Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:30:01.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Country Bishops in Byzantine Africa (Presidential Address)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

R. A. Markus
R. A. Markus*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Town and countryside are contrasting, even opposed ideas: one of those doublets which have dominated European thought since antiquity. Our vocabulary of ‘politics’ and ‘civilization’ bears ample testimony to the deep hold that the prejudices of the townsmen of antiquity have established over our language and our thinking. Sometimes, even in antiquity, those prejudices would be turned on their head: the town, the exclusive milieu of culture, refinement and rational human behaviour, could become, as for instance in the eyes of a Jewish rabbi of the third century the seat of iniquity, set up to extort and to oppress. Whatever the attitude one took to the town, the dichotomy of town and countryside became almost a category in the Kantian sense in terms of which modern Europeans have come to perceive the world around them. With Max Weber it became a fundamental category of sociological understanding, with Rostovtzeff of historical analysis, especially of the ancient world in its decline; and in the hands of William Frend—the Rostovtzeff of ecclesiastical history—it showed its power to illuminate, even to transform, the study of ancient heresy and schism. ‘The church in town and countryside’ might be thought to extend the franchise of a notion which has already had too wide and at times, as some would have it, perhaps even a baleful, influence. But both the value of the notion of town and country as an interpretative tool for the ecclesiastical historian, and its limitations, its liability to obscure and to distort, will, I hope, become clearer in the course of discussion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 16: The Church in Town and Countryside , 1979 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Compare Sperber, D., ‘Angaria in rabbinic literature,’ Antiquité classique 38 (Brussels 1969) pp 164-8Google Scholar, at p 166, n 15. I owe the reference to MacMullen, R., Roman government’s response to crisis (New Haven 1976) p 164 n 48 Google Scholar where it is, however, wrongly given.

2 Février, P. A., ‘Toujours le Donatisme: à quand l’Afrique?’, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 2 (Florence 1966) pp 228-40Google Scholar; Courtois, C., ‘De Rome à l’Islam,’ Revue africaine 86 (Algiers 1942) pp 25–55 Google Scholar, esp at pp 28-9; Charles-Picard, G., La civilisation de l’Afrique romaine (Paris 1959) pp 6 Google Scholar, 43-4, 160-3. For a general survey of recent work, see Chevallier, R., ‘Cité et territoire,’ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed Temporini, H. (Berlin 1972-) 2/1 (1974) pp 649–788 Google Scholar; for North Africa, pp 719-22, 778-9.

3 See my paper ‘Christianity and dissent [in Roman Africa: changing perspectives in recent work’], SCH 9 (1972) pp 21-36 for a survey and discussion.

4 Frend, [W. H. C.], [The] Donatisi church (Oxford 1952) pp 334-6Google Scholar; quotation from p 336.

5 ‘Donatism: [the last phase’], SCH 1 (1964) pp 118-26.

6 On the attempt by Justinian to change the state of affairs, and the tensions engendered, see my paper ‘Carthage, [Prima Justiniana, Ravenna: an aspect of Justinian’s Kirchenpolitik’], Byzantion (forthcoming).

7 Gregory I, Ep 175, [ed Ewald&Hartmann], MGH Epp 1 and 2 (1887-99) 1 p 95 especially lines 17-19. The phrase quoted in the text is usually interpreted to refer to bishops who have been converted from Donatism rather than to Donatisi bishops who have managed, somehow, to ‘aggregate’ themselves to the body of the Numidian episcopate, as for example by Duchesne, L., L’Église au sixième siècle (Paris 1925) p 649 n 1 Google Scholar. As I go on to show, however, there is no reason to reject the literal sense of the words, which make perfectly good sense in the context properly understood.

8 Ep 1 72, 1 p 92 lines 15-17; compare Aigrain’s comment, R. in ‘La fin de l’Afrique chrétienne,’ FM 5 (1947) p 215 n 1 Google Scholar.

9 On the chorepiscopate, see Gillmann, F., Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient (Munich 1903)Google Scholar; Gottlob, T., ‘Der abendländische Chorepiskopat,’ Kanonistische Studien und Texte 1 (Bonn 1928)Google Scholar (who does not, in fact, discuss Africa); Kirsten, E., ‘Chorbischof’ in RAC 2 (1954) cols 1105-14Google Scholar; and the excellent summary by Hess, H., The canons of the council of Sardica (Oxford 1958) pp 100-3Google Scholar. Compare Leo I, Ep 12.10 for an attempt to phase out the chorepiscopate in Africa (Mauretania Caesariensis) in the 440s.

10 Ep 1 72, 1 p 92 lines 16-17.

11 Ep 2 46, 1 p 147 lines 23-4. Other letters concerned with this: Epp 1 72, 75, 82; 2 46; 4 32, 35, 41(?); 5 3; 6 34, 59, 61; (7 2).

12 Ep 4 7, 1 p 239 lines 3-4.

13 Ep 6 34, 1 p 413 lines 6-8.

14 Ep 1 82, 1 p 100 lines 13-15.

15 See above n 7.

16 Ep 4 35, 1 p 271 line 7.

17 Liber diurnus, 6, ed von Sickel, T. E. (Vienna 1889) pp 5–6 Google Scholar; ed E. de Rozière (Paris 1869) pp 22-9.

18 Ep 18, MGH Epp 3 (1892) p 267; MGH Epp Sel (2 ed 1955) 1 pp 31-2.

19 Frend, Donatist church, p 313; it is true that Frend prefaces this statement with the qualifying ‘If this interpretation is true;’ but it has never been questioned, so far as I know, except in my papers ‘Donatism’ p 124 n 1; and ‘Reflections [on religious dissent in North Africa in the Byzantine period’], SCH 3 (1966), p 145 n 1, where, however I failed to arrive at an adequate reconstruction of its history.

20 Nicholas, II, Ep 25, PL 143 (1882) col 1347 Google Scholar.

21 Defended by Godard, L., ‘Quels sont les Africains que le pape Grégoire II défendit en 723 d’élever au sacerdoce?’, Revue africaine (1861) pp 49–53 Google Scholar.

22 Jaffé 675, PL 59 (1862) cols 137-8.

23 Jaffé 609, PL 58 (1862) col 924.

24 For example Victor of Viti, Historia persecutionis africanae provinciae, I. 33 Google Scholar, II. 29, III. 46-8, ed Petschenig, M., CSEL 7 (1881) pp 15 Google Scholar, 34-5, 94-6; Ferrandus, , Vita Fulgentii 21.45, PL 65 (1861) col 140)Google Scholar.

25 At the conference of Carthage in 411 the Donatist bishop of Pudentiana claimed that there were no catholics in his diocese; the catholic bishop of Macomades replied that there had been catholic bishops who had died and would be replaced. It seems therefore that Pudentiana was in the neighbourhood of Macomades—Gesta Coll Carth, 1, 201, ed Laurel, S., CSEL 149A (1974) p 148 Google Scholar lines 58-69. Compare St, Gsell, Atlas archéologique de l’Algérie (Paris 1911) note to map 28 n 3 Google Scholar. In the Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africae, ed Petschenig, M., CSEL 7, p 121 Google Scholar line 44 the church of Pudentiana occurs only with a presbyter against its name. This does not, however, necessarily mean that it was not a bishopric in the 480s.

26 Ep 2 46, 1 p 147 line 8.

27 Ibid lines 9-10.

28 Epp 4 32, 1 p 267 and 4 35, 1 p 271.

29 Compare Actes de la conférence de Carthage en 411, ed Lancel, S. (Paris 1972-) 1 pp 134-43Google Scholar and 154-64. For the ‘massive’ superiority of churches in the unchallenged grip of Donatists in the Numidian countryside, see p 161.

30 The exact locations can, unfortunately, only be identified in the case of Lamiggiga (?) (Ep 1 82) and Nicivibus, which was almost certainly the see of bishop Columbus, Gregory’s confidant in the province; Compare H. Jaubert cited by Frend, Donatisi church, pp 309-10. For Pudentiana, see n 25 above.

31 Morcelli, S. A., Africa Christiana (Brixiae 1816) 3 pp 339-40Google Scholar confessed himself astonished that Donatism survived longer in Africa than Arianism, and conjectured that the sect had been able to lurk in small villages and remote places by clinging to its traditions and refraining from proselytism.

32 Facundus, , Contra Mocianum, PL 67 (1865) cols 855-8Google Scholar; Compare Markus, ‘Reflections’ pp 143-7.

33 Compare Caspar, E., Geschichte [des Papsttums], 2 vols (Tübingen 1933) 2 p 446 Google Scholar.

34 The case has been well summarised by Dudden, F. H., Gregory the Great, 2 vols (London 1905) 1 pp 424-6Google Scholar and in my paper ‘Donatism’ pp 121-2. On the government’s delaying tactics: Ep 4 32, 1 p 268 lines 2–5, of July 594. Three years before this Gregory had already urged the exarch of Africa not to delay Numidian bishops wishing to travel to Rome: Ep 1 72, 1 p 92 lines 17-19.

35 Ep 6 59, 1 p 434 line 8.

36 Ibid lines 15-16.

37 Ibid lines 28-30.

38 Surveyed in my paper ‘Donatism’ esp pp 122-3.

39 Epp 9 24, 27; 12 12.

40 Ep 2 52, 1 p 156 lines 36-41.

41 On this see my forthcoming paper ‘Carthage’.

42 Ep 5 3, 1 p 283 line 11. The status of this council is hard to decide: was it one of the proconsular province, or was it one for all the African provinces? If it was the former, it is hard to understand why its decisions should be expected to give rise to objections in other provinces. If, however, it was an African council, it is difficult to understand how it could enact decisions seen even in Rome to be unrealistic and possibly dangerous if applied in the other provinces. I think the likeliest explanation is that it was intended to be a council for all the African provinces but actually attended by bishops of Proconsularis only, or to a dominant extent.

43 see n 41 above.

44 Ep 6 61, 1 p 436 lines 20-31.

45 Ep 5 3, 1 p 283 lines 7-8 and in n 42 above.

46 Ep 4 7, 1 p 239 lines 3-4, 7-11.

47 Ep 6 61, 1 p 437 line 2; Compare Ep 4 32.

48 Ep 6 59, 1 p 434 lines 17-18 and n 34 above.

49 Ep 8 13, 15. Caspar, Geschichte, p 445, seems certainly right in inferring that the case was referred back to be decided by a synod in Africa.

50 Epp 9 24, 27; 12 12.

51 Ep 4 41.

52 Compare above n 50, and Markus ‘Donatism,’ p 123.

53 Diehl, C., L’Afrique Byzantine (Paris 1896) pp 510-11Google Scholar. Diehl’s account is largely plagiarised (with errors introduced) by J. Ferron and G. Lapeyre in their ‘remarkable article’ (description by Goubert, P., Byzance avant l’Islam, 2/II: Rome, Byzance et Carthage (Paris 1965) p 235 Google Scholar) in DHGE 11 cols 1208-9. Much the same line is taken by Julien, C. A., Histoire de l’Afrique du Nord, 2 vols (2 ed Paris 1961) 1 pp 273-4Google Scholar and Frend, Donatist church, p 314. But see Schindler, A., ‘Africa I: Das kirchliche Nordafrika,’ Theologische Realenzyclopädie, 1 (Berlin 1977) pp 640–700 Google Scholar, especially at p 661.

54 Martin, I, Ep. ad ecclesiam Carthaginensem, PL 87 (1863) cols 145-50Google Scholar.

55 Frend, Donatist church p 334.