The Donatist Conflict as seen by Constantine and the Bishops

THr ROLE oF rHE BTSHOP IN LATE ANrrerrry CONTTTCT AND CompnoMISE Contents Bloomsbu,y Academic An lmprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square 175 Flfth Avenue London WCl B 3DP NewYork NY 10010 USA UK l,ist ofContributors vii Acknowledgements x Ir)troduction Andrew I www.bloomsbury.com 2 Frrst published n 2013 O Androw Feat José Fernández Ubiña and lvar N4arcos, 2013 3 All rights resorvod. No part of this publicatioñ may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means. electronic or mechanicá1, including photocopying, recording, or any informatlon storage or rotrieval svstem, without priol permission in writing from the publishers. 4 Fear, José Fernández IJb¡iña and Mar Marcos A Dispute ofEpiscopal Legitimacy: Gregory Nazianzen and Maximus in Constantinople Juana Torres and. Ramón Teja T¡e Donatist Conflict l3 by Constantine and the Bishops José Fernández t_)biña 31 lus et religio: The Conference ofCarrhage and the End ofthe Donatist Schism,4ll AD Carlos García Mac Gaw 4? as Seen Pacifiers and Instigators - Bishops and Interreligious Conflicts in Late Antiquity Maijastína Kahlos Androw Fear, José Fernández Ubiña and Nlar lvl¿rcos have asse.ted their rights under the Copyright, Deslgns and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of thls work, No respons billty for oss caused to any i¡divldual or organization acting on or refraining trom action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Acad6mic or the authors. British L¡brary Catalogu¡ng-¡n-Publ¡cation Data 5 Controversy and Debate over Sexual Matterc in the Western Church (IV Century) Teresa Sardella 6 'Bishops, Judges and Emperors; CTh 1,6.2.3It CTh 16.5.461 Sirm. 14(409)' María Victoria Escribano paño 7 Bishops, Heresy and power: Conflict and Compromise in Epistulá I 1 * of Consentius to Augustine A catalogue record for this book is avallable from the Brifish Llbrary. ISBN: HB: S 78- 1-7 809321 7-0 8 9 Typeset by Newgen lmaging Systems P\¡¡ Ltd, Chenna , lndia Printed and boLrnd in Great Britain l0 I I 105 Purifcación tJbric Rabaneda 127 Papal Authority, Local Autonomy and Imperial Control: Pope Zosimus and the Western Churches (a.417_lg) Mar Marcos t45 East and West, Emperor and Bishop: Hormisdas and the Authority ofthe See ofRome Alex,ander Eyers 167 Preaching and Mesmerizing. The Resolution ofReligious Conflicts in Late A D¡iguity Alberto l. euiroga puettas 189 Blslrops, Imperialism and the Barharicun Andrew Fear 209 Co t2 lmlt Conflict and Cornpromise: 'lhe Spanish Catholic llishops antl the Arian Kingdom ofToledo (from Vouillé to Leovigild) Pedro Castillo Mald.onado 13 229 List of Contributors The Bishops and the Byzanti¡e Intervention in HisPania Fr an ci s c o S alv ador Ventur a Index 245 AlexanderEvers is Assistant Professor ofClassical Studies and Ancient History t¡t the John Felice Rome Center ofLoyola University, Chicago. He o( Church, Cit¡es, and Peo?le: A Study oJ the Plebs is the author in the Church and Citíes of Roman Africa ín Late Antiquity (Peeters Publishers, 20 1 0) . He is the director of an international and interdisciplinary project on the Collectio A:veltana which has brought together a group ofscholars now focuses on the Andrew Fear is c§ from all over the world. His research ofRome. lecturer in Classics at the Universs of Manchester He has published edited translarions of The Lives of the Visi.gothic Faffuers (Liverpool a University Press, Liverpool, 1998) an<f Orosius: Seyen Books of History against the Pagans (Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, 2010). His research interests lie in Roman provincial life and late anüquiry particularly the Goths. Carlos Garcla Mac Gaw is a tenured Professor at the Universidad de La plata andProfessor at the Universidad de BuenosAires. His research interests inclucle Donatism and Roman slavery. He is the author of Le probléme du bapt¿me dans le schisme donafrif¿ (Editions Ausonius, Paris, 2008). Maiiastina Kahlos is Academy Research Fellow in the Department of Classical Philology at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She is also principal lnvestigator for its Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East proiect, and project participant for the Rhetoric and realities in th€ late Roman Empire research project. She is the author of Chr¡stian and Pagan Cultures c, 360-430 (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007). Pedro Castillo Maldonado is a Lecturer in Ancient History at University of Jaén (Spain). He is the author of La Epoca Visígotica eÍ /aCr (Universidad de Jaén, Jaén,2006). His fields ofinterests include the Visigothic Church and the hagiography of l"ate Antiquity. Mar Morco8 Antiqulty ¡rt is Assistant Irrofcssor in Anc¡cnt History/History of llcligluts ln thc Unlvcr$lty ol'Cantabrla. Shc ls the nuthor of i,o¡ nurJuu tle la Introduction Acknowledgements Andrew lle¿rr, fosé Fernández Ubiña and Mar Marcos e lnnovación The editors would like to thank the Ministerio de Ciencia 'Christian Strategies Científica of Spain for sponsoring our Proiect (entitled de Granada for for Solving Conflicts in Late Antiquity') and the Universidad The Role hosting and spoosoring the Conference, 'Conflict and Compromise: papers in Late Antiquity' held in September 2011 at which the of the Bishop that form the basis ofthis collection were presented' Scholarly studies on the Episcopacy can be traced back to the Reformatio¡t, but these were parri pris, as inspired by ethical motives they formed part of a struggle against the papacy, the Christian hierarchy of the day and perceived clerical corruption. Luther, Melanchthon and Calvin, steeped in the Bible, [orcefully protested that, accordingto the Scriptures, and in particular the New Testament, the first Christian communities lacked any sort of institutional authority and that all the early faithful were equal in terms of authority and able to hold religious olfice without distinction - provided that they were guided by the Spirit and led an ethical life. These reformers, of course, knew full well that several ecclesiastlcal titles (bishops, presb¡ers, shepherds, masters, prophets . . .) are mentioned in the New Testament, but believed that these all signified the same ministry which was accessible to every Christian. in their opinion, clerical hierarchy and the Episcopal secular power not only were late human creations, but also the trigger for the degeneration which the Early Church had, as they saw it, increasingly suffered since the So, second century. The Reformers' ideas and projects quickly gained the upper har.rd in many European countlies. Nevertheless, a disappointing reality also soon arose: their anarchical proposals for an equalitalian and charismatic church, similar to the communities they perceived in the New Testament, proved to be completely impossible to implement, and just halfa century later two serious and obvious contradictions emerged. First, it was apparent that the young Reformed churches had produced a strong clerical hierarchy of their own, very similar, although with different nomenclature, to that of the old and hated Catholic lln lt,,lt,'l lln ltl:ltL'¡' t litr ,\rthluitt' ( lhLll l, tlr(.rI¡ ( l(,.tll¡ r r,rrlt ¡ lltrtr,r'trs cll. sccotl(lly, tllost ()l tllc lteli¡l'tllt'tl cltrtl tltcs rvc¡ r" tlt l¡c lltltltl r )ll powcr to assure thcir tlw¡ survival, ancl so hircl lll( t ivil to ¡ccePl tllc itlterlulcll'c,l l'r.lisrr I'rl,li. .rl ¡¡rt'rlrr rtlrl,¡.1ics irncl ii ncw alrl rig()11)us nl)l)r'o¡(l) secular authorities in ecclesiastical aliairs.'Ihe result was a scirnclirlorts tcvival of venality and corruption within the clergy as well as a selftsh subrtrissiou ttr of all in Germany and Britain, during the seveDteenth and eighteenth centuries and fiercely criticized these evils. This time the Reformers' criticism was centred not only on their readings of Scripture, but also drew from historical texts, particularly from the Constantinian era, when, according to their Point A¡nold (1666-1714) who highlighted the clerical degereration in the second, third and foultlr leacling ligure among the Pietists was Gottfried centuries ¿ncl its influence ott such a basic concept as orthodoxy itself which tbr Arnolci was mercly a reflection ofthe dominant cle¡ical practices ofthe day (Llnpafieyisthe Kirchen' und Ketzer-Historie, 1699 -17 00). Arnold'.s learning was extraorclinary for its time, but he was handicapped by the lack of a developed historical theory and n.retllodology: in his epoch church history was no n.rore than theology's handnaiden. His lack of historical accuracy is revealed in his poor, if llot chaotic, use of ancient texts For instance, he uses second- ot llirssic¡l l,lr I rrrrclorr 190,1). Nevertheless, these works had a strong theological ofview, the clergy suÍ1'ered from an irretrievable ethical deca¡ and the church, ir exchange of securi{y aDd social Privileges, put itself untler the comnand of A ( ih rlrgy. ¡icrtcmtt,<.1 it ncw wovc of hislorical str¡tlics olt trisltops rllticlr r.ctrlirirt rrv,rlr¡¡blc'li)r sludcnts ol-tllc su[)jcct sLtcl.] is those ol li llirtch (esPccially his lltt()rluti;tttit¡uoftl¡tli¡rl),ChrislittnClturchcs:liight l,ctturtsI)clirt,t«l[tc.fort tlr Llui'](t.sily ol oxlnd, it tltc l,c¡,r 1,9¡if), London, 1918, [iiglrth Inr¡rression), r\ \{. A. I)Lrlc (1fu Syuod ol lllvint qrul Cl.u.istkttt Li[e irt thc ltourtlt Oütlut.y. .\ llistot'itttl .lissrry, Lolcürn lti82) and A. von Harnach (e.g. his I)lr rrttrl r\rrsbrL,iltng des Clnistcnluns iu den Drei erslan Jahrhuntlertc, ^/I.\:§i(rr l,cipzig l')0.1, tfallsl¡tcd l]S'lht lixponsion ol Christi\ttity ¡ti lhc ljirst '[hrec CenÍLrírs, groups such as the Puritans, Pietists, Congregationalists, which spreacl, above thc lloman Erl¡rerot. l. llrrr the public iDstitutions. This failure explains the appearance of a new teformist wave, composed tr lr.ttillttl r..ltt.. ¡ rlr.t. lrclryrt,¡t,r lt,rrr.rrr.rl (lrrrrrrrl rrririrrly irr (icrr)¡,lt)),.r,cl (i¡.c¡t ltrit¡irr), ll(,w, lrisl()rir,rl .1.(l rllrirlr Ilovcrl to be an insLLl.ntount¿rl¡le barrict to inspirariol dispassion¿te acade¡rric \tlr(ly. ¡;or althitugh von H¿rnack made great advaDces in the stucly of thc lrrrlr¡tir¡n ol the chLrch'.s irierarchy, particularly is his distinctiol betwecn ¡nd illstitutional oliices (a distinction which later inlluencerl tlrc iolouic¡l ideas of Max Webe¡), and Hatch used a large corpus of cl¿rssicirl rrst ¡il¡tions as well as his prolbund knowleclgc o[ the ancient worlc] kr show tlrc clccp influence of ciassical institutions (specially collegia antl ntunici¡rirl i lrrrris¡nirtic ,,ot , r// ir¡c) o¡t thc ilames ancl functions of the clerical hierarchy (above irll r'l)jrk()l)o.§), th¡l ol' l¡oth authors' main goal (something true of most beli§,crs at tlrt, lirrc) was to delronstrate that the earliest Christian coln¡¡uDities had cnjoyerl .r¡r intc¡)sc spiritual life withotrt fbrmal olficers or institutional authorilics rn lil {hc scconcl century. Afier tlris period they lield that the church,.s spiritLral third-century sources to deflne the church's situation under Constantine whom he sees as responsible for the ethical decay of the Christian clet gy. I In spite of all these grave deficiencies, the ideas of these new Reformers were an important step forward in our knowledge of the Early Chr.rrch and its hierarchy, above all of the Episcopacy and its power PerllaPs thcir legacy ¡il ¡spc,cts of Christian l¡ehaviour. and fai¡h took a turD for the wr»-sc. I)¡lc took these prejudices lurthe¡, I¡laming the bisho¡rs asscnrblecl at lhc ,,rrrlcil ol Lllvirir, palticLrlarly Hosius ofCordr¡btr, lbr trying to wipe out whirt shoulcl not be seen so much in the wotk of Anrold, but rather in that of the much more metl.rodical and consistent Joseph Bingharn (The Antiquities of lr( sirw the Christian Clhurclr, London, 1726) which A. H. M. Jones (fhe Later llLtnttttt Empire,Oxford,l964, 'the ¡¡ost useful and cotlprehensive brxrk P. 1362) called ofwhich I know r¡n the orgarlizatiol't and disci¡rline d-tlle chttrch' irtltl alslr tltc brillilnt pagcs that lltlwrrd (lilrl¡on wrote on ll¡i§ 1(4)ic in his //i's/rr¡)'o/ //rt' l),\li¡\ ,ttl,l l:,tll 'tl tl .' ll ,tttút l'tttl)¡ri. r arlt'r'ship hatl beeu replacecl by a rvorldly Episcopal Ieadership witlr thc- r.esLrll ll¡.rl ¡ I)rislinc Ohristian spir.ituality. According to D¡le, lhis council w¡s ¡ l,ron(,(,ring lltcnlPt by thc Ii)iscopilcy to transfbrnr thc Clrristirn rcligion inl0 ,r ¡rrrlilicirl ilstrLlnlcnt at ¡ crucial l)istoric¿l n)ontent, whrn thc llonral Iintpir.c rv,ts srrflt,r'ing irn irrcvcrsibit,rlcclilc. Ilt sltort, I)¡ic ¿nrl ollrers ol his o¡iniolls, \r(lr ns rrs Il,rlilcl(, ,¡s I hrsitrs, bclictL,tl tltirt lhc n¡ol.c p¡..n¡irrcnt Cltristi¡o bisltr:¡r5, ¡¡1¡¡11 ilt(l l¡icn(l t)l ( jorlsl,lnli¡)c, tcillize(l tl)itt sootl(.t.o¡. ¡ilt(,1 lltc itrlvisol llrc linrt.wor¡lrl ro¡¡rc wlrcrr lht t,rlPclus lvoultl lrrllt lo ()lrlisli.rrrity,rs llrc ll¡r lloh'rl ll'. t¡ttilyi¡lt pow(r'irl llr( sl,llr. lliltq, ¡n I ()l llr('(,llr('f ttr /\ llqúllt lr¡rrLI, tl¡llrrlir srlrol¡rs rlto ltLItl thc bclicl tlrat the cltrrlch h¡rl ¡c¡t¡aincrl r¡¡)ch¡t)llc(l Ihror¡glror¡l tltc cc¡rttr ics, with this P¡otestant thesis. lhc Lre¡rch srv:rul I-. I)t¡chcslc, wltosc Histoire ancienne de / Egllse (Palis, 1905) is still a valLrable aud highly r-catlablc volu¡ue, wrote flady that Dale's book was such a biased work thirL iI w.ls ilot worth reading (Bul[et¡fl Critique 4, 1883, 305-8). From a historiographical point of view, things changed little during the first half of the twentietll certLuy. The old theses were more theologically thau historically enriched by á new generation of gre¿t German and Britjsh scholars, mar'ry of whom wele deeply influenced by the sociological theo¡ies of Max Weber. Anong these was H. von Campenhausen (Kirchliches Amt unrl geistliche Vollmacht, -Iiibingen 1953, English version: E¿:c/esi¿rsrl cal Atültority and Spiritual Power in Lltc Church of the F¡rst'Ihree Centuries. London, 1969). disagreecl Von (la¡r1¡enhat¡sen saw in Cyprian the development of a new conceptiol of the episcoptrc¡ belieying that it was at this time that the oflice became a power firl iDstitution thirt asst¡ured all kind of religious powers and prerogatiyes which in tlirn triggeled a historical process ofrvorldly degradation witl.rin the church. Anothcr in.rpo¡tant col)tribLrtiot't to this debate was made by sevetal Anglican clerics who publishecl thei¡ work in a volume entitled The Apctstolic Minisrry (LondoD,l946), edited by Kenneth Kirk, t)re tsishop ofOxford. In surr, throughout this long century great progress was made in the historical readirg ofChristian sources (many ofthem carelully editecl by these scholars), as well as in the diflbreltiation between authe¡ttic and slrurious wor ks, and the development ofa more rigorous chronolog¡ 'l hus the historical methodology ofthe fielcl became more scholarly ar.rd productive, and problems of a much utole historical natule began to be posed, above all: why had the church'.s early popular organization disappeared and given rise to a worldly hierarchical institution ? Although many non-theological reasons we¡e found to explain the birth and developmer.rt ofthis new ecclesiastical hierarchy (these included, ir¿er aiirr, the impact ofthe Jewish wars, Hellenization and the granting of inrperial ¡rrivileges to the church), many ofthose working in the field were stili heavily inllucncecl in theil rvork by their own religious lirith which tar ñorl l-irriing in this pcriorl, becanre even nrorc cnt¡c¡rclle<i. I)ee¡r clrrvn thc nririn goal wits lo lin<l in l)¡ in)ili\rc (:l)risli.rnity it [riblieirl or lristorir rrl ol lltcsc scllol¡rs jrrstilicirtiol lirl I lrc .r'r¡ .r.tlc,,r rlrtrr', lr<s. ll¡r,rtl.¡r,rvlri[,,.rr rl¡t..rrt, l¡..rrl, rcsci''fh rirrcly cxtclrrlqd bcyonrl llrc tlrirtl cr.,lrr'y, ,rll ,f tlr..t, or¡ ll:c ollte¡', gavc thc filst (lhristiarl colll Il) u tr it ics, suIp()sc(llv rlt¡r.r,..lc,rizr.rl bv llrcir hcli ol hierar.chicai authorily, irn extmnxlinirry valrrt,, irs il. lltr,1,wr.tc ru s¡crcrl nlrrlel a¡ld poil.lt of ref-erence lbr. poslcrit¡ As It. H. Slrcctcr. (,llt, l'¡'¡rtirive (:lturch. srudícLl wirh special RcJit'c,cc r, !1rc ori!¡fis o.l rrtc crr.ist¡ttlt lrrir(li((s ll¡tir (,1 liclLl rlrcir .l Lon(lon, 1929, viii) wiote, 'iirr lbLLr hu¡clrecl yeilrs thcologi.,s ol.rivirl ^/l/rl,i/rl, thr¡¡.chcs. . . have at least /rop¿d that the resuit of thci¡. invcstigirtio ns woLrlil lrc lo vindicate aposk)lic authority for the tlpe of Chu¡ch Order. to whiclt lhcy rvc¡c 1l¡emselves attachetl. the Episcopalian has sought to find episcopacy, tlrc l'rcsbytcrian Presblterianis¡n, and tltc lndependent a system olinclepcnclenc¡ Io bc the lornt ofchurch governn]ent in New 'lestalt]elt t tintcsl 'Ihis explails why such a classically trdined author as Adolf von Har.nacli \\,¡ot{] trost of his historical wolks without using ciassical t)on_Cltr¡sljatl sources. As a result, his reflections on the social com¡rlomise made by thc cler.gy ancl bishops ale alrvays circl¡lrstantial, itlmost a[ecdotal; a inere iilust¡rttion epochs moral ancl doctr.inal clecline. This lack of interest in thr rror-rcligious aspecrs ofthc episcopal oliice can still be seen in works writtcn lirtc in the twentietlt cel)tLrry, fbr instance, itr the contributiol of Dorn. C. I)ix ol the { ¡l)e ministl.y in the early Chur-ch, x. A.D. 90_410,) to Kirki edlted volL Dr,. ,\lthoLrgh his topic, as tire title suggests, covers inore than three ccnturies, l)i\ shows llluch ntore iutcrest i¡t a theological ¿ssessnre[t ofthe problenrs rctalcling a¡rostolic succession (which accordilg to ]rim is a doctrinal, nol llr institutioDal question) urd in thc liturgical clranges in the third and lbLrrth ccItl¡ries ll]an in histor-icai consequeDces caused by the accumLrlation ol. ancl priviic¡¡c,s in hands t¡fthe bisliops. i,ogically enougJr, he ther.efbrc ¡orvcrs tl.rc. sirys.lrr,st n.th i,g irbor¡t tl.te i,volvcnl!r)t,\l t)ish,)ps in tlte st,c i¡ I anrl politic¡l iil'L ,l-thc pc.iotl, ancl the sLrbsetltrent trirnsfor¡.irtiolt of lhe chr¡rch inkr a ki,tl ol st¡lc within tltc lkrntirn F)ntpiIc. l)rr¡irrtl l]lt Iitst 50 ycrrs ;tncicnt bishops h¿r,e bccorne itn iner.casirrg ittt¡t1r¡1¡¡¡1 t{)l)ic of rccc.rrch lntong both ccclesiitstic¡l (rrl tlrcological) scltolar.s llistr¡ri.ns.'ll:c,krng ( ier.n,rn lr¡(lit¡()n is wcll r.c¡rr.cscrrlctl Iry llrc lilir's ol (ir.r'rl 'llrcissc.rr, wlro lr¡s r.c invig()tirlc(l the sor..iolo¡¡icirl ill)l)ro¡(lt l() liirly (ilr¡isti¡r)ity (,\r)¡ lr)ir)(.y ol l)trly ()ln.isl¡útli/1,, l,hilirtlt,llrlri,r, l()71t, rr¡lltl lrt'roltsitlctcrl lri.i r 1 ¡. ¡ i , rrorli), ( )llrc¡ ,,\¡))(,r¡r.lt) sr ll.l.¡r lrirvc irls. ,rrrrl sccr¡l¡r ¡ ri r¡¡ ¡ ¡ 1 lltr li '1,-,'t tltr ltilt,'1, ttt ltttt' -\t,tt'ltt¡tt approached the toPic alorlg this routc inclrrrlirtg W. Mccks Christians, Yale University Press, 1983), Church. Public Servíces and Ofices in J.'l ('lltt llirst Llrl¡¡tt Burtchaell' (Fron Synagctgtte lo the Earlíest Chrisli(llt Comnllttlilies' r\ llr( s(\ou(l innovxlir)n lt)¡r)y ltisl(),iilts (()n(clttf,llc orr lltis l.rlt.¡.|t,¡iorl, ,rltt'r¡ rrrl[.rl l..ltc Ar]li(luity'rrs by tltc lirtc li¡r¡r.llt (r,¡)lury, lh(, ligtrlt,ol llrc l,rslrrl¡ lr¡tl (()ltlc to l)liry I tnitjor rolc in thc polities ol tllc Wcslcllr l{ont¡n lrnrlrifc. !Vltil(, lltis [rlrc¡tol¡Ienon l]ow sec¡l)s, with tlrc piLssagc ol ti¡uc, itll¡rosl ol tlre risc ol Christi¡nily, thc l)oliot) ol historic l rrcccssily Cambridge U¡iversity Press, 1992), ar.rd E S. Fiorenza, who shows a strong feminist bias On Memory of Her: A Feminist Reconstruction oJ Christicln .r rr¡lrllirl l}t.(rrlucl Ongins, New York, 1985). ru.lclusoty.Nol was thc risc Fron a theological Point of Yiew the most slriking development has been tlre ent¡y of Catholic scholars into this field. If Hans Küng (The Church'New Yo¡k, 1967) or E. Schillebeeckz (Ministry. Leadership in the Commuttity oJ' no less /e,srs Cárlsl, New York, 1981) were, in this respect, pioneering ligures, signilicant is the recent work sponsored by the French Catholic Bishop of La Roclrelle (P-G. Delage, ed. Les Péres de I'Église et les mínistéres Ét'olutiotts, idéal et réatiLés, La Rochelle, 2008), which includes cor.¡tributions by Catholic scholi¡rs, such A. Firivre, who went on to v¡rite Cl'Lrétiens et Églises des ídentitíes e cot$fru(liot1. At:leurs, slructLtres, frontiers du champ t'elígieux chrétiefi (Pat\s' 201 i ). in Neverthelcss, these Catholic contributions are affected ir their approach lhe same way as ale their Protestant and Anglicar.r colleagues: namely an overwhelming religious and theologicai concern hampers an aPPreciatioll of the historical impact which the church ancl bishops had on their owr societies or l.row protbundly the social ¡ealities of the day allected the Episcopal c¡f thc bishop rre rcly a casc ol lhcstct¡lirr l{onr.ur islocracy coloniz,ing a new area which wns scen to be ir risiltg locrrs of pow¡.,t., ,rr rvlr ilc solnc lc¿rling bishops such as st Alnbrosc celtai¡tly rlid conrc fi.onr tlre ,r¡ ,rltl l{om¡n tlristocl'lcy, c<lutily inllucntial ligurcs such as St Martin ol .li)urs rlitl nol.'llle state could have controlled lhe hierarchy of0re chu¡clt lirr luolc li|nrly than it in fact rna¡tagcd to do so. Arguably it wirs tlte weakncss r¡l tlrc ¡rrlilical centre in the rnid-li¡urth century th¿lt allowed the hicr"archy ol llrc ,lrtrlr.:h kr establish its indePe¡clence alttl pt¡we¡ to a far greater dcgr.cc lhln rrr ight othclwisc ltave bee¡ the case. ()rc ol the lilst ¡lost or.igütal researcher.s irr this area has bqell l)clcr llr()wl, u/ho hi,rs studiecl the bishop as a central character of the Lalc A tj(luc s( )( icty seeins this as centr ed on the episcopyi role ofgiving o fsocial ssistirn(c .rrrtl its involvernent in religious ritual ancl popular piety, above all thc cult ol rrrartyrs. A synthesis of Brown's work in this lield can be lound in his lcr.r.rrl, lrlicl-book, Poyerl), arul L,e«.l.ership it Íhe l-ater Roman Empira (Llnivcrsily ¿ncl l'rsss of New England, Hanovcr', N.H., 2002). Il authority. None ofthese scholats conceal that thei¡ research"s primary aim is to find in the primitive coulrnunities ofthe church a model lbr the contemporary is irnpossible to set out he¡e a detailecl exposition ofso nrany wolks .rrrrl iruthors working in this broad field ofresearch which encomp¡sscs strr.tt Catholic Cir¡"rrch in order to find a way to resolve its contemporary problems (such as the adrr.rission ol:rvonen and marrieci men into the clergy), as well as rliflcring subjects. One i¡nportaut issuc howevcr is that ol the r.elrtior:slri¡r l)clwecn thc bisho¡rs of the clrurch ald e¡rpcrors! tlte Coul.t, ancl tlre lowrr institLlti()ns, lhat is (o s¿ty, the secultr power of tl.rc stilte. 'lle Ilr.ilisll nrl Arrrcrica¡r tr¡(litio¡t is replcscnted in this irr.ca by historians srrch ¡s llal.Ies, llowclsot¡cli, [)rakc, Liebcschuctz ancl Mcl,ynn, whosc work deals, urno»¡i ollrc¡ toIics, with (irnst¡ntinc'.s rclati()ns with tltc cIiscopacy iD gr.,ncral (r:r wilh sonrc bishops in partictrlar), thc tcnsi()¡ts wh icll arosc bctwce¡r lirn¡r,ror. to strengthen the role of laity and the whole communitl vis á vis author ity of bishops. Howevet two historiographic innovations deserve to be highlighted' First, a growth of an acade¡¡ic, non-ecclesiastical approach to the ar.rthority and powers of bishops whose concerns are not of a theological nature rlor presuppose the existence of early idyllic Cl.rristian commLrnities which werc allegec{ly characterized by an institutional anarch¡ btLt later tlestloyecl by lhc rise ofEpisct4ral power during the sccolltl or thirtl ccntttlics l,ay sclrolitts trc lrl0lc illtcrcslc(l ill lllc sociitl' cc.llotttic ittrrl ¡rt'lilicll itllltrt'ttct' hislrrr|s r.'rt'lr. ist'tl fiortt lltc llli¡r.l cctllttty ottlvilltls lirl'lltis l't'i¡srrll itllrl tllis now ¡11(¡ch 'llrcrrrlosius r¡rcl Antblosc ol-i\4ilan, irrrtl thc eorrrplcx conllicts br,,twcr,n this cnrl)(r-r)r irr(l llrc clc¡ics conlct)(linl{ lirr.thc Src ol Corrsl¡lllirroPlr.,. Siulto ,Vlitzz;rlinr¡ ¡lso rlc,volt.«l llis l¡rsl s()(l¡l/(, l/rl r,,,sr oytr ,,1lr¡irlrrfir, ol Ar¡lrrosr', rllliirrli r lc.irr llrr. irrrr¡rc¡¡st, sr,( iill .l¡t(l 1rrrr,,,t,r'rvit,ltlr'rl lry tlrir lrislro¡r, ()t¡r(l ll,rli.ut ¡rrrI orr tlrir lolrir l{r)r),t, l(,,s')) lo (r'orortj( wolli (,\/(,flrl ¡r slrrrly 1lü llnh t4 tltr tlt\ltttlt ttt I ilr "ltttttltllt clitctl by(iiotgitrIlt¡nitrllctlle illlcl l{itirl'i7zi lt'stir. (" 'lhc (iernrirtr Istiftazíori, t:Ltrisffi¡ etl estrtizio tlel polcrc (lV-VI 'scc¡ri'r ¿l ) c¿n bc li)tlnd itt a volLtrtlc e tradition, fbun<led, as eveL oD rigorous philology, Iras also procluced on clerical a large number of valuable works such as that of G Schóllen und plofessionalization (Die Anfdnge Ller ProJessionttlisierwtg des Klerus 1998)' f Bleicken das kirchliche Aflt i der Syrischen Didaskalie, Münster' and on Constantine (Kottstatftinder Gtosse untl díe Cl¡¡isfen, Munich' 2007) (Tr ier 385 'Der Prozess K. M. Gi¡ardet on the same emperor and Priscillian French gegen <lie Priszillianer', Chiron 4, 1974' 577-608) Contemporarv works of Clr' research has been no iess productive, as can be seen ftom the Pietri (nany of which have been reprinted in his Christiana RespubLica' ( Rome 1997) irrrd the volume edited by É- Rebillard and CI Sotinel Létét1ue tlffis la cilé ritt lVe au Ve siécle lmttge et autot'¡té, Roma' 1998) wliich highlights the far-r'eaching role the bishops played as patrons and leaders ol'a new ttrb¿rn lit-e. '[he essays in this volune are the olrtcome of an international conference 'lhe Rote o-f the Bishop tu Late Antiquiryheld entitle<J Cor-flicf nti ri Cttnpromise: in Glanada i ¡r to the autumn of 20 t I and at e intended as a further contribution the varying results ofthis rise in Episcopal power' The prize this lield, explorilrg ofthe episcopacy is shown in the bitter conflict between Gregory ofNazianzus of Constantinople studied by 'Iorres and in Teja. ln the struggle we can also sec the involvement of secular authority church affails and the intimate relation bet\nr'een the two is il con§tant theme ancl Maximus the Cynic fot the See ir lrrslrr.,r' .r¡r¡rlo¡,.l¡ ¡¡¡r.1 it is lltis l.rtt.t. Mire ( iirwls clrir¡te r'. 'l h is Ire.r iorl ol llrc sr lrisrrr cxirlt irrcs llrc wiry llr¡rt llle j.ttlrolir ( ()hrrrclr crrclcirvor.rlcrl to rrsc the lcgill systctt i¡gilinst lllcir ¡)onitl¡sl ( , I ) ){ I rI ¡ (, I I I s irrorLlerto)LrstitythciIcrsc. Iheoutconrcol thcsc ¡rr.oct'cclilrl.ls wus, ol e0t¡rsc, prctletelminetl, but we again sce thc snpet.vcntir» of lllc scculilr it)lo llt(, ccclesiastical worlcl. Bishops saw sucir a link with the st¿te as a way of furthcring tlrcir owll Ir()wcr. in the co¡'n¡lunity and Kahlos explores tlre lobbying unclcr.t¡hcrr by bislrops to h¿rve evel rnore legislatiot to suppress paganism and the restrni¡lts pllccrl orr the effectiveness of such activity by local lanclowners. Sardella also cx.lltincs the role bishops played in the internal politics of the empire, cxarnin,ng the way lhat various aspects of Christian doctrine conce¡.ning sexual r.elalions were used to further anbitions fbunded as much in political as ecclesiasticr¡l fhe interventiol.t oftlte chu¡ch in such matters requirecl lcgislirlion drafted along cor¡fbssional lines. Such legislation was a crucial link in tlrc intersection between secular and r-eligions power and was a novelly o1:thc lltc concerns" antique world, being, save tbr Jegislation outlawing Chr.istianity, Don-cxistcnt during the principate. Escribano Pañot chapter examilres ltow this prol)lclü was worked out in practice by the Late Antique state aDd the clyDarr1ics whieh led to tlte creation ofsuch legislation. Such struggles for power dicl not only exist l:etween secular and ecclesiirslicirl authorjties but also with the church itseli, Ubric examines the way in wlriclr where a local church was unable to reach a consenst¡s the recruitllcrrt ol bishops fron.r other areas who con.unanded respect amollg the wider Chr islirn of the volume. 'ltre inyolvement of the chruch in politics led to an intensification in more importance of internal problems within the church as they became was the and more linked to matters of politics as a whole One such matter thene which suppression of deviant forms of Christian belief and this is a plovide two runs through many of the chapters here Ubiiia and Mac Gaw Donatist different approaches to one of these problerns namely tllat of the brutality of scirism in North Afiica. Ubiña sees the schism as provoked by the bretrkaway Bishop Caecilian and looks at the early stages of this problematic in which the el]llreror Co¡lstilntine was lrapPy to ignole thc wishcs ol'thc hicrtrlchy when llc thtltrghl this ilPProPri¡tc to Pt¡rsuc ir soltrtioll to Catholic whll hc sitw (llrin¡ ¡rolcs, torrli t lrll is thc lire r¡s ol lts tttttclt ¡s ir ¡rlliticll as a lt'ligiotts lllilltcr' l'ill(l r:nlP('rors' ils con.rn.runity was seen as a viable tactic for srlccess. She also demonstralcs lrow ecclesiastical problems rapidly became embroiled with secular.conccrns, A¡r interesting feature of such trials was the way that ecclesiasticirl courts ha(l t abilityto look for compromise and resolutions which rvould preservc solicllrity which were not available to secular courts a¡td Ubric expkrrcs this al sonlc length. ltis scarch firr respectccl irnil tlcfinitivc ¡rrbitcrs li» ecclcsiitsticirl ¡rr.oblc¡¡ls ill lhis l.olt, gavc tlte oppoltLütity to tl)c Scc of l{o¡trc t() ltttcntpt t0 irssct.t itscll lls ctlir¡ ts lo rlo so arc exPLrrcrl by llvo ol lltc cltirplcrs l¡rrr,. Mlleos ()..lnli¡r(,s llle cflilrts ol l\r¡e Zositltrs 1¡ cslirIlish Iis scc ll¡c clrLrrrlr, tlrr,, irs rcsislirrlr,r,ol lrt¡rlrlrr¡¡clrcs lo ll)(.sc tlrt,¡ullt.r'it¡livc r.c.t¡.c.f iI I I (, ¡ I I I rI s . t r rr I llorv scr. rrlirl Ittln¡l .ltlllt{)rili('s lrt.e¡l|]( irrY()h,r.rl irr tltis eonlli¡-l rr¡ltl wcrt. ils rlt,lcrntililt$ (.1(.||lt¡ll. 'lhc lclltiolt [rctwccn scculal.irrrtl rcligious ilutl)ot.ity is irlsu explor.ccl hy llvcr.s who cliscusses Po¡re Hormistlas's attcnlpt to irrr¡ro5c ¿ 5¡¡ll¡1r. suprcD¿cy lbr the See of Rome across the empire. The cltapter again throws into fbcus tlre local resistance that this encounter.ed and the crucial role of secular powe¡ in this case the Eastern emperor, Justin I. Howeve¡ Evers would also want to grant Hormisdas some credit, by noting while secular power was decisive it was down to cierics to harnass it successfully; .perhaps Hormisdas might not haye been able to move without lan imperiai bandwagon] _ nevertheless, he is still the one who jumped on it: All these struggles had a public face and this required an ability to put one's case convincingiy in the public arena. Christians at one time had been proud of the hrtless, nature of their sacred texts, but the rise of the bishop and his increasingly public role required that oratorical ability now became a necessity and euir.oga,s chapter examines the way in which the tenants of Late Antique secular rhetoric were redeployed in an ecclesiastical and rcligious context. The link between church and state did not extend merely to the internal alTairs of the empire. Fear examines the way that bishops were used by the Roman state as an extension of imperialism by diplomacy where emperors attempted to use Rorre's position as the centre ofthe Christendom to influence the politics of neighbouring states and try to establish philo_Roman policies there. According to Fear however this attempt, logical though it seemed, broke down as the weakness ofthe Roman state and itsinabilityto protectits Christian protegées led to a reorientation oflocal churches who came to identify much more with their local communities and their national aspirations than the wider ones of the Roman Empire as a whole. The bulk of the chapters in this volume deal with a time when church and state bound in an ever-closer Ltnion sang, ifat times dissonantl¡ from the same hymn book. The passing of the Roman state and its replacement by successor kingdoms whose leaders at times subscribed to a different creed led to a very different set of tensions and problems. Castillo,s chapter examines how the Trinitarian bishops of Spain adapted to a world where their new ¡ulers, the Arian Visigoths held power. the Gothic kings on the one hand could not risk alienating the bulk of their subjects by oflending their religious sensibilities, the 'ü-initarian bishops, on the other, cor.rld not rely on the protection of their x th»t II ¡r)(,¡ritf(11 ,ll(l ¡rotcrrlially tor¡ltl bc vir lirrrs ol ¡r1,¡¡¡¡.,,¡¡,,,, irs llrt, L,¡tlr,rs r¡l lrclcsy. OlstilLr tl.accs 1ltt: r.eligiotrs ol.tlrc At.i.rl l<irr¡.1s ¡rolicies chrr.eh i,rrl thc'csrr.¡rsc.f thc churchs hicrarchy ,r torvirr.cls llrr. k)\^/irr(rs rrrer) .¡rrr rrcrcrls, to¡cril¡)cc, irll¡eit bt¡r.¡t oI pr.grnatis,t, oppoftunisn] a¡cl rc¡lisnl r¡ll ol the clivide. One irritart in the relatio¡shi¡r betweeu i<ing antl sit[,s 'otlt l¡isho|s wus thc, Byzantine enclave ca¡ved out of the Mecliterranean coastirl ol.Sfnin. Salvador Ventura looks at the ¡eaction of Trinita¡ian bishops Lowa¡.(ls tllis venture. Initially hc detects enthusiaslr, unsurprising, giyen the Byzantilcs lo(, werc 'liinitar ian, but notes that this enthusiasm waned with the ebbing of. tlrt, Fl¿rst Romans' fortrrnes, leading perhaps to the exile and demise of Licini¡¡rus, the Bislrop of Carthago SpartariLl af Byzantine hands. Byzantine hclvy hiudedness, not an uncommon phenomenon may also have harl a rolc to ¡lay in the alienation ofthe two groups. Salvador Ventura sees the reorie¡rtatiotl ol the Hispanic Trinitarian Church as spear_headed by Leande¡ of Seville whosc work in converting Reccared to 'liiDitarianism led to the creation ofa Spllnish state where the church and secular rulers were once again united in theil. ltith. 'Ihe interplay between church and state continued _ the Trinitarian Visigothic state was once seen as a 'theocracy, with bishops playing the dominant rolc (scc, lbr example, Thomas Hodgkin, .Visigothic Spainl ¿HR, II (1887), bur rcecnt scholru'ship has showD that here too there was a dynamic relationship bctwctn secular and religious authority witli ultimately the secular power haviug the upper, though not infallible, power. The relationship between the two ol-cor¡t.sc continues to the present and has generated the scholarship discussccl at tl¡c beginning ofthis introductioil. The essays here endeavour to further and thought about this intriguing lield. reserr.crr The Donatist Conflict as Seen by Constantine and the Bishops José Fernández Ubiña Uníversidad de Granada 'lhe Donatist Schism arose in very confused circumstances which in all probability wlll never become completely clear The immediate cause was thc clection, between the years 307 and 312, ofCaecilianus as Bishop ofCarthage to re¡rlace the recently deceased Mensurius, whose archdeacon he had been. His enemies, the future Donatists, considered his consecration to be illegititrratc, as only three bishops had been present (the usual number in Africa bcing l2) and, above all, because one of them, Felix of Abthugni, had been a hfi(lltor during the Great Persecution of 303 and 304. This, according to the tradltlon ofthe African Church, disqualified him from consecrating another cleric. Most likely these charges, whether true or false, were a mere pretext. The enenlies of Caecilianus, particularly numerous among the lower classes, had a weightlcr reason for opposing his election: his futhless conduct during the Greal. Persecution, when he was just an archdeacon. Indeed Caecilianus, far from declaring his support at the time fo¡ those Christians who had been lockcd u¡r for having publicly defended their faith, opposed them and preventccl both lelatives and the faithful with lashes of the whip from succouring thcm wlth Ibod, thus causing theln to die of staryation in prison. In the words of thc Pissio Abitinensiuftt (20),'Caecilianus was more ¡uthless than thc tyrallt, nlorr bloody than the executionerl 'l"hc accounts ppear to be true, Mcnsurlus ¡rs .iustifictl what happcned with the argurnent that sonc ofthosc irnpr.isoncd wcrt crinrinals who sought lo prolit Iom tl]e ¡tttcntions that thc filithful lheir dctrincd brcthtcn (Arr¡¡., ltral, toll.3, 13, 2S). l vishctl 0u lln liulr I "l lltt ltt'.ltq, ¡t I 'ttr \tttlttlt' llh ltühtlt,l t t\tllit lrving decitltd r)()l [o ilcccpt hinr irs bishop, (i¡ccili¡ntts',s il(lvcr's¡ri(s scl \\i'sl('r rr r lr(|R lr(s. \vt'r.c ll)( fi¡¡)(liI)l(¡lt¡l(.lr¡s(,()l lll(,stltislD ilrrl ils ¡1,li¡ioL|\ s,r i¡l irrtt rsirit¡rli.r. ( r()nslirr)tin(' ,lct trr( glawirll crc¡.ic¡r firrrrrrit isr¡r .r ',rrl l,otlr l.rtlions rlilll ¡ ¡i¡licv ol'conciliatiou, which pr.cvcllcrl tllc scpirrllio¡l ol. llrt l )orr¡list clturcltcs iultl thcir cot)fl1)ntaliou with the elrpirc. the¡¡selves u¡r a ¡rrovisionirl olganization, presiclecl ovcl t)y an i/r/(r1,('ll()r, who was assassinated by the Caecilians (ALrg., fp.44,4,8). ln this clin)ate of fratricidal violence, a co¡"rncil oi'70 bishops rnet in Carthagc and, with the enthusiastic support of the crowd, deposed Caecilianus. Mindful of his irregular consecr-ation and of popular rejection, Caecilianus proposed to Constantiue'.s policy in tl-re early st¿rges of: the schism (307-14) the bishops that they consecrate him, but the council refused ¿nd appointed Maiorinus in his stead. When the latte¡ died shortly afterwalds, probablv in the summer of313, Donatus would be appointed as his successor ancl give his nalne to the schism. Caecilianus'.s follorcers, however, succeedecl in gettilg him recognized by the Catholic Chr.rrch ancl by Constarntlne, and having the charges against Felix ofAbthLrgni ,.leemetl caiumnious. 'Ihe cJispute was active until the ñfth century and gave rise to ¿r rich literature, replete with lies and falsified docLrments, in which each thction attributed resporlsibility tor the schisrn to the other and said their cler ical lc¿rdcrs wcre fr.adlfores ('har.rders over'), which is to say that they had surrende'recl the Scriptules for clestruction dLrring the Great PersecLltion (Optatus,,4p. I and II; Aug., C-. Cresc. 3, 27,30; Breu. coll.3,7 3, 25). That explains the singular historical dimension of this dispute and of the evidence that has corre down to us, ali of it (with the exceptiou of some imperial documelts) subsequent to the reigr'r ofConstantine anc.l ancl sometilnes conciliar ofdubious reliability.' The longevity ofDoDatism and its deep popular suppoñ in Africa h ave gJvcn ¡ise to diverse historical explanations in recent centuries, in which ils ethnic, social and cultuml background has been liighlighted, or the peculiar religious fervour of the North Af¡ ical) peoples since earliest times.r These overarrhing explanations clo not usuail1., in my view give proper" atter]tion to the corlcrete circumstances in which the schism arose and took root, r]or to the decisive role played by some ofthe plotagonists, or the actual changes that took place within the novement oyer the years.'Ihe aim ofthis essay is, in the fir'st place, to reconstruct frorn the fragmentary docuinentatior that survives to us, a likelv ofthe schisn under Constaotine. Antl, seconcll¡ to ¿n¿lyse the cliYelse attitLrcl(,s of its n1rli¡) protagon ists. 'l lr is will allow us k) asscss thc gcnclal intcrplctirti()ts altcrtly nrcntiorctl lnrl, ¡bovc itll, lo bt'irtg ortt Itrlrv (l¡etililnrrsls vir¡[¡¡t nrctllotls, stt¡r¡rrrrtcrl lrv llrc sequence of eve¡rts marking the hardening I ( lor)slotrli¡rc'.s Iirst ref-ercnce to the schism ap¡rcars in his letter to C¡ccili¡rrr¡s, tlrc lirst known cxarn¡rlc betweeu al.t emperor and a bishop, writtcrr r](,ilr. llt(. l':cHinning /,,//,'.r hryg of3l3 5.., (Eusebius, 1JE, x,6, i-5). In this he inrbrms lrinr rrrirt 3.{)00 r.,'rt to be distributed ¿ulong the clergy ofall the North All.ier¡l l)ro\rinccs in accortlirncc, rvith Hosins of Corcluba,s instructjoDs, and lcls lrinr li¡rotv that he has given instructions to the highest provincial ¿ruthoriti(s llrc proconsul and the llr¡tri¿l-s - to put an end to the schism causecl by sonlc ( lhrisri¡ns. Ihe lette. lcveals that although constanti¡e consider.s Caecili¡rrr¡s Africl¡ churches, he sees the schis¡r as a problenr of.h is .ruthorit» approaching it lrorn a political-adrrinistrative angle ancl tl isrcua |tlin¡1 tlre opinion ofthe church. He eve, permits himserf to ask caecilialrLls ro 1. r... irr thc eyent of continued dissent, to the aforeruentioned authoritics fi» tlrc visible heacl of tl¡e rr rlelinitive resolution ol'the probJern. All of which suggests tltat the crrrpcr.or hacl a supcrficial understarldit.lg of the conflict ancl took it fbr grirntcrl llrrrt Lrnity coulcl be srviftly restored by Irreans oi the imperial administration. 'Ihis tnarginalization of the church appears to reflect the conccplion ol rclisii»r that Constitntine then held, as he hintsclf disclosed in the lettcr llc scrrl around tltat timc to AnLrliuLrs, proconsul of Afiica (Husebius, Hli, X, 7, l). In il hc ortlels hin to cxetnpt the clergy o1, thc Ci¡tholic Church presiderl ovcl by ()acciiianLrs fr.om public tluties, s. thar thcy,1ight be corsecrir[e(l with(,.t ¡,)y obstaclc to lhcir rcligioLrs or)cs. ConstirntiDe is corl'i,ct'cl that tlrosc rasl(s rvill vicltl grcirt bcnclits lil. lhe cntpir.c, as it lras bccn pr.ovccl that clisr.r,,girr.r,l lirl lcli¡¡ion hus ahviiys givcn r.isc lo ¡¡r.rrvc rlarrgers lirr.prrhlic Iile, wlrc¡.r,irs, l¡v (onlr¡sl, wll(,¡rcyr..r'il hirs l¡cc¡¡ clrrlv resIcctctl, ll:c u¡r¡r,of. l{ortrt,arrrl ¡rrrblir ;rll¡ils lr¡vt tnjoycLl tlrt,¡lt.cxtcsl go(xl lil.tl¡¡1l., ,,,,,¡ lr.oslrt,l.ity. ll is Llriu lllirt ( l(,r)slirrtin( is rroI tlrirrli in11 soll.,1y, ,,r q.r,(,¡1 l)ri¡¡( il)rrllv, (,1 tlrc ¡cL c¡ tlv lt11.rli., r,rI ( llr i\ti.lr¡ilr, lrr¡I r rl tlrl Ir.rrtlrliolr,rl rcli¡iiorr to r1l¡i, lr l{r,rrrr,, irr lr ls yi.rr,, r,ryr.,, rt., 'lht llol{ ofth( Blshop ht l. 'lht ltütt llrl t( Antl\hlty wcalth antl powcr (whe¡ thc cult has becu rcs¡rccted ) ls nrltch tts its tlt islir¡ l Nolhin¡¡ inrlitirlcs tttlcs (when religious matters have been neglected). It can thereforc bc tlcducecl thal at the time lhe emperor sees Christianity as Part ofthe Roman reliSious system, and its clerics as servants comparable to those ofother religions' tlllt (lonslnnlirl( lir lh't lr.rLl irllcirrly .r5 trli.cr ¡ tlccisio¡¡. A¡rollrer cllcrtllirl cÍr'or conrnrittcd by tllc disscnlers who, ccrtrirr ol lllcil cirusc, clicl not le¡lize th¿t their proposals coulcl only be implemcntccl il Alricl, where they were in the rnajority and Caecilianus a hated {igure. Fllscwlrclc, Iictor is tlru This reveals three characteristics of Constantine: (l) His interference in Christian aftairs is dictated not so nuch by his personal faith as by his cluty the bishops unanimously supported Caecilianus, which is why, irs Augustinc for guaranteeing divine protection of the empire and Roman sociery (2) He sincerely believed in the importance ofthat Protection and is therefore far removed frort the image Burckh¿rdt propagated of the churches. This was also made clear by this synodical court of Rome, which Machiavellian emperor who used Christianity to consolidate his power. In a sense, he was a comflon believer. His originality, genuinely laudable for now led the dissenters, but at the same time recognizing the episcopal dignity as emperor, responsible that era, was that his credulity did not lead him to lmPose his convictions in a violent manner, but, on the contrary, he believed they could be spread by persuasion. (3) He felt ircreasingly identilied with the Ch¡istian God as the supreme divinity in a kind of henotheism which, for one thing, yielded appreciable material benefits for the church and its clergy. On 15 April 313, tlle Proconsul Anulinus sent a rePort to the emPeror would later r eveal (Ep. 43,3,7 ar,d 6,18), he opted to be iudged by thc overseas October 313 exonerated Caecilianus (Optatus, I,24, 1-2).lt was, however, il ¿ rnoderate judgemeDt, in line with imperial poLic¡ condernning Donatus, wlro of his followers (Aug., Epp. 43,5, l6; 185, 10, 47). The immediate protests of the Donatists make it clear that the synodical judges had acted precipitately and had not eyen taken into account thc dissenters' main charge, namely the traditio of Felix of Abthugni, which invalidated the ordinatiorr of Caecilianus. I do not believe, as Optatus claims (1, 25, 1-2), that Constantine received the Donatist protests with indignation. It is more likely that he was indignant at their not having reached a satisfactory (Aug., Xp. 88,2; Optatus, l, 22, 2) informing him that, in spite ofthe privileges solution in Rome and that the conflict, far from easing off, had intensifictl. bestowed on the clergy and the imperial interest in Preserving religious unity, Hence his decision to summon a new syr.rodical court for I August 314 in Arlcs, various people, supported by the plebeian masses, had demonstrated their opposition to Caecilianus and handed over to the proconsul two documents comprised of numerous bishops from all the provinces within his donrinion, to be sent to the emperor. One, signed by the Maiorinus faction, denounced the crimes of Caecilianus, and the other requested that the emPeror aPPoint reaching bishops from Gaul (where there were no Persecutions or schisms) to )udge the Iegitimacy of Caeciliar.rus. and at whose disposal he put state transportatio¡l, proving his interest irr a just ruLing. Two letters from the emperor, both from the start of 314, confi¡m this III), he orders the vicar Aelalius to organize the transfer of the African bishops to Arles, stipulating that both concern. In one of them (Optatus, AP. In all probabiliry this report was wllat alerted Constantine to the graYity factions follow different routes and that all ofthem undertake not to provokc of the problem and its dangerous social imPlications, and of tl.te need to take specific neasures to resolve it. As is well known, he acceptedlhe Pars Maiorini any sort ofsedition in their absence. This stipulation reveals the extent to which petition (soon to be known as theparsDonafl, followingthe death ofMaiorinus and election ofDonatus as Bishop ofCarthage), appointed three bishop-judges from Gaul and o¡dered that they hear the case under the presidency of Pope the religious conflict was disturbing the social peace, the emperor'.s prinrc concern. It is no less significant that Constantirle, on learning that Aclafius was also a 'worshipper of the Most High Godl i¡npar ts to lrinr the Ror¡an authorities' obligation to resolve the ¡eligious conflicts properly and to prevcnt Miltiades in Rome. The Ietter that Constantine wrote to MÍltiades, expressing his profbund concern about the conflict, makes clear the task that he assigned the supreme deity getting angry with society and with thc enrperrr hiDrsclf, to these clerics: to act as civil iadices, hear both parties and, tonsonant with the cletlucccl nrost rcvcrcn(i lawl tleliver a just vcrdict (lluscbitLs, //¡, X, 5, i¡t-20). ancl thus the safety and prosperity of all being jeoparclizerl. It can thcrclirrc lrc thlt Constantire, although he was advjscri by HosiLrs ol'(irrtlutrir irntl (llthr¡lic clerics, hlrl ¡rot aircacly rleciclcrl irgÍ¡i¡)st thc l)orrirlists, ur(l w¡s other 'lht I totrttlsl ( )tullh.l l¡ccontiltg, irrelcrrsirrgly ltarlrrl ol Lrsitr¡i porvcr.tlrr.orr¡ilr ¡)ol ilclinlt l)r.r)l)(rly ill lhc rcligious s¡rhcrc.'lhis lncntality is closcr, in ¡ly vicw, to tI.irtIitioIIlI l{o¡llnn rcligiosity than to that of primitive Christianity, and tl.tercli)rc govcrnccl by a preoccupatiol't that is more political than spiritual in nature. ln thc second letter, addressed to Chrestus, Bishop of the Syracusans (Eusebius, HE, X, S, 2l-4), Constantine reproduces some of the ideas forrrulatecl in the letter to Aelafius, although he more clearly reveals his identification witl.r the Caecilian faction and, cu¡iousl¡ represses the reflections mentioned above on the social and political importance of the cult of the supreme diviniry It is as though the emperor judged such reflections to be more appropriate for a henotheist judge than for a Christian bishop. And he adds an interesting detail: every bishop would have at his disposal a public vehicle for the trip to Alles and could be accompanied by three slaves and two persons bf the second ofñcel an irnprecise exptession designating the rest of the clergy and conlirming the strongly episcopali¿n character of the church in the early fourth century. Constantines interest in finding a swift and iust resolution of the conflict can also be seen in his decision to carry out an ofiicial inquiry into whether Felix of Abtlrugni had com¡nitted trad¡tio dvrtng the Great persecution of 303, which had disqualified hiur from consecrating Caecilianus as Bishop of Carthage (Optatus, Ap. II). The inquiry confirrned Felix,s innocence and therefore the legitimacy of Caeciliar.rus, the issue that had triggered the schism, but also highlighted two significant facts: in the first place, Felix,s friendship and connivance with the pagan authorities. There is also evidence for such complicity on the part ofclerics and jr.rdges, even during times ofpersecution, in other African cities such as Cirta (Optatus,áp.I), Tigis is(Aug.,C. Crescottium 3,26,29-3,27,30) and Carthage (Aug ., Breu. coll.3, 13, 25), and in nllmerous othel provir.rces ofthe empire. And ifEusebir.rs (HE, g, 1, 5) saw this connrvance as an indication of episcopal corruption, the Constantinian revolution could not have happened without it.r A secolrd fact, no less releyant, is that the whole investigation was carried out by civil authoríties, from the emperor who set it up to the proconsul Aelianus who pronounced the judgernent absolving Felix, most likely on 15 February 314 (Aug.,,4d clonatistas post collationent 33,56). The main accuser and witness to the charge, IngeDtius, was a decurion of Ziqua and an enemy of Felix and the Caecilians, And amor.rg the local magistl ates who took par.t in the inquir.y was a Carthaginian priest of Jupitcr ( l7 )l¡tirr rrs M ¡rl irrrrrs. ll), co Dt rtst, ncit lrcr tltc ¡rccuscd bisllop nor any cleric was (luesti(lr)c(|.'llrc l)onirtists complained of Aelianus',s lavou.itism (Aug., Breu. co//. 3, 24, 42) tlcl ofthe intrusion ofpublic powers in an ecclesiastical matter, but Augustine (Lp. 43, 4, 13; C. Parm. 1, 8, 13) was in no doubt that the emperor and his delegates had the authority to judge these matters and that their rulings came fiom God. The council of Arles and Constantinet policy pacification (314-17) of The ecclesiastic court of Arles approved tlte agreements made the previous year in Ronte. Caecilianus was recognized as the legitimate bishop ofCarthage and, what is more, the Donatists were excoÍrmunicated as evil people whom God and the chu¡ch had condemned and with whon no dialogue coul<l be ¡naintained. The harshness of these agreements shows what little l«rowledge the Western churches had ofthe strength ofDonatism in Africa and that they were in no way predisposed to lind a consensual solution to the conflict. This intransigent attitude might have seemed justilied following the adhesion to the Arles agreements by sone Donatist cler ics (Aug., Ep. g 8,3; Breu. colt. 3,19, 37), but the emperor soon learned that the council haci been a fiasco and the African Catholics themselves let it fall into oblivion. In order to disguise this reality, the Catholics falsified the leüer deterna et rellgrosa (Optatus, Ap. V) in which Constantine expresses his bor.rndless faith in the bishops' judgements, ranking them as diüne, as they,udge according to the teachings of Christ,a to whom he attributes all his fortune and earthiy Power. The emperor, therefore, regrets that the Donatists, unhappy with the Arles resolutions, have appealed to him in the hope ofobtahing the favourable judgement that had twice been denied to therr by the Western chu¡ch, and concludes by asking Catholics to be patient and declaring that he has instructed ite vicarius Africae to send all the dissenters to the court. Other sources make it clea¡ however, that Constantine did not hold the Oatholic bishops in such high esteem, incapable as they were of reaching an ircce¡rtablc solutioÍr to the conflict, anci nor did he disregard the complaints ol'thcir opponcnts.'lhis is dcrroustrated by the fact that, in spite ofhis scant symplll)y firr tllc l)ouirtists, hc inrntcdiatcly accrplcd thcir irppeill, ¡net in 'lht lll lloi rl lln, lllrhol l| lth A thl|ltt, 'llh, Itou ll\l ('oüllht l{o¡¡e wilir scveral schisur¡tic llislrrr¡s wlxr lrirrl t¡kcn (:o st.tltlirrr, ¡( llrr, l)olt¡tists' ¡lr()lt¡l)li li Iiut ir) llrc r.or¡ltcil ol' (to Arles who:r he then provicled p[¡bl¡c trar)sport firr.thcir retuln k) Alricir), rlislrrrlrrUlrcs, sumnored Ilgentius to corut to bear witness to the cltarge bclble the litigants, and decided personally to ir¡dge the religious dissension. 'Ib that tncl, in late -lof¡bsolvt.r.l ilccili¡nLrs. Jt is ¡rossiblc that this wtrs thc nro¡nel( wl)cn (l()nstnltlirtr gilv( ltis hlcssing to thcjoulney ol Ilishops Iruuo¡'riLrs ancl Olynrpius lo (l¡rtltirg(,witlr llrc tirsl( ll1 ¿ppointing a new bishop lol that city in placc ol the ir.rcconeilirl¡lt. (iuccililnus a¡rd Do¡¿rtus. lfthe hacl succcedcd, the colflict coujtl lrirvc 315, he summoned both factions by letter and Iet the Donatists know that he would condemn Caecilianus if they proved any of the charges that were laid ag¿inst him (Optatus, Ap. VI; Aug., rp. 88,4; C Cresc. 3,70, S1). llrcsr. i¡ (( )|l.tttts, I. 2(r; At,*,, ,,'. (r."r. bittli to this rlccision ls proofthlt .',, 7 l, $-l). the cnrPeror '¡ lt I(cl)l llinl (lclilinr(l ill lrc I )o¡l¡lisls wotrltl irlwirys lrirr k it(l colt (lctrr nccl ( ¡rlan Aware that they had lost the emperor's trust, the Catholics were not pleased with this proposal, and Caecilianus, in an attitude of open contempt, clid not even turn up at cou¡t (Aug.,8p.43). African Catholicism was then probably at its lowest ebb. But the Donatists, far from taking advantage ofthe situation to improve their relations with the emperor, t¡ied to reinfo¡ce their r.ule by means of popular agitatiolt, giving r ise to serious disturbances that not even (r(le(l without victors or vantluislretl, but the Inission miscarried owing l{ } riots hy sLrpportcls ofDoDatus, who without cloubt were hoping fbr sohtlior) tlr,rl wirs nrrrch more flvourable to them (Optatus, 1,26; A!g, Brcu. roll, 3,20, .r8 ), the vicerills Dorritius Celsus could quell, as he hinself told Constantine in isolation trnd stagnation the autumD of3I5. ln his reply to the vlcarlas (Optatus, áp. VII), the ernperor purity and martyrdom, left Constantine with no other o¡.rtion than to allow (lirecilianus to returr, as the legitimate Bishop of Carthage, and to conllcnlr asked him to eschew repressive r'ueasures ¿nd let both factions know that he himself would go to Aflica to carefully inyestigate the conduct ofthe ¡ropulace and especially that ofthe clerg¡ duly punish those responsible tbr the conflict it obyious that he was acting for social a leligious ideology anchored in the okl i<lc¡ls ol Failure of repressive measures against Donatistn Lln(l decline of Catholicism (3 17-37) as much as fbr religious reasons, and that he considered the latter inherent in his ofljce, which again confirms the view that he was deeply imbued witlr tlie ir.r his tletractors tbr calumny.6 and show everyone how to worship the divinity properl¡ as this was his duty by virtue of trar.lition rrnd his otlice as prince. Constantine's response makes Sonre Catholic sources and modern historiography state tl'tat CoDsti¡rtlt1(. now plomLrlgated a law against thc, Dr¡natists which set o11-the bloody pc¡sc(utiorl traditional Romar mentality. What was new was his henotheist visio¡r of the divine world (so often emphasized in modern historiography) and his lack oi the years 3l7-21. Augustine (17. 105, 2, 9) of awareuess (less highlighted by J.ristorians) tltat, in the Christian sphere, his capacity for making decisions was Iimited by the authority ofthe bishops, who l)ul citcs no concrete act of pe¡sscu1i.r]. Only the Passio Do¡lcll, appilt.errtly rvlitten by a Dollatist yictim, gives sonte detirils, albeit contraclictoly arrr,l rarely relir.rquished their powers. It is clear, on the other hand, that the empcror was still confident of overcoming, in a peaceful manner, the disagreenents between Donatists and Catholics and thus putting an end to the schism in North African Christiarity. 'lo attain such a dilicult objective, Constantine solrght an ir)genious solutior.). In Milan betweer late 315 and November 316, he recognized CaecililnLrs'.s clescr ibes it as the scr«,rls,silirr /r,.r, in)Precise. E.§cntially, it lane¡rts that the oltl irtpsi oI collal¡oratol.s ¡nlllloIoliz( nl royirl lr.icnrlslri¡r (rt'gtli rrtniciliu) lncl cirlthly privilcges (ttunttiltus tcrrrrris). It is t.spceillly (cnsorious tlt¡t thcsc ¡rrorlcll Irhtrrisccs, highlighting Oacciliirrrrrs irrrrorr¡1 r'cclcsirrstical houou¡s unr{ hirve an exclr¡sive enioylnent tlrcrn, lrirvc inrposccl tlreir';rtrtlrority lry ntcans o1'[rliltely or. with tl¡t, iriLl r¡f tlrl iirnocence ancl his legitimacy as ISishop of Oarthage, thcrcby accc¡rting llrat thc Aflicrrn (l¡lholic fi¡ctio¡t rncl thc Wcslcrrr cltulches wt.r.c li¡¡lrl. lrr ¡v ¡ntl nrercenitries, who¡rr lhcy incitccl to l»¡ssrtcrc lhc ( jll listiirn Ir ¡lrrrl¡r t. ¡ntl scvcrll ol lltcir'clctics titkilg lclirgc irr ¡ [ritsilir:1. An(l not (ot)l(nt willl llrirl, Ihr,r¡'iIIIirIiII (iilc(iliilnus lriccl t() rr¡¡r|o¡Iillc tlrt brrilclinli ls lltrrrr¡ilr il lirll wr'¡r'¡t¡t ¡t, I r rl Irvr.. krrr»r,lcrlg,, lrt¡wtv¡..r', th¡t ( l.rccili¡nrrsls ¡rtll¡.1) \yor¡l(l rc¡r¡lt irr cr¡,,us , 'lhus,inbarelyafewmonths,thcDonatistsgaveiicontr.overtiLrlepr'()ol ()l tl¡ci¡ in¡bility to reach a negotiated agleement with tlre elnperor, let alonc with tltc (latholic faction. 'lhis intransigent attitude, tl'te product of tl.reir ecclcsiustir.rrl rtr lh,, 'Ih, ll,tlt ttl tht ltirhrl, l,ttt ¡\llhltilt' There is no proof, however, that tllese (laccilian oLltritgcs t(x)k Pl¿rcc Llrl(lcr the shield of an imperial edict, ard it is highly probable that the sett¡¡issiirrr¡ It nttllr! (:'t llht .lt rvillr llrr. t ove¡ ol llrc lc¡iitljtrclgcrretrt itgainst lris ueerrscrs arrrl lhc irlcsporrsiblc torlplieity ol sonrc si¡klicrs, il ¡rot nrcrccn¡¡ ies, as sr¡gllcstr(l l)y lhc i)¡lssii) Colstantine ever revoke the fr-eedom of worship prcclained in the Milan l)o nt¡(6). ()n 5 May -121, yia a rescript protocol, and nor did he act in an excePtional manner against Donatism, which cnr[)cror pilrdoned those ¿ccusers, altllouglr he suspected that they woulcl irgain rvas neither proscribed nor had its Property conliscated to be handed over to crrrse problenrs, rrs they themselves h¡rd war¡red hiIrt that thcy werc rcarly to the Catholics. The proof is that the majority of L)onatist bishops, including sLrll'er any punishInent rather tl.)an be Donatus himself, continued at the head oftheir dioceses without suffering any r'tr//. 3, 21, 39), who was Constantine's favourite bishop, according to Augustine (¿?. 14l, 9). In his letter to the people and to the Catholic bishops of Africa, lex referred to by Augustine never existed. We know that at no point dicl kind of oflrcial replisal. In fact, in Cirta, the capital of Nurnidia, there one Christian community, the Donatist, ulltil was just acldressecl to Vetinus, vicdr¡us Al¡-it:o(, tltc in communion with Caecilianus (ürcrr, written at tlre same tine, Constantine.iustilied his pardon at least 320. Surviving sources only allow us to suPPose that the emperor condemned several ofCaecilianus's accusers for calumny, most ofthem clerics fiom around as applying to just ir féw fanatics, whose punishment he preferred to leaye iD the liands of God (Optatus,,,1p. IX). Modern historians share the view that this pardon, gtanted on the eve of Calthage, punishing them with exile and the confiscation of their assets, which nright have iuclucled birsilicas.' This would explain why the focus of Constantine's war against Licinius, was an attempt to guarantee the teligious the rcprcssion, as the Píssio I)r,r4li testitles (12), was the city of Carthage and peace in Africa, a region that was vital tbr the provision offood to Rome. That that Constantir)e! decree only foresaw conñscatiors to benefit the Treasur¡ being so, it must be admitted that Constantine t-eared potential Donatist unrcst as morc than he did that of the Catholics. What is certain is that ConstaDtine'.s Augtrstine ircknowleclges (Epp. 88, 3; 93,14. Cf. C. Pet.1,92,205). It is probable, however, that Caecilianus did not act entirely outside the law His fi.rll exoneration by the emperor Ieft him as the sole supreme authority of the Carthaginian Chr.rrch recognized by the state. For some Roman magistrates, that obliged all the North African cletgy to remain in communion with Caecilianus. So at least thought Aelialrus, ¡rroconsul of Numiclia, when in late 320 he reproached several Donatist clerics from Cirta for not being in communion with the bishop recognized by the ernperor (Optatus, Ap. l, 2). Imperial recogrlition of Caecilianus macle him, besides, the Person with amnesty led to the re-establishrnent ofreligious peace in Alrica for a quartcr ol' centur¡ The Donatists, although stripped ofclerical privileges, consolidrtcd their social and spiritual predominance, while the weakness of the Catholic faction was accentuated, above all in Numidia. Perhaps that is why thc a Catholic episcopate sr"rbmissively followed the imperialadvice, expressed in thc above mentioned letter, to patiently accept the impeltinence ofthe Doratists ¿rnd leave retribution in the hands ofGod. At the time everyone must have known that the schism could not be ultimate responsibllity for Catholic property and places of worship in Carthage, ¡esolved while Caecilianus continued at the hel¡n of the Catholic Church and some of wl.rich might then have been in Donatist ha¡rds. Hence some soldiers' the Donatists were ill-disposed to negotiate with the emperor. But we know following Bishop of Carthages orde¡s, might have violently taken possession very little about the years ofrelative peace that followed Constantine's amnesty. ofthose basilicas and caused tl.re deaths of Donatists holed u¡r there. In Cirta a small Catholic community managed to establish itself, which, i¡r In other words, imperial recognition ofCaecilianus legitimizeci the recovery s¡ritc of the economic and institutional support of the ernpe¡or, was cowed by ofsomebasilicas around Carthage belonging to the talulnniators' condemned in 316, but not the bloody methods used or those that he hatl already resorte'cl the nLrmcrically su¡reriol and aggressivc l)or']i,rtist Church. Mtrny other Nortll to (as stated irbove) on previoLts occitsions. [f that was so, thc n]assacrcs ol thc irnrl lcLrniting thc enrpire, (i)¡lstirntinc bclieverl that [hc su¡rlcrnc divit'lity, to oft wlto¡rr llc owcrl Iris nrililary strcccsscs, ticsilcd lltc i¡»lncrliatc rc cstlblisllntent ycrls 317-21 wcle nol the protlttct sttpp<tsctl inrpcrial ctlict aglinst thc l)or)ll¡sls, htrt Ii¡ral cvitlerlce ol ( laeciliitnt¡sls ltttltltss clllrlclcl, rlow ilalirlll Ali ican citics cxpcriencccl a sinrilnr sitLrirtion. After def'eating l.icinius in 324 ol rcli¡¡iotts ttttily, cxl)tessc(l ils 'il n)c¡llitl concorcl col): nron lo il Il ( i(,(ll\ scrvil¡lsl 'll¡ lllh rl llR' llltltrl' l l.nt( A¡t qtút, Ilk Itnu ll\l t tttll¡tl .s hc cor)l¡ssc(l ia tlr('lcttcr s(rt irt tllc tr:rl .l tl¡¡t yt..rr lrr z\lcr.rrrtltr, lrislrrr¡r olAlcxandria, and his pr.csbyter Arius (LiLrscbiLrs, l/(., ll, (.,4_9). (lonsl¿r¡)linc was then confidert that thc conflict colLlcl bc resolvccl by thc ¿rbitli¡tion ol of belonging to tlte regions where Christianity was bont. But in the sanre letter the emperor regretted having abandoned hope of thus reconciling the ¿rn even more serious dissension, Arianism, hatl just broken of lr( ( n t)llt itll(,ll)l(, in A liie.r Ulttlcr I lrr"' l¡islr.I sr¡( ( ('c( u l(\l ir iru ¡r.sirru lris rvill, su,. lr .r s.lu ri.rr u,r ru kl lr.rvr. (i.nsl¡nti r. Nol ,r sin,,r'r'c clcsirc 10 irchicvc rcliglous ¡rcacc - irn objcctive whiclr, irs thc trlrr 'ttuntti l)t,i lcttcr illso shorvs, hc considcrecl his principal duty ts an ilgcllt ol (iocl i¡l lhc battlc irgainst the rraiig» iirrces ol'S¡rt¡ru, inspircr ofhcrctics arrtl out in the East. The constitLrrion . !! lrisl]].rtics. 1 September 326 (CTh 16, 5, 1), in which Constanrrne reaflirms that privileges granted tbr religious reasons will only benefit Catholics, accurat€ly reflects his policy towards the dissenters, whorn he tolerates legall¡ Conclusions but marginalizes institutionally and econol.rically. It is conlirmed by his last known intervention in the Donatist conflict, dated 5 February 330. -lhis rras tlre imperial lettet. c¿i,?7 sununí Dei, addressetl to eleven Catholic bishops in cllr Nunticlia (OptatrLs, Ap. X). In it the errperor satisfles two of those bishops, grievilnccsr (l) that the Donatists l.rad a¡r¡rropriated a basilica in Cirta that l\loorish allcestors had achieved Roman citizenship and become intcgrirlc(l ill consularis of Numjdia, in which he exempted the Catholic clergy frorn the obligations menrioned (.CTh 16,2,7,5 February 330). These documents demonstrate that the Catholic clerg¡ with )ess than of Constantine, no unde¡currents or deep motivation ol ilD cultulal or social natul e can be detected in the Donatist coltllict. Arrong tlrc (lisscntcls are People such as Victor tlre Gramnarian, whose etlrnicrlly r¡ ic, tlrc rrrunicipal oligarcliies ofCirta. lhis allowed the young Victor to rcceivc lh(, \l.llr(lirrd educatio¡t ofprovincial elites and to gain access to the ecclesi¡sticrrl lriclirlchy as ¿r reader- He is a t)?ical example of those thoustrncls of cilizrns Catholic clerics to bear certain public antl nunicipal char¡¡ es (atl munera ttel atl Numidia to provide them with the necessary means to buikl a new basilica. The ernperor responded to the second grievance with a law, directeci at Valentius, )ur iDg thc reign I t)re emperor haci built fbr the Catholics, and whose return had been ordered withoLrt reslrlt by sevcral judges; and (2) that the schismatics obliged some decurionatum) from which various Constantinian laws exempterl them. With regard to the first grievance, the enlperor accepred this fait nccompli, praised the peaceful attitude of the Catholics ard orderecl the highest authorities ir tiour peoples conquered by Rome, ¡nade a cat,cer witlrirr tlrt. lrpirc and gave it that i¡ttegrative character.which Ronald SyDc sirw rs llrc l()u¡xlation ofits greatness.s The high cultural level of some Donalisl clt,r.ics is sirrilarly highlighted by tlte numerous codexes, of diyerse conlel)ls, li,un(l tvlro, coming ( in t l)cir possession (Aug., C. Cresc. 3, 27, 30; Optatus, Ap. I, 5). Nor rvas thcr.c it slroItlge of well to-do people arnong the lirst DoDatists, sr.rch as thc nuntcrorrs rr'rrir¡c.s /alci wl.ro su¡rported the disscr.rt; rrlliccol presbytel tbr 20/blles; or. tJre Victor the Fullel who bought the intrigu ing Lucilla, c ltlríssi ta.l¿11tint.t wll\t unani¡r.rous good grace, had submitted to Constantine,s policy of pacification llrvc 400./¡/lds to Caecilianust enelries to prcvent him front l:reing clcclcr.l and renounced the violent methods pr.otroted by Caecilinaus. Dor¡a¡i (3), which citcs irnlong the rnisdeccls ol thc (littlrolir. 'thc tllrcirts of [¡roscriptions hunchetl against the ricli (diuitit¡us), l,cr'.\eculi()D, is ¡rrothc¡ r'csotrncJilg pr.oof that thc l)onalisls, although su¡rpolLcrl by tlrc It is possible that this peaceful attitr"rde migl.rt also have been due to the death ofthat bisliop, of whom we have no records late¡ than the council of Nicaea (325), which he aftencled as a representative of the Carthaginian Church. In any case, a similarly accornmodatil]g attitude on the part of Catholics towards disseltcrs was exceptional and colltrasts, for exam¡rle, with A¡¡broses absolLrte relirsirl to ccde ¡ Milancse basiiict lo the Alians ts tlle in)|eri¡l courl wisltc<1. ll in lltis r ir¡st bce¡rrsc ¡r. ,nr,¡l ll.rl lir¡('(ltr('sti()ltc(l his sulr¡c¡rtc lLltlrority i¡t t.cligious allirir.s, brrl ¡lso trc,eirtrst, ¡ro oll)(f crttl)eror conlhrntctl thcsc Proltlerns its (lonstiultine rli11, wilh st¡cll Eastern clerics, whom he considered to be particularly enlighteneci by virtue Africans, because irrsl.r¡ tt ,t lr islro p. 'l he ,Prr.s.,ilcr ¡r¡j{)tily ol thc pcolrlc, l¡y no ¡¡e¡¡ts cr¡ltsirlcr.crl thcrnsclvcs a ntovc¡telI r¡l tlrc r,,r. i.r lly rie¡rlivctl. (lrrcrili¡nLrss hltrtirl irtlio¡ls , r , | | ) ()i rII III( , I I lirlly cxplirin tltc wiLlc o¡r¡rosition lo ltis I irs llisltr¡r ol (iitr.llrir11c. 'lltr, Lonllir t irlrrrr.,tli.r(t,ly sl)r.(,ir(l t1r 'tfu 'll¡'llolt ol ll¡' ltltl¡tl lü l. l( AIlllullv other churches in the region because the bishop ol thtt city enioycd grctl spiritual influence over all the North African próvinces (Aug.,8P.43, 7), ancl got worse with the passage of time because Caecilianus, throughout his long episcopac¡ did not renounce his violent methods. Thus, far from serving to re-establish uniry he hímself became the principal cause of division within African Christianity. The Donatist schisut, howevet was rot born of a mere personal conflict. We know that some churches, in particular those of Cirta and Carthage, accumulated substantial wealth, food and clothing, which allowed (1, -1, ,1) (Irotcs this phrasc as lttt tlst (i' llkt ¡5 proof ol l)()natus'.s illcsp()rlsibility .1nd .o¡rtrirsts it with thc patienlio episcopoll of thc judge. But it is clear that, irresponsiblc or ¡rot, l)onatus reveals here his adhesion to Rone and its institutions, which he holds in such high esteem that he does not believe Gregorius worthy of them. Donatism, in short, no longer harboured feelings of political hostility, but neither did it understand that its triumph required an understanding with the empire and the institutional church. This fragile equilibrium broke down decades after the death ofConstantine, them to sustain a large clerical class and carry out an intensive programme when the repressive measures taken by some emperors intensified the Donatist social aid among the least advantaged classes, of the majority ofthe who formed resistance and awoke its opposition to the empire and its Catholic allies. Only population. Hence the growing social prestige of their bishops, even among then did the religious schism nurture ideas of political rebellion and assume, the pagan sectors. And so lt was that behind the personal confrontations lay the ambition to control this great patrimony and power, with which both factions would reproach each other (Optatus, 3,3: Ap. II,4: Aog. Ps. contra partem Donati, lilf e above all in Numidia, the cultural and social connotations uncovered by so rrany excellent studies ofthe past century, such by Frend and Brisson already cited. 94). The Donatists, being the n.rajority faction and feeling themselves to be Notes endorsed by ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, claimed with good reason to be recognized as the authentic Catholic Church in Africa and to enjo¡ in consequence, the privileges granted by Constantine, But their refusal to negotiate a compromise solution led to their religious isolation and marginalization by the state. They thus began to feel as though they were a separate church, the repository ofthe inheritance ofthe apostles and martyrs, which the diabolic forces ofevil co¡rtinued to persecute, incarnated now in the I policy of integration, however, prevented a a Zeitschtift and many Catholic believers and clerics joined it. This period of accele¡ated expansion would probably to his work, was questioned r K¡chengeschíchte lU 505-68, and defended by L. Duchesne ( 1890) Ci state ofthe debate in T. D. Barnes (1975) 'The Beginnings of Do¡atisml /7rS 26: 13-22 and Y Duval (2000) Chtétiens dAfrique d lbube de la Paix constantitlieflne. Les premiers échos de la grande persécutiotl (Patis). 2 3 Cfl W H. C. Freid (1952) me Donotist Church. A Movefient of Protest in Roma11 Notth A¡t¡ca (Oxlotd) : xi-xiv and J.-P B¡isson (1958) A,rfororlisme et chr¡stianisme dans lAfrique Romaít1e de Sept¡ne Séúre a l'invasion vandale (Paris):3-5. C. Lepeiley (2001) 'Chrétiers et paiens au temps de la persécution de Dioclétien: le cas dAbthugnil in not have been possible wilhout the growing moderation, religious and political, of the schismatics. Evidence is provided by the council of Carthage of 336, which approved the admission of Catholic f 'Le dossie¡ du donatis¡nelMAH 10: 589-650. minimal religious coexistence. For sociological and historical reasons that we still do not know for certain, Donatism spread very rapidly, above all from 321, a6 appendices by O. Seeck (1889) 'Quellen und Urkunden über die Anfánge des Donatislnusl complete distancing from the Donatists and even allowed for the re-establishment of Most ofthese sources can be fou[d in J.-L. Maier (1987) ¿e Dossier du Donotíst1rc. l. Des orlgines d la mort de Constance II (303-J6.1) (Berlin). Their authenticity, pa¡ticularly ofthose that Optato added institutional church sustained by the empire (Optatus, 3, 3-4). Constantine's as those chti s t¡ an 4 isme (Bat IdeÍl, AsPects de lAftique Romaine. Les cít¿s, la vie rurdle, le r) | 32 | - L Should the letter be authentic, this would be the first time that Constantine mentio¡s Christ (cf: M¡ier, op. cit., p. 168, n. 5). believers without tlreir needing to be re-baptizecl first (Aug., 8p.93, 10,43), 5 ound that time to the lLolr]nn iudgc CrcS()rir,rs' lccrrsirrg ltinr ol''¡rollrrlio¡r ol'lhc scnittc anrl tlisgrlcc ol lhc prcl¡cttlrc: ()l)liltns Cf. E. 1,.(;r snrilck (1964) C;oe¡ciflq Srüat ufirl Kitche in Do 7tistenstreit (Boír¡)l 7l -tt5i A. ( L l)c Vcer, 'l,c séjour de Caecilianus i Bresciai Bá 31: 822-4. 6 ll,A. l)rnk((l(l(xl)()\t¡hotl¡fico,¡!lllt and by the letter I)onatus sent ar ¡rn(l l¡)¡(i(,t¡ )r ll,' ,ll. FisiroPs. Txr Pol/li(s ollnk)leraflce (Bitltirñote 'tlk, ftoh, ol ú( nkhop l l,tttt, A¡thylt), t1 ivl¡rnbyr ( l9l l) 'Lr ¡.úl]rcssion du d()r)iltisnlc rl lir lx)litiql¡c rcligict¡sc dc Constantin et de ses successeurs er AliiquelMSNAÉ 73: ..16. R. Syme(1999) The Prcú cü: qt Rotn¿ (University of.Exeler prcss). Cf. F. Millar (2003), Dos rcyoluctones romanas: Augusto / Constaútífio (Crdt«da)t 10_ I4_ Bibliography Barnes, T D. (1925) 'T1ie Begiunings of Donatisml/1h S 26: l3_22. Brisson, J.-P (1958) Aufonomisme et chr¡stianísme dens lAfrique Romaine de Septíme Sévérc a I'inyasion vardale (paris: E. de Boccard). De Veer, A. C. (1968) ,Le séjour de Caecilianus á BrescialB.4 31i BZ2..4. Drake, H, A. (2OOO) Constalttíne and the Bishops. Tlrc polit¡cs of Intolera,xce (Baltimore and London: John Hopki¡s University press). lus et religio: The Conference of Carthage and the End of the Donatist Schism,4lI ADr Carlos García Mac Gaw Uniyersilad de la Pletq Duchesne, L. (1890) 'Le dossie¡ du donatisfie]MáH 1O: 589_650. Duval, Y (2000) Cr¡ét¡ens dA.frique d lhube rle Ia paix constatttittierule. Les premiers échos rle la grande peru¿crtio¿l (paris: Brepols). Irencl, W. H. C. (1952) The Dotl[ttist Church, A l4oyefietú of protest in Roman Nortll Ali ica (Oxford: Oxford University press). Grasüück, E, L. (1964) Coercitio, L. Róhrscheid). Stactt ufld Kírche im Dofiatistenstreit (Bo\jrl Lepelley, C. (2001) 'Chrétiens et paiens au temps tle la persécution de Dioclétien: le cas dAbthugnil in C. Lepeiley (ed.), .4spec ts de lAflique Romaifle. Les c¡tés, lq vie rurelle, le christianisne (Bari: Edipuglia). Maie¡ .i.-L. (1987) re Dossíer du Donotisme, (303 361) (Beiñ Akademie Verlag). I. Des arig¡nes á rq mort de constance Martroye, F. ( l9l3) 'La répression tlu donatisme et la poiitique reiigieuse de Constantin et de ses successeurs en Afriqu d, MSNAF 73:23_14ó. Mjllar, F. (2003) Doj reyoluciones runtanas: Al8usto y Collstanfino (Granada: Universidad de Granada). Seeck, O. (1889) 'Quellen und Urkunden über die Anfinge des Donatismusi Zeitscfu ¡f1 Jür Kirchengeschichte lO. Syme, R. (1999) The Proú cíal at Rome (Exeter: University ofExeter press), rI Ilrc (lonf'crence of Ca¡thage, convened by the emperor Honorius, opened on I Jtrnc 4ll. Bishops ofthe Catholic and Donatist chu¡ches met to solve the selrisr» that had divided African Chrlstians for over a century. ln reality, it was llrc cuLnination of a policy ofproscription that the Roman State hacl pursuccl .rll inst rhe Donatist Church in the previous years. This chapter studics tlrc rrlcr¡ction of legal and religious aspects which held a central place in t¡)c r\ lrican bishops' debate, without folgetting the political conditions, uccessirr.y to rr¡rclerstantl the ¡easons tbr calling the meeting and its development, st rcssing ( lissc¡l) ilrat ion and propag¿ndistic factors. 'lhc Colference at Cartltage was a religious eyent with profor.rnd political ( ontcnt. lt is wortlt pointlng out that the concepts conventionally identificd as '¡r<,litics'irnd'religion'in our motle¡n wo¡ld dicl not have equally disce¡niblc l¡ounrllries in antiquity. Their vague outlines did not lide the decisive ¡ole ol litr¡al cler¡ents irnd religion in institutional practice and the exercise of ¡rrwcr. 'lhc cleár separation between the religious and political spheres helps lo r¡rrtlcrstirncl the tniltter being studiecl, but both aspecfs were combinecl in authorit¡ thc organization of institr¡tkx) al elerncnts, ,rntl thc cr(,illion ol'syrnbolic mechanisrrrs, which the dili¡rcnt grou¡rs uscd to rlis¡rrrl('¡¡q,'¡r 1¡¡ p,,wcr in Anliquity (Orrrrpagno, (iallcgo and (iarciir Mac (iaw .l(,{lq: 7 9). lhcsc trrclltod0hrgicill li)Un(l¡lions shot¡ltl bt,tilkeI irtlo account lrcrlttscwt,sllullcr¡ll)ltitsiz(, llt( irrti(ulilli()ll ol tllc¡rl)olilical rrrilit ly, reli6i0trs tlr(, l)r()ccssc\ ol builtling ,tttrl lr'¡,rl ,r,,¡'t... ts.'