Adamantius

Rivista del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la tradizione alessandrina

*

Journal of the Italian Research Group on Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition

19

(2013)

1FS.BSJB*HOB[JB%BOJFMJ

156

What the Bishop Wore to the Synod: John Chrysostom, Origenism,

and the Politics of Fashion at Constantinople di

Susanna Elm

First among the factions, [the Blues] changed their hair to a completely new style. They had it cut and shaped very differently from all other Romans. They did not alter the beard or mustache in any way, but took care to grow them as long as possible, like the Persians. But the hair on the head they cut right back to the temples, allowing the long growth to fall down behind to its full length in a mangled mess, like the Massagetai. That is why they call this fashion the Hun Style. Then [] they all think it right to wear rich clothing, putting on styles too ostentatious for their proper status [] their capes and pants were also in the Hun style1.

John Chrysostoms ill fated tenure as bishop of Constantinople between 398 and 404 has attracted significant scholarly attention seeking to answer the question why Chrysostom, who had been so successful at Antioch, failed so spectacularly in the capital2. This is a vexed problem. Even though we posses abundant sources chronicling these years, they paint a conflicting and contradictory picture of the protagonists and the events leading to John Chrysostoms condemnation at the synod of the Oak in 403, his subsequent recall, renewed exile in 404, and his spectacular posthumous rehabilitation3. In fact, sources favorable to Johns position have dominated modern scholarship until recently, so that the true extent of the controversy is coming into focus only slowly4. Revisions, however, continue apace, readjusting the picture of Johns Constantinopolitan years5. Old enemies such as the empress Eudoxia and Theophilus of Alexandria can no longer simply be brushed aside as a Jezebel redux and overbearing Egyptian Pharao6. The tensions among the Constantinopolitan

1 Procop. )BSD 7,8-14. Trans. B. SHAW, 4BDSFE7JPMFODF"GSJDBO$ISJTUJBOTBOE4FDUBSJBO)BUSFEJOUIF"HFPG "VHVTUJOF, Cambridge 2011, 24-25; A. CAMERON, $JSDVT 'BDUJPOT #MVFT BOE (SFFOT BU 3PNF BOE#Z[BOUJVN, Oxford 1976, 74-104. I thank Rebecca Lyman for helping me clarify my thoughts, as always. 2 C. TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT $ISZTPTUPNVT JO ,POTUBOUJOPQFM 398404, Tbingen 2002; J.N.D. KELLY, (PMEFO.PVUI UIF 4UPSZ PG +PIO$ISZTPTUPN "TDFUJD 1SFBDIFS #JTIPQ, London 1995. The majority of recent and forthcoming books focus on Chrysostoms Antiochene period, e.g. M. ILLERT, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVTVOEEBT BOUJPDIFOJTDITZSJTDIF .ODIUVN, Zurich 2000; B. LEYERLE, 5IFBUSJDBM 4IPXT BOE "TDFUJD -JWFT +PIO$ISZTPTUPNT "UUBDL PO 4QJSJUVBM .BSSJBHF, Berkeley 2001; A. HARTNEY, +PIO $ISZTPTUPN BOE UIF5SBOTGPSNBUJPO PG UIF $JUZ, London 2004, though she also addresses Constantinople; J. MAXWELL, $ISJTUJBOJ[BUJPO BOE$PNNVOJDBUJPO +PIO$ISZTPTUPN BOE IJT$POHSFHBUJPO JO"OUJPDI, Cambridge 2006; I. SANDWELL, 3FMJHJPVT*EFOUJUZJO-BUF"OUJRVJUZ(SFFL+FXTBOE$ISJTUJBOTJO"OUJPDI, Cambridge 2007; and the forthcoming works of D. Kalleres and C. Shepardson, to name but a few. 3 W. MEYER, +PIO$ISZTPTUPN%FDPOTUSVDUJOHUIF$POTUSVDUJPOPGBO&YJMF, ThZ62 (2006) 248-258. 4 F. VAN OMMESLAGE, 2VFWBVUMFUNPJHOBHFEF1BMMBEFTVSMFQSPDTEF4BJOU+FBO$ISZTPTUPNF , AnBoll 95 (1977) 389-413; 0SBUJP GVOFCSJT JO MBVEFN TBODUJ *PIBOOJT $ISZTPTUPNJ &QJUBGGJP BUUSJCVJUP B .BSUJSJP EJ"OUJPDIJB, ed. and trans. M. WALLRAFF C. RICCI, Spoleto 2007, 10-27; D.S. KATOS, 1BMMBEJVT PG)FMMFOPQPMJTUIF0SJHFOJTU"EWPDBUF, Oxford 2011. 5 W. MAYER, 1SPHSFTT JO UIF 'JFME PG $ISZTPTUPN 4UVEJFT 19842004, in (JPWBOOJ $SJTPTUPNP 0SJFOUF FPDDJEFOUF USB *7 F7 TFDPMP, Roma 2005, 9-35, esp. 19-20; and esp. EAD., 5IF)PNJMJFT PG +PIO$ISZTPTUPN1SPWFOBODF3FTIBQJOHUIF'PVOEBUJPOT, Roma 2005. 6 W. MAYER, %PJOH7JPMFODFUPUIF*NBHFPGBO&NQSFTTUIF%FTUSVDUJPOPG&VEPYJBT3FQVUBUJPO, in7JPMFODFJO-BUF"OUJRVJUZ1FSDFQUJPOBOE1SBDUJDFT, ed. H. A. DRAKE et al., Aldershot 2006, 205-213; F. FATTI, 5SBNF

SUSANNA ELM 8IBUUIF#JTIPQ8PSFUPUIF4ZOPE

157

elite during that crucial period can no longer be neatly subsumed as hellenophiles versus pro-barbarians7. Johns opponents can no longer be characterized as merely power-hungry, decadent clergy and intriguing monks conspiring to destroy an upright reformer8. The many nuances and readjustments that recent scholarship has introduced have, however, only increased the complexity of Johns Constantinopolitan years. Whereas before we had a comparatively straightforward narrative, in which John Chrysostom emerged heroically as a victim of those aligned against him, we now confront multiple layers of competing and contending factions, so intractable that one might despair of ever finding a convincing answer as to why John Chrysostom failed so spectacularly at Constantinople. One explanation has, however, increasingly gained ground, namely that John was deposed by the synod of the Oak because he had been accused of being an Origenist and these accusations were of sufficient severity to make them stick. It is this last aspect that I will address in the following9. What did Origenism mean in the case of John Chrysostom, the avowed champion of the Nicene cause, and why were his accusers in Constantinople so successful in convincing a sizeable enough constituency that these accusations (combined with others involving administrative and canonical legal violations) warranted his deposition? Few sources provide answers to this question. Therefore, I will approach this complex situation from an admittedly oblique angle by asking what role fashion might have played in facilitating the alliance of those who wanted to oust John as bishop. More specifically, I want to focus on asceticism and monasticism at Constantinople at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century as part of fashion, display, and ostentation. Ostentatious display through fashion, as a number of social historians have pointed out, increases in significance during times of stress. The greater the level of stress and competition within a given society or among a group within that society, the greater the need to mark the boundaries between the competitors distinctly and symbolically through increasing ostentation and ever more elaborate display, causing what Ian Morris has called veritable style wars10. The martial metaphor is not accidental; there are quite few famous examples of persons and the groups with which they were associated that fell victim to such style wars11. Perhaps John Chrysostom was one of them. Ecclesiastics and especially ascetics were of course part of this culture of competition and display. I do not propose that a focus on fashion will cut

NFEJUFSSBOFF 5FPGJMP 3PNB $POTUBOUJOPQPMJ, "EBNBOUJVT 12 (2006) 105-139; N. RUSSELL, 5IFPQIJMVT PG"MFYBOESJB, Abingdon 2007. 7 J.H.W.G. LIEBESCHUETZ, #BSCBSJBOT BOE #JTIPQT "SNZ $IVSDI BOE 4UBUF JO UIF "HF PG "SDBEJVT BOE$ISZTPTUPN, Oxford 1990; A. CAMERON J. LONG, #BSCBSJBOTBOE1PMJUJDTBUUIF$PVSUPG"SDBEJVT, Berkeley 1993; T. SCHMITT, %JF#FLFISVOHEFT4ZOFTJPTWPO,ZSFOF, Munich 2001. 8 D. CANER, 8BOEFSJOH #FHHJOH .POLT 4QJSJUVBM "VUIPSJUZ BOE UIF 1SPNPUJPO PG .POBTUJDJTN JO -BUF"OUJRVJUZ, Berkeley 2006. 9 See especially P. VAN NUFFELEN, 5IFPQIJMVTBHBJOTU+PIO$ISZTPTUPN5IF'SBHNFOUTPGB-PTUliberBOEUIFSFBTPOTGPS+PIOT%FQPTJUJPO, in this volume. 10 I. MORRIS, %FBUISJUVBM BOE 4PDJBM 4USVDUVSF JO $MBTTJDBM "OUJRVJUZ, Cambridge 1922, 28, 128-155; I. HODDER, 5IF%PNFTUJDBUJPOPG&VSPQF, Oxford 1990, 3; P. VEYNE, PSPQBHBOEB"VTESVDL,OJH#JME*EPM0SBLFM, in ID., %JF SNJTDIF (FTFMMTDIBGU, Munich 1995, 300-327; see also G. PEERS, 0CKFDU 3FMBUJPOT5IFPSJ[JOH UIF-BUF"OUJRVF7JFXFS, in 5IF0YGPSE)BOECPPLPO-BUF"OUJRVJUZ, ed. S. JOHNSON, Oxford 2012, 970-993. 11 A point well conveyed by C. WEBER, 2VFFOPG'BTIJPO8IBU.BSJF"OUPJOFUUF8PSF UP UIF3FWPMVUJPO, London 2007, 3-10. Other examples include John Wesley preaching in fields in silk stockings, and the Quakers refusing to remove their hats.

ADAMANTIUS 19 (2013)

158

the Gordian knot of Johns Constantinopolitan years nor do I imagine for a moment that fashion trumpets the hard facts, to wit the competition between Theophilus and John, between Alexandria, the preeminent episcopal seat of the East and the increasingly important Constantinople12, the affair of the Tall Brothers, or Johns role in the affair of Heracleides of Ephesus, to name but a few bones of contention13. However, Johns tenure at Constantinople occurred at a critical juncture where fashion and stress played their role. Constantinople between 398 and 403 experienced intense battles between the military and senatorial civilian leadership of the court which included the use of deadly force. Writing during these events and shortly thereafter, John and his contemporary authors display a great deal of sensitivity to ostentation and public deportment, leaving no doubt that fashion was highly controversial14. However, such heightened sensitivity to fashion was not caused by an increase in distinction between competing groups, but rather by a greater homogeneity of elite male fashion that made signaling associations more difficult, especially when marking oneself as Nicene or Arian, to stick with the polemical labels of the time. Here, philosophers, ascetics, and monks come into play, because to patronize them could signal what dress alone could not. Ascetics and monks, themselves highly conscious of their forms of ostentation and display and associated with key military and civilian players and the court, were pivotal in the ouster of the bishop, who had managed to be so divisive that his fervent supporters faced an equally fervent opposition, united, however divided in other ways, by their common dislike of the bishop. Perhaps his ostentatious insistence on IJT form of display was the wrong move at the wrong time.

1.5IF$POTUBOUJOPQPMJUBO&MJUFT#BSCBSJBOTBOE4UZMF8BSTBy the end of the fourth century, gold had become the standard defining the new elites. Ever since Constantine had introduced the gold TPMJEVT as a means to assure the loyalty of his elites and had begun to pay the military and the imperial administration in gold, there ensued an even more extravagant passion for spending gold [] which means that the houses of the rich were crammed full and their splendor increased to the detriment of the poor15. Constantinople was particularly affected by the impact of this new gold. It was a new city whose residents had increased nearly tenfold between 330 and 400 to about 300,000, and many who belonged, by 400, to its elites were new men or the sons of new men, members of the administration and the army who had come to the city from elsewhere, especially the Eastern provinces, had risen in rank and fortune as a result of imperial patronage, and had amassed staggering amounts of wealth expressed in references to DFOUFOBSJB of gold16.

12 Hier. &QDPOUSB+PIO)JFS 37 indicates that Theophilus had the care of all the Churches. 13 E. CLARK, 5IF0SJHFOJTU$POUSPWFSTZ5IF$VMUVSBM$POTUSVDUJPOPGBO&BSMZ$ISJTUJBO%FCBUF, Princeton 1992, 86-121; F. FATTI, j&SFUJDP DPOEBOOB0SJHFOFx$POGMJUUJ EJ QPUFSF BE"MFTTBOESJB OFMMF UBSEB BOUJDIJU, ASEs 20 (2003) 383-435; KATOS, 1BMMBEJVTPG)FMMFOPQPMJT,cit., 71-77. 14 As evident in Chrysostoms numerous references and allusions to the theater and to spectacle. B. LEYERLE, 5IFBUSJDBM 4IPXT BOE "TDFUJD -JWFT +PIO $ISZTPTUPNT BUUBDL PO 4QJSJUVBM .BSSJBHF, Berkeley 2001; CH. JACOB, %BTHFJTUJHF5IFBUFSTUIFUJLVOE.PSBMCFJ+PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, Mnster 2010, 94-141, 154-170; both focus on Antioch. 15 "OEFSFCVTCFMM 2,1-2, ed. and trans. E.A. THOMPSON, "3PNBO1FSGPSNFSBOE*OWFOUPS, Oxford 1952, 94; J. BANAJI, "HSBSJBO$IBOHFJO-BUF"OUJRVJUZ(PME-BCPSBOE"SJTUPDSBUJD%PNJOBODF, Oxford 2001, 46-49, 56-65; F. CARL, -PSPOFMMBUBSEBBOUJRVJU"TQFUUJFDPOPNJDJFTPDJBMJ, Torino 2009, 125-131. 16 J.-P. CALLU, -F ADFOUFOBSJVN FU MFOSJDIJTTFNFOU NPOUBJSF BV #BT&NQJSF, Ktma 3 (1978) 301-316; for populations figures J. DURLIAT, %F MB WJMMF BOUJRVF MB WJMMF CZ[BOUJOF MF QSPCMNF EFT TVCTJTUBODFT, Paris

SUSANNA ELM 8IBUUIF#JTIPQ8PSFUPUIF4ZOPE

159

a. $MPUIFTNBLFUIUIF.BO With new wealth came a new style of dress. As an important recent study by Philip von Rummel, based on archaeological evidence has shown, for men this new fashion was military17. Elite male dress absorbed the military style and was designed to show-case wealth, regardless of the military or civilian status of the one who displayed it. All wished to glitter with the splendor of gold and colors18. Elite male dress consciously crossed the military-civilian divide and thus gave visual impact to the fact that the imperial administration, which attracted so many members of the elite especially from the Eastern, Greek provinces to Constantinople, styled itself as the NJMJUJB PGGJDJBMJT. The military proper, however, was dominated by barbarians. After Valens defeat at Adrianople in 378, the reconstituted Eastern army consisted to a very significant degree of Gothic, Alan, and Hunnic troops under the leadership of Gothic, Alan, and Armenian commanders19. Thus, the military style that now set elite fashion was barbarian20. Because male fashion was increasingly military in style and EF GBDUP softened the difference between the civilian and the military elites, and because that military style echoed barbarian fashion, elite dress elided the difference between Roman and barbarian men21. Courtiers, powerful civilian administrators, and military leaders alike favored (barbarian) tight tunics with silken panels over colorful embroiders trousers, contrasted with colorful capes held in place by golden, bejeweled fibula brooches22. Womens fashion was more straightforward. It displayed wealth through extraordinary jewelry and silk fabrics interwoven with gold, without any barbarian leanings except for the fact that for its critics all luxury was by definition barbarous23. In practice, civilian, military, and barbarian style had merged into a new late Roman imperial elite style of remarkable consistency, characterized by intense colors, tightly

1990, 250-257; P. HEATHER, /FX .FO GPS /FX $POTUBOUJOFT $SFBUJOH BO *NQFSJBM &MJUF JO UIF &BTUFSO.FEJUFSSBOFBO, in /FX$POTUBOUJOFT5IF3IZUIN PG *NQFSJBM3FOFXBM JO#Z[BOUJVN4UI13UI DFOUVSJFT, ed. P. MAGDALINO, Aldershot 1994, 11-34, esp. 18-25. 17 P. VON RUMMEL, )BCJUVT #BSCBSVT ,MFJEVOH VOE 3FQSTFOUBUJPO TQUBOUJLFS &MJUFO JN 4 VOE 5+BISIVOEFSU, Berlin 2007. 18 Amm. 31,10,14; M. HARLOW, $MPUIFT.BLFUI UIF.BO&MJUF.BMF%SFTT JO UIF-BUFS3PNBO&NQJSF, In (FOEFSBOEUIF5SBOTGPSNBUJPOPGUIF3PNBO8PSME, edd. L. BRUBAKER J. SMITH, Cambridge 2004, 44-69; for the significant civil part of the militia, C. KELLY, 3VMJOHUIFMBUFS3PNBO&NQJSF, Cambridge 2004. 19 Zos. 4,30; Eun. 'SBH. 60,1 (Blockley); M. KULIKOWSKI, 5IFNotitia DignitatumBT)JTUPSJDBM4PVSDF, Hist. 49 (2000) 358-377; LIEBESCHUETZ, #BSCBSJBOTBOE#JTIPQT,cit.,26-31. 20 To cite HARLOW, $MPUIFT.BLFUI UIF.BO, cit., 68-69: New men had absorbed and transformed the dominant modes or representations of masculinity in their own image. Where the earlier Roman fought to obscure outside influences, later Roman man embraced them and, in so doing, accepted a transformation both in the individuals who held power and the way they expressed that power in dress code. 21 Significantly, recent archaeological research, including von Rummels, has shown that many of the jewelry used earlier to identify barbarian, Gothic, Hunnic, Vandal graves had in fact been manufactured in Constantinople; B. ARRHENIUS, .FSPWJOHJBO (BSOFU +FXFMSZ 0SJHJOT BOE 4PDJBM *NQMJDBUJPOT, Stockholm 1985, 120-126, 196-198; I thank Peter Brown for this reference. Indeed, the flow of gold reached well beyond the frontiers to allow for such homogenization of elite display, P. GUEST, 3PNBO(PMEBOE)VO,JOHT5IF6TF BOE)PBSEJOH PG 4PMJEJ JO UIF MBUF GPVSUI BOE GJGUI DFOUVSJFT, in 3PNBO$PJOT PVUTJEF UIF&NQJSF, edd. A. BURSCHE R. CIOLEK R.WOLTERS, Wetteren 2008, 295-307. 22 RUMMEL, )BCJUVT#BSCBSVT,cit., 376-394. 23 -JGF PG.FMBOJB 19 and 21; Amm. 14,6,10; R. DELMAIRE, -F WUFNFOU TZNCPMF EF SJDIFTTF FU EF QPVWPJSEBQSTMFTUFYUFTQBUSJTUJRVFTFUIBHJPHSBQIJRVFTEV#BT&NQJSF, in $PTUVNFFUTPDJUEBOTM"OUJRVJUFUMFIBVU.PZFO"HF, edd. F. CHAUSSON H. INGLEBERT, Paris 2003, 85-98, esp. 89.

ADAMANTIUS 19 (2013)

160

fit tunics, showy swords, jeweled brooches, and cloaks that flowed like theater curtains to display the lavish use of silks and the art of weaving24. While elite male fashion reflected the actual merging of military, barbarian and civilian style, literary sources demonstrate that this process caused intense anxiety on the part of our authors and was subject to harsh controversy: external display, after all, reflected manly virtue, and barbarians, especially those from the north, were not traditionally symbols of such virtues. The more barbarian the fashion, then, the greater the difficulty of expressing moral fiber through clothes alone. Ammianus famous description of the beardless Huns, ugly as eunuchs and clad in tattered mouse-skins, stands paradigmatic for the negative characteristics associated with barbarians25. Not surprisingly, late Roman authors, for the most part members of the civilian elites such as Synesius, who had arrived in Constantinople from Cyrene almost at the same time as John, criticized barbarian fashion as signifying a dangerous preponderance of military power to the detriment of the civilian one. These authors noted everything barbarian about the new military-civilian fashion with an eagle eye and with the rhetorical deploys of age-old ethnographic topoi26.

One ought to eject [the Goths] from the senate and block their access to the senatorial honor, those persons who can only deride what Romans have since ancient times considered the most honorable. I think that today ... the Goddess of the Senate and the God of the army would cover their head when the man in sheepskins [i.e. Alaric] commands soldiers in the DIMBNZT. Afterwards, he exchanges the sheepskin for a UPHB, and discusses, seated next to the consuls [] the politics of the day. But as soon as [the Goths] leave the senate, the throw on their pelts again and laugh about the UPHB, which impedes, so they say, the quick drawing of the sword27.

Here, the culprit was Alaric, an unreliable Gothic military commander. But Rufinus, an Eastern praetorian prefect of no discernible barbarian ethnicity, could equally be described as barbarian if his conduct elicited displeasure: His exterior displays his mind-set. He, who had [] held the power of the consul in his hands, is not ashamed to take on Gothic customs [dressed in yellow skins, JOGVMWBTQFMMFT]28. At stake was not the actual composition of the army and the ethnicity of its commanders, but the intense competition of men of different background over influence at court and in the realm. The imperial family and its fashion, its choice of representation, also played an important role. According to some of our civilian authors, the imperial family displayed, ceremonially, the elite, military, barbarian fashion to general detriment, thereby displaying an undue dependence on its soldiers. I argue that nothing in the past has harmed the affairs of the Romans more than the scene and theater surrounding the emperors body, now hidden from us, as if that would make it holy, and then presented [to us] in a barbarian fashion29. Phrased differently, Arcadius, Eudoxia,

24 Amm. 22,4,5; also 14,6,9; R. MACMULLEN, 4PNF1JDUVSFTJO"NNJBOVT.BSDFMMJOVT, ArtB 46 (1964) 435-56, esp. 436; RUMMEL, )BCJUVT#BSCBSVT,cit., 388. 25 Amm. 31,2,1-6; RUMMEL, )BCJUVT#BSCBSVT,cit., 109-128, 143-148. 26 M. MAAS, #BSCBSJBOT 1SPCMFNT BOE "QQSPBDIFT, in 5IF 0YGPSE )BOECPPL PO -BUF "OUJRVJUZ, 60-91; RUMMEL, )BCJUVT#BSCBSVT,cit., 65-82. 27 Syn. %FSFHOP 22. 28 Claud. $BSN. 5 (against Rufinus), 78-85; cf. Claud. $BSN. 26; RUMMEL, )BCJUVT#BSCBSVT,cit., 143-148 on the pelt topos. 29 Syn. %F3FHOP 14,29.

SUSANNA ELM 8IBUUIF#JTIPQ8PSFUPUIF4ZOPE

161

and the imperial household at Constantinople participated in these style wars in their own fashion, because they too were altering imperial ceremonial and display30. John Chrysostoms years as bishop of Constantinople coincided with a period of signal importance in the ideological and real competition between military leaders, such as Gainas, Tribigild, and Fravitta, of Gothic origin yet thoroughly Romanized, civilian leaders who also at times commanded the army such as Caesarius, Aurelian, Eutychianus, Saturninus, or the DPNFT John, and high ranking courtiers such as the barbarian eunuch Eutropius, who had yielded military command and had become consul as the first eunuch ever to reach such dizzying heights; a highly unsettling spectacle for many contemporary observers. The period between 398 and 403 witnessed the fall of Eutropius, who had been instrumental in making John bishop, the rise and fall of Gainas, the military leader of Arian Goths, the taking hostage by Gainas of Aurelian, Saturninus, and John, confidants of the empress Eudoxia and holders of the highest offices in the realm, the massacre of several thousand Goths, most of them civilians, in a burning church in the city, the revolt of Tribigild, and the weakness of Arcadius. These short years decided who would dominate the Eastern empire from then on out: the army command or the high ranking members of the senatorial elite and the civilian administration. The latter carried the day in Constantinople, but, as the Western example shows, things could easily have gone in favor of the military commanders31. More to the point, during the years between 398 and 403 the outcome was far from certain. In a situation of such intense actual pressure and real danger, the external cues by which those in power and command displayed visually their loyalties were of particular relevance. Every nuance of display mattered, especially when fashion per se had lessened the difference between the competing groups. Because actual fashion had been homogenized, literary allusions demonstrate how nuances in the forms of display could be read and willfully misread to express alliances and oppositions. Wearing Gothic sheepskins and ostentatious silks reflected an attitude and a mindset rather than denoting ethnic character, as Claudians description of Rufinus shows. The same was true of the DIMBNZT and the UPHB, the IBCJUVT3PNBOVT (though the DIMBNZT was Greek, of course)32. A thoroughly Romanized military leader such as Fravitta wore symbolically true Roman, or rather Greek, dress even if in reality he was resplendent in his barbarian military style clothes33. And just as clothes can easily be changed, references to barbarian and Roman clothes and the mind-set those references evoked could be adjusted, depending on the circumstances, the occasion, and the opinion of the person making that reference: one persons sheepskin wearing Goth was anothers UPHB-clad Roman. John Chrysostom knew exactly how to employ the complexities of the symbolic significance of dress. In a sermon he held just after Gainas had been expelled and numerous Goths massacred in the burning church in July 400, he expressed them as follows:

30 For imperial representation TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 193-228; MAYER, %PJOH7JPMFODF, 212-13; P. VAN NUFFELEN, 1MBZJOH UIF 3JUVBM (BNF JO $POTUBOUJOPQMF 379457, in 5XP 3PNFT 3PNF BOE$POTUBOUJOPQMF JO-BUF"OUJRVJUZ, edd. L. GRIG G. KELLY, Oxford 2012, 183-200, esp. 195-199; RUMMEL, )BCJUVT#BSCBSVT, cit., 386-394. 31 Eun. 'SBH. 66 (Blockley); LIEBESCHUETZ, #BSCBSJBOT BOE #JTIPQT, cit., 134-42; CAMERON LONG, #BSCBSJBOT, cit., 309-323, 333-336; J. MATTHEWS, 8FTUFSO "SJTUPDSBDJFT BOE *NQFSJBM $PVSU "% 364425, Oxford 1975, 109-114. 32 RUMMEL, )BCJUVT#BSCBSVT, cit., 83-96; S. ELM, A*TJT-PTT(FOEFS%FQFOEFODFBOE&UIOJDJUZJO4ZOFTJVTDe ProvidentiaPS&HZQUJBO5BMF, Journal of Ancient Christianity 1 (1997) 96-115. 33 Zos. 5,20; the Gothic general Modares received a similarly positive description, Zos. 4,25; Greg. Naz. &Q. 136 calls him barbarian in a positive sense: in his case, the difference between Greek and barbarian was merely physical, and not one of character and soul.

ADAMANTIUS 19 (2013)

162

Let us make an end to this war, let us overthrow these enemies [] let us establish peace in our city. We have within us a city [] with many citizens and aliens, but let us drive out the aliens so that our own people may not be ruined [] If we catch sight of a bad thought (MPHJTNPT), let us hand it over to the ruler, our mind, that thought that is a barbarian dressed up as a citizen. For there are within us many thoughts of that kind, by nature enemies though clad in sheeps skins. Just like Persians when they take off the tiara and trousers and barbarian shoes and put on clothes that are usual with us and shave themselves close and converse in our tongue, but still conceal war under their outer garb34.

Display signals thoughts and attitudes, and such attitudes could be visualized as clothes. John made clear what he meant by barbarian thoughts hiding beneath sheeps skins in a succinct formulation addressed to his Constantinopolitan audience after he had returned from a failed expedition to Gainas, then in Thrace, to negotiate the release of Aurelian, Saturninus, and the DPNFT John. On every side there are a thousand disguises and many sheep-skins everywhere concealing numerous wolves35. John knew whereof he spoke. It is well-documented that he had been in frequent contact with Goths in Constantinople, had ordained Gothic clergy, and had preached to Goths with the help of translators36. He had assigned them a church inside the city, probably the very same that subsequently burned, and had sought to persuade many Goths, most of whom were Arian, to convert to his orthodoxy. Hence it is no wonder that the imperial palace elicited Johns support in negotiating with Gainas, even though Chrysostom had resisted Gainas demands for an Arian Gothic church in the city. John was, or should have been, attuned to the complex role of thoughts and clothes, elite display and the ideological connotation of barbarian dress: his mission elicited a predictable response. To some, Johns failed efforts to reach Gainas signaled a noble effort to rescue hostages, while others saw it as acquiescence to the realms worst enemies, Arian barbarians37. Johns patronage of Gothic presbyters, deacons, and readers, efforts that included a letter to the bishop of Ancyra asking him to recommend suitable men, indicates another way in which competing members of the elite could signal their status and their allegiances: through the persons they sponsored38. Given that dress alone was no longer sufficient to signal clearly what an elite man or woman stood for, that message could be augmented and clarified by the kinds of persons members of the elite sponsored and patronized. Those with whom one associated oneself as patron formed part of ostentation and display, showcasing their benefactors thoughts in ways that aided his other means of public presentation. This is particularly true if those sponsored were literary men, philosophers, ascetics, and monks. This was a two-way street. Members of the elite sponsored philosophers, ascetics, and monks to show-case their positions and alliances, to add to their display, but philosophers, ascetics, and monks also used ostentation and display to attract the attention of donors and sponsors.

34 Io. Chrys*OBDUBBQPTUIPN 37 (PG 60, 267); CAMERON LONG, #BSCBSJBOT, cit., 96-99. 35 Io. Chrys. )PNDVN4BUVSOJOVTFU"VSFMJBOVTetc., PG 52,415; TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 281-308, with further bibliography; see also SCHMITT, %JF#FLFISVOH, cit., 315-331, esp. n. 243. 36 Theod. IF 5,30. 37 Ps. Martyr. 0S GVO. 47-51; Socr. IF 6,5,5; Soz. IF 8,4-10; praises Johns efforts, describing Gainas as dressed in the clothes of sin; TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 281-296 for the Arian church and 297-308 for the negotiations regarding Aurelius and his fellow-hostages and reactions to them. 38 Theod. IF 5,31.

SUSANNA ELM 8IBUUIF#JTIPQ8PSFUPUIF4ZOPE

163

b. .POLTNBLFUIUIF.BOPS8PNBO Synesius, for example, arrived in Constantinople from Cyrene with two companions in 397 to petition the court for tax relief on behalf of his native Pentapolis. In contrast to his two fellow-emissaries, he did not return once that mission had been accomplished, in 398 or so, but stayed on until after the massacre of the Goths in the summer of 40039. His aim was to attract the attention of a major patron, not because Synesius required financial support, but because he wanted to use connections to a great man and a great house to further his own career40. Synesius literary prowess burnished the reputation and prestige of a powerful man, who in turn would introduce Synesius to the pinnacle of the Constantinopolitan elite. Synesius first attracted the attention of a Paeonius, a military man who distinguished himself, according to Synesius, by being a rare combination of philosopher and career soldier (as Cameron has shown, a popular compliment)41. Synesius did not know Paeonius well, but well enough to introduce himself with a spectacular gift, a silver astrolab of dubious utility except as an item of ostentatious erudition. A literary show-piece, EF %POP, accompanied the mechanical one, and the gambit worked. Paeonius introduced Synesius to Aurelian, who became praetorian prefect in the summer of 399 and consul in 400, when he was taken hostage by Gainas. In 398, while Aurelians foe Eutropius was at the height of his power, Synesius wrote his %F SFHOP for Aurelians benefit, signaling with his anti-barbarian, that is, anti-Eutropian invective his own loyalty to Aurelian and those allied with him42. Among those who enjoyed Aurelians patronage was also the monk Isaac. Isaac, a one-time soldier and firm adherent of the Nicene version of Christianity, had come to Constantinople from Syria during the time of Valens, when the city was dominated by homoians, that is, Arians. There he had foretold rather spectacularly to the emperors face Valens impending death at Adrianople43. Under Theodosius, Isaacs divinatory, ascetic, and doctrinal credentials, in line with those of the new emperor, garnered him the patronage of two high ranking military men, Saturninus, consul in 383 and later hostage of Gainas, and Victor, consul in 369. Having risen to prominence under Valens, they saw the new Nicene theological light soon and clearly: Isaac was well-positioned to reflect his patrons new attitudes in public and at court. Neither Saturninus nor Victor would go up to the palace, until they had come to the holys site before dawn44. To showcase their impeccable Nicene credentials (and perhaps to assure easy early morning access to Isaac), Victor and Saturninus competed in offering him sites on their suburban estates. Isaac chose that of Saturninus, where he was joined by a member of the imperial guard, Dalmatius, who eventually became the leader of the community. The success of this monastic settlement patronized by military men with high civilian credentials made it also attractive to Aurelian45.

39 SCHMITT, %JF#FLFISVOH, cit., 243-261. 40 A. CAMERON, 8BOEFSJOH1PFUT"-JUFSBSZ.PWFNFOUJO#Z[BOUJOF&HZQU, Hist. 14 (1965) 470-509, esp. 470. 41 Syn. %FEPOP 1,132-134; CAMERON -LONG, #BSCBSJBOT, cit., 84-91. 42 Syn. &Q. 154; %FSFHOP 20 for the anti-Eutropian barbarian topoi; SCHMITT, %JF#FLFISVOH, cit., 275-288. 43 Soz. )& 6,40,1; Theod. )F 4,34,1-3; N. LENSKI, 7BMFOTBOEUIF.POLT$VEHFMJOHBOE$POTDSJQUJPOBTB.FBOTPG4PDJBM$POUSPM, DOP 58 (2004) 93-117, esp. 107-113. 44 -JGFPG*TBBD 4,15; CANER, 8BOEFSJOH#FHHJOH.POLT, cit., 191-194. 45 -JGFPG%BMNBUJVT 5; LENSKI, 7BMFOT,cit, 109, n. 92.

ADAMANTIUS 19 (2013)

164

Victor had become well-versed in the political capital ascetics especially from far-away places represented for their sponsors early on46. He had married the daughter of Mavia, an Arabian leader who had attacked Rome under Valens. Mavia had made that marriage and the ordination as bishop of Moses, an ascetic she favored, a condition of her peace treaty in 378. Closer to Constantinople, other prominent women also sponsored their own ascetics and monastics. Olympias is the best known example. She and several of her elite female friends and relatives with close ties to the court sponsored John Chrysostom, but they also extended their hospitality and considerable financial resources to his opponents, especially if these were prominent ascetics and bishops47. Many of those thus sponsored were new-comers to Constantinople from elsewhere, and our sources give the distinct impression that to be from a far-away province or city added to the allure of those sponsored, perhaps because Constantinople itself was new. Marsa, later among Johns opponents, and her husband, the general Promotus, patronized (presumably Nicene) Gothic ascetics and monks on their estates48. In fact, Eunapius of Sardis, no friend of Christians regardless of their ethnicity, observed cynically that some Goths, knowing how fond Constantinopolitan elites were of sponsoring exotic monks, disguised themselves as such to gain entry into the realm49. Gainas, interestingly, though he fought for a church for his Arian Gothic followers inside the city, only to further his prestige as a hostile source maintains, stood in contact with the Greek elite ascetic Nilus of Ancyra, a stern opponent of the ascetic life represented by the monk Isaac, sponsored by Gainas nemesis Aurelian. For Nilus, Isaac was the embodiment of a parvenu, an ostentatious pigeon-dove at the beck and call of his patrons50. Members of the elites extended their patronage to ascetics, monastics and bishops for their own reasons (of display). In part they did so to establish their own orthodox or Arian credentials. However, in keeping with elite Roman custom, a varied circle of friends enhanced the impact of a patrons magnificence51. It could also bolster against the vagaries of an ever changing environment at court. Though Theodosius and his son Arcadius were staunch defenders of the Nicene faith, as exemplified in their laws regarding religion, close analysis reveals that in fact their attitudes toward Arians was carefully calibrated and prudent, and that means also less predictable52. For example, it was only discovered by accident in 388 and 389, several years after the famous edict that made Nicene orthodoxy the religion of the realm, that many of Theodosius most influential court eunuchs supported the ascetic and bishop Eunomius, a well-known extreme Arian or an-

46 Ruf. )& 11,6; G. BOWERSOCK, .BWJB2VFFOPG UIF4BSBDFOFT, in 4UVEJFO[VSBOUJLFO4P[JBMHFTDIJDIUF'FTUTDISJGU'7JUUJOHIPGG, Kln 1980, 477-495. 47 Pall. %JBM. 4. Many of these women, Olympias included, became ascetics in their own right, often in the context of intense pressures and real physical and financial threats they had suffered as a result of the tensions between 398 and 403; W. MAYER, $POTUBOUJOPQPMJUBO 8PNFO JO $ISZTPTUPNT $JSDMF, VigChr 53 (1999) 265-288, for details. 48 Pall. %JBM. 25; Iohan. Chrys. FQ. 207, written from his exile. 49 Eun. 'SBH. 48,2 (Blockley). 50 Ps. Martyr, 0SGVO. 49; Nilus, &Q. 1,70, 79, 114-16, 205-6, 286; Nilus, %FNPOBDIPSVNQSFBTUBOUJB 26 (PG 79, 1092B); CANER, 8BOEFSJOH#FHHJOH.POLT, cit., 184-190. 51 For Julians circle at court and additional bibliography S. ELM, 4POTPG)FMMFOJTN'BUIFSTPGUIF$IVSDI&NQFSPS+VMJBO(SFHPSZPG/B[JBO[VTBOEUIF7JTJPOPG3PNF, Berkeley 2012. 52 $5IFPE 16,1,2; N. MCLYNN, "4FMGNBEF)PMZ.BO5IF$BTFPG(SFHPSZ/B[JBO[FO, JECS 6 (1998) 463-483, esp. 480-482; and above all ID., A(FOFSF)JTQBOVT5IFPEPTJVT4QBJOBOE/JDFOF0SUIPEPYZ, in )JTQBOJBJO-BUF"OUJRVJUZ$VSSFOU1FSTQFDUJWFT, edd. K. BOWLES M. KULIKOWSKI, Leiden 2005, 77-120, esp. 79-88, 100-120.

SUSANNA ELM 8IBUUIF#JTIPQ8PSFUPUIF4ZOPE

165

homoian. The precursor to that discovery, made while Theodosius, newly married to an Arian princess, was actually in Milan, had been Arian disturbances in Constantinople, caused by rumors that Theodosius had been defeated by an usurper, leading to the burning of the bishops residence53. Two edicts, issued by Arcadius acting for his absent father, promptly prohibited OPOOVMMPT "SSJBOPSVN to assemble if they indented to break the peace54. The really sharp punishment, however, was reserved only for the &VOPNJBOJTQBEPOFT, accusing them effectively of treason55. But even that law did not break the supporters of Eunomius: it was rescinded in 394, restored and rescinded three month later in 395, and that concession reaffirmed in 399, this time, however, without mentioning court eunuchs56. Indeed, by 398 the most powerful eunuch, Eutropius, had made his sponsorship of a well-known Nicene ascetic very public by making him bishop of Constantinople57. The empress Eudoxia, daughter of the Frankish general Flavius Bauto, made her own choices of whom to patronize. Together with Eutropius she had supported John Chrysostom in 398, against well-known opposition, but dropped Eutropius in 399 and John in 40258. Her circle was wide ranging, and by 402, included the fifty or so monks who had fled Theophilus of Alexandria. I only mention them here as an example of the efficacy of ascetic ostentation and display to attract high-level sponsorship. Ammonius, leader of these monks, the Tall Brothers, had previously branded himself with wounds and cut off his ear to protest Theophilus. Such feats were known in Constantinople, where those monks were soliciting the powerful, as Theophilus well knew, and helped to attract the empresses attention when the monks petitioned her while she was on her way to visit a church59. In fact, Daniel Caner has demonstrated the extent to which ascetics and monastics in Constantinople where at that time engaged in intense battles how to display proper ascetic comportment60. John Chrysostom was a key player in those battles. For John, the local ascetics (who had come from elsewhere earlier) were nothing but give me guys and they soon resented him as irascible, gloomy, and overbearing61.

2+PIO$ISZTPTUPNPO%JTQMBZWhen Eutropius and Eudoxia chose to sponsor John as bishop of Constantinople, they had their own expectation of what he would represent once in their presence. What exactly these

53 Sulp. %JBM. 1,6,2; 7.BSU. 20,1-8; Soc. IF 5,13,1-14; Soz. IF 7,14,5; 'BTUJ7JOEPCPOFOFTQSJPSFT ad annum 388; Theodosius married Galla, sister of Valentianian, which raised eyebrows, Theod. IF 5,15,3; Ruf. IF 11,17. 54 Amb. &Q. 74,13,147-156; $5IFPE 16,5,15, 4,2, dated June 14 and 16 388. 55 $5IFPE 16,5,17; 16,7,1; 16,5,40; R. VAGGIONE, &VOPNJVTPG$Z[JDVTBOEUIF/JDFOF3FWPMVUJPO, Oxford 2000, 354-355. 56 $5IFPE 16,5,23, 25, 27, 36. 57 For Johns election as bishop see TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 31-41. 58 TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 206-228; MAYER, %PJOH7JPMFODF, cit., 205-213. 59 Hier. &Q. 98,23; Pall. %JBM. 26; LIEBESCHUETZ, #BSCBSJBOT BOE #JTIPQT, cit., 204; TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 331-336. 60 CANER, 8BOEFSJOH#FHHJOH.POLT, cit., 83-205; W. MAYER, .POBTUJDJTNBU"OUJPDIBOE$POTUBOUJOPQMFJOUIF-BUF'PVSUI$FOUVSZ"$BTFPG&YDMVTJWJUZPS%JWFSTJUZ , in 1SBZFSBOE4QJSJUVBMJUZJOUIF&BSMZ$IVSDI, edd. P. ALLEN R. CANNING L. CROSS, Everton Park 1998, 275-288; ILLERT, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., focuses on Antiochene monasticism, though as Mayer, .POBTUJDJTN, cit., points out, the differences between Constantinopolitan and Antiochene ascetic practice may not have been that significant: the debates what constituted right monasticism raged empire-wide. 61 Pall. %JBM. 19; Soz. IF 8,8.

ADAMANTIUS 19 (2013)

166

expectations were cannot be recovered, but they involved, first, a staunch defense of Nicene orthodoxy, and second, display62. Arians were famous for their lavish processions, and John enlisted the empresss support in staging his own, even more lavish counter processions. Style wars ensued, one of the empresss eunuchs was wounded and Arian processions forbidden63. Precisely such a nine mile long procession from the Great Church to a suburban NBSUZSJVN, bearing relics, and abundant in silver crosses and torches, gave John an opportunity to comment on the fashion of the empress. He did so, again, in an ambiguous way. Eudoxias simple clothes stood in stark contrast to the fashion of the day, so extreme that women will soon adopt the form of monsters by seeking to have hair made from real gold64. The empress, usually wearing the imperial crown and dressed in purple was now walking behind the relics dressed as a servant girl. Suppressing all vanity, she allowed herself to be seen by the crowd at the midst of a vast spectacle. Her very repudiation of imperial fashion was the spectacle, according to Chrysostom, and thus, in his formulation, a criticism of that very fashion. By casting off her clothes made of gold, her jeweled diadem, and her purple stole, she, the sponsor of ascetics, became the wealth of the church. More importantly, by shedding her imperial clothes, Eudoxia united all in the city, whether Syrian, Greek, Roman, or barbarian: the grace of the moment flows through her body into her clothes, into her shoes, and then into her shadow, to be shared by all. See how many sheep are here now and not a wolf in sight 65. For John, then, the display of the wealthy and powerful was divisive, whereas the wealth of the church, displayed by radically simple clothes, united. This wealth was embodied by the right kind of monks, whose way of life, including their dress, should be emulated by all: instead of the golden collars of wealth, golden chains that would bind them in the hereafter, all should don the iron collar of the true monk and ascetic, the true turtle dove from the mountain, and not the pigeon-dove ascetic of the city. Such true monks wore sack-cloth, ashes, and yes, sheeps skins, but their skins spoke of true thoughts and did not hide any wolves66. The accusations leveled at John Chrysostom make it clear that he did not unite. His criticism of elite forms of display and ostentation did not make him many friends. His attempts to align monasticism at Constantinople with the bishop, that is, himself, for example through consolidating the financial support of ascetics under his control, alienated the monks and their elite patrons67. His own life-style was seen as lacking decorum. To eat alone, as he did, was an affront and also impeded social exchange between elites, ascetics, and bishops68. Further, his efforts to unite, for example by preaching to the Goths directly, combined with the persons who were his most prominent sponsors aspects of his display in short had left Johns display open to contrasting interpretations and the possibility of misreading and misrepresenting his cues quite deliberately and successfully69.

62 TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 22, 111-124, 206-228. 63 Soc. IF6,8; Soz.IF 8,8; probably $5IFPE 16,5,30. 64 Iohan. Chrys. )PN.7JO$PM5 (PG 62, 350). 65 Iohan. Chrys. )PN23%JDUBQPTURVBNSFM. (PG 63, 467-472, esp. 469, 470, 472). 66 Iohan. Chrys. )PN13 JO &QI. 3 (PG 62,97); )PN 69 JO .BUI. 2-3; )PN. 10,5 JO $PM (PG 62, 376); MAXWELL, $ISJTUJBOJ[BUJPOBOE$PNNVOJDBUJPO, cit., 126-133, 161-164; LEYERLE, 5IFBUSJDBM4IPXT, cit., 196-205 and passim; HARTNETT, 5SBOTGPSNBUJPO, cit., 132-149. 67 CANER, 8BOEFSJOH#FHHJOH.POLT, cit., 169-177, 190-199; TIERSCH, +PIBOOFT$ISZTPTUPNVT, cit., 135-182; LIEBESCHUETZ, #BSCBSJBOTBOE#JTIPQT,cit., 208-222. 68 Soz. )& 8,10; Pall. %JBM. 12; KATOS, 1BMMBEJVTPG)FMMFOPQPMJT, cit., 54-59, 64-71. 69 See also KATOS, 1BMMBEJVTPG)FMMFOPQPMJT, cit., 82-91.

SUSANNA ELM 8IBUUIF#JTIPQ8PSFUPUIF4ZOPE

167

3#FUXFFOB3PDLBOEB)BSE1MBDFo+PIOBOE0SJHFOJTNWhat role, then, might display have played in John Chrysostoms downfall? Peter van Nuffelens analysis, in this volume, of the accusations leveled against Chrysostom in 403, highlights that John was condemned because he had violated both canonical law and the tenets of orthodoxy70. According to the summary of the acts of the Synod of the Oaks, the monk Isaac, sponsored by Aurelian, and a leader of Nicene monks in the city, accused John Chrysostom of sympathy with the so-called Origenists, for whose benefit he had even thrashed another monk, also called John (accusation 1 and 2). Isaac further noted that for Chrysostom Christs prayer to God could not be heard because Christ did not pray the right way (accusation 7)71. Both accusations suggest that John was theologically unreliability, and they were serious. Theophilus of Alexandria, one of Johns principal opponents, further enhanced these charges in his correspondence with the bishop of Rome immediately after the synods conclusion, intended to win support for his views in the West. Theophilus stressed that John sympathized with the Origenists, represented by the Tall Brothers, whom he had condemned, and had even ordained some of them. In sum, Origenist leanings were a significant cause of Johns downfall72. But of what exactly did Johns Origenism consist, especially from the vantage point of his main accusers, Isaac, the monk, Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, and his opponents in Constantinople? Theophilus had condemned Origenism, but it was not an official heresy, and many others at the time were quite supportive of Origen and his teachings. Theophilus anti-Origenism, furthermore, had been an Egyptian affair, caused by intense debates about ascetic and monastic life, centered on the question whether or not to conceive of God in human form was permissible, that is, on how deep one considered the ontological divide that separated man from the divine, created from uncreated, generated from ingenerated73. In the course of these debates, Theophilus accused those ascetics and monastics who opposed him, the Tall Brothers among them, of following Origen, whom IFinterpreted as having argued, for example, that the Son is less than the Father, that the Word did not assume a human body, that we should not pray to the Son but only to the Father, that resurrected bodies are corruptible, that Father and Son are not consubstantial, and of denying the reality of the Eucharist74. The trajectory is obvious: Some have dared to call Origen a doctor of the church. It is right to tolerate such people? If Origen is a doctor of the church, Arians and Eunomians take heart and so do pagans. The former blaspheme the Son and the Spirit, the latter are like them in their impiety

70 VAN NUFFELEN, 5IFPQIJMVTBHBJOTU+PIO$ISZTPTUPN; KATOS, 1BMMBEJVTPG)FMMFOPQPMJT, cit., 86-91. 71 The minutes of the synod are only preserved as summarized by Photius, #JCMJPUIRVF $PE. 59, ed. R. HENRY, Paris 1960, 52-57. 72 Though the charge of ordination reflects a violation of canonical procedure. For the role of Origenism in the condemnation see J.M. LEROUX, +FBO $ISZTPTUPNF FU MB RVFSFMMF PSJHOJTUF, in &QFLUBTJT .MBOHFTQBUSJTUJRVFTPGGFSUTBV DBSEJOBM +FBO%BOJMPV, edd. J. FONTAINE C. KANNENGIESSER, Paris 1972, 336-337; RUSSELL, 5IFPQIJMVT, cit., 33; KATOS, 1BMMBEJVTPG)FMMFOPQPMJT, cit., 58, and passim for Palladiuss counter-strategy, which has won over scholarship for many decades; S. ELM, 5IF%PHUIBU%JEOPU#BSL%PDUSJOFBOE 1BUSJBSDIBM "VUIPSJUZ JO UIF $POGMJDU CFUXFFO 5IFPQIJMVT PG "MFYBOESJB BOE +PIO $ISZTPTUPN PG$POTUBOUJOPQMF, in $ISJTUJBO 0SJHJOT 5IFPMPHZ 3IFUPSJD BOE $PNNVOJUZ, Edd. L. AYRES G. JONES, London 1998, 68-93. 73 Theophilus, -FUUFS8SJUUFOBU$POTUBOUJOPQMF, frag. 7. 74 Theophilus, 4ZOPEBM -FUUFST in RUSSELL, 5IFPQIJMVT, cit., 91-94, 97, see also M. RICHARD, /PVWFBVYGSBHNFOUTEF5IPQIJMFE"MFYBOESJF, Gttingen 1975, 11; CLARK, 5IF0SJHFOJTU$POUSPWFSTZ,cit., 118-119.

ADAMANTIUS 19 (2013)

168

and deride the resurrection as well75. For Theophilus, those who sympathized with Origen, as he read him, were Arians and Eunomians. As Isaacs accusations against John Chrysostom reveal, he accused John of precisely such misdemeanors by questioning the efficacy prayer to Christ. Another source voices doubts regarding Johns stance WJTWJT the eucharist76. To accuse John of Origenist sympathies meant, then, to accuse him of sympathy with Arians and Eunomians. That was precisely Isaac and Theophilus accusation: Arians and Eunomians delight in the blasphemies of John against Christ [] not only is John no Christian, but he is worse than the king of Babylon77. Whatever the degree of polemic virulence, these accusations struck a sufficient cord to effect Johns deposition as bishop of Constantinople, especially in their combination with accusations of administrative misconduct. A sufficient number of persons assembled at the synod were convinced and, furthermore, certain that they would find enough support in the city to allow them to label John as so dangerously close to Eunomian and Arian teachings as to warrant his removal. To orchestrate such a consensus in Constantinople cannot have been a small feat. How could one even imagine that labels such as Eunomian and Arian, albeit disguised as Origenist, could ever be made to stick with a figure such as John Chrysostom? In one of his very first sermons after his arrival as bishop in Constantinople John had, after all, attacked the teachings of Eunomius and his supporters78. Eunomians were, in fact, an obvious and easy target, since they had been so clearly defamed by imperial law. But the law rescinding that they be punished for treason was rescinded again in 399 without mentioning the court eunuchs as its original version had done. Eunuchs had supported Eunomius; Eutropius was a staunch Nicene, but he was also a eunuch, and he had supported John Chrysostom. When Eutropius fell in 399, he was hiding behind the altar fearing for his life in Johns church, when the bishop chastised him for amassing worldly power and all its magnificent trappings, not recognizing that wealth is like a runaway slave. All knew that it had been the eunuch Eutropius who had made John bishop, and many among the elites considered Johns protestations too harsh, displaying the lack of decorum that signified a disloyal friend79. What then was Johns relation to still powerful eunuchs, known to count supporters of Eunomius among them? What aspect of Johns relation to the most prominent eunuch of them all would one want to highlight? Eunomians were a special case: they were not Arian per se, they had suffered severe condemnation, but condemnations were intensely contested, especially at court. By 403, the supporters of Eunomius had by no means disappeared. But what about accusations that John Chrysostom sympathized with Arians? Such accusations are easier to explain, if one considers Arians not primarily as those defending the homoousios, but Arianism as perhaps the predominant form of Christianity in the military and among its command: Arians were Goths. Chrysostom had preached to Goths, had given them a church in the city, soon considered to have in fact been

75 Theophilus, -FUUFSUPUIF4BJOUTJO4DFUJT in RUSSELL, 5IFPQIJMVT,cit., 100; 'SBH. 12, 3 and 5 in RICHARD, /PVWFBVYGSBHNFOUT, cit, 62-63; KATOS, 1BMMBEJVTPG)FMMFOPQPMJT, cit., 88-89. 76 Hier. &Q. 114,2 (to Theophilus); 'BDVOEVTE)FSNJBOF%GFOTFEFTUSPJTDIBQJUSFT+VTUJOJFO 6,5,17, ed. J.M. CLMENT - R. VANDER PLAETSE (SC 471, 478-479, 499), Paris 2000-2006: PCMBUJPOFT TBDSJMFHBTPGGFSFOUFN; see VAN NUFFELEN, 5IFPQIJMVTBHBJOTU+PIO$ISZTPTUPN. 77 Fac. 6,5,21; 1FMBHJJEJBDPOJFDDMFTJBFSPNBOBFJOEFGFOTJPOFUSJVNDBQJUVMPSVN, ed. R. DEVREESSE, Citt del Vaticano 1932, 71,16; VAN NUFFELEN, 5IFPQIJMVTBHBJOTU+PIO$ISZTPTUPN. 78 $ 5IFPE 16,5,34; Iohan. Chrys. )PN. 11 (+FBO $ISZTPTUPN 4VS MHBMJU EV QSF FU EV GJMT DPOUSF MFT"OPNPFOTIPN7**9**, ed. A.-M. MALINGREY, Paris 1994, 286-357); MAYER, 5IF)PNJMJFT, cit., 538. 79 Soc. )F 6,5,6; Iohan. Chrys. )PN &VUS. ((JPWBOOJ $SJTPTUPNP 0NFMJF QFS &VUSPQJP, Ed. F. CONTE BIZZARRO R. ROMANO, Napoli 1987).

SUSANNA ELM 8IBUUIF#JTIPQ8PSFUPUIF4ZOPE

169

Arian80, had accused everyone of harboring thoughts in Gothic sheeps skins under their very own DIMBNZT, had gone to Gainas to free Aurelian, Saturninus, and John, and had failed. John had supported orthodox Goths, but Goths they were, and others had different views of how the military should function in relation to the civil authorities, Aurelian, Saturninus, and Isaac evidently among them81. This has been an attempt to shift the angle away from John and Theophilus, Palladius and the author of Johns funeral oration to others, who played a crucial role in Johns down-fall but whose views we do not possess. By focusing on the complexities of elite display, through ostentation in dress and through patronage of philosophers, ascetics, and monastics, I wanted to highlight the intensity of the competition among different groups in the city, who were all engaged in claiming their own, considerable stakes at that very moment. We do not visualize Origenists or Arians, but in the capital clothes could shift with religious and political commitments, or could be read as such, and small nuances were understood, just as a QPOUJGFYFNFSJUVT now wears simple black shoes and no longer red ones. Engaging Arian Gothic military leaders and their followers as John had done might have had a very different outcome at a different time, had it not been for the clat provoked by Gainas. Gainas provoked Eutropius fall, but a eunuch as consul created its own, extreme tensions. As Synesius makes clear, the competition between military and civilian was at a high pitch. Ascetic and monastic life and its forms of display was in flux. Johns positions may sound clear and utterly Nicene to us, but they were evidently open to numerous interpretations, intensely favorable and hostile at the same time: Isaac was Nicene and completely opposed to John, whereas Arian Goths were on his side. What could John have worn, then, that would not have offended someone? Surely something, but as our difficulty in imagining how a Gainas or Fravitta may have dressed as opposed to an Aurelian and Saturninus indicates, it was hard for John to dress in a way that made him look unequivocally Nicene.

Susanna Elm University of California at Berkeley Dept. of History

3229 Dwinelle Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-2550

"CTUSBDUJohn Chrysostoms failure as bishop of Constantinople, following as it did on his successful Antiochene career, continues to puzzle scholars. Increasingly, accusations of Origenism emerge as one of the many factors that led to the bishops down-fall, initiated at the Synod of the Oaks. But what did Origenism mean to those who accused Chrysostom? How was it defined? And, more importantly, how can we assess the attitudes of those in power, instrumental in toppling the bishop of the capital, who left no written record, namely the members of the imperial elite? This paper uses elite male fashion and display, including forms of display achieved through the public sponsoring of ascetics in and near the city, to address some of these questions. Here, the fact that Johns alleged Origenism was linked, rhetorically, to Arianism and Eunomianism gains particular relevance, not least because some of the elites involved in the conflicts that led to Chrysostoms downfall, were themselves Gothic Arians.

80 Iohan. Chrys. )PNUPUIF(PUIT (PG 63, 499-510); Theod. )& 5,31. 81 LIEBESCHUETZ, #BSCBSJBOTBOE#JTIPQT,cit., 222.