Library › Palladius › Dialogue on the Life of St John Chrysostom

Dialogue on the Life of St John Chrysostom

Palladius, tr. Moore, 1921

6. The Beginning of Trouble

The Plot against Chrysostom

In consequence of this, envy took possession of the minds of the hireling shepherds, who were by implication convicted. As they could not get the better of him, because they did not call upon the Saviour, the destroyer of envy, they devised various slanders against John; representing certain homilies of his as jests at the expense of the queen and of the royal court.¹

Now it happened that just at this time Acacius, Bishop of Berea, paid him a visit, and according to his own statement, was not given a decent lodging; he was much vexed at this, and swelled with indignation at what he regarded as a slight put upon him by John. Unable to control his feelings, he indulged in a witless witticism, “out of the abundance of his heart,” ² worthy of his great mind.³ He said in the presence of some of John’s clergy, “I am seasoning a pot for him.” At once he threw in his lot with Severianus and Antiochus, and Isaac Syriscus, the leading spirit of the impostor monks,⁴ a plausible rascal, who spent all his time in abuse of bishops. These worthies looked themselves out arms, nominally against John, but really against the glory of the Saviour.

First, they sent to Antioch, and tried to discover any youthful offences of his. But as “they that seek failed,” ⁵ and found nothing, they sent messengers to Alexandria, to the unprincipled Theophilus, known as “weather-cock,” ⁶ who was very clever at engineering such things. He at once opened the books of his mind, with all the stealth of a thief, and set himself to find any pretext whatever for taking action.

The Charge of a Breach of Canon Law

Deac. Stay the torrent of your words, father, before I forget what is in my mind, and let me tell you the charge which reached us from Alexandria, and generally gained acceptance. The story is, that John received into communion some clergy who had been deposed by Theophilus. This improper action annoyed Theophilus, who in consequence had a disagreement with John, and proceeded to act against him.

Bish. Granted that the popular account is true; still, is it for a bishop to remedy evil by evil? What then of the gospel saying, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath”? ⁷ Or of the apostle’s words, “Overcome evil with good”? ⁸ Or the prophet’s, “If I have rewarded evil to them that dealt evil to me”? ⁹ Surely, then, it would have been more gallant for him, in dealing with devout bishops, to say, Brother John, in inadvertence you have done this or that? And for John to be able to plead in self-defence, that he knew nothing about the matter?

Deac. That is true, provided that his will was good, and that he was not trumping up the charge of befriending these clergy to satisfy his private animosity.

Bish. Then, by the fear of God, Who ruleth over the illimitable fears, I swear that I will speak no word that is not consonant with fact, in regard to these clergy of whom you speak.

Isidore and the Widow’s Gift

There was one Isidore,¹⁰ one of the priests ordained by the blessed Athanasius the Great, still surviving, in his eightieth year. Most of the people of Rome know him, as he visited the city on ecclesiastical business, as the guest-master¹¹ of the Church of Alexandria; and you know him yourselves, from his coming with Acacius to convey the announcement of the establishment of communion ¹² between Flavian us and Theophilus,¹³ after it had been interrupted for twenty years, on account of the blessed Evagrius,¹⁴ who fought many a fight in the course of his labours for the good of the Church. The widow of one of the great men of the city gave this Isidore a thousand gold pieces,¹⁵ putting him under oath by the table of the Saviour, for the purchase of clothes for the poor women of Alexandria; he was not to mention the matter to Theophilus, for fear that he would take the money, and spend it on his stones. For Theophilus is obsessed, like Pharaoh, with a craving for stone ¹⁶ for buildings, of which the Church stands in no need. Never mind that now; I want to come to the point about Isidore.

Isidore took the money, and spent it for the benefit of the poor women and widows. Theophilus somehow got to know; nothing could escape him, wherever done or spoken, with his gang of spies and eavesdroppers, not to call them anything else. He summoned Isidore, and with apparent civility asked if his information was true. Isidore did not deny it, and gave an account of his dealings in the matter. On hearing this, Theophilus changed his behaviour, and he who a moment before, when he made the inquiry, was gentle and kindly, next moment swelled all over his body with wrath; his very appearance changed, when Isidore’s answer reached his ears.

Theophilus’ Accusation of Isidore

He kept quiet for a while, like a dog that bites you when you are off your guard, but two months later convened the clergy, before whom he produced a document, and said in the presence of Isidore: “I received this charge against you, Isidore, eighteen years ago; but as I was very busy, I forgot the matter. Just now, as I was looking up some other papers, I found this document, which concerns you. What have you to say in defence?” The paper contained a charge of sodomy.

Isidore began his defence by saying to Theophilus: “Granted that it is true, that you received the paper, and also that it slipped your memory, was not the man who presented the memorial available for a second inquiry?” Theophilus answered, “No; the lad did not appear, as he was a sailor.” Then Isidore: “He did not appear at the moment, as you say, Pope; did he not appear after his voyage? Did he not appear the year after, or the year after that? It is not too late even now; if he is here, tell the fellow to stand forth.”

Theophilus Excommunicates Isidore

Hereupon Theophilus, finding himself likely to be humiliated in face of the actual truth, adjourned the inquiry to another day; and by large promises induced a boy to lay an accusation against Isidore, giving him a bribe, it is said, of twenty-five gold pieces, which he at once handed over to his mother. The mother refused to accept the money, deterred partly by the thought of the unbiassed Eye, partly by fear of the laws of the land; she reflected that Isidore, if falsely accused, might appeal to the magistrate.¹⁷ So she came and told Isidore the whole story, and showed him the coins, which she said she had received from Theophilus’ sister as “a reward against the innocent.” ¹⁸ The woman paid the due penalty for her many sins, and for this one in particular; she died under an operation on the breasts. All this time Isidore stayed at home, making supplication to God. The boy, partly in fear of the laws, partly at the thought of Theophilus’ rage at his failure, fled to the efficacious protection of the Church, and took refuge at the altar.¹⁹

Thus, on a revolting allegation, the rights of which were never heard, Theophilus declared Isidore to be outcast from the Church; a solemn farce to disguise his own wickedness. Isidore now took alarm, lest Theophilus in his increasing fury should take measures against his personal safety (for by all accounts, he actually went as far as this), and made his way with all speed to the community of monks of the mountain of Nitria,²⁰ where he had spent his youth; here he sat in his cell, and addressed himself in prayer to the long-suffering God.²¹

The Charge of Origenism

Meanwhile Theophilus, conscious of the indecency and doubtfulness of his victory, sent letters to the neighbouring bishops, ordering some of the principal monks, the heads of the monasteries, to be expelled from the mountain and from the further desert, without giving his reasons. These monks went down to Alexandria, with their priests, and begged Theophilus to state the grounds on which they were condemned to expulsion. Theophilus stared at them, like. a dragon, with bloodshot eyes, glaring like a bull; in his uncontrollable temper, he was livid one moment, pale the next, the next again smiling sarcastically. He took the tippet ²² upon the shoulders of the aged Ammonius, and twisted it round his neck with his own hands, punching him in the face, making his nose bleed with his clenched fists, and shouting, “Anathematize Origen,²³ you heretic!” when the only point at issue was the petition on behalf of Isidore. This is the way with bad tempers; their actions and words are like puppies, born blind. So they returned, all bloodstained, to their monasteries, without receiving an answer; and continued their usual life of austerity, sharpening their natural powers by the study of the scriptures, through which we win salvation. They thought the less of the man’s frenzy, because they were conscious of their own innocence.

Notes

His condemnations of luxury were said to be specially aimed at the Empress, into whose hands the chief power in the State had fallen since the death of Eutropius; cf. p. 72. From this time forward, as our other authorities show, the good-will she had hitherto borne to him turned to enmity, growing more and more bitter until, with the help of Theophilus and his party, she had accomplished his ruin.
Matt. xii. 34.
Or, “Of his drunken madness.”
“Chrysostom continually showed his high esteem for monks, and saw to their necessities; but those who left the monasteries, and appeared in the city, he abused” (Socrates). It is evident that a large number of indigent persons came to the capital to trade upon the Christian generosity of rich ladies (p. 152). For Isaac, see p. 70.
Ps. lxiv. 6.
“Amphallax,” “alternating,” used for a tragic actor’s high-heeled buskins, which fitted either foot. Bunyan’s “Mr. Facing-both-ways.”
Eph. iv. 26.
Rom.. xii. 21.
Ps. vii. 5, LXX.
Theophilus’ candidate for the see of Constantinople. He had spent his youth as a monk at Nitria, and was famous for his piety. Sozomen says that he had embittered Theophilus against himself, by giving evidence in favour of Peter, the “arch-priest” of Alexandria, in regard to a charge brought by Theophilus against him. See p. 42, n.
Most large cities and monasteries had a “Xenodochium,” or hospice, for the reception of stranger Christians bearing letters of commendation. Can. X. of Chalcedon forbids a stranger to be concerned with the affairs of the shrines, the poor-houses, or the hospices of a Church.
Lit. “the communion,” cf. p. 21.
See p. 40, n. The Churches of Rome and Alexandria at first refused to recognize Flavian as Bishop of Antioch; shortly after Paulinus’ death Chrysostom negotiated successfully with Theophilus, and Flavian “left no stone unturned to restore harmony.” Acacius and Isidore were sent to Damasus of Rome, and secured his recognition of Flavian.
Paulinus’ successor, for a brief space, at Antioch. Theophilus evidently wished the arrangement made by the six clergy to be carried out (p. 40).
Lat. “aureus,” of the value of twenty-five denarii, about 18s. 6d.
“Lithomania.” “Isidore said it was better to restore the bodies of the sick, which are more properly the temples of God, than to build walls” (Soz. viii. 12; he does not mention this case of the widow). Isidore of Pelusium calls Theophilus “the gold-maniac and litholater.” Cf. p. 115.
The “tribune of the people.”
Ps. xv. 5.
See p. 41, n.
About sixty miles south of Alexandria, “so called from the neighbouring village, in which they collect nitre” (Sozomen). There were fifty monasteries there, containing 5000 monks (so Pall., L. H.), some living a community, some an isolated life.
Theodore Trim. says that seven Egyptian bishops, whom he names, and twenty-two clergy, wrote about this matter to Innocent; who remonstrated in vain with Theophilus.
“ Omophorion,” a long band of white woollen stuff, draped over the shoulders with the ends depending before and behind; originally a piece of civil dress, retained by the Church as in the case of other vestments, and in time acquiring an ecclesiastical and then a symbolical significance. Apparently all bishops wore it in the east; afterwards, as the Roman “pallium,” it was conferred first by the Emperors, then by the bishops of Rome, upon great prelates, as by Gregory upon St. Augustine of Canterbury.
Ammonius and Dioscorus (p. 147) were two of four “Tall Brothers,” famous for their piety in the monastery of Mt. Nitria; so much honoured by Theophilus, that he made Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis, and brought two others into Alexandria, making them stewards of the Church revenues. Observing Theophilus’ character and architectural extravagances, they pleaded the attraction of the desert, and returned to their seclusion; when Theophilus discovered the true reason for this, he determined to ruin them, by stirring up their fellow-monks against them. Many of the monks were illiterate men, who took literally scripture expressions, such as “The eyes of the Lord,” and said that God had a body. Theophilus issued a pastoral, explaining that these were symbolical expressions, which was the principle followed by Origen in his “Mystical” interpretation of Holy Scripture, 200 years before. The monks protested, lamenting that Theophilus had “taken away their God”; Theophilus assured their deputation that he, like them, condemned Origen’s views. But Dioscorus and Ammonius set their faces against such “anthropomorphism,” and so gave Theophilus the opportunity he wanted of inflaming the illiterate monks against them. He informed them that Dioscorus’ party, following Origen, were introducing a “blasphemous dogma,” and issued a pastoral condemning the views which he had just before upheld. Chrysostom knew nothing of all this at the time.