No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Philosophy, Hagiology and the Early Byzantine Origins of Purgatory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
On 8 June 1438, the Council of Ferrara-Florence began proceedings aimed at the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches. One of the first issues discussed was the Latin doctrine of purgatory. This article examines a particular moment in the divergence of eschatological doctrine between the Latin, Greek and Syriac Churches – indeed, representatives of the West Syrian ‘Jacobites’ and East Syrian ‘Nestorians’ were at Ferrara too. It argues that a debate concerning the post mortem activity of the saints proved crucial for the formation of various Christian eschatological orthodoxies. The catalyst for this debate was the sixth-century revival of Aristotelian philosophy, especially Aristotelian psychology which emphasized the soul’s dependence on the body. This threatened the cult of the saints and the Church’s sacramental ‘care of the dead’. Defenders of the hagiological and cultic status quo rejected Aristotle’s claims and asserted the full post mortem activity of the soul after separation from the body by developing a novel doctrine of immediate post mortem judgement. This led to the formulation of eschatological opinions which, if not normative in their day, came to be considered so by later generations. One of these ideas was post mortem purgation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Studies in Church History , Volume 45: The Church, the Afterlife and the Fate of the Soul , 2009 , pp. 41 - 51
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2009
References
1 For Greek-Latin debates leading up to Florence-Ferrara, see Dagron, G., ‘La perception d’une différence: les débuts de la “Querelle du purgatoire”’, in 15 e Congrès international des études byzantines: Actes 4 (Athens, 1976), 84–89 Google Scholar, repr. in Dagron, G., La romanité chrétienne en Orient (London, 1984)Google Scholar, ch. 13.
2 On the ‘Nestorians’, see Brock, S., The “Nestorian” Church: A Lamentable Misnomer’, BJRL 78 (1996), 23–35 Google Scholar. Syriac refers to the liturgical language which was common to both the West Syrian church, whose Christology tended to emphasize Christ’s single divine-human nature (and has been labelled Miaphysite, Monophysite or anti-Chalcedonian), and the East Syrian (’Nestorian’) church, whose Antiochene Christology emphasized the distinct properties of Christ’s separate divine and human natures.
3 Grégoire le Grand: Dialogues, ed. Vogüé, A. de, trans. Antin, P., 3 vols, SC 251, 260, 265 (Paris, 1978-80)Google Scholar. On the eschatological questions of the fourth dialogue, see Uytfanghe, M. van, ‘Scepticisme doctrinal au seuil du moyen âge? Les objections du diacre Pierre dans les Dialogues de Grégoire le Grand’, in Fontaine, J. et al., eds, Grégoire le Grand: Actes du colloque de Chantilly, 15–19 septembre, 1982 (Paris, 1986), 315–26.Google Scholar
4 Goff, J. Le, La naissance du purgatoire (Paris, 1982), 124–28.Google Scholar
5 See also M. Dal Santo, ‘Gregory the Great and Eustratius of Constantinople: The Dialogues on the Miracles of the Italian Fathers as an Apology for the Late Sixth-Century Cult of Saints’, JECS (forthcoming).
6 On the latter, see Constas, N., ‘“To Sleep, Perchance to Dream”: The Middle State of Souls in Patristic and Byzantine Literature’, DOP 55 (2001), 91–124.Google Scholar
7 Eustratii Presbiteri Constantinopolitani: De statu animarum post mortem, ed. Deun, P. van, CChr.SG 60 (Leuven, 2006)Google Scholar [hereafter: De stat.].
8 Constas, N., ‘An Apology for the Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity: Eustratius Presbyter of Constantinople, On the State of Souls after Death ’, JECS 10 (2002), 267–85.Google Scholar
9 Ibid. 281.
10 Gobar’s teachings are referred to in Photius (815–97), Bibliotheca, cods. 230–41, in Photius: Bibliothèque, ed. R. Henry, 5 (Paris, 1967): 67–79; Harnack, A. von, The “Sic et Non” of Stephen Gobarus’, HThR 16 (1923), 205–34 Google Scholar; Bardy, G., ‘Le florilège d’Etienne Gobar’, Revue des études byzantines 5 (1947), 5–30; 7 (1949), 51–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Dagron, G., ‘L’ombre d’un doute: L’hagiographie en question, VIe-XIesiècle’, DOP 46 (1992), 59–68, at 63 Google Scholar, col. 1; Ntedika, J., L’évocation de l’au-delà dans la prière pour les morts: Étude depatristique et de liturgie latines (IVe-VIIIe 5.) (Louvain, 1971).Google Scholar
12 The same combination of themes appears in Gregory’s Dialogues which end with a demonstration of the post mortem power of the mass; Dial. 4.57-60 (SC 265: 184–200). See Dal Santo, ‘Gregory the Great’.
13 Phil. 1: 23.
14 Dial. 4.26.2 (SC 265: 84).
15 2 Cor. 5: 1. Eustratius employed the same biblical authorities to defend the same proposition: De stat. (CChr.SG 60: 719–28, 733–38). See Dal Santo,‘Gregory the Great’.
16 Gregory, Dial 4.29 (SC 265: 98–100); Eustratius, De stat. (CChr.SG 60: 2209–23). On Gregory’s eschatology, see Carozzi, C., Le voyage de l’âme dans l’au-delà d’après la littérature latine: Ve-XIIIe siècle (Rome, 1994), 61.Google Scholar
17 Eustratius, De stat. (CChr.SG 60: 2161–64).
18 Anastasii Sinaitae: Quaestiones et responsiones, eds Richard, M. and Munitiz, J. A., CChr.SG 59 (Leuven, 2006)Google Scholar [hereafter: Qu. et Resp.]; Pseudo-Athanasius, Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem (PG 28: 554–710). For Anastasius’s biography, see Haldon, J., ‘The Works of Anastasius of Sinai: A key Source for the History of Seventh-Century East Mediterranean Society and Belief’, in Cameron, A. and Conrad, L., eds, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, 1 (Princeton, NJ, 1992): 107–47 Google Scholar. On dating Pseudo-Athanasius, see Thümmel, G., Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 139 (Berlin, 1992), 246–52.Google Scholar
19 Qu. et Resp. 21 (CChr.SG 59: 38).
20 Dagron, ‘L’ombre’. Compare D. Krausmüller, ‘God or Angels as Impersonators of Saints: A Belief in its Context in the Refutation of Eustratius of Constantinople and the Writings of Anastasius of Sinai’, Gouden Hoorn 6/2 (Winter 1998–99) [online journal], <http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/goudenhoorn>, accessed 31 March 2008.
21 Hill, C. E., Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity (Oxford, 1992), 9–17.Google Scholar
22 Ntedika, , Évolution, 159 Google Scholar. In the ninth century, Photius asserted that fathers like Irenaeus unintentionally erred in stressing the resurrection: Photius, ed. Henry, 5: 67–79.
23 Uytfanghe, M. van, ‘L’essor du culte des saints et la question de l’eschatologie’, in Les fonctions des saints dans le monde occidental: Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome avec le concours de l’Université de Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, 27–29 octobre 1988 (Rome, 1991), 91–107 Google Scholar, esp. 92, 107.
24 Sancti Iuliani Toletanae Sedis Episcopi: Opera, 1, CChr.SL 115 (Turnhout, 1976): 9–126. See also, in this volume, Jamie Wood, ‘Individual and Collective Salvation in Late Visigothic Spain’, 74–86.
25 See Dial. 4.26.
26 Brown, P., ‘The Decline of the Empire of God: Amnesty, Penance, and the Afterlife from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages’, in Bynum, Caroline and Freedman, Paul, eds, The Last Things: Death and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, PA, 2000), 41–59, at 42–43.Google Scholar
27 Constas, ‘“To Sleep, Perchance to Dream”’; Dagron, ‘Perception’, 84.
28 C. P. Kyris, ‘The Admission of the Souls of Immoral but Human People into the limbus puerorum according to the Cypriot Abbot Kaϊoumos (Seventh Century AD) compared to the Quran’s Al-Araf (Suras 7.44-6, 57.13)’, Revue des études sud-est européennes 9 (1971), 461–77.
29 Nau, F., ‘Les récits inédits du moine Anastase: contribution à l’histoire du Sinaϊ au commencement du VIIe siècle’, Revue de l’Institut catholique de Paris 1-2 (1902), 1–70, at 48 Google Scholar; commentary in Flusin, B., ‘Démons et sarrasins: l’auteur et le propos des Diègmata stériktika d’Anastase le Sinaϊte’, Travaux et mémoires 1 (1991), 381–409 Google Scholar. This became the most common Byzantine view of the afterlife: Mango, C., Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (London, 1980), 157.Google Scholar
30 For example, Bede’s (d. 735) ‘Byzantine’ description of the post mortem fate of the imperfect: Historia ecclesiastica 3.19, ed. and trans. Colgrave, Bertram and Mynors, R. A. B., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford, 1969), 272–74 Google Scholar. See also, in this volume, Foot, Sarah, ‘Anglo-Saxon “Purgatory”’, 87–96.Google Scholar
31 Narsai of Nisibis, De la valeur de l’âme et comment elle dirige le corps, sa demeure. For a French translation, see Krüger, P., ‘Le sommeil des âmes dans l’œuvre de Narsai’, Orient Syrien 4(1959). 193–210.Google Scholar
32 Ibid. 202.
33 See Krüger, P., ‘Traduction et commentaire de l’homélie de Narsai sur les martyrs’, Orient Syrien 3 (1958), 299–316.Google Scholar
34 Wildberg, C., ‘Philosophy in the Age of Justinian’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. Maas, M. (Cambridge, 2005), 316–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the positive reception of Aris totle in Syriac, see Brock, S., ‘From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning’, in Garsoian, N., Mathews, T. and Thomson, R. W., eds, East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington, DC, 1982), 17–34 Google Scholar, repr. in Brock, S., Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London, 1984)Google Scholar, ch. 5; Hunter, E. C. D., ‘The Transmission of Greek Philosophy via the “School of Edessa”’, in Holmes, C. and Waring, J., eds, Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzantium and Beyond (Leiden, 2002), 225–39.Google Scholar
35 Dagron, G., ‘Le saint, le savant, l’astrologue: étude de thèmes hagiographiques à travers quelques recueils de questions et réponses des Ve-VIIe siècles’, Hagiographie, cultures et sociétés, IVe-XIIe siècles: actes du colloque organisé à Nanterre et à Paris (2–5 mai 1979), Centre de recherches sur l’antiquité tardive et le haut moyen âge, Université de Paris X (Paris, 1981), 143–56 Google Scholar, repr. in idem, La romanité chrétienne en Orient: héritages et mutations (London, 1984)Google Scholar, ch. 4.
36 Aristotle: De anima (On the Soul), trans. Tancred-Lawson, H. (London, 1986), 71–73 Google Scholar; cf. Everson, S., ‘Psychology’, in Barnes, J., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (Cambridge, 1995), 170, 181 Google Scholar; Sorabji, R., ‘Body and Soul in Aristotle’, in Barnes, J., Schofield, M. and Sorabji, R., eds, Articles on Aristotle, 4: Psychology and Ethics (London, 1974), 42–64.Google Scholar
37 See Aristotle, De anima, 1.4.407b (trans. H. Tancred-Lawson, 142).
38 Sorabji, R., ‘John Philoponus’, in idem, ed., Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science (London, 1987), 1–40.Google Scholar
39 On Boethius, see Marenbon, J., Boethius (Oxford, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chadwick, H., Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Philosophy and Theology (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar. On Sergius and Paul, see Hugonnard-Roche, H., ‘Note sur Sergius de Reš’aina, traducteur du grec en syriaque et commentateur d’Aristote’, in Endress, G. and Kruk, R., eds, The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism (Leiden, 1997), 121–43 Google Scholar; Gutas, D., ‘Paul the Persian on the Classification of the Parts of Aristotle’s Philosophy: A Milestone between Alexandria and Baghdad’, Der Islam 60(1983), 231–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Severus, a Miaphysite, was later claimed as father of the West Syrian or ‘Jacobite’ tradition: Ep. 117, in A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch (From Numerous Syriac Manuscripts), 2, ed. and trans. Brooks, E. W., Patrologia Orientalis 14 (Paris, 1920): 284–90 Google Scholar. For Gregory, see Dial. 4.34 (SC 265: 112–16).
41 Maximus the Confessor, Ambiguum 7 ( St Maximus the Confessor, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ, trans. Blowers, P. M. and Wilken, R. L. (New York, 2003), 73)Google Scholar; the italics are mine.
42 This also reflects his Christology, although psychology was another model for this: Maximus, Ambiguum 42 (Maximus, trans. Blowers and Wilken, 83).
43 The Neo-Chalcedonians supported the Cyrilline interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon as proclaimed at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which emphasized the unity of Christ’s Person.
44 See G. Khouri-Sarkis’s thoughts on the Syrian Catholic Missal in Krüger, ‘Sommeil’, 195–96.
45 For the Syriac text with German translation, see Braun, O., ‘Zwei Synoden des Katholikos Timothy I’, Oriens Christianus 2 (1902), 283–311 Google Scholar; Guillaumont, A., ‘Sources de la doctrine de Joseph Hazzâyâ’, Orient Syrien 3 (1958) 3–24.Google Scholar
46 For the Syriac text with Latin translation, see Timothei Patriarchae I: Epistulae, vol. 1, ed. Braun, O. (Rome and Paris, 1915), Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Series Secunda 67.Google Scholar
47 Ibid. 24–25.
48 See further Krausmüller, D., ‘Conflicting Anthropologies in the Christological Discourse at the End of Late Antiquity: The Case of Leontius of Jerusalem’s Nestorian Adversary’, JThS 56 (2005), 415–49 Google Scholar. On psychology and Christology more generally, see Chadwick, H., ‘Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy’, JThS 2 (1951), 145–64 Google Scholar, esp. 160–62.
49 Gavin, F., ‘The Sleep of the Soul in the Early Syriac Church’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 40 (1920), 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Goff, Le, Naissance, 16.Google Scholar
51 See the interesting remarks concerning out-of-body experiences and the ethics of (particularly brain) transplants in modern popular cinema and television in Bynum, C., ‘Why all the Fuss about the Body? A Medievalist’s Perspective’, Critical Inquiry 22 (1995), 1–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, , The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York, 1995)Google Scholar.