 451, they are an example of how the early Christian church was still in the process of defining and understanding its doctrine and theology. Thus, any theological dispute, no matter how small, could have tremendous consequences for the unity of the growing Christian church. This can

109 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:7, in Boehrer, 100. 110 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:8, in Boehrer, 100. For the Manicheans at the time of Gaudentius, see Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China : A Historical Survey (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999). 111 “Nam similiter etiam nunc omnino salvi esse non poterunt, qui ab apostolica fide et ab ecclesia catholica fuerint alieni.” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:49, in CSEL 68, 74. 112 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 19:6, in Boehrer, 218. 30 help explain why Gaudentius was so critical of doctrines which challenged his Nicene orthodoxy.

Nor are Gaudentius’s criticisms limited to heretics; he also offers several harsh words to pagans and those who sympathize with them. In one of the Exodus sermons, Gaudentius speaks directly to the neophytes encouraging them to remain strong in their faith and avoid any contact with pagan customs, idols, and traditions. The Christian can make no compromise with paganism, but rather must completely and wholeheartedly reject his or her pre-Christian way of life:

You neophytes, therefore, who have been invited to the banquet of this blessed and spiritual Passover, see in what manner you may preserve your souls from every defilement of foods which the superstition of the Gentiles has infected. From it springs the evil of idolatry. It does not suffice that a Christian guard his life from the deadly food of the evil spirits. He must flee from every abomination of the Gentiles and from all paths of idolatry as he would from the poisons of the serpent devil. For the parts of idolatry are poisons, enchantments, pacts, falsehoods, auguries, lots, the observance of omens, and feasts in honor of dead relatives.113

The fact that Gaudentius is quite specific here about which pagan practices a Christian ought to avoid suggests that this is not simply a rhetorical device but a list of real practices currently going on in Brescia in which a Christian could presumably take part. The fact that Gaudentius saw the need to mention these specific practices and not others is evidence that at least some

Christians had participated in these acts before. As a preacher and bishop, it was his duty to ensure that his congregation was living up to their Christian faith. For Gaudentius, this meant overcoming pagan, pre-Christian habits and re-ordering one’s life completely by centering it on

God.114

113 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 4:13-14, in Boehrer, 77-8. 114 For a similar theme in the preaching of John Chrysostom in the East, see Maxwell, 144-68. Chromatius also emphasized the centrality of the Christian message to one’s life, even arguing for the re-ordering of time according to Christ’s Resurrection. See 20-3 above. 31

Not only was pagan religion evil, but it had contaminated many aspects of pagan culture as well.115 Gaudentius fell in line with certain ancient Christian writers, such as Tertullian, who rejected the theaters and games (spectacula) as evil, saying that Christians will be unhappy if their houses “differ not at all from the theaters.”116 Indeed, he even referred to such actions as the “choir of the devil.”117 According to Gaudentius, Scripture also pointed to the triumph of the

Christian God over those of the pagans. In one of the Exodus sermons, he preaches that the

Egyptians, who enslaved the Israelites, God’s own people, are the gods of the pagans and all who follow them. These Egyptians, or pagans, are distinct from the pure Israelites, or the Christian community of Brescia.118 Thus even Scripture itself pointed to the superiority and separateness of the Christian community from the pagans.

Naturally, then, Gaudentius’s notion of Christianization was a process in which all pagan practices and idols were completely destroyed. One of the most stunning examples of this in his sermons comes from his eulogy on the anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Philastrius.

Little is known on the life of Philastrius, including at what point he was ordained bishop of

Brescia, yet Gaudentius speaks of him in the highest of terms, calling him a “son of the patriarchs, their companion in faith, and an imitator in their life.”119 He traveled “the entire edge of the Roman world” preaching; and recognizing Jews, heretics, and pagans as the most dangerous threats to a Christian community, he “not only fought against the Gentiles and Jews,

115 The rejection of pagan culture was also a theme of Christian preachers in the East, including John Chrysostom. See Maxwell, 72. 116 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:17, in Boehrer, 95. The notion that Christians were prohibited from taking part in the theater and other spectacles (spectacula) has its origins in the West in the early apologetic writings of Minucius Felix and Tertullian. See specifically Minucius Felix, Octavius 37:11-12, for a brief condemnation of the games based on their pagan origins, and Tertullian, De Spectaculis, for a fuller Christian argument against the spectacula. 117 “Sit domus Christiani ac baptizati hominis immunis a choro diaboli....” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:18, in CSEL 68, 64. 118 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 6:6-9, in Boehrer, 86-7. 119 “Est enim patriarcharum filius et socius in fide et aemulator conversationis....” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 21:1, in Patrologia Latina (henceforth PL) 20, 997; cf CSEL 68, 185. 32 but also against all the heresies, and especially against the Arian perfidy raging at this time.”120

After spending some time in Rome, he was eventually made the bishop of Brescia, a community which was “eager for doctrine, indeed ignorant of spiritual knowledge, yet praiseworthy in its zeal for learning.”121 Upon arriving in Brescia, Gaudentius describes his method of spreading the gospel in terms of a farmer who completely uproots the bad crops in a field and plants new, healthy crops which will bear fruit:

This good farmer [i.e. Philastrius] at once cut down the dreaded forest of various errors from the deepest roots, and leaning forward over the plow of doctrine, he changed the crude land with all his strength and he plowed the filthy ground into fertile lands with a constant furrow, sufficiently working into its bosom the seeds of the life-giving commandments. He also planted a vine, and was joyful from his fruit, since wine delights the heart of man. [Ps. 103] He even spread the olives of peace to the countryside in place of the wild olive-trees, and he planted the seeds of richness and sweetness in place of the roughness of the wild fruits, so that this apostolic man might have some fruit both in you just as in other peoples. And indeed, he himself now rejoices in the fruit of this completed work with God; for he is a worthy laborer in His hire [Lk. 10]: and it is right that the working laborers gather from the first fruits. [2 Tim. 2]122

It is at this point in the text that Gaudentius offers some of his strongest praise for Philastrius as he describes his complete rejection and replacement of pagan cults and idols with Catholic

Christianity. In this metaphor of a farmer, Gaudentius is proposing a model of total destruction of pagan cults and their replacement by the Christian faith: the “dreaded forest of errors,” namely those practices and customs linked with pagan rituals and beliefs, ought to be plowed up, eradicated, and replaced outright with specifically Catholic Christian rituals and beliefs so that

120 “...sed circuiens universum paene ambitum Romani orbis dominicum praedicavit...non solum contra gentiles atque Iudaeos, verum etiam contra hereses omnes, et maxime contra furentem eo tempore Arrianam perfidiam tanto fidei vigore pugnavit....” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 21:6, in PL 20, 999; cf. CSEL 68, 186. 121 “...cupida doctrinae...scientiae quidem spiritalis ignara, studio tamen discendi laudabilis.” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 21:8, in PL 20, 1000; cf CSEL 68, 186-7. 122 “Excidit continuo imis ab stirpibus horrentem silvam diversi erroris bonus agricola et aratro doctrinae pronus incumbens invertit crudam totis viribus terram squalentemque humum sulci assiduis in novalia fecunda convertit, affatim semina vitalium mandatorum gremio eius insinuans. Plantavit quoque vineam, cuius laetaretur ex fructu, quoniam vinum laetificat cor hominis. Oleas etiam pacis agrestibus indidit oleastris et asperitati pomorum silvestrium germina pinguedinis ac suavitatis inseruit, ut haberet apostolicus vir aliquem et in vobis fructum, sicut et in ceteris gentibus. Et iste quidem consummati operis nunc apud dominum fructibus gratulatur; nam dignus est operarius mercede sua et laborantem agricolam oportet primo de fructibus sumere. Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 21:8-9, in PL 20, 1000; cf. CSEL 68, 187. 33 the people might be fertile and bear fruit, in other words, convert to Christianity. Only through this model of Christianization can the population become effectively converted and

Christianized.

As is evident in the above passage, it was not enough for a Christian to reject paganism personally. The Christian was also responsible for ensuring that those living on his property did not practice pagan customs.123 In a sermon about avarice given on Christmas day, Gaudetnius insists that a “lukewarm and negligent Christian” does not love God because “he permits idols to be worshipped on his properties” and suffers a temple of the demon and an altar of the devil to stand in contempt of God.”124 Christians had a responsibility to God, their communities, and their pagan neighbors to ensure that Christianity dominated the landscape. For Gaudentius, a total rejection of paganism is the hallmark of true and effective Christianization. Once the

Christian community had been formed and solidified, it needed to go out and bring others into the sheepfold, through any means necessary.

While Gaudentius is highly critical of pagans and heretics, he saves his most scathing criticisms for the Jews. Negative references to the Jews can be found in almost every extant work of Gaudentius, indicating the degree to which he viewed Jews as a threat to Christians in

Brescia. Most Christian preachers throughout the Late Antique world viewed Jews as the ones who had crucified Jesus and completely rejected the fulfillment of the law in the New

Testament.125 The Jews were considered perpetually responsible for Christ’s death and the persecution of the early Christians. At the time of Christ, “Barrabbas—that devil thief whom

123 Maximus also emphasizes the moral responsibility of landowners to convert the inhabitants on their estates to Christianity. See 50-1. 124 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 13:28, in Boehrer, 167. 125 John Chrysostom in particular was highly critical of the Jews. For Chrysostom’s preaching against the Jews in Antioch, see Wilken; Maxwell, 83-4. 34 they had so passionately demanded—lived in them,” and now, at the time of Gaudentius, their hatred towards the Christians “bear witness that the seditious murderer [still] lives in them.”126

Gaudentius often used scriptural exegesis as a basis for contrasting Jews and Gentiles, specifically how the former had rejected Jesus when he came to earth for them and the latter accepted him and his teachings, becoming the new people of God. In a sermon on the wedding of Cana given during the Easter season, he observes that the roles of the Gentiles and Jews have been switched since the “Gentiles, at one time dogs, are adopted as children and the children are compared to dogs.”127 Yet Jesus did not abandon the Jews so quickly; he remained faithful to them and constantly tried to change their hearts and turn them towards the true faith. Only when they had completely and utterly rejected him did he accept the Gentiles as the new children of

God.128 Similarly, in almost every context Gaudentius presents Jews and Christians as complete opposites. While “the natives were the Jews, citizens of patriarchs and prophets; we the Gentiles were indeed the foreigners” before Christ came and redeemed us.129 Now, the Jews interpret the

Law of Moses in a carnal sense while the Christians “discover Christ in it.”130 Indeed, unlike the

Jews, the Christians no longer follow all of the commandments of the Mosaic Law so that the most fundamental teachings of the Christian faith are more easily known by all.131 Because of their rejection of Christ, the Jews misinterpret the Law. This is why the Pharisees were offended that Christ would heal a man on the Sabbath; for the Jews, the Sabbath had become associated with “idleness and dissipation.”132 In fact, the Jews so distort the Law and their sins are so

126 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 4:7-8, in Boehrer, 76. 127 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 9:19, in Boehrer, 120. 128 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 9:21, in Boehrer, 121. 129 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 10:24, in Boehrer, 142. 130 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 10:24, in Boehrer, 143. 131 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 15:19-21, in Boehrer, 182-3. 132 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 11:11, in Boehrer, 147. 35 egregious that Gaudentius even compares them to pigs that remain consistently unclean even though they constantly wash themselves with the ritual purifications of the Law of Moses.133

In his first sermon on the wedding feast of Cana, Gaudentius presents a concise history of

God’s salvation of humanity, coupled with the slow degradation of the Jews and elevation of the

Gentiles in the time of Christ. After the fall of man because of Adam’s sin, the world was filled with evil men and faithlessness. Only a very few—first, Noah and his sons, then Abraham—did not commit “fornication against the Lord” or join themselves to the “innumerable gods of idols.”134 The faithful family of Abraham was the foundation for the Jewish people, God’s chosen people. However, over time the Israelites rejected God and his precepts and “had lain in adulteries with idols.”135 Because of this idolatry, the Israelites lost favor with God and succumbed to the power of the surrounding nations. Gaudentius even exhorts his people to avoid a similar punishment by fleeing from idols.136 By the time of Christ, these Jews had received a writ of divorce by Christ himself and the Apostles, completing their total separation from God.

Now, “with the people of the Jews deserted and repudiated, our people [i.e. the Christians] is taken in marriage from the Gentiles: For I will call a people not mine, my people, and not loved, loved [Rm. 9:25].”137 In sum, the Jews, who had originally found favor with God because of their faithfulness to his precepts, eventually fell into idolatrous practices. Their sin was greater and more offensive because they had once known God and were his chosen people. Now, Christ had completely rejected them and made them outcasts. The Gentiles, i.e. Gaudentius’ own

Christian community, are the new chosen people whom the Lord has set apart and chosen.

133 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 9:26, in Boehrer, 122. 134 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:35, in Boehrer, 109. 135 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:36, in Boehrer, 109. 136 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:38, in Boehrer, 110. 137 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 8:40, in Boehrer, 110. 36

Gaudentius’ scriptural exegesis and exhortations against pagans, heretics and Jews was ultimately a strategy employed to strengthen the Christian community of Brescia. Indeed, his diatribes against Jews were not simply rhetorical: based on the evidence for a synagogue around the time of Gaudentius, Brescia was home to a substantial Jewish population.138 However,

Gaudentius did not limit himself to condemning pagans, heretics, and Jews, but also intended to build up his congregation through his preaching. Christians, he insisted, ought to “be sober in all things” and, in times of trouble, “gather at the church; wait in vigilance with us in prayers and hymns, in psalms and spiritual canticles.”139 The Christians of Brescia were to form a community in order to remain firm in their faith, and prayer, especially the Mass, was to remain the center of their faith.140 Gaudentius even brought the relics of fifty saints to Brescia, including forty martyrs from the East and three from the Val di Non region, and built a special church in which to house them.141

In some cases, building a Christian community also involved chastising the community when they failed to live out the gospel message. Gaudentius does this in one sermon on avarice where he rebukes his congregation—particularly the wealthy—for their failure to give alms to the poor. He begins his oration with an exposition on the importance of almsgiving to the spiritual well-being of the Christian, emphasizing its role in the remission of one’s sins and even equating the meritorious effects of almsgiving to those of baptism:

For, just as water extinguishes fire [Eccl. 3:29], so alms resist sin, that is, just as the water of salutary baptism extinguished the flame of hell through grace, so through a river of

138 Humphries, 213. For a fuller discussion of Jews in Brescia, see 58 below. 139 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 4:17, in Boehrer, 78. 140 “In other words, we are to be careful always to celebrate the Passover of the Lord with lawful observances and to perform vigilantly those things which have been commanded us, lest, through our contempt and our negligence the defense of God the Protector cease, and the destroyer discover entry for assault.” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 6:15, in Boehrer, 89. 141 Gaudentius’s sermon for the dedication of this church survives, along with a description of each of the relics. See Tractatus 17. For an overview of the cult of the saints in late antiquity, see Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). 37

alms, every fire built up of sins after the acceptance of faith is extinguished, if indeed he does not again become inflamed with renewed vices after his conversion. For he who in repentance seeks forgiveness of sins through almsgiving should no longer do things requiring repentance, lest what is extinguished on one side should be inflamed on the other.142

For Gaudentius, almsgiving is supposed to be an essential part of the life of a Christian, one in which he offers penance for his sins through charitable giving to the poor and to the church.143

He likewise exhorted Benivolus to be sure to give alms “so that, through works of mercy, you would find medicine for the wound of your sins.”144 He continues his sermon by observing how his fellow Christians turn a blind eye to the poor man waiting for sustenance and relief just outside the doors of the church:

We have said a river of alms in order that you might sense the abundance of giving. But the man is rare who would sprinkle even a dew of alms for his future refreshment. The Christian goes forth from the church, if you can call him a Christian, and with deaf ears passes by the beseeching poor man. So will God hear us as we implore Him. So will we merit to be protected by divine assistance in the perils of the threatening barbarians.145

Gaudentius is sure to emphasize the effect that such selfishness and greed will have not only on the individual Christian, but on society as a whole: if one wants to be protected from the warfare, invasions, pillage, and death caused by the “threatening barbarians,” then it is necessary to give alms to the poor and start thanking God for his gifts and protection. He even speaks specifically to the rich at one point, noting how it is their desire for wealth and social standing that causes the majority of the people in the country to become poor:

Why is it that daily you strive for new silver, you build houses with marble, you buy clothes of silk, you trade precious jewelry in gold and gems? It is shameful to say, it is unpleasant to remember, what a great number of country people, who have been dispossessed by the forementioned pomp of the living, are either dead from hunger or

142 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 13:20, in Boehrer, 164. 143 Maximus also develops a similar comparison of the meritorious nature of almsgiving to the grace received in baptism in one of his sermons. See 47 below. 144 “...ut per opera misericordiae invenires peccatorum tuorum vulneribus medicinam.” Gaudentius of Brescia, Praefatio 22, in CSEL 68, 7; See also Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 142-3. 145 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 13:21, in Boehrer, 164-5. 38

sustained by the alms of the Church. What damnable wickedness! Those men are already dead for whom all property belongs to the one who possesses it. As long as they are blinded by present greed they do not reflect upon what is to their present advantage.146

The rich, according to Gaudentius, are responsible for the poverty of the masses, and they refuse to offer any of their abundant wealth to help relieve the sufferings of their fellow human beings.

His rhetoric here was intended to form and instruct his congregation in Christian practices, and thus represents an attempt to build up a Christian community by defining that community’s internal nature. When considered in light of his persistent condemnation of Jews, heretics, and pagans, Gaudentius’ preaching to strengthen the Christian community of Brescia appears multi- faceted: while largely shunning groups whom he viewed as dangerous to the spiritual well-being of his people, he nonetheless also emphasized some of the necessary characteristics that an authentic Christian community should embody. Gaudentius’ sermons can thus provide an insight into the complex process of Christianization in late-fourth and early-fifth-century northern Italy.

146 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 13:23, in Boehrer, 165-6. 39

“As a Farmer Prunes the Twigs of the Vine”:

Pagans, Jews, and Christian Discipline in Maximus’ Turin

Further west than both Aquileia and Brescia, the city of Turin, nestled at the foot of the

Italian Alps, lay in the heart of the Piedmont region of northern Italy. By the late fourth century,

Turin already had a long history as a Roman imperial city and a gateway to the frontier beyond

Italy, particularly Gaul.147 However, the connections that Turin had with other cities in the region are still in question. While Humphries and Lizzi argue for a process of Christianization from east to west across the Po Valley, thus firmly rooting Turin as connected with other cities of northern Italy, Fahey instead depicts Turin as a city connected with Rome and Gaul and more independent from the cities of northern Italy, including Milan.148 While the issue of Turin’s connections with polities both within and outside of northern Italy is important for understanding lines of communication and influence, the present chapter will not seek to offer a solution to this debate.149 Rather, I intend here to look at how Maxmius’ sermons reflect the bishop’s attempts to promote Christianity among his congregation in Turin and its outlying areas.150

The latest chronologically of the three bishops, the details of Maximus’ life are shrouded in mystery. Only one reference to Maximus occurs in a fifth-century text written by Gennadius of Marseilles, who praises Maximus for his holiness.151 While nineteenth-century scholars tended to date Maximus as being active primarily in the mid-fifth century, twentieth-century scholars have since argued for an earlier date, placing Maximus within the context of the late

147 For an overview of this history, see William Edmund Fahey, “Maximus of Turin and his Late Antique Community,” (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2002), 172-221. 148 Humphries, Communities of the Blessed; Rita Lizzi, Vescovi e strutture ecclesiastiche nella citta tardoantica (L’’Italia Annonaria’ nel IV-V secolo d.C.) (Como: New Press, 1989), 171-9, and “Ambrose’s Contemporaries and the Christianization of Northern Italy,” 156-73; Fahey, 172-88, 214-21. 149 I will, however, re-examine this issue in my concluding chapter. 150 It should be noted, though, that I align myself with Fahey’s earlier dating of Maximus’ episcopacy and sermons. 151 Ramsey, “Introduction,” 1; Fahey, 1. 40 fourth and early fifth century.152 Beyond this, we know little about the life of Maximus outside of the few, brief reference to himself that he makes in his sermons. Ramsey notes how one of

Maximus’ sermons seems to indicate that he was not a native of Turin.153 He occasionally traveled outside of Turin, possibly to attend church councils in other parts of the region.154

Furthermore, he sometimes let other traveling bishops preach in Turin, though it is possible that this occurred during the Council of Turin in 398.155 Overall, we see a slightly different understanding of Christianization depicted in the sermons of Maximus than that portrayed in the sermons of Chromatius and Gaudentius. While Maximus was also highly critical of Jews, pagans, and heretics in his sermons, he emphasizes converting the habits of his congregation by promoting Christian practices, including fasting, almsgiving, and the church’s liturgical life, a process reflected in his persistent chastisements of his congregation when he felt they were not living up to these standards.

Maximus’ sermons are less formal than either Gaudentius’ or Chromatius’. On several occasions, he addresses his audience directly and even goes into detail relating past conversations with his congregation, particularly when inquiring into their persistence in pagan practices.156 Maximus was far less beholden to biblical exegesis in his sermons than both

152 Fahey demonstrates how the dating of Maximus’ life in the early modern period was intricately connected to contemporary ecclesiastical concerns at the time. It was only late nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, particularly Almut Mutzenbecher and C. Chaffin, who re-established an earler dating for Maximus’ life. Fahey extends this dating even earlier, arguing for the possibility that Maximus was formed as a cleric in the years before Ambrose of Milan’s rise to power in Milan in 374, and thus portraying Maximus as less dependent on Ambrose than traditional scholarship has indicated. For a complete discussion on the scholarship and problems surrounding the date of Maximus’ life, see Fahey, 6-85; 426-31. 153 Ramsey, “Introduction,” 2. The sermon in question is Sermon 33:1, in Ramsey, 79. 154 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermons 71:1, 79, in Ramsey, 173, 191-2. 155 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 78:1, in Ramsey, 189. The text does not specify who this bishop was, but describes him as one “who holds the first honor in the pontificacy” (qui in pontificio primatus honorem obtinet). For the difficulty dating the Council of Turin, and the possibility of two councils, see Michael Kulikowski, “Two Councils in Turin,” Journal of Theological Studies 47:1 (1996), 159-68. 156 These direct addresses are most common in Maximus’ several chastisements of his congregation, a phenomenon which will be addressed below. In one sermon, Maximus inquires into his congregation’s howling to the moon on its eclipse, using it as an opportunity to condemn the practice as pagan. See Sermon 30, in Ramsey 73-5. 41

Gaudentius and Chromatius. While he used exegesis as a way to promote a Christian community and justify his criticisms against Jews, pagans, and heretics, he never developed any substantial, systematic exegesis as did his contemporaries.

Maximus presents his own understanding of his preaching in several of his sermons. In one sermon, he describes priestly ministry as a type of business in which the priest acts as a middleman between God and man; he receives the “money of the Lord,” i.e. the word of God, and distributes it to the congregation.157 Such a loan demands interest, primarily the “conversion of manners” (morum conversatio).158 Maximus is not only concerned with the presence of erroneous beliefs among his congregation, but also of wrongful actions, a problem common to several late antique Christian bishops.159 While he presents here a more pragmatic view of the relationship between a bishop and his congregation in this sermon, nevertheless he does envision himself as a spiritual father who is held responsible for the care of his children.160 He uses a different analogy—a swarm of bees—to describe the community of bishops; bishops, he asserts,

“produce delightful honey from the blossoms of the divine Scriptures” as well as “swarms of

Christians from the one swarm of the Savior.”161 In terms of Christianization, therefore,

Maximus saw the bishop as actively producing Christians in his bishopric. This also meant that the bishop had to eradicate pagan practices in his community. Similar to Gaudentius’ depiction of his predecessor Philastrius, Maximus asserts that “as a farmer, bearing a sword, prunes the twigs of the vine, so now the bishop, preaching the gospel, cuts off the filth of the peoples.”162

157 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermo 27:2, in Ramsey, 66. 158 Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo 27:2, in CCSL 23, 106. 159 John Chrysostom in particular faced the presence of pagan practices in his community at Antioch. See Maxwell, 144-68. 160 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermons 33:1, 80:1, in Ramsey, 79, 192. 161 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 89, in Ramsey, 211. 162 “Modo ferrum gestans agricola sarmenta deputat vinearum, ita et nunc evangelium tractans episcopus sordes amputat populorum.” Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo 66:2, in CCSL 23, 277. Cf. Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus XXI, in CSEL 68, 187. 42

Because of his need to correct sinful actions, Maximus at times must explain to his congregation why his harsh words are necessary. If the bishop allows his population to remain in sin without correction from him, then he also is in sin.163 In sum, Maximus believed that he was morally responsible to promote a Christian way of life in Turin to the point where he was justified in taking a harsh stance against any surviving pagan practices and customs.

Although his central purpose seems to be the promotion of Christian habits and customs,

Maximus is still highly critical of groups outside of the Christian norm, in particular, heretics, pagans, and Jews. Like Gaudentius, Maximus often used biblical exegesis to present Jews and

Christians as two opposing and contradictory groups. In one sermon, he interprets the verse

“there will be two men in one bed: and one will be taken and the other left” as referring to

Christians and Jews “who keep to one bed, which is one law of the commandments, and they glory in a similar kind of resurrection. At that time, then, the blessed Christian people will be taken into glory, but the accursed assembly of the Jews will be abandoned in hell.”164 Maximus cannot deny that Jews and Christians share a similar theological and historical origin; however, he can insist that both groups have different, fundamentally opposed destinies that create a divide between them. Similarly, when interpreting the verse “[t]here will be two women grinding, one is taken up and one is left behind,” Maximus understands the first woman as the Church, for “the holy church truly mills through the law, through the apostles, and through the prophets, when it makes catechumens and scatters and shatters the harshness of the Gentiles....”165 The Church produces a “leaven of faith” which is passed down through tradition, and without which “no one

163 See Sermons 92, 93, and 94 in particular. Maximus’ need to explain his preaching seems to indicate a negative response from some members of his congregation. 164 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermons 19:2, 3, in Ramsey, 47, 49. Cf. Lk. 17:34. 165 “Erunt duae molentes, una assumetur et una relinquetur. Molet enim sancta ecclesia per legem per apostolos per prophetas, cum catecuminos facit et asperitatem gentilitatis dissipat atque conminuit....” Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo 33:5, in CCSL 23, 130. Cf. Mt. 24:41; Lk. 17:35. Cf. Sermon 20 for a similar, detailed explanation of this verse. I will focus on Sermon 33 here. 43 can be promised the substance of eternal life.”166 The other woman, the one left behind, represents the Synagogue, which “in fact grinds through both Moses and the prophets, but it grinds uselessly, as the apostle said about the Jews: They have emulation of God but not according to knowledge.”167 The separation between Jews and Christians is further emphasized in the last sentence of the sermon: “The holy church, which grinds the food of sacredness for the

Lord, is assumed truly into eternal rest; the bloodstained synagogue, about to suffer the turning of its perfidy forever, is left behind at the millstone.”168 Maximus thus espouses the notion that

Jews and Christians are in opposition to one another and have divergent destinies—one of eternal bliss, the other of eternal damnation.

Heretics were another group that threatened the Christian church in Turin. The beliefs of the heretics, particularly the Arians, are refuted in Scripture: Christ sits at the right hand of the

Father so that it might be known that he is not less than the Father, “for as divinity knows no grade of honor, so sacred scripture knows how to prevent blasphemies.”169 However, like Judas who betrayed Christ, it is by their own persistence in error and not by compulsion that they are separated from the church. Judas both condemned the innocent blood of Christ, but also became aware of his sin and punished himself “by his own judgment.”170 Similarly, the heretic recognizes his sin and punishes himself for it when he willingly and freely leaves the fold of the

Catholic Church.171 By remaining in error despite correction from others, the heretic separates

166 “Fermentum enim dixerim fidei totam domini passionem. Fermentum enim salutis nostrae est symbolus ipse qui traditur; sine quo fermento vel symbolo nemo potest vitae aeternae substantiam promereri.” Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo 33:5, in CCSL 23, 130. 167 “Molet enim et ipsa per Moysen et prophetas, sed inutiliter molet, sicut dicit apostolus de Iudaeis: Aemulationem dei habent sed non secundum scientiam.” Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo 33:6, in CCSL, 130. 168 “Assumetur enim in requiem aeternam sancta ecclesia, quae domino cibum sanctitatis emoluit; reliquetur ad molas cruenta synagoga gyrm semper suae passura perfidiae.” Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo 33:6, in CCSL, 131. 169 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 56:3, in Ramsey 137. 170 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 58:2, in Ramsey, 141. 171 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 58:3, in Ramsey, 141. 44 himself from and persecutes the Christian church in the same way that Judas separated himself from and persecuted Christ. Likewise, when Maximus explains the meaning of the verse “the foxes have holes and the birds of heaven have nests where they may rest, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head,” he compares the foxes to heretics and the hens to the church.172 Just as a fox seeks to attack a hen and its chicks, “[s]o also the heretic lies in wait for mother Church and her children.”173 The imagery of the church as a mother hen is further justified in the Gospel

“when the Lord says to Jerusalem: Jerusalem, how often have I wished to gather your children as a hen gathers its chicks under its wings.”174 Maximus thus extends to the heretics the same concept of other which he employs against the Jews and supports through Scripture.

The remedy that he proposes to combat the heretics—“fasts, prayers, and vigils”—points to Maximus’ emphasis on the conversion of one’s habits as a tactic of Christianization. Fasting, according to Maximus, is more than simply not eating. The very purpose of fasting is to redeem humanity’s fallen nature after the sin of Adam and Eve and to weaken the flesh in order to strengthen the spirit.175 Christ, as the second Adam, fasted in the desert so as to undo Adam’s gluttony towards the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.176 Thus God established fasting as the way for Christians to starve the bodily desires that keep them from desiring Christ. Fasting from food alone has no use if it does not “empty the mind and the inmost senses of the fetters of wickedness.”177 It is both a physical and a spiritual practice meant to draw the soul closer to

God, building a wall around the Christian that is “impregnable to the devil” and allowing the

Christian both to oppose the desires of the flesh and conform himself to God’s will.178 Although

172 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 86:3, in Ramsey, 207. Cf. Mt. 8:20. 173 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 86:3, in Ramsey, 207. 174 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 86:3, in Ramsey, 207. Cf. Mt. 23:37. 175 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermons 50A:2, 69:2, in Ramsey, 121, 169. 176 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 50A:2, in Ramsey, 121. 177 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 36:1, in Ramsey, 87. 178 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 69:2, in Ramsey, 169. 45 this fasting is accompanied with temptation, nevertheless the Christian must endure it and remember that Christ also experienced temptation while fasting in the desert.179 It is natural for the Christian who grows close to Christ to experience the temptations that Christ experienced.

Thus, for Maximus, fasting is a re-ordering of one’s priorities and habits meant to overcome humanity’s inherent sinfulness and replace it instead with holy virtue.

This did not mean that the Christian could fast whenever he or she wanted; Maximus regulated times of fasting and insisted on their incorporation within the liturgical life of the church, particularly during the season of Lent. The forty-day period of Quadragesima, i.e. Lent, was meant as a time of preparation for Easter, the most important Christian holiday of the year, which was followed by a fifty-day period of Quinquagesima ending with the feast of Pentecost.

The Christian needed to fast during Lent as a preparation for the celebration of the Lord’s

Resurrection that lasted for fifty days: “For the Lord arranged it that, just as we mourned over his suffering with the fasts of a 40-day period, so we would rejoice over His resurrection during the festivals of the 50-day period.”180 In a different sermon, Maximus recounts how some Christians will fast during Quinquagesima rather than Quadragesima. This behavior, however, goes against

Christ’s own example of fasting for forty days before his Crucifixion, during the time in the desert, and not fasting in the period after his Resurrection.181 If the Christian, therefore, wishes to be like Christ, he ought to follow his commandments and fast when Christ fasts:

What kind of Christian are you, that you eat while the Lord is fasting? What kind of Christian are you, that you refresh yourself when Christ goes hungry? He undergoes hunger for your salvation, but you fear to fast for your sins. Tell me (I speak to you who take food during Quadragesima), do you not have guilty consciences, since you eat alone, contrary to the Lord’s commandment, while all the people abstain?182

179 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 70:1, in Ramsey, 171. 180 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 44:1, in Ramsey, 110. 181 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 50:1, in Ramsey, 118. 182 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 50:1, in Ramsey, 118. 46

In the same way that Christ fasted for the entire forty days in the desert, so Christians must fast for the entire forty-day period of Lent. Maximus apparently had members of his congregation who would not keep the fast for all of Lent, but would rather alternate between one week of fasting and one of eating.183 These, he says, “are deceiving themselves, because such a fast is of no use to them. For even though someone abstains on certain days...still the fast of

Quadragesima is not credited to the person who does not fast for 40 [sic] days.”184

Why the emphasis on fasting for the full forty days of Lent and at no other time? In addition to the scriptural significance of the number forty, Maximus’ insistence on fasting during

Lent fits well into a plan of Christianization focused on converting one’s habits to reflect a

Christian mindset, particularly through the liturgy.185 Every day of the year was divided into seasons of varying solemnity, not to mention the numerous saints’ feast days that were being added increasingly to the church calendar.186 Several of his sermons are preached on specific

Christian holidays, such as Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, Epiphany, and the beginning of Lent, as well as on saint feast days, including Sts. Peter and Paul, John the Baptist, Lawrence, Cyprian, and martyrs of northern Italy—Octavius, Adventus, and Solutor of Turin; Cantus, Cantianus, and

Cantianilla of Aquileia; Alexander, Martyrius, and Sisinius of the Val di Non; and a sermon on the anniversary of some unspecified martyrs.187 Furthermore, public celebrations were an important strategy in replacing pagan festivals with Christian ones, and Maximus insisted that

183 See Sermons 50, 50A, 66, 111. 184 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 50:1, in Ramsey, 118-9. 185 For Maximus’ scriptural exegesis on the number forty, see Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 50:2-3, in Ramsey, 119-20. 186 For an overview of the development of liturgical feasts days in the north Italian church during this period, see Martin Connell, “The Liturgical Year in Northern Italy (360-450)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1994). 187 For Maximus’ sermons on the Val di Non martyrs, see Sermons 105 and 106. For the martyrs of Turin, see Sermon 12. For the martyrs of Aquileia, see Sermon 15. Salzman notes how Maximus preaching on the Val di Non martyrs differed somewhat from contemporary accounts of the incident, indicating how he adapted the situation to fit his rhetorical needs. See Salzman, 267-73. The fact that Maximus is preaching about martyrs in Aquileia provides some evidence for connections between Aquileia and Turin and would incorporate Turin more within the north Italian human environment described by Humphries. For a history of the martyr cults in northern Italy in relation to Rome, see Thacker, 61-75. 47

Christianity offered more feasts than did paganism.188 Making liturgical celebrations more prominent would assert their superiority over pagan feasts. By fasting during Lent alone, the

Christian would begin to regulate his actions according to the liturgical life of the church.

In addition to fasting, Maximus also stressed almsgiving as an act of charity required of all Christians. Almsgiving, for Maximus, not only aided the poor but also benefitted the giver by protecting him from the devil and cleansing him of his sins. Like fasting, almsgiving also built a wall around the sinner that protected him from the snares of the devil.189 There was no sin that could not “be cleansed by abstinence and extinguished by almsgiving,” a position that Scripture itself supported: “As water extinguishes a fire, so almsgiving extinguishes sin.”190 Maximus’ strongest support of almsgiving as a means of forgiving sins comes in a sermon explaining the

Gospel story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman.191 He explains that while the water of the well could not wash the Samaritan woman of her sins, the water of Christ could. This water, the water of baptism, could be rightfully compared to almsgiving, which in fact is more meritorious than baptism because it can be done repeatedly, whereas baptism occurs only once:

Therefore, almsgiving is another kind of washing of souls, so that if perchance after baptism a person should commit fault through human frailty he has but to be cleansed again by almsgiving, as the Lord says: Give alms, and behold! all things are clean for you. [Lk. 11:41] With all due respect to the faith, I would say that almsgiving is more indulgent than baptism, for baptism is given once and offers pardon once, but as many times as you give alms you win pardon. These, then, are the two sources of mercy, which both give life and forgive sins.192

Such a statement might seem striking and even offensive to modern Christians. However, when seen as a replacement of pagan habits with Christian ones, Maximus’ words become more

188 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 101:1, in Ramsey, 228. 189 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 86:1, in Ramsey, 205. 190 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 61:1, in Ramsey, 147. Cf. Sir. 3:30. See also Sermon 61A for another instance of Maximus’ use of scripture to promote almsgiving. Gaudentius also adopts a similar understanding of almsgiving, even using the same Scripture verse as justification of his view. See 36-8 above. 191 Jn. 4:5-42. 192 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 22A:4, in Ramsey, 57. 48 intelligible. The traditional Roman practice of euergetism through which elites gave money for public causes had been in decline in the late fourth-century Roman Empire, though the ideology and language of euergetism was still ever-present.193 If Maximus intended to solidify the

Christian church in society (and provide a source of income for it), then he needed to

Christianize this practice and channel the resources of the elite into the church. As a result,

Maximus ensured that the elites had every motivation to give: not only did giving protect their souls from the temptations of the devil, but it even forgave them of their sins. Thus both fasting and almsgiving can be understood as Maximus’ attempt to Christianize the habits of his congregation.

Some of the strongest evidence for Maximus’ approach to Christianization through the correction of sinful actions comes from his numerous chastisements to his congregation in his sermons. In these chastisements we see not only to what pagan habits and customs his congregation held on, but also how he attempted to correct them either by insisting on their sinfulness or incorporating them into a Christian context. After the feast of the Nativity,

Maximus complained to his fellow Christians about their participation in the festivals on the

Kalends of January while they were also celebrating the birth of Jesus with the Christian community:

I have no small complaint against a number of you, brethren. I speak of those who, while celebrating the Lord’s birthday with us, have given themselves over to pagan feasts and, after the heavenly banquet, have prepared a meal of superstition for themselves, so that those who beforehand had taken delight in holiness are afterwards besotted with foolishness....How, then, are you able to celebrate the Lord’s Epiphany religiously when, with your greatest devotion, you have celebrated the kalends of Janus? For Janus was a human being, the founder of a city that is called Janiculum, in whose honor the kalends of

193 Brown, Eye of a Needle, 65. 49

January have been named by the pagans. Hence the person who celebrates the kalends of January commits sin because he offers divine homage to a dead man.194

It is difficult to say to what extent the Christians of Turin saw their participation in the festivals on the kalends of January as opposed to their celebration of the feast of the Nativity. In this instance, Maximus insisted on the incompatibility of the Christian feast with the pagan rituals of the Kalends: the Kalends is rooted in idolatry, and thus is fundamentally opposed to the Christian command to worship God alone. It was a custom that simply had to be abandoned.

Sometimes Maximus used pagan customs as an opportunity for Christian catechesis. In another sermon, he chastises his congregation for taking part in a different pagan custom— shouting to the moon during an eclipse in order to assure its safety:

When I reproached a large number of you a few days ago because of your avariciousness, that very day toward evening such an outcry was raised by the people that its impiousness penetrated to the heavens. When I asked about the reason for the shouting, they told me that your outcry was helping the moon in its labor and that the shouting was aiding its eclipse. I laughed and marveled at this vanity, that seemingly devout Christians were helping God. For you cried out lest on account of your silence He lose the heavenly body—as if He were feeble and weak, and unable to protect the heavenly lights that he had created unless He were helped by your voices.195

The act of shouting to the moon during an eclipse is a pagan practice mentioned in the sermons of other bishops around this time.196 Because it had neither a Christian origin nor purpose,

Maximus condemned it and insisted that such an act, beyond just being pagan, failed to recognize the divinity and omnipotence of God. Yet he does not simply condemn the act of shouting to the moon, as he did the Kalends of January; in a subsequent sermon, he uses this event as an opportunity for Christian catechesis by comparing the moon to the church:

194 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 63:1-2, in Ramsey, 155-6. John Chrysostom, facing a similar problem among his congregation in Antioch, also wrote a sermon entitled On the Kalends where he sought both to condemn the pagan holiday but also replace it with a Christian practice. See Maxwell, 154-7. 195 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 31:2, in Ramsey, 73. 196 For Ramsey’s note on this sermon, see Maximus of Turin, Sermons, n.5, 298. The bishop he mentions specifically is Caesarius of Arles. 50

There is, then, a great design as far as the moon is concerned—indeed, a great mystery....Hence if Christ is legitimately compared to the sun, to what shall we compare the moon if not the Church? For, like the moon, in order to shine among the nations, it borrows light from the sun of justice, and when it has been struck by Christ’s rays—that is, by the apostles’ preaching—it receives from him the brightness of immortality.197

Such a sermon fits well with Philastrius of Brescia’s eradication of pagan customs and replacement with Christian ones.198 If Maximus cannot stop his congregation outright from honoring the moon, than he will re-interpret it within a Christian context using allegory and metaphor to draw his congregation into a deeper understanding of the Christian gospel.

Maximus also shifted the responsibility of Christianization over to the landowners.199 In two sequels to his sermon on the Val di Non martyrs, Alexander, Martyrius, and Sisinius, he emphasizes the negative impact that idolatry had not just on the individual, but on the whole community:

[Idolatry] pollutes those who practice it, it pollutes those who live nearby, it pollutes those who see it....The landlord is contaminated by the farmhand who makes the offering. He is unable not to be polluted when he takes food that the sacrilegious farmer has cultivated, the bloodstained earth has brought forth, and a foul storehouse has preserved, for everything that has been contaminated there, where the devil dwells, is abominable— in houses, in fields, in the country.200

The landscape was still contaminated by the remnants of pagan religion. One could still find

“dried-up turf altars” in storerooms, “wooden altars and stone images” in the fields, and even the farmhand “suffering from a hangover” because “he is either a devotee of Diana or a soothsayer.”201 Christian landowners, therefore, had the responsibility to cleanse their lands of any trace of paganism, and Maximus had the responsibility to scold them for failing to do this, as he did in at least one other sermon:

197Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermons 31:2, in Ramsey, 76. 198 Cf. Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus XXI, in CSEL 68, 187. 199 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermons 106-7, in Ramsey, 234-7. 200 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 107:2, in Ramsey, 236. 201 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 107:2, in Ramsey, 236-7. 51

For, tell me, which one of you says when he returns home: “Today we heard the bishop talking about almsgiving. He preached something beneficial, and we ought to show kindness to the poor. He also spoke about the disgusting worship of idols. Let us look lest unbeknownst to us there be an idol in our possession. He admonished us, too, that we ought to hasten the catechumen to the grace of the faith. Let us tell our household that any unbelievers ought to accept the faith lest perhaps we be called to a reckoning with regard to their salvation, for their life depends on our decision.” No one thinks of the things of God, no one speaks of the day of judgment, as if we were either going to conquer completely or die completely!202

It is not sufficient for the Christian landowner to guard his own soul from idols—he is held responsible before God for the spiritual well-being of all in his household and on his estate.

Maximus’ Christianizing efforts again focus primarily on correcting sinful practices, particularly of those individuals beyond his reach. By imbuing landowners with a sense that Christianity involves a complete and total rejection of pagan habits and culture, he hopes to extend the process of Christianization to the entire region of Turin.203

Furthermore, Maximus often saw his congregation as failing to live out the moral and ethical standards of Christianity. On multiple occasions, he criticizes them for failing to go to church on Sunday, including on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul and when he was away from

Turin.204 It is possible that those who normally attended church were there primarily to listen to the bishop preach, indicating a connection less with Christianity itself and more with the personality of the preacher.205 Maximus was also frustrated by those who come to church

202 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 42:1, in Ramsey, 104. 203 Lizzi argues that Maximus’ appeal to the landowners reflects the power that the church had gained in society by the early fifth century. However, this is based on a dating of Maximus’ episcopal ordination to after Ambrose’s death. If Fahey’s argument that Maximus was a bishop around the same time as Ambrose is correct, than Maximus’ words would rather reflect the church’s attempt to establish itself in society. See Lizzi, “Ambrose’s Contemporaries,” 167-8. 204 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermons 3, 79, in Ramsey, 19-20, 191. 205 Examples of such attachment to the bishop are not limited to Maximus. The insistence of the people of Brescia that Gaudentius be their bishop would also seem to indicate an attachment to him as a person and a preacher. See Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 16:2, in Boehrer, 185. 52

“sluggishly.”206 Sometime he would even target specific groups. Members of the clergy failed to attend Mass on some Sundays, and so merited Maximus’ scolding.207 Soldiers, whose presence in Turin would not have been uncommon due to the threat of invasion by barbarians and the usurper Magnus Maximus in Gaul, and clerics who abused their power and harmed the poor were also publicly reprimanded.208 The wealthy also were criticized for stealing the property of others and failing to attend the liturgy because of their worldly concerns: “while they show concern for their property they do not ask for the medicine for their souls.”209 On the other hand, Maximus also criticizes those wealthy who come to church “not because they are

Christian, but lest they not be considered Christian by others.”210 These, he insists, are more concerned with their property and taxes than with the liturgy or giving alms to the poor.

Maximus tries to convince them that their wealth on earth is fleeting and they would be better off investing it in the treasure of heaven: “You see, then, O rich person, that your riches are uncertain. Why, then, do you heap up gold, in which there is no real assurance? Let avarice cease and your gold will be earth; let your overweening desire be removed and your solidi [sic] will be filth.”211 He even continues this exhortation on almsgiving and fasting in the next sermon, reminding Christians to give thanks to God for his gifts, including the bread they eat when they don’t fast and the wealth they have that they don’t give to the poor.212 Indeed, the numerous chastisements in Maximus’ sermons reinforce the central habits that every good

206 For a general chastisement of his congregation’s failure to be diligent and zealous in their faith, see Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 23, in Ramsey 58. 207 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 79, in Ramsey, 191. 208 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 26:1, in Ramsey, 63. Magnus Maximus usurped power over Gaul during the late fourth and early fifth century, and around the time that Maximus would have been bishop of Turin. The struggle between Magnus and the emperors in the West would have put Turin on the frontier of the empire, and Turin was often fortified as an entrance to northern Italy from the Alps. See Fahey, 210-4. 209 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 32:2, in Ramsey, 78. For his criticism of stealing the property of others, see Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 18:2-3, in Ramsey, 45-6. It seems that Maximus is particularly concerned with those wealthy who profited after a time of unrest in Turin, probably caused by a barbarian incursion. 210 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 71:2, in Ramsey, 174. 211 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 71:3, in Ramsey, 175. 212 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 72:3, in Ramsey, 177. 53

Christian should embody: renunciation of all pagan idols, due attendance at liturgical celebrations, an internalization of the liturgical life of the church by fasting during periods of fast, and giving alms generously.

Unlike Gaudentius and Chromatius, Maximus did not see the need to constantly emphasize a sense of separateness between Christians and Jews, pagans, and heretics, though he certainly aligned with their views on these groups. Perhaps Turin’s location in the foothills of the Alps limited the presence of these outsiders in Turin. There is no evidence, for example, of a synagogue in Turin during the time of Maximus’ preaching. Nevertheless, Maximus still had his own problems with the Turinese Christians. He was concerned about the lingering presence of pagan practices even among his own congregation and was troubled by their lack of zeal in the faith. For this reason, he stressed the need for the incorporation of their habits into a Christian worldview. Pagan practices and rituals could be replaced by fasting, almsgiving, and attending church. The numerous chastisements Maximus makes in his sermons highlight the difficulties of

Christianization that Maximus faced. In this way, Maximus’ approach to Christianization through his sermons was not based on a uniform model for all of northern Italy, but rather reflected the regional and local problems he faced in the bishopric of Turin.

54

A Tale of Three Bishops:

Geography and Exegesis in Northern Italy

When Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus delivered their homilies, they did not do so in a vacuum. Wendy Mayer has insisted that studies of episcopal sermons need to consider the liturgical, geographic, spatial, and cultural context in which the sermons were delivered.213

Indeed, their themes, exegesis, and approaches were closely tied not only to the bishops’ message but also to the real, lived situation in Aquileia, Brescia, and Turin. It is to this cultural context that we know turn. In this chapter, I intend to look at the geographic and social landscape of northern Italy as a region, including the three localities where the bishops preached, and the role that Latin exegesis during this period played in the bishops’ sermons. From this, I intend to show that differences in the bishops’ preaching are a reflection of the urban and religious contexts in which they lived. Indeed, Maximus is the most distinct of the three bishops, operating within an urban and religious environment that differed somewhat from both Aquileia and Brescia. Based on this, it is possible to make some tentative conclusions on northern Italy as a distinct region and Christianization within this proposed region.

The Setting: Bishops and the “North Italian Human Environment”

In his 1999 book Communities of the Blessed, Mark Humphries proposed a model for understanding the spread of Christianity in northern Italy along pre-existing social and geographic frameworks. He outlined these geographic and social characteristics of northern Italy that make up what he calls the “north Italian human environment”—the Alps and Apennine

Mountains, the Po River, roads, cities, trade, political organization, and social structures—and

213 Wendy Mayer, “John Chrysostom: Extraordinary Preacher, Ordinary Audience,” in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. Mary Cunningham and Pauline Allen (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 105-37. 55 then argues that the spread of Christianity in the region can be traced along these lines.214 In his analysis, north Italian Christian bishops played a less prominent role in the church events of the early fourth century. Only in the mid-fourth century, in the midst of the Arian controversy, do the bishops of northern Italy begin to exert a significant influence on the region. The episcopates of Eusebius of Vercelli and Ambrose of Milan solidified the prominence of Christian bishops in the region. The spread of Christianity in northern Italy and the spheres of influence which bishops exerted developed, furthermore, along the pre-existing social and geographic structures of the region. Hence Milan and Aquileia, two predominant Roman imperial and commercial centers, were some of the first cities in the region to have a sizable Christian population.215

Humphries shows, then, that Christianity was not thoroughly dominant in the region by the end of the fourth century; it had, after all, exerted little influence in the countryside and was constantly competing against Judaism and paganism, which themselves were also expanding in the region.216 Thus, Christianity’s growth in the region was uneven and sporadic.

While Humphries attempts to define northern Italy according to the criteria for the north

Italian human environment, he does allow for variations within this region, noting how some episcopal sees, including Aquileia, exhibited significant influence, however informal, over regions outside of northern Italy, for example, Illyricum and Pannonia.217 The question remains, however, as to whether Humphries’ conceptualization of northern Italy as a distinct region is a valid model for understanding Christianity and episcopal relations in northern Italy, particularly in the late fourth century. In order to assess the validity of Humphries’ model, one must look at the evidence of local settings within northern Italy, particularly cities. By looking at the social

214 Humphries, 21. 215 Humphries, 73-86. 216 Humphries, 99-101. 217 Humphries, 140-5. 56 and cultural characteristics of Aquileia, Brescia, and Turin during the episcopates of Chromatius,

Gaudentius, and Maximus respectively, it is possible to gain some understanding of how the local context impacted their preaching and whether or not there is evidence of similar trends of influence across the region.

As has already been noted above, Aquileia enjoyed a long history as a thriving port city on the Adriatic coast that rivaled Milan in terms of regional influence and economic importance.218

Indeed, from the time of the late Roman Republic, the city’s strategic location allowed it to develop significant trade relations not only with cities within northern Italy but also with other nearby regions, including Illyricum, Pannonia, and the Danube area.219 Throughout the course of the Empire, and with the rise of Christianity, these relations led to a certain degree of informal and formal influence over the territories along the Adriatic coasts and in the Balkans. The

Council of Aquileia, called and led by Ambrose in 381, condemned as heretics two bishops from

Ratiaria and Singidunum, two cities along the Danube River in the provinces of Pannonia and

Dacia, respectively.220 To the west of Aquileia in the city of Concordia, Chromatius ordained the city’s first bishop and dedicated its first basilica, providing some evidence for his own sphere of episcopal influence and suffragan bishops.221 Furthermore, the city had a history of contacts with other bishops in the Mediterranean world; Athanasius of Alexandria visited the city several times during his periods in exile from his bishopric.222 Aquileia, then, was a city well-connected with cities in its surrounding regions as well as across the empire.

218 See 10 above 219 Humphries, 31-2. 220 Humphries, 151; Lizzi, Vescovi, 26; for an overview of the council, see Williams, 169-184; McLynn, 124-37. 221 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 26:4, in McEachnie, 335. 222 Ruggini, 355. 57

Aquileia’s urban population was as diverse as the regions with which it maintained contacts during the time of Chromatius’ episcopate. As an economic center, the city was home to numerous traders and merchants from across the empire. Chromatius recognized the importance of merchants in the city when he preached his famous sermon on the Beatitudes on market day, likening the Gospel to a spiritual pearl that is more valuable than the worldly goods that the merchants sell.223 Similarly, the city’s religious population was also very diverse. A lavishly decorated basilica of the early fourth century provides evidence for a substantial

Christian population by this time.224 The presence of a synagogue is also an indication of a sizeable Jewish population in the city during Chromatius’ episcopate.225 Given this knowledge,

Chromatius’ diatribes against Jews can be seen in a new light; rather than simply rhetoric against an abstract foe, his words can reflect a real and sincere concern over the presence of Jews in

Aquileia and their impact on the Christian community.226 Indeed, fear of Jews and “Judaizing

Christians” was not uncommon among Christian bishops in late antique urban environments.

Preaching around the same time as Chromatius, John Chrysostom often attacked Jews and

Judaizers in Antioch who threatened the unity of the Christian community and its distinctively

Christian nature, however this was defined.227 Antioch, like Aquileia, was also home to a synagogue.228 Chromatius, then, was the leader of a Christian congregation that was one religious group among many in Aquileia. His words reflect an attempt to solidify the place of

Christians within Aquileia. Thus, Chromatius’ rhetoric against the Jews must be considered within its local context in order to be properly understood.

223 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 41, in McEachnie, 384-91. 224 Humphries, 77-8. 225 Ruggini, 363. 226 Ruggini, 378. 227 For Judaizing Christians in Antioch, see Maxwell, 83-4, 140-2; Wilken, 73-9. 228 Wilken, 75. 58

A similar argument can be made for Brescia, a city that also had a long history as an economic hub, though on a much smaller scale than Aquileia.229 Brescia had been a center of trade and commerce long before Gaudentius became bishop. Mascari, citing numerous inscriptions, argues for the presence of various manual workers and craftsmen in the city, in addition to traders from around the Roman Empire who came to buy and sell goods.230 He asserts that, by the late fourth century, Brescia was in partial decline as an economic center, though his evidence for this fact is limited to the quality of stonework in the city.231 In addition, while Brescia was situated on the trade routes to Milan, contacts between the two cities may have been limited due to travel hardships caused by difficult terrain, thus limiting its interactions with nearby urban centers.232 Nonetheless, as the presence of various merchants from across the empire shows, it is possible to speak of a diverse urban society in Brescia during the time of

Gaudentius. This diversity further extended to religious groups. An inscription from the late fourth century points to a synagogue in Brescia during Gaudentius’ episcopate, providing evidence for a large Jewish population in the city at the time.233 The presence of Jews in Brescia, as in Aquileia, meant that Christians interacted to some degree with Jews in their daily lives and that the bishop saw them as a real threat to his Christian community.234 Understood within this context, Gaudentius’ preaching against Jews, similar to Chromatius, should be seen not merely as a rhetorical trope but as an actual fear held by Gaudentius of the influence that Jews in Brescia were having on Christians.

229 See 24 above. 230 Mascari, 17-8. 231 Mascari, 18. 232 McLynn, 221. 233 Humphries, 213; cf. Lizzi, Vescovi, 124. 234 This runs contrary to Mascari’s assertion that Jews posed no real threat to Christians in northern Italy. See 81-3. 59

A different situation can be found in Turin at the time of Maximus’ episcopate. Located on one of the few passes through the Alps connecting Italy to Gaul, Turin’s interactions with other cities in northern Italy have often been limited. Humphries mentions the city minimally in his study, in reference to its location on the Alps as an entrance to northern Italy.235 Rather than placing Turin within this framework, Fahey has argued that Turin maintained closer ties with

Rome and Gaul than with northern Italy because of its location on the road between these two localities.236 While I do not intend to assess the validity of Fahey’s argument here, it is sufficient to say that Turin differed from Aquileia and Brescia in terms of its economic and social connections with other north Italian cities. Given this fact, one can expect the religious environment in and around Turin to be different from these two cities as well. Unlike Aquileia and Brescia, there is no evidence of a synagogue in Turin during the time of Maximus’ episcopate, nor did there seem to be any substantial heretical group either.237 Indeed, the primary concern reflected in Maximus’ sermons was neither heretics nor Jews (though he is extremely harsh towards both groups on several occasions) but rather the persistence of pagan practices and cults among his congregation and in the countryside. Maximus, more so than Chromatius or

Gaudentius, places great pressure on the elites to convert the inhabitants on their lands to

Christianity from paganism.238 Furthermore, he consistently chastises his congregation for their failure to adapt Christian practices.239 As with Chromatius and Gaudentius, Maximus’ words need to be understood within the local context in which he preached. In this instance, placing

Maximus’ preaching within its local environment demonstrates a bishop with very different

235 See Humphries, 28, 112. 236 See Fahey, 172-88, 214-21. 237 Lizzi, Vescovi, 193-4. 238 Maximus of Turin, Sermons 106-108, in Ramsey, 234-8; cf. 50-1 above. 239 See pages 51-3 above. 60 concerns from his two brother bishops, concerns which arose out of the specific issues faced by the Christian congregation in Turin.

To say, however, that Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus were only influenced by their local environment is to deny the vibrant culture of communication among bishops in the late fourth and early fifth century. The communications which these three bishops maintained with other bishops in northern Italy and around the Mediterranean world can further highlight some of the local variations within northern Italy. Among the northern Italian bishops, Ambrose was clearly dominant: one of his strengths was in forming a community of bishops in northern

Italy to whom he sent letters on spiritual and practical matters.240 Furthermore, he was most likely the ordaining bishop at both Chromatius’ and Gaudentius’ ordinations.241 There is no such evidence of Ambrose’s presence at Maximus ordination, raising the question of whether or not

Maximus was ordained a bishop before Ambrose’s death in 397.242 If so, then it is possible that

Maximus exchanged communications with Ambrose, though these have been lost.

Chromatius and Gaudentius maintained contacts with other bishops outside of northern

Italy as well, most famously John Chrysostom. Both were involved in the attempt by Pope

Innocent I to restore Chrysostom to his episcopal throne after his exile from Constantinople in

240 Humphries, 150-1. For Ambrose’s communications and interactions with bishops in northern Italy, see McLynn, 276-90. 241 For Chromatius, see McEachnie, 54-5. For Gaudentius, see Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus, 16.9. cf. Lizzi, “Ambrose’s Contemporaries,” 158-9. 242 Lizzi assumes a later dating of Maximus’ ordination, making him the latest of the three bishops considered in this study. This dating is important for her argument showing how the advances of Christianization and the growth of episcopal power in the early fifth century are reflected in Maximus’ sermons. Fahey argues, however, that it is quite possible that Maximus was ordained well before Ambrose’s death, and thus his formative years as a priest occurred much earlier than traditionally held. If Fahey is right, then it is possible that Maximus maintained communication with Ambrose. Furthermore, the differences between Maximus and his contemporaries would be less a reflection of changes in the region over time as Lizzi argues than differences within the region at the same time. For Lizzi’s argument, see “Ambrose’s Contemporaries,” 159. For Fahey’s argument see 426-31. 61

404.243 Gaudentius had been chosen as a delegate by Innocent for his unsuccessful embassy to

Constantinople, and Chromatius had sent a letter to the eastern emperor Arcadius on

Chrysostom’s behalf.244 Chrysostom also sent letters of appreciation to both Chromatius and

Gaudentius for their efforts to restore him to his patriarchal honor.245 In addition to Chrysostom,

Chromatius maintained close friendships with two very prominent bishops of the period who would later become the center of the Origenist Controversy: Rufinus and Jerome.246 Gaudentius is recorded to have received at least one letter from Jerome exhorting religious education for young people.247 Furthermore, twenty-one of Gaudentius’ sermons and letter, which comprise the entire corpus of his extant works, were sent to a certain Benivolus, a civic leader in Brescia who supported Ambrose against the empress Justina.248 While further research on Gaudentius’ and Chromatius’ relations with other bishops needs to be conducted, one can say that both bishops were well-connected with ecclesial leaders throughout the empire.

On the contrary, Gennadius of Marseilles, in his De viribus inlustribus, is the only late antique Christian author to mention Maximus.249 No letters or correspondence between

Maximus and any other figure appears to have survived—if, in fact, there were any.250 Of course, an argument from silence is insufficient to prove that Maximus remained relatively isolated from other bishops, and even goes contrary to the evidence—there was at least one, if not two church councils held in Turin during the time when Maximus could have possibly been

243 For an overview of John Chrysostom’s exile and the western attempt to restore him, see J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 250-65, 272-85. 244 Boehrer, 20; McEachnie, 60-1. 245 Kelly, 281. 246 See 11-2 above. 247 Andrew Cain, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 215. 248 Gaudentius of Brescia, Praefatio 2, 5-6; McLynn, 221. 249 Ramsey, “Introduction,” 1; Fahey, 1. 250 Fahey, 359. 62 bishop, indicating at least some degree of interaction with bishops from Gaul and northern

Italy.251 Yet the lack of any extant letters addressed to or from Maximus is indicative of limited correspondence on the part of the bishop. Letters from Maximus might not have been desired by medieval copyists, but those from Jerome, Chrysostom, and Ambrose certainly were—three major bishops who did communicate with Gaudentius and Chromatius. The fact that no letters survive between Maximus and these three prominent bishops could then be an indication that he didn’t maintain any extended correspondence with them. Thus, the difference between Maximus and both Gaudentius and Chromatius are not limited to their sermons, but are evident even in their communication—or lack thereof—with other bishops in northern Italy and the late Roman world.

The Sermons: Exegesis and the Bishops of Northern Italy

After looking at the urban and religious environment in which Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus preached, it is necessary to discuss the nature of their preaching, specifically, the role of exegesis in their sermons. Christian homilies emerged within the context of the Jewish synagogue and contained four main dimensions: homiletic, exegetical, liturgical, and prophetic.252 Exegesis, then, was essentially the interpretation of Scripture, though this took on complex forms as it became more closely associated with Christianity. Carroll succinctly summarizes how Jewish—and, subsequently, early Christian—exegesis proceeded by

“comparing one text of Scripture with a variety of others and by relating the biblical meaning to

251 See Kulikowski. Kulikowski argues that the first council of Turin would have met between 398 and 407 and the second one between 407 and 416—both of which could have fallen within Maximus episcopacy, given his possible date of death somewhere between 408 and 423. 252 Thomas K. Carroll, Preaching the Word (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier Inc., 1984), 11. Carroll presents an overview of the emergence and development of Christian homilies, both in the Greek East and the Latin West. For preaching in the apostolic age, see Joseph A. Fitmayer, “Preaching in the Apostolic and Subapostolic Age,” in Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, S.J. ed. David G. Hunter (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 19-35. 63 the contemporary situation.”253 By the time of Origen in the early third century, Christian writers had begun to take an allegorical approach towards Scriptural exegesis.254 In fact, several of the bishops in the late fourth and early fifth century, including those in northern Italy, were adopting Origen’s allegorical style in their interpretations of Scripture. To fit with their desire to make sermons both spiritual and practical, Latin preachers in the West were inclined to use more rhetorical and catechetical strategies as they modified their use of scriptural exegesis to fit the needs of their congregation. Ambrose, for example, managed to combine the allegorical interpretation of Scripture common to the Alexandrian school with his own practical and pastoral concerns for his congregation.255 Thus exegesis in sermons served both a spiritual and a practical purpose: it elevated the listener’s mind to the things of heaven while also giving him or her the tools needed to face life’s challenges.

Given this general background, it is possible to distinguish some specific characteristics in the preaching style and use of exegesis in Chromatius’, Gaudentius’, and Maximus’ sermons.

Allegorical interpretations of Scripture abound in Chromatius’ sermons. He often presents figures and places in Scripture as types for Christians and the church while at the same time emphasizing the necessity of Christian virtue.256 In promoting devotion to saints at Concordia, he describes the servant Rhoda from the Acts of the Apostles as a type for the saints in heaven who intercede for humanity.257 Chromatius says that the eye, which stands as the entrance to the

253 Carroll, 14. 254 For an overview of Origen and his impact on biblical exegesis, see Carroll, 42-62; Joseph T. Lienhard, “Origen as Homilest,” in Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, S.J. ed. David G. Hunter (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 36-52. An additional study by Frances Young on the role that the Greco-Roman intellectual culture played on Christian exegesis during this period came to my attention as I was submitting this thesis. See Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 255 Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis, trans. John A. Hughes (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 89. 256 For Mascari’s comparison of Chromatius to an ascetic master, see 205-54. 257 See 22 above. 64 body, can represent the teachers in the church: if the teachers are good and holy, this will enlighten the whole church; if they are heretics, the whole body suffers.258 Chromatius also related the Old Testament to the New Testament in his sermons, showing how the former had prefigured the latter. When explaining the passage from the Acts of the Apostles in which Peter chastises the magician Simon for trying to purchase the powers of the Apostles, Chromatius compares Simon to the raven that was sent out from Noah’s ark and never returned.259 The ark—the church of Christ—had received Simon when he was baptized, but now casts him out.260

Chromatius relates this passage specifically to his congregation, insisting that they not be found

“a raven in the church of the Lord”—that is, “any impure person, any pagan, any heretic.”261

This person, if he remains a raven in his mind, must pray to God and ask to be turned into a dove, to be changed “from unclean to clean, from profane to faithful, from unchaste to pure, from heretic to catholic.”262 Here we have an example of the way in which an allegorical exegesis of Scripture was related to the preacher’s audience. Chromatius, following in the allegorical tradition of Origen, nevertheless connected his interpretations to the lives of his congregation and used it as an opportunity to encourage them to pursue virtue.

Chromatius had, in fact, followed a principle that defined Gaudentius’ preaching: the

Gospel message, as the pinnacle of the Scriptures, could be seen to varying degrees in all

Scripture, both Old and New. Gaudentius even explicitly expresses this during the course of his expositions on the Exodus narrative: “Every part of divine Scripture, both of the Old and of the

New Testament, bears witness to the Son of God, either promising that He will come to mankind

258 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 6:2, in McEachnie, 249-50. 259 See Acts 8:18-20. 260 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 2:5, in McEachnie, 233. 261 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 2:5, in McEachnie, 234. 262 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermon 2:5, in McEachnie, 234. 65 or declaring that He has already come.”263 It was the preacher’s duty to elucidate the Scriptures in terms of the Gospel, as Gaudentius did. Mascari has argued that Gaudentius followed in the tradition of the ancient grammaticus who interpreted authoritatively classical texts.264 This comparison is in line with Gaudentius’ method of conducting exegesis. Following Origen’s example, he was very systematic in his explanation of scripture, particularly in his series of sermons on the Exodus story delivered at Easter time, which comprise roughly half of his extant works. Again, as with Chromatius, he interprets Scripture primarily allegorically, relating specific figures and items in the Exodus narrative to the Christian message. Simple objects, such as the shoes that the Israelites wore when eating the lamb, referred to the divine precepts and, more specifically, the Holy Scriptures.265 To gird one’s loins meant to be chaste, both physically and morally.266 These minor interpretations fit into a much larger allegorical understanding of the Exodus story as God’s redemption of humanity through Christ’s passion and Resurrection.

Thus Christ was the lamb whom God commanded the Israelites to eat, and whose blood marked the two doorposts—i.e. faith and works—of each household, saving them from the punishment of the Egyptians.267 The Egyptians, moreover, were the pagan gods from whom Christ had saved

Gaudentius’ own flock through his salvific work.268 Now the Christian could look forward with hope to the resurrection of the body, when Christ, as the sun in Isaiah 30, would raise the dead from their graves and shine seven times brighter than before, and the church, as the moon, would shine brightly with the light of Christ, never to be extinguished.269 Gaudentius’ use of allegory,

263 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 2:15, in Boehrer, 61. 264 See Mascari, 156-204. 265 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 5:4, 7, in Boehrer, 80, 81. 266 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 5:5, in Boehrer, 80. 267 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 3:21, in Boehrer, 73. 268 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 6:6-7, in Boehrer, 86-7. 269 Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 3:1-5, in Boehrer, 68-9. cf. Isaiah 30:26. 66 then, allowed him interpret the Exodus account entirely through the lens of Christ’s salvation of humanity, an interpretation which he explicated in detail to his congregation in Brescia.

When looking at Maximus’ sermons, we find an image of a preacher who was less concerned than his two brother bishops with allegorical exegesis of Scripture than with making

Christianity accessible to his congregation. On the whole, Maximus’ sermons are much shorter and less rhetorically polished. In one sermon, he even mentions how he refused to preach at any length the week before as a punishment for his congregation’s failure to honor Sts. Peter and

Paul on their feast day.270 He uses Scriptural exegesis to a certain extent, as when he presents

Jews and heretics as opposed to Christians, but is far less beholden to it than either Gaudentius or

Chromatius, preferring instead to address his congregation plainly and directly.271 Preaching shortly after a barbarian raid on Turin, Maximus uses a passage from Leviticus to chastise his audience for looting the city after the attack, thus taking what was not rightfully theirs.272 In this instance, Maximus does not engage in any lengthy exegesis on the scripture passage in question but merely uses it as a starting point from which to launch his rebuke.273 Often, his exegesis takes the form of simple comparisons. The camel in Matthew 19 is likened to the rich and Christ is compared to Susanna in the book of Daniel.274 In this latter example, it is noteworthy that

Maximus begins first by mentioning Christ and then comparing him to Susanna, rather than vice versa. By comparing the persecution that both faced, he ultimately states that Susanna’s accusers were both punished by others, while Judas, Jesus’ persecutor, punished himself through his

270 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 3:2, in Ramsey, 19-20. 271 See 42-44 above. 272 “Do not touch something that has been savaged by a wild animal.” Lev. 22:8, Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 18:2, in Ramsey, 46. 273 Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 18:3, in Ramsey, 46. 274 “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. 19:24; Maximus of Turin, Sermons, Sermon 32:1, in Ramsey, 77. For the comparison of Christ to Susanna, see sermons 57-8, in Ramsey, 137-41. For Susanna, see Dan. 13. 67 suicide.275 All heretics, he concludes, condemn themselves through their persistence in error.

Here, Maximus does not interpret the Old Testament in terms of the New, but rather makes a simple comparison between the two and uses this as a basis for which to criticize heretics.

Maximus also uses common, well-known objects in his comparisons. Thus, Christ’s cross is referred to as the mast of a ship and grapes are likened to martyrdom.276 The latter sermon was actually preached at the time of the grape harvest, reflecting how Maximus adapted his preaching to fit the local events of his community, as Chromatius did in his sermon on the market day in Aquileia.277 Both examples, then, are representative of Maximus’ simple preaching style, which often reflected the local concerns and needs of his audience and lacked the rigid and extensive exegesis undertaken by Gaudentius and Chromatius.

A final point of comparison should be made here between Maximus’ and Gaudentius’ preaching on the Val di Non martyrs Sisinnius, Alexander, and Martyrius.278 As described in the introduction to this thesis, Maximus manipulated the story of the Val di Non martyrs to promote a specific strategy of Christianization in which the local elites were responsible for converting the inhabitants on their lands to Christianity.279 He insists that “the Christian name had not been known before” among the locals, making the mission of the three men one of converting pagans.280 We find, however, a different view on the event from Gaudentius. He mentions briefly that the martyrs had actually forbidden Christians in the region from offering sacrifices to pagan gods, indicating that Christians were already present before the arrival of the

275 See 43-4 above. 276 Maximus of Turin, Sermons 38:2, 10:1, in Ramsey 92, 28. 277 Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermons 41:1, in McEachnie, 384. For my analysis of this sermons, see 17-8 above. 278 Interestingly, no evidence for a sermon by Chromatius on the Val di Non martyrs survives. 279 See 2-4 above; cf. Lizzi, Vescovi, 64-70. 280 “...christianum nomen cognitum antea non fuisset...” Maximus of Turin, Collectionem, Sermo 105:2, in CCSL 414. 68 missionaries.281 This claim is corroborated by Vigilius of Trent, who described the martyrdom in two letters, one to Ambrose’s successor, Simplicianus, in 397, and one to Chrysostom in 398.282

Sisinnius, he recounts, was a priest, while Alexander and Martyrius were a reader and a janitor, respectively. This fact alone leads one to conclude that there was a sizeable Christian community already in place in the Val di Non at this time.283 Maximus, however, was not concerned with recounting accurate details about the martyrs’ death, but adjusted the narrative to fit his own rhetorical needs. Here we see a difference in approach to the same event by both

Gaudentius and Maximus that was determined by the bishops’ specific needs. Gaudentius’ only surviving reference to the martyrs comes in the context of his sermon on the dedication of a basilica. Having received some of the Val di Non martyrs’ ashes for the church, he briefly mentions them in his sermon before describing the forty saints whose relics he acquired in

Cappadocia.284 Maximus, on the other hand, was trying to convince the elites of Turin to eradicate paganism on their property and in the countryside. Naturally, then, he would want to spice up the story about the martyrs to make it as appealing as possible to his audience.

281 “...qui Christianos suos victimas daemoniis ministrare increpatione iustissima vetuissent.” Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 17:13, in CSEL 68, 144. 282 Salzman, 267. 283 Salzman, 269. 284 See Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 17:14-38, in Boehrer, 194-201. 69

Conclusion: Bishops in the Shadows?

Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus were three local bishops in northern Italy who spent their episcopates in the shadow of Ambrose. Indeed, none of them was as prolific or ingenious in their sermons and theological ideas as the esteemed Milanese archbishop. Yet within their local contexts, the cities of northern Italy, all three played a crucial role in the formation of a Christian community and the spread of Christian culture. They all sought to define true Christian religion in opposition to pagans, heretics, and Jews, focusing the brunt of their rhetoric on whichever of these groups was most prominent in their particular city.

Gaudentius and Chromatius were greatly concerned about the substantial Jewish population in their communities while Maximus, for his part, worried more about the persistence of paganism.

Through their rhetoric, it is possible to see how even similar themes in all three bishops’ sermons were adapted to fit the local needs of the community. Furthermore, in spreading Christian culture all three bishops took different approaches: Maximus emphasized a disciplined Christian life that was integrated within the church’s liturgical calendar, while Gaudentius and Chromatius were less specific about which practices one ought to adopt, rather emphasizing virtue in general.

Overall, from this analysis we find that Maximus is the most distinctive of the three bishops, both in terms of the themes on which he preached and his exegetical style, which was simpler and less allegorical than that of either Chromatius and Gaudentius. Moreover, the differences between the three bishops were largely determined by the local urban and religious context in which each bishop lived and preached.

What does this mean for Humphries’ model of the north Italian human environment discussed in chapter four?285 Indeed, Humphries emphasizes the importance of pre-existing social and economic networks across the region in understanding the spread of Christianity.

285 See 54-62 above. 70

Furthermore, while there are certain common characteristics in the rise and spread of Christianity across northern Italy, Humphries acknowledges that this process was also influenced by local settings. Thus, cities such as Aquileia and Milan, the two main economic centers of northern

Italy in late antiquity, enjoyed a much earlier date of Christianization than other cities in the region. My own analysis of the sermons of Chromatius of Aquileia, Gaudentius of Brescia, and

Maximus of Turin generally supports Humphries’ thesis; however, Turin’s place within this framework is questionable. It is possible that Fahey’s argument for considering Turin along the

Rome-Gaul axis is a more appropriate way of understanding broader developments in the

Christianization of the region. Additional research on northern Italy as a region in late antiquity would certainly need to consider the evidence for such a premise. Despite this caveat, the evidence of episcopal sermons from the region tends to support Humphries’ model, if slightly modified.

In the broader study of Christianization, the sermons of these three bishops reflect a largely top-down model of conversion in which Christian bishops created and re-defined the concepts of paganism, heresy, and Judaism as a way to form Christian community and promoted a Christian, liturgical routine of life. A similar model of Christianization has been proposed elsewhere in the context of late antique Corinth.286 Certainly, the Christianization of northern

Italy is not that simple, and the influence of several factors on the ground, including the constant flow of merchants through the region, ought to be considered in any broader study of religious dynamics in this area. Nevertheless, the sermons of Chromatius, Gaudentius, and Maximus paint a picture of three local bishops who were principal agents in the process of Christianizing and converting their local communities. They themselves would not have described their role as

286 Richard Rothaus, “Christianization and De-Paganization: The Late Antique Creation of a Conceptual Frontier,” in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, ed. Ralph W. Mathisen and Hagith S. Sivan (Aldhershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1996) 299-308. 71 preachers and bishops in these terms. Rather, they considered themselves first and foremost shepherds in the truest sense of the word: leaders who guided their flock away from the dangers of spiritual error and toward the safety of the heavenly pasture. In this sense, they were not bishops in the shadows; they were preachers and teachers, leaders and overseers, actively leading their flock away from the darkness of wrong belief and into the light of the Christian gospel.

Through their preaching, they gradually transformed the culture of the region and helped shape a

Christian society that would emerge in early medieval Europe.

72

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Chromatii Aquileiensis, Opera. Eds. and Trans. R. Étaix and J. Lemarié. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 9A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974.

Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermons, in Robert McEachnie,“Constructing Christian Community: The Sermons of Chromatius of Aquileia, 388-407.” PhD diss., University of Florida, 2013.

Gaudentii Episcopi Brixiensis, Tractatus. Ed. Ambrose Glueck. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 68. Wein: Hoelder-Pichlere-Tempskey,1936.

Gaudentius of Brescia, Sermons in Stephen L. Boehrer “Gaudentius of Brescia: Sermons and Letters.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1965.

Maximi Episcopi Taurinensis. Sermones. ed. Almut Mutzenbecher. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 1963.

Maximus of Turin, The Sermons of Maximus of Turin. Trans. and ed. by Boniface Ramsey. New York: Newman Press, 1989.

Tyrannii Rufini. Prologus in Clementis Recognitiones. Ed. Bernard Rehm. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 1961.

Secondary Sources

Bauer, Susan Wise. History of the Medieval World. New York: Norton, 2010.

Bowes, Kim. Private Worship, Public Values, and Religious Change in Late Antiquity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

------. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome and the Making of Christianity in the West. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

------. The World of Late Antiquity AD 150-750. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971.

73

Cain, Andrew. The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Carroll, Thomas K. Preaching the Word. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984.

Fahey, William Edmund. “Maximus of Turin and his Late Antique Community.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2002.

Joseph A. Fitmayer, “Preaching in the Apostolic and Subapostolic Age,” in Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, S.J. edited by David G. Hunter. New York: Paulist Press, 1989, 19-35

Humphries, Mark. Communities of the Blessed: Social Environment and Religious Change in Northern Italy, AD 200-400. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Kelly, J. N. D. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.

Kulikowski, Michael. “Two Councils in Turin.” Journal of Theological Studies 47:1 (1996): 159-68.

Lienhard, Joseph T. “Origen as Homilest,” in Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, S.J. edited by David G. Hunter. New York: Paulist Press, 1989, 36- 52.

Lizzi, Rita. “Ambrose’s Contemporaries and the Christianization of Northern Italy.” The Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990): 156-173.

------. Vescovi e strutture ecclesiastiche nella citta tardoantica (L’’Italia Annonaria’ nel IV-V secolo d.C.). Como: New Press, 1989.

Maxwell, Jaclyn L. Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and his Congregation in Antioch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Mayer, Wendy. “John Chrysostom: Extraordinary Preacher, Ordinary Audience,” in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. Edited by Mary Cunningham and Pauline Allen. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 105-37.

Mascari, Michael. “Zeno, Gaudentius, Chromatius: The Dynamics of Preaching in Northern Italy (360-420).” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1996.

McEachnie, Robert. “Constructing Christian Community: The Sermons of Chromatius of Aquileia, 388-407.” PhD diss., University of Florida, 2013.

McLynn, Neil. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley: University of Califronia Press, 1994. 74

Meredith, Anthony. “The Three Cappadocians on Beneficence: A Key to their Audience,” in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. Edited by Mary Cunningham and Pauline Allen. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 89-104.

Rothaus, Richard. “Christianization and De-Paganization: The Late Antique Creation of a Conceptual Frontier,” in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Edited by Ralph W. Mathisen and Hagith S. Sivan. Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1996, 299-308.

Ruggini, Lellia Cracco. “Il Vescovo Cromazio e gli Ebrei di Aquileia,” in Aquileia e l’Oriente Mediterraneo. Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1977, 353-81.

Salzman, Michele Renee. “Rethinking Pagan-Christian Violence,” in Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices. Edited by H. A. Drake. Burlington, VA: Ashgate, 2006, 265- 85.

Simonetti, Manlio. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Translated by John A. Hughes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Thacker, Alan. “Popes, patriarchs and archbishops and the origins of the cult of the martyrs in northern Italy.” Studies in Church History 47 (2011), 51-79.

Trout, Dennis. “Town, Countryside, and Christianization at Paulinus’ Nola,” in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Edited by Ralph W. Mathisen and Hagith S. Sivan. Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1996, 175-86.

Wilken, Robert L. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Williams, Daniel H. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Young, Frances. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.