Conclusions
Putting this examination of Priscillian's thought back into the social context elucidated in my preceding analysis of the Meridan conflict gives a more complete picture. It becomes more comprehensible both how and why Hydatius came to expel Priscillian and his supporters from the Lusitanian churches as Manichaeans and false bishops. The conflict in Merida between Hydatius and Priscillian takes the shape of a competition between an intellectually conservative bishop with a strong sense of the public authority of his own office and a learned ascetic teacher who prides himself on his ability to interpret texts that illumine the nature and seriousness of the Christian battle against worldly demons. In terms that seem to echo the teachings of Origen,[131] Priscillian suggests that the guidance of an expert exegete is required if one is to follow the tortuous scriptural path to salvation; and he raises serious doubts as to whether Bishop Hydatius, described as "lazy" and "untaught," can provide such guidance. Hydatius, in turn, suggests that Priscillian has already strayed from the salvific path of orthodoxy by indulging in extracanonical readings and heretical cosmological speculations undertaken in the secrecy of private meetings. For both men, texts are of central importance.
Far from dispelling fears of a subversive privacy, Priscillian's writings highlight the private construction of the authority of one who has given up worldly position in order to pursue the higher goals of study and reflection. His self-conscious identity as a man of great learning is nowhere clearer than in those works where he begins, following standard rhetorical technique, by seemingly distancing himself from the role of the scholar or rhetorician. The fragmentary introduction to Priscillian's Book on the Faith and the Apocrypha , for example, contains a dramatic condemnation of "book-learning," identified as "the author of scandal, the food of schism, the nourishment of heresy, the model of a crime committed"; yet Priscillian goes on to impress the reader with his own knowledge of written texts, confidently appealing for support to "the careful investigator of the scriptures," suggesting that he himself has not only investigated everything which is said in the canonical books but also gone on to peruse extracanonical texts, scornfully contrasting his opponents' lack of education with his own learning, and finally acknowledging in a more pastoral, if
equally condescending, vein that not all have the experience to distinguish truth from falsehood in noncanonical texts.[132] Priscillian follows a similar rhetorical strategy of self-presentation in a work preserved outside the Würzburg corpus, the Canons of the Letters of the Apostle Paul . In the prologue to the Pauline Canons , Priscillian disowns the "cunning eloquence of the orator" and "syllogisms of slippery dialectic," only to assert that his own rhetoric exhibits the power of "pure truth," a truth that reflects the fruits of a "shrewd investigation into the divine scriptures," by which he may claim to have cracked open their hidden content, modestly presenting the entirety of Paul's thought distilled and systematized into ninety pithy canons to be used against "heretics."[133] For Priscillian, claiming of the authorial voice is an elaborate—and indeed endless—renunciation of public position, which is in turn paradoxically productive of the enhanced authority of the scholar who publicly advertises his own privacy.
Real differences in doctrine accompanied these conflicting strategies and competing claims to authority, not least because the theological stances of Hydatius and Priscillian provided the undergirding for their different claims to authority. Priscillian's opponents seem to have been most disturbed by his attempts to grapple exegetically with the oppressive forces of evil and immorality, which he identified symbolically in the figures of cosmic beasts, planetary powers, or demons; and it is no accident that it was precisely through his special expertise in the avoidance of the treacherous ways of the world that Priscillian legitimated his own role as ascetic teacher. In the figure of Priscillian, one observes how the emerging emphasis on demonology in late ancient Christian cosmology "transformed society itself as well as the nature of leadership, because men who were able to find demons and force them to reveal their true selves had tapped into a new source of authority."[134] "Beloved in God," Priscillian addresses his congregation in Avila, "we have been appointed to free your minds, which are besieged within the narrow paths of human weakness, sending you into new light, as it were, through the religious exhortation of our teaching."[135]
The conflict between Priscillian and Hydatius could not easily be resolved, since there was no clear consensus in the Spanish churches on the disputed issues of either doctrine or authority, and since both individuals had significant support in Merida and the outlying communities. In the absence of overwhelming popular support for one party, both resorted to the use of labels that were not precisely accurate but were at least generally agreed to be worthy of condemnation. Some attempt was made to attack Hydatius, whom Priscillian seems to refer to as a "schismatic," but Priscillian's account masks the content of the accusations. We are able to see
more clearly the process of labeling as it affected Priscillian and his circle. By pointing to real differences in reading habits, which reflected differing sources and understandings of authority, and divergent attitudes toward the "world," which shaped cosmology as well as ascetic lifestyle, Hydatius was able to identify his rivals as detested Manichaeans.
Unable to resolve the conflict at home, both parties soon appealed to neighboring bishops. Hydatius was supported by Ithacius, who seems to have been primarily responsible for the emphasis on a second, closely related labeling strategy, the accusation of sorcery. Priscillian was supported by Instantius and Salvianus, who buttressed his position by consecrating him to the episcopacy, as well as by Elpidius,[136] Tiberianus,[137] Asarbus,[138] and other influential laypeople.[139] Such was the strength of both sides and the fierceness of the antagonism that the conflict would not be resolved until still broader circles of powerful men and women had been drawn into the web of alliance and opposition.