previous chapter
next section



1. P. Henry, "Why Is Contemporary Scholarship So Enamored of Ancient Heretics?" Studia Patristica 17.1 (1982): 123-26. [BACK]

2. E.g., Patricia Cox Miller, "'Words With an Alien Voice': Gnostics, Scripture, and Canon," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 57 (1989): 459-83. [BACK]

3. For an account of the discovery and its significance, see James M. Robinson, "Introduction," The Nag Hammadi Library , 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 1-26. While the scholarship devoted to the interpretation of the Nag Hammadi documents is already vast, less attention has been given to the reassessment of the heresiological sources. The most significant work in this area is Alain Le Boulluec, La Notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque, II e -III e siècles (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985). See also the earlier study of Frederick Wisse, "The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists," Vigiliae Christianae 25 (1971): 205-23. [BACK]

4. Complete lists of possible "Priscillianist" texts, "anti-Priscillianist" texts, and other (generally hostile) sources that may contain references to Priscillian or his movement can be found in Benedikt Vollman, Studien zum Priszillianismus: Die Forschung, die Quellen, der fünfzehnte Brief Papst Leos des Grossen (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag der Erzabtei, 1965), pp. 51-85, and José E. Lopez Pereira, ''Prisciliano de Avila y el Priscilianismo desde el siglo IV a nuestros días: Rutas bibliográficas," Cuadernos Abulenses 3 (1985): 26-38, 56-77. [BACK]

5. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.46-51. [BACK]

6. According to Severus' Chronicle , many in Spain still honored priscillian's memory circa 403 (2.51). The minutes of the Council of Toledo (400) record that some of the bishops in Galicia who had formerly honored Priscillian agreed, under pressure, to conform to the standards of orthodoxy imposed by the council. It is difficult to trace the history of "Priscillianist" Christianity after this point. The chronicler Hydatius remarks upon the confused elections and resulting shameful state of ecclesiastical order in mid-fifth-century Galicia: "deformem ecclesiastici ordinis statum creationibus indiscretis" ( Chron. pref. 7). The barbarian invasions that began in the second decade of the fifth century were doubtless the primary cause of this confusion. In addition, it appears that Galicia had never had a strong and clearly defined ecclesiastical hierarchy, due both to the relatively late establishment of Christianity in the province and to the particular social organization of fourth-century Galicia; see Alain Tranoy, La Galice romaine (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1981), pp. 409-34. Perhaps a distinctive Priscillianist Christianity both contributed to and profited from this chaotic state of affairs. Alternatively, charges of "Priscillianism" may reflect, not the existence of a sect, but simply the need to invoke lables in order to mediate conflicts caused by the disordered or ill-defined social conditions of Galician Christianity. Raymond Van Dam suggests that "in some respects Priscillianism seems to have replaced Manichaeism in Spain and southern Gaul as a homebred idiom of heresy with which people articulated unacceptable aspects of their communities'' ( Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985], p. 108). [BACK]

7. The earliest use of the term "Priscillianist" of which I am aware is in the Galician Orosius' Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum (414). Orosius is probably the source for Augustine's subsequent use of the term in Ep. 36.12 (post 414), Ep. 166.3, 7 (415), Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas (415), De natura et origine animae 3.7 (419), Contra mendacium (420), Ep. 237.1-3 (date uncertain), and De haeresibus 70 (c. 429). Orosius may also be the source for Consentius' use of the term in Ep. 11* to Augustine (419), if Van Dam is right in suggesting that Orosius is the visitor to whom Consentius refers in Ep. 12*.9 ("'Sheep in Wolves' Clothing': The Letters of Consentius to Augustine," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37 [1986]: 528-30). The label seems to have become commonplace in mid-fifth-century Galician writings, e.g., the anti-Priscillianist Regula fidei falsely attributed to the Council of Toledo I (400), and the Commonitorium and Libellus submitted by Turribius of Astorga to Leo (preserved in Leo, Ep. 15). Orosius, the Regula fidei , and Turribius also associate the "Priscillianists" with gnosticism, Manichaeism and astrology, and trinitarian errors; this plurality of heretical associations is taken up in the sixth-century anti-Priscillianist professions of the Galician Councils of Braga I (561) and II (572). As argued in Chapter 5 of this work, Sulpicius Severus and Jerome seem to represent a separate stream of tradition, in which Priscillian is identified simply as a gnostic seducer. [BACK]

8. The Würzburg tractates were first published by their discoverer Georg Schepss in CSEL 18 (1889) and have been reprinted in PL suppl. 2 (1961), cols. 1413-83, with additional textual annotations and the retention of the CSEL pagination. On the question of authorship, see Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 62-69. Priscillian is not named in the manuscript, but there is broad consensus based on internal evidence that the tractates stem from his circle. I concur with Chadwick that "it is not unreasonable to think Priscillian himself the principal author of the tractates" (p. 69). Since it is furthermore unnecessary in most cases to distinguish between the views of Priscillian and those of his close associates, I shall henceforth simply refer to Priscillian as the author. Because Priscillian's personal authorship of the first and second tractates is relevant to my argument in Chapter 2, a more careful defense of his authorship of those tractates will be found in that chapter. [BACK]

9. Van Dam points out the significance of this metaphor in Priscillian's first two tractates: "For Priscillian, life was an iter , a road or a journey" ( Leadership and Community , p. 95). [BACK]

10. Tract. 7, 82.6-7. [BACK]

11. Priscillian opens his Liber ad Damasum Episcopum with a reference to the "road of the creed" ( symboli iter ); later in the same work he recites and explicates that creed at some length ( Tract. 2, 34.3, 36.13-37.17). The creed is explicitly connected with baptism in the Liber apologeticus ( Tract. 1, 31.28-32.6). [BACK]

12. Tract. 3, passim. See also Virginia Burrus, "Canonical References to Extra-Canonical 'Texts': Priscillian's Defense of the Apocrypha," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1990): 60-67. [BACK]

13. Priscillian explicitly denounces the Manichaeans in the first two tractates ( Tract. 1, 22.13-23.4; Tract . 2, 39.8-13). [BACK]

14. Priscillian's correction of heretical interpretations of creation in the Tractatus Genesis appears to be aimed against the Manichaeans, whom he criticizes both for ascribing the creation of the body to the devil and for divinizing material creation; he complains that these heretics fail to understand that the visible world is the finite and temporary creation of the infinite and eternal God ( Tract. 5, 63.9-64.20). In the same anti-Manichean context, Priscillian remarks that God devised "the nature of what was made" ( facturae naturam ) in such a way that the divisions of temporal existence "would offer a habitation [ habitaculum ] for the human being who labored in the work of Christ"; here he implies that temporal existence has a positive function in God's plan ( Tract. 5, 64.12-16). [BACK]

15. In the Tractatus Exodi , Priscillian develops the theme that scripture urges Christians to purify the "dwelling place" ( habitaculum ) of the body for divine habitation. Thus, for example, Priscillian interprets the divine injunction to smear the doorposts of the home with the blood of the paschal lamb as a command to make the "doorposts and thresholds of the animated body" ( animati corporis ) suitable for "the entrance of the divine word," noting that our body is the "house of God'' ( domus dei )( Tract. 6, 79.10-28). [BACK]

16. R .P. C. Hanson provides a helpful overview of the often neglected western Nicene party ( The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988], pp. 459-556). Henry Chadwick's study of the teachings of the Priscillianist tractates highlights, on the one hand, the extent to which Priscillian's trinitarian thought conforms to that of the western Nicene theologian Hilary of Poitiers and, on the other hand, the comparative lack of anti-Arian polemic or even anti-Arian awareness in Priscillian's writings ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 85-89). [BACK]

17. The classic statement of this position is A. Hilgenfeld, "Priscillianus und seine neuentdeckten Schriften," Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 35 (1892): 1-85. In "Les Origenes du Priscillianisme et l'orthodoxie de Priscillien," Bulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes 2 (1912): 81-95, 161-213, A. Puech presents a more moderate and nuanced argument for Priscillian's doctrinal heresy. A similar position is taken by Adhémar D'Alès S.J., Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne à la fin du IV e siècle (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne et ses fils, 1936). [BACK]

18. Jerome, Ep. 133.3. [BACK]

19. Peter Brown's brief reflections on fifth-century christology suggest the resonance of the late-ancient Christian emphasis on theological transcendence with the experience of autocratic rule ( Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire [Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992], pp. 152-58). Brown's broader interest in this work lies with power, or rather the control of power, as viewed from the point of view of the upper-class subjects of late Roman emperors; his discussion of the impact of autocracy on elite men and women who could hope only to mitigate the violent effects of absolute imperial power seems to me fruitfully juxtaposed with Elizabeth Clark's recent highlighting of the centrality and theological seriousness of the issues of determinism and freedom raised in the Origenist as well as Pelagian controversies of the late fourth and early fifth centuries ( The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992]). [BACK]

20. Georges Duby, "Foreword," A History of Private Life , 1: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium , ed. Paul Veyne, trans. A. Goldhammer (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), p. viii. [BACK]

21. Jean Bethke Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), xiv. [BACK]

22. While "cultural universals" are no longer particularly fashionable in anthropological circles, I am aware that there are many who would find it helpful to approach the public-private distinction as a cross-cultural phenomenon. Particularly revealing of some of the issues here at stake is an early discussion among feminist anthropologists initiated by the groundbreaking essay in which Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo suggested that the public-private distinction is a universal--although "nonnecessary"--aspect of culture and society ("Woman, Culture, and Society: A Theoretical Overview," in Woman, Culture, and Society , ed. Michelle Z. Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974], pp. 17-42). In an incisive review article, Rayna Rapp subsequently questioned the value of a universal model to explain historically distinct phenomena ("Review Essay: Anthropology," Signs 4 [1979]: 497-510); Rosaldo responded with a follow-up essay in the same journal ("The Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Reflections on Feminism and Cross-Cultural Understanding,'' Signs 5 [1980]: 389-417). The field of political philosophy likewise wrestles with the question of ''universals" and "particulars" in its analysis of the public-private distinction, with feminist thinkers again demonstrating a distinctive commitment to a highly contextualized approach to the history of ideas, while still insisting on a universalized understanding of "patriarchy"; see, e.g., Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman , and Linda J. Nicholson, Gender and History: The Limits of Social Theory in the Age of the Family (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986). A more eclectic theoretical approach is represented by the essays in the volume Public and Private in Social Life , ed. S. I. Benn and G. F. Gauss (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983). [BACK]

23. Aristotle, Pol. 1.2.1252b-1253a. The ancient discussion of the separation and interrelation of the public and private spheres spans the disciplines of "politics," "economics" (i.e., household management), and ''ethics," but it is most frequently and clearly discussed in the context of household management. David Balch argues persuasively for a high degree of continuity within the tradition, suggesting that ideas of how a household was to be run remained remarkably stable from classical Greece through the hellenistic and Roman periods ( Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter [Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981], pp. 21-62). [BACK]

24. Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman , pp. 15-16. [BACK]

25. Thus Aristotle describes the relationships of the household in terms of political forms of government. While he is content to characterize the relationship of the male head of the household to his children and slaves as monarchical, he has more difficulty describing the relationship of male and female heads of household in political terms and thereby exposes the inadequacy of the political model. He concludes in a somewhat confused fashion that the husband rules his wife, not monarchically--which would imply the fundamental inequality of ruler and ruled--but by a modified constitutional rule--ordinarily shared among equals--which grants the male a permanent, if only nominal, superiority ( Pol. 1.12.1259b). Aristotle's contemporary Xenophon, on the other hand, is happy to describe the female head of household as a ruler, comparing her to the guardian of a state who oversees the carrying out of its laws, to the commander of a garrison inspecting his guards, to the Athenian Council scrutinizing the cavalry, and to a queen punishing and rewarding her subjects ( Oeconomicus 9.14-15). [BACK]

26. The male speaker in Xenophon's dialogue on household management hastens to assure his audience that he maintains a respectable distance from household affairs: "I certainly do not spend my time indoors; for my wife is quite capable of managing the household affairs herself" ( Oeconomicus 7.3). While Xenophon's view of the female private sphere is relatively benign, other writers perceive it as not only alien but also inherently problematic and uncontrolled. Plato dreams of a utopian society in which the private sphere is not just subordinated but effectively eliminated (Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman , pp. 29-41), while the Athenian dramatists create situations alternately nightmarish and comical in which unruly women transgress the boundaries of the private sphere and thereby threaten to destroy the basis of orderly social existence. Helen Foley argues that whereas a figure like Aeschylus' Clytemnestra might represent a simple inversion of the ideal of the subordinate and private woman, other transgressing females, such as Euripides' Medea and Aristophanes' Lysistrata, play a more complex role, intruding into the public realm in order to challenge or correct the failure of the male to observe his proper role as member of both household and state. Drama thus reveals an awareness that the essential complementarity and balance of public and private spheres can be threatened by men as well as women, by the demands of the public sphere as well as the private ("The Conception of Women in Athenian Drama," in Reflections of Women in Antiquity , ed. H. P. Foley [New York: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, 1981], pp. 148-62). [BACK]

27. See the discussion in Karen Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper, 1993), 53-87. [BACK]

28. As has been recently highlighted and variously interpreted by Paul Veyne, Peter Brown, and Michel Foucault, among others; see the discussion of Averil Cameron, "Redrawing the Map: Early Christian Territory after Foucault," Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1986): 266-71. [BACK]

29. Peter Brown's recent Power and Persuasion illumines this space wherein classical rhetoric still had some small but significant room to maneuver. [BACK]

30. The centering of aristocratic identity and activity on private life in late antiquity has been argued by John Matthews, Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court, A.D. 364-425 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), pp. 9-11. [BACK]

31. Ibid., pp. 12-17. Note, however, that the decline in the involvement of the traditional senatorial aristocracy in government under Valentinian I was perhaps both less typical for the period and less pronounced than Matthews wants to admit. See, e.g., the discussion of Patrick Wormald, "The Decline of the Western Empire and the Survival of Its Aristocracy," Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976): 217-26. [BACK]

32. Matthews, Western Aristocracies , pp. 17-31. [BACK]

33. Ibid., p. xi. [BACK]

34. My own thinking about the various forms and functions of the ancient rhetoric of reluctance to assume the responsibilities of public office and power has been greatly enhanced by the work of Kate Cooper; see, e.g., her "Insinuations of Womanly Influence: An Aspect of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy," Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992): 150-64. [BACK]

35. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 4.8-11, 5.2-4. [BACK]

36. Ibid., 33.9-13. [BACK]

37. This is the purpose of the Liber ad Damasum Episcopum ( Tract. 2), probably composed slightly later than the Liber apologeticus ( Tract. 1). [BACK]

38. Peter Brown, "Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity in the Middle Ages," in Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations , ed. Mary Douglas (London: Tavistock Publications, 1970), pp. 17-45, quotation at p. 22. [BACK]

39. Cf. Brown, ibid., pp. 24-25, and Power and Persuasion , pp. 41-47. [BACK]

40. Brown, "Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity," p. 20. [BACK]

41. Ibid., p. 21. [BACK]

42. Ibid. [BACK]

43. For example, Brown's discussion of fourth-century sorcery accusations hints at the "resentments and anomalous power on the edge of the court" emanating from those frustrated aristocrats for whom "the days of a 'senatorial opposition' . . . were gone forever" (ibid., p. 23). [BACK]

44. Here again the work of Raymond Van Dam's Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul is particularly helpful in demonstrating the remarkable consistency of the roles of local leaders in the late-ancient west. [BACK]

45. Brown, Power and Persuasion , p. 62. [BACK]

46. Ibid., p. 63. [BACK]

47. On the real and symbolic functions of the role of the philosopher in late-ancient political life, see most recently ibid., pp. 61-70. See also Garth Fowden, "The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antique Society," Journal of Hellenic Studies 102 (1982): 33-59, and, more recently, Robert Kirschner, "The Vocation of Holiness in Late Antiquity," Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 105-24. [BACK]

48. For the last, see Prudentius, Praef. 16-35. [BACK]

49. Elizabeth Clark notes that "in many respects, the patristic assertion that ascetic women were 'virile' is based on an accurate representation of the concrete conditions of their lives, conditions that resembled the men's" ("Ascetic Renunciation and Feminine Advancement: A Paradox of Late Ancient Christianity," in Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity [Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986], p. 180; see also Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends: Essays and Translations [Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1979], pp. 15, 19, 55-56). Kerstin Aspegren's posthumously published study of the ancient theme of virile femininity, tracked across eight centuries and across polytheistic, Jewish, and Christian sources, hints at the significance and complex function of this gendered paradox in ancient Mediterranean thought ( The Male Woman: A Feminine Ideal in the Early Church , ed. René Kieffer, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala Women's Studies [Uppsala, 1990]). [BACK]

50. Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents, Walter Bauer had already challenged what he labeled a "Eusebian" view of heresies as deviations or perversions of a prior orthodox tradition, arguing instead that what we identify as "orthodoxy" was simply one of a number of simultaneously coexisting forms of early Christianity, a form that did not begin to dominate until the end of the second century ( Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity , English trans. of 2d German ed., ed. R. Kraft and G. Krodel [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971]). It is Alain Le Boulluec, working in the post-Nag Hammadi era, who has carried Bauer's critique further: whereas Bauer continued to use the terms ''orthodoxy" and "heresy" in a somewhat conventional, although perhaps ironical, manner, Le Boulluec explores the foundations of the concepts of ''orthodoxy" and "heresy," locating their birth not in Eusebius but in the earlier anti-gnostic works of Justin and Irenaeus and arguing that the very conception of "orthodoxy" was simultaneous with and dependent upon the negative conception of "heresy" ( Notion d'hérésie ). [BACK]

51. See the careful discussion of Le Boulluec, Notion d'hérésie , 1: 39-91. [BACK]

52. Ibid., pp. 157-86. [BACK]

53. Virginia Burrus, "The Heretical Woman as Symbol in Alexander, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome," Harvard Theological Review 84 (1991): 229-48. [BACK]

54. Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine of God , pp. 329-34. [BACK]

55. Ibid., pp. 508-16, 519-26. [BACK]

56. Jerome, Dialogus contra Luciferianos 1. [BACK]

57. Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine of God , pp. 335-38. [BACK]

58. Collectio Avellana 2.43-45. [BACK]

59. Matthews highlights the distinctive "orthodoxy" of Theodosius and many of his court and explores "the possible contribution of their native environment to the formation of the Christian piety which they expressed so distinctively in distant parts of the Roman world" ( Western Aristocracies , p. 145; see also pp. 100, 121-44, 146-72). Matthews further emphasizes the similarities between the "pious soldiers" Theodosius and Magnus Maximus, noting that Maximus was "almost in every respect the double of Theodosius himself--and as events immediately proved, his equal in hostility to heresy" (p. 165) and raising the possibility that ''Maximus' suppression of Priscillianism was, in part at least, a calculated attempt to attract Theodosius' support for his regime, as the regime of a compatriot [they were both Spaniards] and fellow Catholic with a shared interest in the elimination of heresy'' (p. 170). [BACK]

60. Priscillian is not only adamantly "orthodox" in his self-understanding but also presents himself as bearing witness under persecution. In the Liber apologeticus , he opens by noting that the bishops' attack provides him the opportunity to win great glory, since his faith, "when struck by diabolical detraction" will be "proven more where it is attacked" ( Tract. 1, 3.3-6). Galician Priscillianists honored Priscillian as a martyr after his death. [BACK]

61. Anne-Marie Palmer, Prudentius on the Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 3. In the preface to his collected poems, Prudentius first of all exhorts his soul to "fight against heresies and expound the catholic faith" ( Praef. 39). [BACK]

62. I concentrate here only on those works that have most strongly influenced my approach. For a comprehensive bibliography and history of scholarship, see Vollman, Studien , and the update in "Priscillianus," in Paulys Realenzyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft , suppl. 14 (Munich, 1974), cols. 485-559; Lopez Pereira's "Prisciliano de Avila" further updates the bibliography to 1985. [BACK]

63. E.-Ch. Babut, Priscillien et le priscillianisme (Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion, 1909), pp. 60-78. [BACK]

64. Ibid., p. 73. [BACK]

65. Ibid., pp. 79-96. [BACK]

66. See, e.g., Puech's incisive critique ("Les Origenes du Priscillianisme," pp. 82-95). [BACK]

67. Willy Schatz, "Studien zur Geschichte und Vorstellungswelt des frühen abendländischen Mönchtums" (diss., Freiburg i. Br., 1957), pp. 98-259. [BACK]

68. Schatz (ibid., p. 217) comments on the relative superficiality of Babut's interpretation: "Auf der anderen Seite hat man den Zusammenstoss mit dem spanischen Episkopat einfach allgemein als einen Gipfelpunkt jener anti-asketischen Welle fassen wollen, die das Vordringen der asketischen Bewegung und die Bestrengungen zur Verwirklichung des Ideals der Virginität im Abendland im letzten Viertel des 4. Jahrhunderts auslösten; man glaubte, gerade in ihm einen Beweis für die Heftigkeit der Reaktion sehen zu dürfen. Zwar wird ein Zusammenhang mit dieser umfassenderen anti-asketischen Strömung nicht bestritten werden können; trotz der entgegenstehenden, scheinbar einheitlichen Opposition darf aber die Verschiedenheit der einzelnen asketischen Erscheinungen des Abendlands nicht übersehen werden. Ein Erklärungsversuch nach der Art des obigen bleibt daher auch zu sehr an der Oberfläche der Dinge; er berücksichtigt weder die Eigenart der priscillianistischen Gemeinschaft, noch stösst er zu den tieferliegenden Motiven der Gegenseite vor." [BACK]

69. Ibid., p. 228. Although he is primarily interested in western monasticism, parallels between eastern and western ascetic movements are important to Schatz's argument. He aligns the eastern "sects" of the Messalians, Eustathians, and "apotaktites" with the Priscillianists on the basis of a shared ascetic worldview as well as a common estrangement from mainstream ecclesiastical institutions (ibid., p. 228). [BACK]

70. Ibid., p. 228 n. 1. [BACK]

71. Ibid., p. 229. Here Schatz rightly modifies the interpretation of Babut, who suggests that Priscillian and his associates were explicitly and consciously in opposition to official authority. [BACK]

72. Ibid., p. 254. [BACK]

73. Ibid., pp. 254-55. [BACK]

74. Rudolf Lorenz criticizes Schatz on this point, arguing that Priscillian's movement has no place in the evolution from early Christian asceticism to monasticism, but instead represents a separate and unorthodox tradition: "Das spanische Mönchtum wuchs neben Priszillian heran" ("Die Anfänge des abendländischen Mönchtums im 4. Jahrhundert," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 77 [1966]: 23). But Lorenz's inability to fit Priscillian's movement into any category of ''orthodox'' asceticism appears to be owing not so much to the deviant nature of Priscillian's movement as to the limits of a relatively simple typology for describing the diversity of fourth-century ascetic practices. [BACK]

75. Schatz, Studien , pp. 127ff. [BACK]

76. Note that Weber actually distinguishes among three ideal types of authority: rational or legal, traditional, and charismatic; see Talcott Parsons' analysis and translation in Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947), pp. 56-66, 324-63. The rational or legal authority of office corresponds closely to what I term "public-sphere authority," and indeed Weber himself suggests that the theoretical distinction between public and private spheres is typical of rational or legal authority (Parsons, p. 58), much as I argue that the rhetoric of public and private is essentially a "public" discourse. However, my "private-sphere authority" meshes less easily with the Weberian categories and may be closer to "traditional" than to the "charismatic" authority emphasized by Schatz. Although fourth-century Christians, especially in the east, proved ready to acknowledge the revolutionary "charismatic" authority of ascetic figures like Antony, one of the elements that distinguishes fourth-century western Christianity is the novel and significant presence of men and women who could lay claim to the "traditional" authority of aristocratic birth and/or culture. Elizabeth Clark provides an illuminating analysis of the social position of late-fourth-century ascetic women in terms of Weber's category of "traditional'' authority (''Authority and Humility: A Conflict of Values in Fourth-Century Female Monasticism," in Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity [Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986], pp. 209-28). [BACK]

77. Vollman, Studien , pp. 40-42. [BACK]

78. Vollman, "Priscillianus," cols. 485-559. [BACK]

79. Abilio Barbero de Aguilera, "El priscilianismo: ¿ Herejía o movimiento social?" Cuadernos de historia de España 37-38 (1963): 5-41, esp. 16-25. [BACK]

80. See, e.g., Van Dam's concise critique of Barbero de Aguilera's use of the rural-urban distinction ( Leadership , pp. 90-91). [BACK]

81. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. vii, 51-56, 54-55, 74, 82-84, 97. [BACK]

82. Ibid., p. 99. [BACK]

83. Ibid., pp. 70-100, 111-233. [BACK]

84. See, e.g., Chadwick's discussion of the Saragossan council's prohibition of going barefoot and of Ithacius' charge that Priscillian took part in some sort of magical ritual (ibid., pp. 17-20, 51-56). [BACK]

85. Chadwick's first chapter, which deals with events through the synod of Bordeaux, is entitled "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (ibid., pp. 1-56). [BACK]

86. Ibid., pp. 57-110. [BACK]

87. Van Dam, Leadership , p. 92. [BACK]

88. Ibid., pp. 64-69, 78-87. [BACK]

89. Van Dam suggests that both the spread of the conflict beyond community boundaries and the fact that Priscillian was eventually killed point to the "failure" of the "mechanism" of accusations of Manichaeism (ibid., p. 104). [BACK]

90. Ibid., pp. 70, 92-106. [BACK]

91. Ibid., pp. 70-74. [BACK]

92. Ibid., pp. 74-76. Quotation from p. 75. [BACK]

Chapter One "A Strange Man" Opposition Emerges at the Council of Saragossa

1. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 34.19-35.5. [BACK]

2. Supporting the interpretation of the term electi Deo as holders of clerical office, see E.-Ch. Babut, Priscillien , pp. 92-96, and José María Ramos y Loscertales, Prisciliano: Gesta rerum (Universidad de Salamanca, 1952), pp. 11-14. Note that Babut and his followers frequently highlight such language in the Letter to Damasus without sufficiently acknowledging its rhetorical function to uphold the legitimacy of the episcopacy of Priscillian and his supporters; they thereby falsely exaggerate the degree to which Priscillian and his circle actively sought clerical office. [BACK]

3. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

4. Cf. the suggestion of Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz that ex vicino indicates an ideological rather than geographical closeness--i.e., Hyginus was a "rigorist" like Priscillian ("L'Expansion du christianisme et les tensions épiscopales dans la Péninsule Ibérique," Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae 6, Congrès de Varsovie 1 [1983]: 89). [BACK]

5. Jerome, De viris inlustribus 123; cf. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 3.9. [BACK]

6. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

7. Note that the reliability of Severus' identification of Hydatius as the chief provoker of the dissensions may be slightly compromised by his own intense dislike of Hydatius and his ally Ithacius based on their later activities in Gaul. Severus constructs an even more condemning portrait of Priscillian's opponents than of Priscillian. See Jacques Fontaine on the nuanced allusion to Sallust's Catiline in Severus' portraits of Priscillian, Hydatius, and Ithacius ("L'Affaire Priscillien ou l'ère des nouveaux Catilina: Observations sur le 'sallustianisme' de Sulpice Sévère," in Classica et Iberica: A Festschrift in Honor of the Rev. Joseph M.-F. Marique, S.J., ed. P. T. Brannan, S.J. [Worcester, Mass: Institute for Early Christian Iberian Studies, 1975], pp. 355-92). See Ralph W. Mathisen on the disputes in Severus' own day that biased him so strongly against Ithacius and Hydatius ( Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989], pp. 11-26). [BACK]

8. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

9. Ibid. 2.47. [BACK]

10. Puech, "Origines du priscillianisme," p. 209, and Ramos y Loscertales, Priscilliano , p. 44. [BACK]

11. Jacques Fontaine, "Société et culture chrétiennes sur l'aire circumpyrénéenne au siècle de Théodose," Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 75 (1974): 241-82. I see no evidence, however, of Priscillian's influence having spread into Aquitaine at this point, in agreement with Puech ("Origines du priscillianisme," pp. 81-95), and against Babut ( Priscillien , pp. 79-91). Babut goes so far as to suggest possible Aquitanian origins for Priscillian's movement by positing the leadership of the rhetorician Attius Tiro Delphidius, whom he identifies with the Elpidius referred to by Severus. [BACK]

12. Acts of the Council of Saragossa (hereafter ACS ), ll. 18-20; line numbers correspond to the critical edition of Felix Rodríguez, "Concilio I de Zaragoza: Texto crítico," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario (Zaragoza, 1981), pp. 9-25. [BACK]

13. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 13. Babut's proposal that the Aquitanians head the list because of their status as foreign guests is less convincing ( Priscillien , p. 5). Both Jerome ( De viris inlustribus 108) and Sulpicius Severus ( Chron. 2.44) speak highly of Phoebadius as a steadfast opponent of the Arians, and Phoebadius' name stands first in the episcopal list of the letter of the Synod of Valence (374). [BACK]

14. Delphinus' later hostile reception of Priscillian and his Bordeaux "converts" is discussed in Chapter 3 below. Note, however, that Delphinus remained on friendly terms with the aristocratic Paulinus, later of Nola, who converted to an ascetic life some years after the outbreak of the Priscillianist controversy; five letters in the extant correspondence of the ascetic Paulinus are addressed to Delphinus ( Epp. 10, 14, 19, 20, and 35). [BACK]

15. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 12-13, 20-21. [BACK]

16. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 40.1-27. [BACK]

17. Exemplar professionum habitarum in concilio Toletano contra sectam Priscilliani aera ccccxxxviii , (hereafter Exemplar ), ll. 71-72. Line numbers correspond to the critical edition in Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 234-39. If Symposius did indeed leave the Saragossan council after one day, were the eight judgments promulgated by the council, to which his name is affixed, formulated on that first day, or were some or all formulated in his absence? [BACK]

18. See Jerome, Ep. 69.2, and Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 12-13. [BACK]

19. Benedikt Vollman considers it probable that Hydatius presided over the council ("Priscillianus," col. 500). [BACK]

20. Sulpicius Severus' account implies that some among Priscillian's circle had already been excommunicated before the council, presumably by Hydatius, but that the excommunication had not been recognized by Hyginus. The council's fifth judgment against dissenting bishops was then applied retroactively to excommunicate Hyginus; see Chron. 2.47. This latter point appears unlikely, and Babut suggests that the Severan text be amended to read commonefaceret instead of communione faceret , indicating that Hyginus was formally warned by the council rather than excommunicated ( Priscillien , p. 138 n. 2). Another possibility is that Sulpicius Severus has collapsed the time frame in which events occurred and falsely attributed Hyginus' subsequent excommunication on the basis of the council's fifth judgment to the council itself. [BACK]

21. Severus, Chron. 2.47. [BACK]

22. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 35.19-21. [BACK]

23. Ibid., 35.24-36.6. [BACK]

24. E.g., Priscillian Can. Ep. Pauli 35, 44, 47. [BACK]

25. E.g., Priscillian, Tract. 4, 58.13-20. [BACK]

26. Ramos y Loscertales, Prisciliano , p. 47, and Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 23. [BACK]

27. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 42.11-12. [BACK]

28. Ibid. 3, 51.10-12. [BACK]

29. Ibid. 2, 41.21-23. [BACK]

30. Ibid., 35.15-19; see also 35.21-22; 39.20-21; 40.7-8; 42.19-21. [BACK]

31. Ibid., 35.22-24. It is unclear whether this letter of Damasus was addressed to the council itself; if so, Damasus' later refusal to intervene in the controversy seems more surprising. [BACK]

32. Exemplar , ll. 70-71. [BACK]

33. Severus, Chron. 2.47. [BACK]

34. This solution, which assumes that both Priscillian and Severus are telling at least partial truths, is supported by Vollman ("Priscillianus," col. 502), based in part on the argument of Ramos y Loscertales ( Prisciliano , pp. 55-62), and more recently by María Victoria Escribano Paño ("Sobre la pretendida condena nominal dictada por el Concilio de Caesaraugusta del año 380," Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario [Zaragoza, 1981], pp. 123-33). Cf. Babut's dismissal of Severus' evidence as deriving from the lies of Ithacius ( Priscillien , pp. 39-41). Chadwick offers an alternative harmonizing interpretation: he suggests that while the formal sententiae of the council did not condemn the Priscillianists by name, there may have been minutes that included attacks on named individuals and gave rise to rumors that they had in fact been officially condemned; these rumors may be reflected in Priscillian's vehemence in denial as well as in the later accounts of Sulpicius Severus and the acts of the Council of Toledo ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 27-28). [BACK]

35. Exemplum sententiarum episcoporum concilii Cesaragustani, quarto Nonas Octbrs (ACS , ll. 16-17). The document as it has been transmitted also includes the epigraph "Concilium Cesaragustanum XII episcoporum," along with summaries of the judgments, which are provided as a table of contents at the beginning of the Acts and reappear as headings for each decision. It can be deduced from the form of the other conciliar documents included in the Hispana that the epigraph was added to the Acts of the Council of Saragossa by the author of the Hispana ; the summaries appear to have been part of the source that the author of the Hispana used, but were clearly added sometime after the original drafting of the conciliar acts and can therefore also be disregarded in the present consideration (Gonzalo Martínez Díez, La colección canónica hispana , 1: Estudio [Madrid, 1966], pp. 247-53, and Rodríguez, "Concilio I de Zaragoza," p. 11). The text that provided the source for the compiler of the Hispana did not include the year, with the result that the compiler was unable to place the Acts in proper chronological order (Rodríguez, "Concilio I de Zaragoza,'' pp. 10-11, and Martínez Díez, Colección canónica hispana , 1: 293). Perhaps the names of the consuls, by which the year would have been identified, were dropped in a period when this method of dating was no longer used or understood. One derivative family of manuscripts of the Hispana (Paris B.N. lat. 3.846, s.ix; Paris B.N. lat. 1.455, s.x med.; see Martínez Díez, Colección canónica hispana , 1: 14, 205) seems to include a date of 418 of the Spanish era, i.e., 380 C.E.; on this, see Babut, Priscillien , pp. 244-48. Since this date of 380 accords well with the known dates of other events of the controversy, it is generally accepted without question. There is no independent manuscript evidence witnessing to the form of the text before it was incorporated into the Hispana circa 633-36. A summary of the council's eight judgments contained in the Spanish Epitome , compiled in Spain between 598 and 610, does, however, provide independent verification of the number and basic content of the judgments recorded in the acts ( El epítome hispánico: Una colección canónica española del siglo VII , ed. Gonzalo Martínez Díez [Comillas: Universidad Pontifica, 1961], p. 179). [BACK]

36. Hamilton Hess, The Canons of the Council of Sardica, A.D. 343 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 35. In addition to the Saragossan acts, examples of such "stenographic records" include the Canons of the Council of Sardica , with which Hess is primarily concerned, various series of African canons from the second half of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries, and the acts of a Roman synod under Pope Hilary in 465 (p. 25). [BACK]

37. Hess, Canons of the Council of Sardica , pp. 28-29. [BACK]

38. Ibid., p. 26. [BACK]

39. Note that the emphasis that Hess and others have placed on the importance of the Senate as a model for Christian synods has been questioned by Philip Amidon, who suggests that while the Roman Senate and Christian synods did indeed stand "in the same procedural tradition," this tradition was so widely diffused in the practices of councils and assemblies that "it has lost any specific identification with the Senate of Rome" ("The Procedure of St. Cyprian's Synods," Vigiliae Christianae 37 [1983]: 328-39, 339). [BACK]

40. Hess, Canons of the Council of Sardica , pp. 30, 32. [BACK]

41. Ibid., pp. 36-38. [BACK]

42. At the conclusion of the Acts of the Council of Carthage (390), the bishops give a blanket statement of approval for all of their judgments, without, however, reciting these judgments at length: "Genedius episcopus dixit: Omnia ergo quae a vestro coetu gloriosissimo statuta sunt, placet ab omnibus custodiri? Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Placet, placet, ut custodiantur ab omnibus." The Anti-Priscillianist Professions from the Council of Toledo (400) culminate with the reading of more lengthy minutes, but there is no episcopal acclamation at all ( Exemplar , ll. 69-154). I am not aware of any direct formal parallels to the Acts of the Council of Saragossa , a document centered entirely on the reading of the minutes and including a statement of episcopal acclamation after the reading of each judgment. Note further that the acclamations following the first two judgments include the only statement of penalty in those judgments; this indicates that the acclamation is more than a mere ratification of the minutes. [BACK]

43. Samuel Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality. The Emergence of Canon Law at the Synod of Elvira (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1972), 10-55. [BACK]

44. ACS , can. 1, ll. 24-29. [BACK]

45. Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality , pp. 19-21. This general rule holds true for all eight of the Saragossan judgments, although in several cases the naming of the person is indefinite or ambiguous. [BACK]

46. Note that Laeuchli discusses analogous interjections of emotional justifications into the judgments of the Council of Elvira (ibid., pp. 23-26). The phrase virorum alienorum is sometimes taken to refer to men alien to the catholic church, i.e., "heretical" or "Priscillianist" men. So Roger Gryson: "According to the historical context, the 'foreign men' referred to in this canon are the Priscillianists" ( The Ministry of Women in the Early Church , trans. J. Laporte and M. L. Hall [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1976], p. 101). Others find it more probable that the phrase refers to men alien to a woman's family (Ramos y Loscertales, Prisciliano , pp. 49-50, and Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 14). Vollman assumes with greater specificity that the phrase refers to men other than a woman's husband, which allows him to conclude that ascetically inclined married women are the target of the judgment: "Ich lese aus dem virorum alienorum heraus, dass es sich um verheiratete Frauen handelte, die in ihren Familien lebten, aber asketisch bzw. theologisch interessiert waren" ("Priscillianus," col. 547; so also Díaz y Díaz, "A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza de 380 y su canon VI," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario [Zaragoza, 1981], p. 226 n. 3 and p. 227). While Vollman's conclusion seems unwarranted, it is unnecessary to eliminate either of the two options of ''nonfamilial'' and "heretical," since both meanings seem to be exploited by the council's rhetoric and indeed one reinforces the other, not least through the invocation of a shared sexual imagery. [BACK]

47. Note that there is a textual variant that replaces the initial vel with nec , in which case the second clause is a further prohibition rather than a concession, and the point is that women are not to meet in any study groups, whether mixed-sex or segregated. This reading occurs in only one of fourteen significant manuscripts; the reading vel is therefore to be preferred. See Rodríguez, "Concilio I de Zaragoza," p. 18. [BACK]

48. Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz has pointed out that the phrase "reading and meetings" is one of several instances of the redactor's use of hendiadys, a figure of speech in which a single complex idea--in this case, meetings at which the reading of scripture took place--is expressed by means of two words connected by a conjunction--reading and meetings ("A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza," pp. 228-29). Díaz y Díaz also notes that such rhetorical devices have tended to obscure the canons' meanings for later readers (p. 226 n. 3). For example, the author of the index and section headings that accompany the judgments in the Hispana collection has simplifed the text of the first canon to read simply coetibus instead of lectione et coetibus . This abridgement intends to clarify but actually distorts the sense of the canon, which refers more specifically to meetings of Christians at which scripture was read. More recent interpretations similarly generalize the meaning of "meetings" by treating "reading" and "meetings" as two separate items. For example, Ramos y Loscertales notes that while meetings for the purpose of reading and instruction are emphasized, the decision may also refer to other types of meetings, such as prayer meetings, or even possibly the practice of ascetic men and women living together as celibate couples ( Prisciliano , pp. 49-50). [BACK]

49. Priscillian, Tract. 3, 52.25-53.2, 53.15-18. [BACK]

50. Note, however, that some scholars seem to interpret this second clause as describing a practice observed by the groups being censured. Babut assumes that it refers to an activity of the Priscillianist ascetics: "Les religieux, en effet, les hommes et les femmes tantôt réunis, tantôt séparés, s'assemblaient entre eux pour lire et expliquer les livres saints" ( Priscillien et le priscillianisme , p. 83). Ramos y Loscertales likewise assumes that both practices--meeting together and meeting separately--were followed by the Priscillianists. Combining the evidence of the judgments of the Council of Saragossa with Priscillian's reference to a distinction between those who forsake the world and those who are not able to accomplish such a total renunciation ( Tract. 2, 36.1-6), he suggests that there were three different modes of instruction of the female followers of Priscillian: the individual instruction by an ascetic man of a widow or virgin living in ascetic seclusion in her own home; the direction by an ascetic man of a group of ascetic women living in community; and, finally, group study sessions of women following a less rigorous ascetic lifestyle, which were taught by other women ( Prisciliano , pp. 49-50, 109-10). Ramos y Loscertales is followed in this highly speculative reconstruction of Priscillianist women's organization and instruction by J. M. Blazquez, "Prisciliano, introductor del ascetismo en Hispaña," in Pimero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario (Zaragoza, 1981), p. 81. Curiously, none of these scholars invokes the variant textual reading of nec to support interpretations implying that not only the first but also the second clause of the first Saragossan judgment is prohibitive in import. [BACK]

51. Laeuchli notes that only 5 percent of the judgments of the Council of Elvira invoke scriptural justification; he finds no correlation between the importance of the canon and the use of scriptural justification ( Powe and Sexuality , p. 25). In the case of the Council of Saragossa, however, it is interesting to note that the only two judgments invoking scriptural justification--can. 1 and can. 7--both reflect the bishops' uneasiness with the role of lay teachers in the Christian community. [BACK]

52. This use of the masculine form futuros in the final sentence creates a possible ambiguity. Opposition to male (and possibly female) teachers will come out directly in the sixth judgment, although in less passionate form. Are the women targeted in the first judgment because they are the primary source of outrage? Or is the first judgment indirectly targeted at the male teachers as well, while appearing to focus on a group who can be accused with less risk? [BACK]

53. Cf. Laeuchli's discussion of analogous threats of punishment in the judgments of the Council of Elvira ( Power and Sexuality , pp. 38-41). [BACK]

54. In contrast, penance seems to be required in can. 6, for example, while perpetual exclusion from the community is specified in can. 3 and can. 4. [BACK]

55. ACS , can. 2, ll. 32-39. Díaz y Díaz briefly discusses the textual difficulties associated with the use of the phrase de quadragesimarum die (here translated "during Lent") where one might expect quadragesimae diebus ("A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza," p. 226). [BACK]

56. Difficulties arise above all in determining the relationship of the parts of the judgment to one another. My own tendency is to assume that the parts of the judgment are somehow interconnected. But it is also possible to view Sunday fasting, Lenten withdrawal, and rural asceticism, for example, as three separate and unrelated ascetic practices prohibited within one judgment. Retirement on a rural estate is a form of ascetic lifestyle particularly well attested in Spain and Gaul, as well as elsewhere. See Jacques Fontaine, "El ascetismo, ¿manzana de discordia entre latifundistas y obispos en la Tarraconense?" in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario (Zaragoza, 1981), pp. 201-6; "Société et culture chrétiennes"; and "Valeurs antiques et valeurs chrétiennes dans la spiritualité des grands propriétaires terriens à la fin du IV e siècle occidental,'' in Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou , ed. J. Fontaine and Ch. Kannengiesser (Beauchesne, 1972), pp. 571-95. [BACK]

57. Díaz y Díaz notes that the use of the word suspicionibus , or "opinions," is surprising if the reference is to the previously mentioned practices of fasting or ascetic withdrawal, as it seems to be, rather than to a doctrinal matter ("A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza," pp. 226-27). Some prefer to translate suspicionibus as "suspicions," understood in the sense of "activities provoking suspicion" (e.g., Vollman, ''Priscillianus,'' col. 547). Ramos y Loscertales suggests in a rather complicated argument that the term refers exclusively to the practice of secluding one-self during Lent; he sees in the phrase qui in his suspicionibus perseverant a concession that changes an apparent prohibition into mere limitation: those who persist in living a retired life must still attend church every day during Lent and follow the example and precepts of their priests ( Prisciliano , pp. 52-53). [BACK]

58. The phrase causa temporis aut persuasionis aut supprestitionis consists of a series of conjectural explanations for the Sunday fast, each including an innuendo more damaging than the last, but all of them strikingly vague. Díaz y Díaz calls attention to this arrangement of terms in a gradated series, which he takes as a sign of a careful reworking of the language of the canon at some stage ("A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza," pp. 229-80). Tempus is the vaguest of all and may refer to the day Sunday, or to the season of Lent, or even to the eschaton. Persuasio may be interpreted to mean either "belief," with connotations of falsehood or self-delusion, or "at the persuasion of others," implying an external source of delusion. Ramos y Loscertales follows the latter interpretation, suggesting that here as elsewhere in the second decision, authority is a key issue: the problem is influence of others outside the episcopal hierarchy ( Prisciliano , p. 53). Marie Odile Greffe likewise translates persuasionis as "under the influence of another" ("Etude sur le canon II du premier Concile," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario [Zaragoza, 1981], p. 163). The term superstitio has still stronger and more disturbing connotations of unorthodoxy or membership in an illegal religious sect like Manichaeism, whose adherents were known to fast on Sundays. [BACK]

59. Greffe relates the two practices of Sunday fasting and Lenten withdrawal directly, suggesting that the members of the group withdrew during Lent precisely in order to observe Sunday fasts and other ascetic disciplines ("Etude sur le canon II," p. 163). This seems to me a possible but not a necessary explanation of how the two practices come to be denounced in the same canon, since their conjunction could also be explained by the fact that one targeted group observed both practices. Ramos y Loscertales believes Priscillian advocated a Sunday fast all year ( Prisciliano , p. 108). [BACK]

60. Ep. 36.28. Cf. Jerome's protest, addressed to the Spaniard Lucinus, that Sunday fasting is not Manichaean ( Ep. 71.6). Of course, Sunday fasting has strong social as well as doctrinal implications. Vollman ("Priscillianus," col. 547), and Greffe ("Etude sur le canon II," pp. 165-66) call attention to the parallel with the Eustathians, who were condemned by the Council of Gangra not only for fasting on Sunday but also for eating on fast days observed by the rest of the church; here the emphasis seems to be not on the doctrinal implications of the practice but on the problematic refusal to conform to the dominant communal eating patterns. [BACK]

61. The choice of the word conventus was probably dictated by both its ascetic and pejorative connotations; like the term superstitio, conventus could invoke an image of secret and seditious meetings (see Fontaine, "El ascetismo," pp. 202-3). Conventus is also the term used in Priscillian's purported confession to convening nocturnal meetings of shameful women (Severus, Chron. 2.50). [BACK]

62. As with the first judgment, there is some question as to how the adjective alienus should be understood. Greffe considers the possible interpretations of "foreign" (e.g., Gallic), "pagan," and simply "other," in the sense of ''houses where the Christians are not in the habit of meeting for the regular liturgical assemblies''; she favors this final interpretation ("Etude sur le canon II," pp. 171-72). Díaz y Díaz goes so far as to suggest that the term is unintelligible in its present context and attributes the text's incoherence to successive stages of redaction ("A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza," p. 227). But here, as in the first judgment, the term quite likely distinguishes between family members (including slaves and freed persons and other dependents of a household as well as those related by birth or marriage) and those who are not part of the household. Fontaine suggests that the intent may be to allow for gatherings among the inhabitants of an estate, who might even constitute a permanently settled religious community, while prohibiting those who live outside the estate to participate ("El ascetismo," p. 204). [BACK]

63. See especially Tract. 4, 58.6-20. [BACK]

64. ACS , can. 3, ll. 42-44. [BACK]

65. Manuel Sotomayor offers a recent and clear discussion of the various interpretations proposed by scholars ("El canon 3 del Concilio de Zaragoza del 380," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario [Zaragoza, 1981], pp. 177-87). [BACK]

66. Ibid., pp. 184-87. Although Sotomayor stresses that the motivations of those who abstain cannot be known with certainty, Vollman suggests that groups like the Priscillianists may have abstained from communion with Christians whom they considered "impure" ("Priscillianus," cols. 547-48). Vollman here leaves open the possibility, dismissed by Ramos y Loscertales ( Prisciliano , p. 55), that this decision is directed against the Priscillianists. Cf. Priscillian's remarks on the necessary purity of the priest who administers the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Quia corpus ac sanguinem Christi, quod est magnum pietatis sacramentum, manifestatum in carne, justificatum in spiritu, si quis indigne sumpserit, corporis ipsius sanginisque sit reus" ( Can. Ep. Pauli 42). [BACK]

67. ACS , can. 4, ll. 47-53. [BACK]

68. A three-week period of fasting and prayer before Christmas or Epiphany is mentioned in a fragment attributed to Hilary of Poitiers and in letters attributed to the Galician Bachiarius (Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 14-17). See also Luis García Iglesias, "Sobre el canon IV del Primer Concilio de Zaragoza," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario (Zaragoza, 1981), pp. 189-99. [BACK]

69. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 17. [BACK]

70. Augustine, Conf. 9.6. [BACK]

71. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 23.22-24.6. [BACK]

72. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 18-20. [BACK]

73. It is more likely that any perceived connection between Priscillian's ascetic practices and magic was fabricated by Ithacius than that it was due to any actual participation by Priscillian in magical rituals, as Chadwick suggests (ibid., pp. 18-20). Even Sulpicius Severus is sceptical about the basis of the charges of magic ( Chron. 2.46). Ramos y Loscertales takes a moderating stance, suggesting that Priscillian did indeed study magic out of a general intellectual curiosity in his pre-Christian youth, but never actually practiced it ( Prisciliano , pp. 74-75, 95, 101-2). [BACK]

74. Cf. Ramos y Loscertales's attempt to provide some sort of rational justification for the discrepancy by suggesting that the group targeted in the fourth judgment is different from the group targeted in the second, and that the bishops have less concern about whether they will be able to impose their authority on the former group (ibid., p. 54). [BACK]

75. ACS , can. 5, ll. 55-60. [BACK]

76. A more precise assessment of the intent of the judgment depends upon the interpretation of the phrase per disciplinam aut sententiam . I follow the looser interpretation of Díaz y Díaz, who suggests that the phrase signifies something fairly general like "through disciplinary judgment" ("A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza," p. 229). According to Ramos y Loscertales, however, the elements of disciplina and sententia are distinct, with sententia referring to a condemnation for heresy, which requires the following of a formal procedure of accusation, interrogation, trial, and sentencing, and disciplina to a disciplinary excommunication, which requires no such formal procedure; in this view, the fifth judgment intends to enforce universal episcopal compliance both with a formal condemnation of heresy and with a disciplinary excommunication, whether issued by a bishop independently, by a bishop in enforcement of the conciliar decisions, or by the council itself ( Prisciliano , pp. 55-61). Ramos y Loscertales further suggests that Hydatius had excommunicated Instantius, Salvianus, Priscillian, and Elpidius before the council; that this excommunication was not accepted by the four or by Hyginus and some other bishops who received them in communion; and that in effort to strengthen the authority of the metropolitan bishop, the council supported his excommunication of the four by issuing its own disciplinary excommunication of the Lusitanian "rebels" and then by formulating the fifth judgment to force bishops to comply with both Hydatius' original excommunication and with the council's excommunication ( Prisciliano , pp. 31-36, 59-61). It is not necessary, however, to assume with Ramos y Loscertales that the fifth judgment refers to either of these undocumented excommunications, since it could equally well refer to excommunications anticipated as a consequence of the enforcement of the council's judgments (Vollman, "Priscillianus,'' col. 502). [BACK]

77. Cf. Elvira (309) can. 5, Arles (314) can. 17, Nicea (325) can. 5, Antioch (341) can. 6, Sardica (343) can. 13. See also Domingo Ramos-Lissón, "Estudio sobre el canon V del I Concilio de Caesaraugusta (380)," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario (Zaragoza, 1981), p. 223. [BACK]

78. Severus, Chron. 2.47. [BACK]

79. ACS , can. 6, ll. 63-68. There are a number of grammatical peculiarities in the language of this judgment. These may be attributable to the interpolation of marginal comments, as Díaz y Díaz suggests ("A propósito del Concilio de Zaragoza," pp. 230-32). Alternatively, they may reflect the text's close adherence to the verbal patterns of an original, complex discussion. [BACK]

80. Díaz y Díaz points out that a correct interpretation of the phrase "on account of presumed luxury and vanity" ( propter luxum vanitatemque praesumptam ) requires acknowledging not only the use of the rhetorical device of hendiadys (the breaking up of a single complex idea into a series), but also the allusion to Eccles. 6:9: "melius est videre quod cupias, quam desiderare quod nescias, sed et hoc vanitas est et praesumptio spiritus" ("A próposito del Concilio de Zaragoza," p. 231 n. 8 and p. 234). That is to say, the monks view the bishops' enjoyment of the goods of the world as vanity or "emptiness"; yet their "presumption'' is itself ''vanity," the bishops counter. Contrast the ascetic interpretation given to the same scriptural passage by Priscilllian: "nobis omnia quae sub sole sum vana sunt et praesumptio perversi spiritus, scientes eum cum mundo esse periturum" ( Tract. 1, 16.11-13). [BACK]

81. ACS , can. 7, ll. 70-73. [BACK]

82. Whether women would have been included among those recognized as "teachers" in the Spanish communities is difficult to determine. The council's first judgment reflects at least a tentative willingness to present women as the teachers of other women in order to seclude them from "strange men"; this evidence of course cuts both ways, as does the broader evidence for the masculinization of the teaching role in the fourth century. Susanna Elm's provocative study of Evagrius Ponticus' monastic rules for women and men is intriguing in this regard, insofar as it suggests that Evagrius is attempting to distinguish between the male ascetic goal of becoming a gnostikos of God, and therefore a teacher, and the female ascetic goal of "bodily" union with Christ, in which neither gnosis nor teaching plays a role ("Evagrius Ponticus' Sententiae ad Virginem ," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 [1991] 97-120). Elm herself notes, however, that Evagrius addresses his clearest articulation of his doctrine of gnosis to Melania, a female ascetic, and that exceptional ascetic women could be addressed as "teachers." In addition, one might question whether the broader ascetic corpus does not provide many instances in which the gender boundaries delineated by Elm's reading of Evagrius are blurred, not only by "gnostic" women, but also by men for whom homoerotic imagery continues to play a large role in the articulation of the spiritual goal of union with God. [BACK]

83. Prohibitive judgments that fail to specify a punishment generally reflect either extreme confidence on the part of the bishops, who have no fear of noncompliance, or extreme ambivalence and the desire to avoid confrontation on a ruling that might prove difficult to enforce (Leuchli, Power and Sexuality , pp. 33-38). [BACK]

84. Priscillian, Can. Ep. Pauli 39. [BACK]

85. Antonino Gonzáles Blanco surveys the role of teachers in the ancient church, rightly concluding that the seventh judgment presupposes a social context in which teaching authority is not centralized ("El canon 7 del Concilio de Zaragoza (380) y sus implicationes sociales," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustana: MDC aniversario [Zaragoza, 1981], pp. 237-53). [BACK]

86. ACS , can. 8, ll. 75-78. [BACK]

87. Only a few years later, however, a Roman synod addressing Gallic bishops was careful to distinguish the two classes of virgins (Siricius, Ad gallos episcopos 1.3-4). There were two Aquitanian bishops at the council of Saragossa, but whether they or any other Gallic bishops shared the Roman view at this point is unknown. The Synod of Valence (374), at which Phoebadius was also present, made no distinction between veiled and unveiled virgins when prescribing penance for a dedicated virgin's transgression of her vow. [BACK]

88. Jerome did not object to the practice of Roman parents' dedicating their daughters to virginity at their birth, whereas Ambrose insisted that the vow should be voluntarily taken by the girl whenever she became spiritually mature (which might be as early as the onset of puberty at twelve), and the Council of Hippo in 393, followed by other African councils, set a minimum age of twenty-five for a virgin's consecretion. If it had in fact enforced the high minimum age requirement of forty, the Council of Saragossa would drastically have reduced the number of virgins wearing the veil. Following Keith Hopkins, "On the Probable Age Structure of the Roman Population," Population Studies 20 (1966):245-64, I calculate that assuming life expectancy for women at birth were thirty years and the patterns established in the U.N. model life tables applied, if women vowed virginity and "took the veil" at puberty (between the ages of ten and fourteen) and the number of new virgins each year were constant from 310 to 380, the bishops' ruling would have reduced the number of veiled virgins by more than 60 percent. If, on the other hand, the number of women vowing virginity doubled in the decade from 370 to 380, the reduction would be still greater, roughly 70 percent. [BACK]

89. The right of consecration implies an acknowledged liturgical role for the bishop. The earliest evidence of a liturgical ceremony of dedication is Ambrose's description of his sister's consecration by Pope Liberius in the basilica of St. Peter on Epiphany in the year 353 ( De virginibus 3.1.1); note, however, that Ambrose here makes no mention of veiling but only of donning a somber monastic habit. René Metz gives a thorough treatment of the consecration of virgins in late-fourth-century Rome in La Consécration des vierges dans l'église romaine (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1954), pp. 95-138. Metz admits that there is no clear evidence of ceremonies of episcopal consecration of virgins in fourth- and fifth-century Gaul: "nous n'avons pour la Gaule aucun texte de cette époque qui exige effectivement du consecrateur des vierges le caractère épiscopal" ("La Consécration des vierges en Gaule, des origines à l'apparation des livres liturgiques," Revue de droit canonique 6 [1956]: 328). He nevertheless thinks such episcopal ceremonies commonly took place in Gaul as in Rome, citing as his primary support the letter traditionally attributed to Sulpicius Severus: "quasi sanctiores puriores que hostiae pro voluntatis suae meritis a Sancto Spiritu eliguntur, et per summam sacerdotem Dei offeruntur altario" ( Ep. 2 Ad Claudiam sororem de virginitate 1). The phrase "high priest" could, however, refer as easily to Christ as to the bishop, given the metaphorical character of the passage; note also the emphasis on the "merits of [the virgins'] will" rather than episcopal consecration; finally, the letter to which Metz refers is not securely tied to Gaul (see, e.g., B. R. Rees, The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers [Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1991], p. 71). On Gallic virgins more generally, see also Metz, "Les Vierges chrétiennes en Gaule au IV e siècle," in Saint Martin et son temps , Studia Anselmiana 46 (Rome: Herder, 1961), pp. 109-32. [BACK]

90. See Tertullian, De virginibus velandis . [BACK]

91. Consider, e.g., the abovementioned letter attributed traditionally to Sulpicius Severus: "Nam et Christi sponsas virgines dicere ecclesiastica nobis permittit auctoritas, dum sponsarum modo eas Domino consecrat et velat, ostendens eas vel maxime habituras spirituale connubium quae subterfugerint carnale consortium" ( Ep. 2 Ad Claudiam sororem de virginitate 1). Raymond d'Izarnay argues for a very close correlation between the fourth-century Christian marriage rite, velatio conjugalis , and the ritual veiling of virgins as practiced by Ambrose in Milan in the late fourth century ("Marriage et consécration virginale au IV e siècle," Vie spirituelle , suppl. 24 [1953]: 92-118). [BACK]

92. Compare the costume of ancient Roman priestesses: the flaminica Dialis wore a red bridal veil, and the Vestal Virgins dressed their hair like brides. On the crucial function of this "liminal" dress in defining the priestesses' power, see Mary Beard, "The Sexual Status of Vestal Virgins," Journal of Roman Studies 70 (1980): 12-27, and N. Boels, "Le Statut religieux de la flaminica Dialis," Revue des études latines 51 (1973): 77-100. [BACK]

93. I tend to assume that the women themselves, as well as the bishops, would have experienced the ruling as an attempt to reverse their social and spiritual elevation as perpetual virgins--itself a liminal reversal of their "normal" status as women. Note however the important critique of Carolyn Walker Bynum, who cautions that "liminality" may itself be an androcentric category and highlights the element of continuity--rather than reversal or elevation--in medieval women's appropriations of the polysemic symbol of the "bride of Christ," for example (''Women's Stories, Women's Symbols: A Critique of Victor Turner's Theory of Liminality,'' in Anthropology and the Study of Religion , ed. R. L. Moor and F. E. Reynolds [Chicago: CSSR, 1984], pp. 105-25). Susanna Elm, who cites Bynum's work, brings a slightly different perspective to bear on the theme of female "continuity," noting that Evagrius Ponticus views ascetic women as differing from their male counterparts in that they do not progress spiritually in this life but achieve mystical union with Christ only in the moment of their deaths ("Evagrius Ponticus' Sententiae ad virginem ," pp. 111-14). Certainly, a similar tendency in the view of ascetic women can be documented for the late-fourth-century west, e.g., in the attention given to the highly eroticized deaths--rather than the lives--of the virgin martyrs so extravagantly praised by men like Ambrose of Milan or the Spaniard Prudentius. Here, however, we are clearly still in the realm, not of women's self-understanding, but of alternative androcentric readings of women's ascetic "liminality." [BACK]

94. Sotomayor notes concern about the "weaknesses of virgins" in fourth-century Spain in the following episcopal documents: Elvira (c. 300) can. 13, Siricius' letter to Himerius of Tarragona (385), and Toledo (400) can. 6 ("Sobre el canon VIII del Concilio de Zaragoza del 380," in Primero Concilio Caesaraugustano: MDC aniversario [Zaragoza, 1981], p. 261). [BACK]

95. Aristotle ( Historia animalium 7.5.585a) and Pliny the Elder ( Historia naturalis 7.14.61) regard forty as the average age of menopause; Soranus ( Gynaeciorum 1,4.20) puts it between forty and fifty; and Oribasius ( Eclogae medicamentorum 142) opts for fifty (D. Amundsen and C. J. Diers, "The Age of Menopause in Classical Greece and Rome," Human Biology 42 [1970]: 79-86). [BACK]

96. Once past menopause, a woman was no longer perceived as desirous, desirable, or even fully female. Jerome remarks that a postmenopausal woman "ceases to be a woman and is freed from the curse of God" (mulier esse desiit, a Dei maledictione fit libera), i.e., she no longer desires or is subjected to her husband ( Adversus Helvidium 20). Thus the postmenopausal woman is transformed, not only physically and socially, but also theologically, being returned to her prelapsarian state. [BACK]

97. Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), pp. 260-61. [BACK]

98. Elizabeth Castelli emphasizes the extent to which early Christianity "adopted the reigning idea of women's sexuality as token of exchange and reinforced it by investing it with theological significance" ("Virginity and Its Meaning for Women's Sexuality in Early Christianity," Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 2 [1986]: 86). [BACK]

99. Consider especially Prudentius' spectacular portraits of the virgin martyrs Eulalia and Agnes ( Peristephanon 3, 14). See also Patricia Cox Miller's nuanced treatment of Jerome's deeply ambivalent response to the young virgin Eustochium's sexuality in "The Blazing Body: Ascetic Desire in Jerome's Letter to Eustochium," Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (1993): 21-45. [BACK]

100. Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality , p. 4. [BACK]

101. Peter Brown, "Pelagius and His Supporters: Aims and Environment," Journal of Theological Studies , n.s., 19 (1968): 98, uses the metaphor of centrifugal force to describe Pelagianism's tendency "to scatter, to form a pattern of little groups, each striving to be an élite , each anxious to rise above their neighbours and rivals." [BACK]

Chapter Two "Manichaean" Charge and Countercharge in Priscillian's Tractates

1. On the date of Priscillian's trial and execution, see Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 132-38. The dating of these events has traditionally hinged on the date of Ambrose's second mission to Trier, which took place during the closing phases of the trial (Ambrose, Ep. 24). Chadwick surveys scholarly arguments for dating Ambrose's second mission anytime from the spring of 384 to the spring of 387 (pp. 135-36 n. 3); he himself suggests the summer of 386 as the most probable date for Ambrose's second mission, noting that 385 is also a possibility (p. 137). More recently, A. R. Birley has reopened the question, suggesting that Sulpicius Severus' Life of Martin provides evidence that Priscillian's trial did not begin before 386; he further argues that Ambrose's second mission, and therefore the end of Priscillian's trial, can most plausibly be dated to 387 ("Magnus Maximus and the Persecution of Heresy," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 66 [1983-84]: 29-33). Finally, the work of Daniel Williams further supports dating Ambrose's second mission, and therefore the trial of Priscillian, to the period after Easter of 386 ("The Ecclesiastical Politics of Ambrose of Milan: His Two Embassies to Trier" [paper delivered to the North American Patristic Society, May 1994]; see also Daniel H. Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts [Oxford University Press, forthcoming], chs. 7 and 8). [BACK]

2. Severus' depiction of the controversy in political rather than theological terms is influenced not only by his choice of genre and rhetorical strategy but also by contemporary ecclesiastical politics and personal circumstances. Fontaine offers a brilliant treatment of Severus' relation to the models of classical historiography, focusing particularly on his use of Sallust's portrait of Catiline to create a condemning depiction of both Priscillian and his opponents as political conspirators ("L'Affaire Priscillien," pp. 355-92). On the factionalism of the fifth-century ecclesiastical politics of Gaul, see Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism . [BACK]

3. Van Dam, Leadership , p. 95. [BACK]

4. Priscillian, Liber ad Damasum episcopum = Tract. 2, 34-43. [BACK]

5. Priscillian, Liber apologeticus = Tract. 1, 3-33; id., Liber de fide et de apocryphis = Tract. 3, 44-56. [BACK]

6. Priscillian, Tract . 3, 51.8-9; id., Tract. 1, 10.24, 24.8, 26.2, 27.27, 33.12-13. [BACK]

7. Severus, Chron . 2.48. [BACK]

8. The letter's account of the conflict at Merida presents a potential problem for the argument for Priscillian's authorship, since it refers from a distinctly episcopal point of view to events that almost certainly took place before Priscillian's ordination. Thus D. G. Morin proposes that Instantius was in fact the author of the second tractate ("Pro Instantio: Contre l'attribution à Priscillien des opuscula du manuscrit de Würzburg," Revue bénédictine 30 [1913]: 167-72). Josef Martin refutes Morin's arguments and supports the traditional attribution of the letter to Priscillian ("Priscillianus oder Instantius?" Historisches Jahrbuch 47 (1927): 237-51), and in more recent years, Ramos y Loscertales ( Prisciliano , pp. 112-17) and Chadwick ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 31-32, 69), among others, have likewise deemed Priscillian the most probable author of the Letter to Damasus ; Vollman considers Priscillian's authorship possible, if not probable ("Priscillianus," cols. 556-57). In further support of Priscillian's authorship of the second tractate, I argue that it is precisely the account of the conflict at Merida in the Letter to Damasus that most closely reflects Priscillian's concerns and point of view; the episcopal voice with which he recounts the events is part of his overall effort to buttress the authority of his own episcopacy (see also Ramos y Loscertales, Prisciliano , pp. 64-70). [BACK]

9. Severus, an ascetic who was himself vulnerable to charges of Manichaeism, makes no mention of Manichaeism in his account of the Priscillianist controversy, referring obliquely to "heresy" or "gnosticism" instead ( Chron. 2.46-51) [BACK]

10. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 39.17-18. Compare Priscillian's account of the events leading up to the Council of Saragossa; there, too, he portrays his supporters as living peaceably when disputes suddenly arose from without (ibid., 34.19-35.7). [BACK]

11. Ibid., 39.18-23. [BACK]

12. Ibid., 39.23-28. Cf. Priscillian's opinion on the necessity for moral purity in the bishop: "Quia episcopus inreprehensibilis esse debeat" ( Can. Ep. Pauli 45). [BACK]

13. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 35.5-7. [BACK]

14. A letter of Siricius of Rome suggests that the issue of clerical celibacy and specifically the begetting of children by bishops, presbyters, and deacons, was being hotly debated in Spain circa 385 ( Ep. 1 Ad Himerium Episcopum Tarraconensem ). Although the Roman bishop's letter makes no explicit mention of the Priscillianists, it is possible that the debate over clerical celibacy was in fact an aspect of the Priscillianist controversy. Chadwick speculates that "if Himerius of Tarraco's letter to Rome is understood to refer even obliquely to the Priscillianist affair, then the charge can be expected to be that Hydatius had cohabited with his wife or even that she had secretly produced an infant, such evidence of conjugal acts being felt to be unsuitable in a bishop." He goes on to suggest that moral delicacy motivated Priscillian's silence: "The nature of the charge Priscillian cannot bring himself to mention" ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 31). This latter suggestion is not convincing, given both the importance of this charge for Priscillian's defense and the overall sophistication of Priscillian's rhetoric in this letter. The fact that Priscillian fails to specify the charges brought against Hydatius surely indicates that it was not in his interest to do so. [BACK]

15. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 43.6-7. [BACK]

16. Ibid., 40.1. [BACK]

17. Chadwick suggests that the two Lusitanian bishops were simply performing their duty in intervening in the conflict: "the responsibility for judgement necessarily lay in the hands of the other bishops of Lusitania" ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 31). But other Lusitanian bishops were apparently able to remain silent and uninvolved, and I find it difficult not to see Instantius' and Salvianus' intervention as remarkably assertive, if not outright aggressive. [BACK]

18. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 40.1-8. [BACK]

19. Ibid., 40.5. [BACK]

20. Vollman suggests rather that it was Hydatius' bias or prejudice that illegitimated his authority in this matter ("Priscillianus," col. 503). He calls attention to a parallel passage in Severus' text-- si ipsi suspecti habantur (Severus, Chron. 2.49)--which he interprets to indicate that the bishops at the Council of Bordeaux should have referred the matter to other bishops, rather than to the emperor, "if they themselves were considered suspicious." [BACK]

21. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 40.7-8. [BACK]

22. Ibid., 40.10-13. [BACK]

23. Puech suggests that Hydatius was not far from wrong if he sensed that there was a conspiracy against his episcopacy ("Les Origines du Priscillianisme," p. 183). Chadwick likewise considers it probable that Instantius and Salvianus were attempting to depose Hydatius and consecrate a successor, perhaps Priscillian himself ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 31-33). [BACK]

24. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 40.11-21. [BACK]

25. Ibid., 40.21-27. [BACK]

26. This is also the view of Vollman ("Priscillianus," col. 503). Babut sees Priscillian as originally part of the Meridan laity, but places his elevation to the episcopacy before the events at Merida ( Priscillien , p. 85). Ramos y Loscertales differs; he makes a sharp distinction between the opposition to Hydatius in Merida--which in his view was only among the clergy--and in the congregations of Instantius and Salvianus--which in his view was dominated by certain lay people, among whom was the itinerant teacher Priscillian ( Prisciliano , pp. 64, 115-16). [BACK]

27. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 42.21-23. [BACK]

28. Severus, Chron. 2.47. [BACK]

29. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 40.27-41.2. [BACK]

30. It would not have been the first time in Meridan history that a bishop had been deposed by a group of moral rigorists. Cyprian writes in 257 to the Meridan deacon and laity who had deposed and replaced a bishop whose behavior during persecution compromised his moral purity; maintaining that a people have the right not only to choose worthy bishops but also to separate themselves from sinful bishops, Cyprian supports the Meridan deposition in the face of opposition from Stephen of Rome ( Ep. 67). [BACK]

31. Severus, Chron. 2.47. [BACK]

32. Severus accuses Hydatius and Ithacius of rash behavior in appealing to the civil authorities: "sed parum sanis consiliis saeculares judices adeunt" ( Chron. 2.47). He is still more disapproving of the Spanish bishops' collaboration with the civil trial at Trier that resulted in the execution of Priscillian and several of his followers ( Chron. 2.49-51). [BACK]

33. Contemporary laws promulgated in the west include Codex Theodosianus 16.5.3 (372), 16.5.4 (376-380), 16.5.5 (379). An anti-Manichean law issued in Rome in 389--later than the Spanish controversy itself but predating the composition of Severus' Chronicle --echoes Severus' statement that the heretics were expelled, not only from their churches or cities, but from the whole world (Severus, Chron. 2.47; Codex Theodosianus 16.5.19). [BACK]

34. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 41.2-3. [BACK]

35. Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

36. Vollman finds it most likely that Hydatius sought simply to have standing laws against Manichaeans and other heretics enforced, e.g., Codex Theodosianus 16.5.3, 5, 7, 9 ("Priscillianus," col. 504). Aline Rousselle offers a more detailed interpretation of the processes followed in securing Priscillian's exile, attempting to harmonize the evidence of Priscillian's Letter to Damasus , Severus' Chronicle , and contemporary sources for secular and ecclesiastical law. She suggests that Hydatius requested that the local administration expel Priscillian and his associates from their churches as heretics immediately after the Council of Saragossa; they refused, probably because no one had actually been condemned by name at the council. Next, suppressing Priscillian's name, Hydatius appealed to the emperor for a more general ruling against heretics; his appeal may have been responsible for the issuance by Gratian of Codex Theodosianus 16.5.4 (commonly dated 376-80). Subsequently, the civil authorities in Spain decided to apply the rescript to expel Priscillian and his followers, who were at this point designated "pseudo-bishops and Manichaeans" ("Quelques aspects politiques de l'affaire priscillianiste," Revue des études anciennes 83 [1981]: 86-87). Note that Rousselle's identification of Codex Theodosianus 16.5.4 as (at least indirectly) anti-Priscillianist in origin is questionable; while scholars have traditionally identified this as a piece of anti-Arian legislation betraying the influence of Ambrose on Gratian, Gunther Gottlieb has persuasively argued that it is instead to be read as anti-Donatist in intention ( Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973], pp. 63-68). [BACK]

37. It has often been assumed that Hydatius' apparent role in the process was based on his authority as the "metropolitan" bishop of Lusitania, under whose jurisdiction the sees of Instantius, Salvianus, and Priscillian probably fell. The events of the Priscillianst controversy do not, however, indicate that such authority was consistently acknowledged. Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz notes, "On a l'habitude de parler de diocèses et de provinces qui dépendraient des sièges épiscopaux ou métropolitains, ce qui s'accorde avec la situation générale dans la deuxième moitié du iv e siècle. Mais . . . il me semble difficile de prouver que la notion même de territoire ait une certaine consistence pendant le iv e siècle dans la Péninsule" ("L'Expansion du christianisme," p. 92). See also the summary remarks of Jean Gaudemet in regard to the institution of the authority of the metropolitan bishop in Spain: ''L'organisation métropolitaine y fut tardive. . . . Le métropolitain et la nécessité de son concours aux élections épiscopales n'apparaissent qu'au cours du v e siècle" ( L'Église dans l'Empire romain (iv e - v e siècles [Paris: Sirey, 1955], pp. 387-88). [BACK]

38. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 41.3-5. [BACK]

39. Ibid., 41.7-13. [BACK]

40. Severus, Chron. 2.47. [BACK]

41. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 41.10-11; Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

42. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 36.13-39.16, 41.21-42.12 [BACK]

43. Ibid. 3, 44-56. [BACK]

44. E.g., ibid. 2, 35.15-19, 35.21-22, 39.20-21, 40.7-8, 42.19-21. [BACK]

45. Ibid., 35.23-24. [BACK]

46. Ibid. 1, 3-33. [BACK]

47. Puech suggests that it is not merely difficult but impossible ("Les Origines du Priscillianisme," p. 185). [BACK]

48. Martin argues against Morin ("Pro Instantio," pp. 153-72) that the first tractate was composed by Priscillian in the period before the Council of Saragossa, without being written specifically for that council ("Priscillianus oder Instantius," pp. 237-51). More recently, Chadwick has supported the theory that the Apology was written by Priscillian as a layperson in the period before the Council of Saragossa, although he understands the document to have been addressed to the council itself ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 47-51). [BACK]

49. Babut argues that the Apology represents the profession of the Meridan laity--with Priscillian as ghostwriter--referred to in the Letter to Damasus ( Priscillien , pp. 143-46). Ramos y Loscertales differs with Babut on a number of points of interpretation of the Meridan conflict but agrees that the period between the councils of Saragossa and Bordeaux, and specifically the period immediately following the conflict at Merida, is the most likely setting for the Apology ; he further suggests that the confident tone of the work makes a date immediately after Priscillian's ordination probable ( Prisciliano , pp. 112-17). [BACK]

50. Morin, following J. Dierich ("Die Quellen zur Geschichte Priscillians" [diss., Breslau, 1897], pp. 35-40), argues that the Apology was directed to the Council of Bordeaux and furthermore proposes that Instantius was the author of the tractate ("Pro Instantio," pp. 153-72). Among the supporters of Morin's theory is D'Alès ( Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne ). More recently, Vollman has judged it likely that the Apology was written either during the period between Gratian's rescript and its appeal or in preparation for the Council of Bordeaux; he, however, considers episcopal authorship highly improbable and suggests that the tractate was composed by a lay follower of Priscillian ("Priscillianus," col. 558). [BACK]

51. The Apology is sufficiently different in style and tone from the Letter to Damasus that some scholars have found it difficult to attribute the two to the same author. Vollman notes, "Ich halte für ausgemacht, dass Tr. I nicht von P[riscillianus] stammt, für höchst wahrscheinlich, dass Tr. I und II nicht den gleichen Verfasser haben und für wahrscheinlich, dass der Verfasser [des Tr. I] ein Laie, oder besser, ein nichtbischöflicher Kleriker ist" ("Priscillianus," cols. 557-58). Nevertheless, there are good reasons to attribute the Apology , as well as the Letter to Damasus , to Priscillian, and the differences between the two works can be attributed to differences in audience and circumstance of composition rather than diverse authorship. Note that Vollman's conviction that Priscillian is not the author of the Apology rests primarily on his dating of the Apology to a period after Priscillian's episcopal ordination; I suggest that this dating is faulty, however, and that the document was most likely composed by Priscillian before his ordination. [BACK]

52. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 43.10. [BACK]

53. Ibid. 1, 4.8-11. [BACK]

54. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

55. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 4.11-5.4; 6.10-11; 5.6-8; 4.2-4; 3.12-4.8. Cf. the closing lines of Priscillian's preface to the Can. Ep. Pauli , in which he protests that he has "faithfully made the content of the scriptures open, being the enemy of no one." [BACK]

56. Tract. 1, 3.6-7 (cf. 1, 14.5 and 33.7); 4.2; 6.14-17. [BACK]

57. Ibid., 5.10; cf. 3, 49.8. [BACK]

58. Chadwick suggests that the "Binionite" heresy was coined by Priscillian in response to accusations that he was a "Unionite," pointing out that the term "Unionita" is applied to Sabellius by a work falsely attributed to Jerome ( Indiculus de haeresibus ), which may be based on the Apology of Ithacius ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 87). However, there is in fact no evidence that Priscillian's unitive theology was an issue in the controversies of his lifetime. In 400, trinitarian issues were implicitly raised in the demand of the Council of Toledo that the Galicians Symphosius and Comasius condemn Priscillian's statement that the Son is innascibilis ( Exemplar , ll. 27-37, 52-58). It was not until the second decade of the fifth century that Orosius explicitly charged Priscillian with trinitarian errors: "Trinitatem autem solo verbo loquebatur, nam unionem absque ulla existentia aut proprietate adserens sublato 'et' patrem filium spiritum sanctum hunc esse unum Christum docebat" ( Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum 2). Several mid-fifth-century documents that also stem from Galicia associate Priscillianism with the failure to distinguish adequately between the persons of the Trinity and consequently with the claims that either God suffered or the man Jesus did not suffer. But Abilio Barbero de Aguilera argues that the anti-Priscillianist Regula fidei falsely attributed to the Council of Toledo (400) is in fact a mid-fifth-century revision of a fourth-century document reflecting the trinitarian concerns of an earlier, pre-Priscillianist era; the redacted Regula fidei in turn shaped the anti-Priscillianist Commonitorium and Libellus that Turibius of Astorga addressed to Leo of Rome (preserved only in Leo, Ep. 15) and the anti-Priscillianist chapters of the Council of Braga (561) ("El priscilianismo: ¿Herejía o movimiento social?" 25-41). [BACK]

59. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 6.19-7.26. [BACK]

60. See, e.g., the Longer Latin Formula of Abjuration , chs. 2, 6, 7, and 8 (Alfred Adam, Texte zum Manichäismus [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1954], pp. 90-93). [BACK]

61. A letter of Siricius of Rome refers to controversy in Spain over the rebaptism of heretics ( Ep. 1 Ad Himerium Episcopum Tarraconensem 2 [385]), and Priscillian's strong emphasis on baptism and his general "rigorist" stance make it at least plausible that he was one of those who denied the validity of heretical baptism. [BACK]

62. Contrast the view of Chadwick, who seems to assume that all errors denounced by Priscillian reflect accusations against him: "The nature of the heresies disowned . . . makes it evident that the Priscillianists are accused of a Patripassian doctrine of God, a docetic Christology, Manichaeism, studies in heretical apocrypha, and nocturnal orgies, whether magical or sexual" ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 47; see also pp. 90-91). [BACK]

63. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 7.23-8.4. [BACK]

64. Chadwick suggests that the Physiologus "supplies an almost exact illustration of the doctrine which Priscillian so elaborately disowns." In this work, scriptural animals are interpreted as symbols of God, Christ, and the Spirit, as well as of the ascetic conflict with temptation. To Chadwick, it seems likely that the Priscillianists studied and admired such a work; their "elaborate disowning," then, responds only to malicious caricatures of the work, not to the work itself ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 92-94). Alternatively, Priscillian might genuinely have disagreed with those parts of the Physiologus that interpret animals positively. However, without any firm date for the Physiologus , the suggestion of any possible Priscillianist use of or opposition to the work remains extremely speculative. [BACK]

65. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 13.14-16. [BACK]

66. Ibid., 9.15-19. [BACK]

67. Ibid., 12.21-23. [BACK]

68. Ibid., 12.19-21; cf. 1, 13.23, and 3, 47.25 and 51.13. [BACK]

69. Ibid. 1, 8.16-17; cf. 28.8. [BACK]

70. Ibid. 1, 9.25-27; cf. 1, 19.22, 6, 69.10-11 and 80.1-2, 8, 87.7-10. [BACK]

71. Ibid. 1, 9.27-10.1. [BACK]

72. In his Liber de fide et de apocryphis , Priscillian explicitly opposes Hydatius' demand that all apocryphal literature be condemned, citing the divine command to "search the scriptures" ( Tract. 3, 51.8-13). Cf. the parallel invocation of John 5.39 in Tract. 3, 47.25. [BACK]

73. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 15.1-6 (cf. Pss. 80.13 and 91.13); 1, 18.7-8 (cf. Rev. 13.1). [BACK]

74. Nag Hammadi Codex II 1, pp. 10, 11, 24; English trans., F. Wisse, in Nag Hammadi Library , pp. 110, 111, 118. We know that the Apocryphon of John circulated in various versions; both a long and a short version are extant in Coptic translations of Greek originals, and Irenaeus seems to have known a work similar to, but not identical with any of, these versions (F. Wisse, "Introduction to the Apocryphon of John," in The Nag Hammadi Library in English , 3d ed., ed. J. M. Robinson [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988], pp. 104-5). That Latin translations may have circulated is not out of the question, especially if they were used by the Manichaeans as well. [BACK]

75. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 10.24; 13.20-21. [BACK]

76. Ibid., 14.5-14. [BACK]

77. Ibid., 16.9-26. [BACK]

78. Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum 2. It is not certain whether the fragment of Priscillian's letter is authentic, whether Orosius quotes it fairly in context, or whether the system outlined in the fragment and in Orosius' supplementary description would have been considered particularly reprehensible by most of Priscillian's Christian contemporaries (Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 191-202). [BACK]

79. E. R. Dodds describes late-antique cosmology with an emphasis on its most dualistic articulations ( Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety [New York: Norton, 1965], pp. 5-7). See also Jean Pépin's discussion of more positive ancient religious attitudes toward the cosmos ("Cosmic Piety," in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality , ed. A. H. Armstrong [New York: Crossroad, 1986], pp. 408-35). [BACK]

80. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 16.13. Cf. the more explicit references to Ecclus. 17.31 in 1, 23.1-2, and 5, 64.1. [BACK]

81. Ibid. 6, 78.22-24. [BACK]

82. Anti-astrological polemics in the Greek church commonly took the form both of questioning the validity of astrology per se and of proclaiming that Christ has freed humanity from the domination of the heavenly powers. See Utto Riedinger, Der heilige Schrift im Kampf der griechischen Kirche gegen die Astrologie von Origenes bis Johannes von Damaskos (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag, 1956). Chadwick suggests that the second argument--which concedes a limited validity to the astrological science--was less common in the west, in which context Priscillian's language may have appeared more radical ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 200-201). However, the very proliferation of Christian anti-astrological arguments in the west in the last quarter of the fourth century indicates that many Christians did not fully reject astrological speculations; see, e.g., David Hunter's discussion of the context of Ambrosiaster's late-fourth-century De fato ("Ambrosiaster, Astral Fatalism, and the Prehistory of the Pelagian Controversy" [paper delivered at the North American Patristic Society Conference, 1990]). [BACK]

83. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 17.29-18.9. [BACK]

84. Ibid., 18.28. [BACK]

85. Nag Hammadi Codex II 1, p. 24; trans. Wisse, in Nag Hammadi Library , pp. 118-19. [BACK]

86. See Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: A Historical Survey (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985), pp. 16-17. [BACK]

87. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 18.29-22.12. [BACK]

88. This argument is developed at length in ibid. 3, 44-56. [BACK]

89. Ibid., 1, 22.10-12. [BACK]

90. Ibid., 30.14 and 17. Cf. 3, 46.22-26. [BACK]

91. Ibid. 3, 56.6-7. [BACK]

92. Ibid., 46.28-47.1. [BACK]

93. Ibid. 1, 22.13-23.4. [BACK]

94. Chadwick remarks that "it is even possible that the wretched man wrote his own death-warrant by these two fierce anti-Manichaean sentences" ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 97). [BACK]

95. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 41.16-17; id., Can. Ep. Pauli 46. [BACK]

96. E.g., Codex Theodosianus 9.16.1 (319-20), 9.16.4 (357), 9.16.5 (357; 356), 9.16.7 (364), 9.16.8 (370; 373). Hermann Funke gives an overview of anti-magical legislation under the fourth-century Christian emperors, concluding that it did not deviate significantly from pre-Christian legislation ("Majestäts- und Magieprozesse bei Ammianus Marcellinus," Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 10 [1967]: 146-51). [BACK]

97. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 39.8-10. [BACK]

98. Ibid. 1, 23.4-21. [BACK]

99. Ibid. 1, 23.22-24.5. [BACK]

100. Ibid., 24.1-3. [BACK]

101. Ibid., 24.10-11. [BACK]

102. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 51-52. [BACK]

103. Ibid., p. 54-55. [BACK]

104. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 25.25-26.12. [BACK]

105. Severus, Chron. 2.50. [BACK]

106. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 24.13-14. [BACK]

107. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 55. [BACK]

108. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 23.1-2; cf. 5, 64.1, 1, 16.13, and 6, 78.22-24. [BACK]

109. Ibid. 1, 24.3. [BACK]

110. Ibid., 28.15-16; 28.24-26. [BACK]

111. Ibid., 29.13-15; 30.13-15; 31.21-24. [BACK]

112. On this last point, see Peter Brown's classic study, The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978). [BACK]

113. Rebecca Lyman notes of the cosmological issues implicit in the Arian controversy that there, too, ''the primary theological issue was . . . transcendence and the alienation of material existence" ( Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], p. 139). [BACK]

114. Clark, Origenist Controversy , p. 245. [BACK]

115. Ibid., pp. 4, 9. [BACK]

116. Note that the seeming paradox of a "cosmology" expressed in "uncosmological" terms results in part from a certain slippage in my own application of the terminology of "cosmology," which in common theological usage may refer either more narrowly to an account of the creation and/or the structure of the universe or more broadly to a religious "worldview'' or a basic theological "model" articulated within the context of a "worldview" (see, e.g., Cosmology and Theology , ed. D. Tracy and N. Lash, Concilium 166 [New York: Seabury Press, 1983], p. vii, and Lyman, Christology and Cosmology , pp. 3-6). Such slippage is, however, legitimate where it is the case that a particular theological worldview or model is implicit in a particular view of creation, and vice versa; thus, Rebecca Lyman argues that ancient Christian cosmology should not be marginalized as "philosophical" or, worse yet, "heretical," but that "a more helpful course is to consider early cosmology as the theological model that reveals basic assumptions about the nature and relation of God and humanity" ( Christology and Cosmology , p. 5). In the case of Priscillian, as we shall see, to speak of the human being is to speak implicitly of the cosmos, which is in turn to address the broader issue of the relationship of the material and the divine, of the human person and God, of creation and redemption. [BACK]

117. Clark, Origenist Controversy , p. 246. [BACK]

118. Clark is explicit about her interest in the intersection of "theory (theology) and praxis (liturgical and ascetic practice)" (ibid., p. 4). Her discussion of eucharistic dimensions of the anthropomorphite controversy is particularly illumining (pp. 50, 63-66, 105-16, 156-57); she also firmly grounds the anti-Origenism of Epiphanius, Theophilus, and Jerome in late-fourth- and early-fifth-century debates over asceticism, marriage, and reproduction (pp. 94-100, 113-51). [BACK]

119. Priscillian, Tract. 5, 63.23-25); cf. 6, 73.9-10, 7, 83.24-84.1. [BACK]

120. Ibid. 5, 63.17-23. [BACK]

121. Ibid., 63.25-27. [BACK]

122. Ibid., 64.83-86. [BACK]

123. Ibid. 6, 73.3-13. [BACK]

124. Ibid., 93.3-12. [BACK]

125. Cf. ibid. 5, 65.27-66.3 [BACK]

126. Ibid. 6, 73.3-18. [BACK]

127. For this language I am indebted to Patricia Cox Miller, who adapts Jean Vernant's analysis of archaic Greek constructions of the human body and applies it to the Christian desert literature, suggesting that these pre- and postclassical periods have in common both "a comparative standard for perceiving human identity" and the "use of the image of a divine, 'dazzling' body as the privileged signifying ground of that 'dim' human identity" (''Desert Asceticism and 'The Body from Nowhere,'" Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 [1994]: 137-53, 140). [BACK]

128. Priscillian, Tract. 7, 82.7-84.17. [BACK]

129. Miller explicitly distinguishes the anthropological assumptions of the desert literature from "the Platonic, and later Cartesian, dichotomous model of human composition that splits the person into a positive soul or mind housed in a negative body construed as a prison or mechanistic object in space" ("Desert Asceticism," p. 140). Cf. Brown's parallel suggestion that late-ancient thought was marked, not so much by a sharpened dichotomy of soul and body, as by a sense of the distance separating the "soul" and the "true soul'' or heavenly genius ( Making of Late Antiquity , pp. 68-69). [BACK]

130. Priscillian, Tract. 5, 67.12-18. [BACK]

131. For an "Origenist" view of the soteriological function of scripture, see, e.g., Priscillian's discussion of scripture's threefold operation in ibid. 6, 70.7-71.3. Chadwick speculates that Priscillian would have absorbed Origen's doctrine of scripture via Hilary, although Origen's use of the Pauline trichotomy as an exegetical principle is not found in the extant works of Hilary ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 71 n. 1). Mark Vessey provides a nuanced discussion of the convergence of understandings of Christian reading and writing in the works of Hilary, on the one hand, and the Priscillianist tractates and Pauline canons, on the other, attributing such convergence not only to the direct influence of Hilary's writings on Priscillianist circles, but also to a shared Christian literary heritage fed by both Alexandrian traditions of "ascetical gnosis" and "a shared background of western ideas of Bible-study and Christian utterance" ("Ideas of Christian Writing in Late Roman Gaul" [D. Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1988], pp. 11-34). [BACK]

132. Priscillian, Tract. 3, 44.3-5; 45.23-24; 51.7-15; 56.6-7. [BACK]

133. Priscillian, Can. Ep. Pauli , prol. Mark Vessey has pointed out to me that the Pauline canons seem to represent an interesting precursor to the western genre of monastic "rules"; their literary form, which mediates between scriptura and regula , thus appears to offer a parallel expression of the tractates' conviction that a true reading of scripture is inevitably productive of an ascetic "orthodoxy." [BACK]

134. Van Dam here has Martin of Tours in mind, but his point is more generally applicable ( Leadership , p. 61). [BACK]

135. Priscillian, Tract. 4, 58.6-9. [BACK]

136. Severus, Chron. 2.46, 47; cf. Jerome, Ep. 133.4. [BACK]

137. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 3.9; Jerome, De viris inlustribus 123; Severus, Chron. 2.51. [BACK]

138. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 3.9. [BACK]

139. The Spanish poet Latronianus may already have been among Priscillian's supporters at this point; see Severus, Chron. 2.51, and Jerome, De viris inlustribus 122. [BACK]

Chapter Three "Sorcerer" Alliances, Enmities, and the Death of Priscillian

1. Severus, Chron. 2.48. Jacques Fontaine argues that the western routes connecting Spain and Aquitaine were used by Priscillian and Paulinus, among other well-known figures of the period; Priscillian probably progressed through the valleys of the Adour and the Garonne as he made his way north toward Bordeaux ("Société et culture chrétiennes," pp. 251-54). [BACK]

2. Severus, Chron. 2.48. There is no direct evidence that the exiled bishops visited Agen or even intended to do so. However, we know that the group passed through Eauze, which does not lie on the shortest path between the far western passes and Bordeaux; one possible explanation for the choice of route is an original intention to visit Agen as well as Bordeaux. Note that Rousselle suggests that the exiled bishops may have sought more than a letter of support from Delphinus: observing that the rulings of the Council of Antioch (341) dictated that a larger council must consider the appeal of a bishop deposed by a local synod before the matter could be brought before the emperor (can. 12), she proposes that Priscillian sought out the bishop of Bordeaux because he had the authority to convene a pan-Gallic council to consider rescinding the judgments of the Council of Saragossa, which (in Rousselle's opinion) had led to the deposition of Priscillian and his companions ("Quelques aspects politiques," p. 87). Rousselle seems to me to overestimate both the degree of hierarchalization among western bishops and the extent to which the rulings of an eastern council would have been either known or honored in the west. [BACK]

3. That Priscillian already had followers in Aquitaine has frequently been suggested, based on the presence of Delphinus and Phoebodius at the Council of Saragossa, as well as on Filastrius' early knowledge of "abstinents" in both Spain and Gaul. Babut has been the strongest proponent of this theory, going so far as to suggest possible Aquitanian origins for Priscillian's movement by positing the leadership of Attius Tiro Delphidius, whom he identifies with the Elpidius referred to by Severus ( Priscillien , pp. 79-91); Puech refutes Babut on these points ("Les Origenes du priscillianisme," pp. 81-95). More recently, Jacques Fontaine has emphasized the cultural unity of the areas north and south of the Pyrenees and suggested that Priscillian's route through precisely those portions of Gaul where the sees of the Aquitanian bishops who attended the Council of Saragossa were located indicates that those were areas where Priscillianism was strong before the council ("Société et culture chrétiennes," p. 254). However, Fontaine's emphasis on the close connections between Aquitaine and Spain makes it possible to view these two separate instances of close communication between Spanish and Aquitanian Christians as less directly related. Alternatively, the connection may be even more direct than he posits, as I have suggested by proposing that Priscillian intended to visit the Aquitanian bishops present at Saragossa in order to obtain letters substantiating his claim not to have been condemned by the Council of Saragossa. Finally, the close unity between Gaul and Spain was not just the cultural unity of a literary elite, which is Fontaine's primary focus, but also a unity in the sphere of ecclesiastical politics. Priscillian's journey to Aquitaine is one of several instances of Spanish Christians appealing to neighboring Gallic bishops for support, especially when they found themselves representing a minority position at home: in this controversy, we find Hydatius drawing upon the support of Delphinus and Phoebadius by inviting them to the Council at Saragossa, Priscillian appealing to Delphinus and other Aquitanian bishops following his exile from Spain, and Ithacius later finding powerful support from the bishop of Trier when he faces strong opposition in Spain. [BACK]

4. Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

5. Ibid. Severus makes no mention of Delphidius, but Pacatus identifies Euchrotia as the widow of a famous poet ( Pan. 29) and Ausonius seems to have her in mind when he refers to the "punishment" ( poena ) of the wife of Attius Tiro Delphidius ( Prof. 5); Prosper, writing some forty or more years later, but certainly relying on earlier Aquitanian sources, explicitly refers to Euchrotia as the wife of Delphidius the rhetorician ( Chron. 1187). It is probable that Delphidius died not long before Priscillian's visit, since Ausonius congratulates him for a timely death, through which he escaped knowledge either of his wife's execution or his daughter's "mistake" ( error ); see A. D. Booth, "Notes on Ausonius' Professores," Phoenix 32 (1978): 238-39. [BACK]

6. Prosper, Chron. 1187. The earliest edition of Prosper's Chronicle , which included the entries about Priscillian and his followers, is dated to 433 in Theodore Mommsen, ed., Chronica Minora Saec. IV, V, VI, VII , vol. 9 of Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Auctorum Antiquissimorum , p. 345. Prosper's information about Priscillian generally parallels Severus' account, and most of it probably derives either from Severus or from a closely related Aquitanian source: the reports of the Council of Bordeaux and of the trial and executions at Trier ( Chron. 1187, an. 385) remain close to Severus' text in language and content, and the report of the excommunication of Ithacius and Ursacius ( Chron. 1193, an . 389) is also consistent with his account, although Severus does not mention Ursacius; Babut suggests that Ursacius is to be identified with Hydatius ( Priscillien , pp. 36-37 n. 1). However, the report of the establishment of the Priscillianist heresy "from the dogma of Manichaeans and gnostics" seems to derive from Filastrius via Augustine, although Prosper adds the mistaken note that Priscillian was a Galician bishop ( Chron. 1171, an. 379). And the particular passage in which Urbica is mentioned is unparallelled in Severus or any other known source. The reference to "obstinacy in impiety," which reflects classical Roman rather than specifically Christian language, may suggest that Prosper's information derived from the pagan or nominally Christian aristocratic circles of late-fourth-century Gaul exemplified by a figure like Ausonius. Note that Ausonius was not only familiar with Urbica herself (as argued below) but also accused Paulinus, whom he may have suspected of having Priscillianist leanings, of "impiety" (Paulinus, Ep. 31.83-84). [BACK]

7. R.P.H. Green, "Prosopographical Notes on the Family and Friends of Ausonius," Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 25 (1978): 22. [BACK]

8. Priscillian probably arrived in Bordeaux in 381. If, as Green suggests, Ausonius' Parentalia was largely complete early in the 380s, Pomponia Urbica's husband, Julianus Censor, who is commemorated in Par. 22, was probably already dead by 381 ("Prosopographical Notes," p. 22). Green suggests that the commemoration of Pomponia Urbica in Par. 30 was a later addition made sometime before publication between 386 and 388; Prosper's account, if the identification is accepted, makes it likely that she died in the events surrounding the council of Bordeaux circa 384. Her widowhood would thus have lasted several years. As we shall see, Ausonius' emphasis on its extreme brevity may result from his embarrassment at the manner of her death and his attempt to present her as a faithful wife rushing to reunite with her husband in death. [BACK]

9. Ausonius, Par. 30.3-6. [BACK]

10. Jerome uses both figures as examples of the virtue of married women ( Adversus Jovinianum 1.49). In the allusion to Tanaquil as the possessor of a "virtue rare among women" ( rara inter feminas virtus ), he may be relying on Seneca's lost treatise on marriage (F. Haase, ed., L. Annaei Senecae Opera [Teubner, 1853], 3: 433). Silius Italicus likewise represents Tanaquil as an exemplary female figure, describing her as "of chaste mind" ( castae mentis ), as well as gifted in prophecy (13.818-820). Livy gives the fullest account of Tanaquil's unique career (1.34-35, 39, 41), and Juvenal presents Tanaquil in unambiguously negative terms (6.566). Theano, identified sometimes as the disciple, sometimes as the wife of Pythagoras, is presented by Diogenes Laertius as a paragon of wifely virtue, advising other women to clothe themselves in shame before all men but their husbands and defining shame as "that through which I am called a woman" (8.43). Female philosophers were generally viewed with some ambivalence; see, for example, the stories told of Hipparchia in Diogenes Laertius 6.96-98. [BACK]

11. Green, "Prosopographical Notes," p. 22. Green also compares the allusion to Theano here with the allusions to Pythagoras and Bellerophon in Ausonius' Ep. 24 to Paulinus, noting that Ausonius was perfectly capable of using such allusions in a complex and/or polemical manner. [BACK]

12. Dennis Trout argues persuasively that Ausonius' references to Tanaquil ( Ep. 28.31) and Bellerophon ( Ep. 29.72) reflect his suspicions that Therasia and Paulinus may have become involved with the Priscillianist movement during their sojourn in Spain. These suspicions were not based on any real knowledge of Paulinus' and Therasia's situation in Spain and were emphatically rejected by Paulinus ( Ep. 31.189-92) (Trout, "Secular Renunciation and Social Action: Paulinus of Nola and Late Roman Society" [diss., Duke University, 1989], pp. 144-70). [BACK]

13. Green refers to Pomponia Urbica's "penchant for martyrdom" ("Prosopographical Notes," p. 22). [BACK]

14. Ausonius, Par. 30.7-10. [BACK]

15. Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

16. ACS , can. 1. [BACK]

17. Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

18. Ausonius, Prof. 5.37. [BACK]

19. ACS , can. 8. [BACK]

20. Note that Delphinus does not appear to have objected to the ascetic conversion of the wealthy and aristocratic Therasia several years later. The fact that she, like Euchrotia, was a mature woman, may have facilitated his acceptance. Still more significant, Therasia's husband Paulinus was still living and had joined his wife in her ascetic lifestyle. Delphinus could not afford to alienate such a powerful man, and Paulinus' writings provide evidence that he and Delphinus remained on friendly terms following Paulinus' conversion and move away from Bordeaux ( Epp. 10, 14, 19, 20, and 35 are addressed to Delphinus). [BACK]

21. Peter Brown notes that the majority of well-born young women vowing virginity seem to have been the daughters of widows; had they still been alive, their fathers would have opposed their vows to do so ( Body and Society , p. 344). [BACK]

22. Chadwick speculates that if Euchrotia were a recent widow, "her motives could have included a quest for consolation by making pilgrimage to the shrines of the apostles and martyrs of Rome" ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 37). For a discussion of pilgrimage in this period, see Gustave Bardy, "Pèlerinages à Rome vers la fin du IV e siècle," Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949): 224-35, and Hagith Sivan, "Who Was Egeria? Piety and Pilgrimage in the Age of Gratian," Harvard Theological Review 81 (1988): 59-72. [BACK]

23. See Babut, Priscillien , p. 153. [BACK]

24. Severus, Chron. 2.48. Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism , pp. 14-18, provides a helpful analysis of the fifth-century conflicts that shaped Severus' perspective. Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," pp. 368-69, highlights Severus' subtle preference for the Priscillianists over the Ithacians. The latter were identified with the "Felicians," who tended to be Gallic isolationists in ecclesiastical terms but were not averse to seeking political patronage to further their cause, whereas their opponents, among whom Severus was numbered, were willing to appeal to Italian ecclesiastical authority but opposed the intervention of secular patrons. [BACK]

25. Note that Chadwick follows Severus in placing the Roman visit first; his position seems to require dating the Letter of Damasus --with its reference to the Priscillianists' petitioning of the quaestor--to the period after the visit to Rome and the subsequent stay in Milan ( Priscillian of Avila , p. 40). [BACK]

26. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 41.13-16. It should be noted that the letter does initially seem to imply that the group immediately set out for Rome; however, in light of what follows, this should be understood primarily as part of a strategy to flatter Damasus: "eclesias nostras commendavimus deo, quarum communicatorias ad te epistulas detulimus totius cleri et plebis suscribtione transmissas, et ad te qui potuimus venientes voluimus quidem absentes supplicare" ( Tract. 2, 41.7-11). [BACK]

27. Severus, Chron. 2.49, and Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 40, n. 3. Proculus Gregorius was praefectus annonae in 377, and praefectus praetorio Galliarum in 383, before Gratian's death; Symmachus, Ep. 3.19, indicates that Gregory was at court in 379 or 380, at which point he most likely held the office of quaestor sacri palatini (A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire , vol. 1 [1971], p. 526; Matthews, Western Aristocracies , p. 71-72). Although tenure in such offices was typically quite short, Gregory could easily have held the palace quaestorship for as long as two or three years, which would include the period in which Priscillian must have visited Milan (on tenure in office, see A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 284-602 [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964], 1: 381). [BACK]

28. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 41.2-3. It is the context of this passage that suggests the connection with the issuing of the rescript: immediately preceding the mention of Ambrose is a an account of Hydatius' attempt to procure a rescript, and immediately following it is the report of his use of the rescript that was brought back to him. [BACK]

29. Severus, Chron. 2.48. Since Severus does not mention the first stop in Milan, his mention of Ambrose's hostility is necessarily in conjunction with the second stop. Ambrose's Epp. 24.12 and 26.3 refer disapprovingly to episcopal participation in the civil trial and execution of certain "heretics" or "criminals," but Ambrose does not mention Priscillian's name or refer to any earlier involvement in Priscillian's case. [BACK]

30. See the defense of this "traditional" dating by Pierre Nautin, "Les Premières Relations d'Ambroise avec l'empereur Gratien: Le De fide (livres I et II)," in Ambroise de Milan: XVI e centenaire de son élection épiscopale, ed. Yves-Marie Duval (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1974), pp. 229-44, 231-35. Nautin here challenges the suggestion of Gunther Gottlieb that the document should be dated instead to the late spring or summer of 380 ( Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian [Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1973], p. 50). For our purposes the exact dating of the document is not crucial. Note that while Gottlieb has demonstrated that Gratian followed his father's relatively evenhanded religious policies as late as 380, he continues the scholarly tradition of presenting the post-380 Gratian as a religiously naive youth seeking refuge in the theological wisdom of the Milanese bishop. Nautin rightly challenges this view, arguing that both Gratian's religious policy and Ambrose's response to Gratian suggest that the young emperor was theologically and politically astute in his handling of the conflict between the Nicene and Homoian parties (pp. 238-44). [BACK]

31. While Nautin emphasizes the opposition of the Illyrican bishops, Daniel Williams suggests that the local opposition of the Homoian party was the more pressing factor ( Ambrose of Milan , ch. 5). [BACK]

32. Cupio valde ( PL 16.913-14). Again, note that Gottlieb dates Gratian's letter more than a year later, to the summer of 380 ( Ambrosius von Mailand , p. 50). [BACK]

33. Building on the work of Nautin, Daniel Williams provides an important discussion of the context of these final books, emphasizing that they were composed not at the formal request of the emperor but rather in response to both local and extralocal Homoian attacks ( Ambrose of Milan , ch. 5). [BACK]

34. Ambrose, De fide 2.141-43; 3.1-2. [BACK]

35. See Williams, Ambrose of Milan , ch. 4. [BACK]

36. Ambrose, however, is remarkably reticent concerning Julian Valens, who is mentioned only in Ep. 10, in which Ambrose on behalf of the Council of Aquileia requests Valens' exile, and Ep. 11, which refers to Valens in connection with Ursinus, whose exile is also requested. [BACK]

37. Our only direct reference either to the "sequestering" or "return" of the basilica is Ambrose, De spir. sanc. 1.1.19-20. Note that two recent reconstructions of this first Milanese conflict over a basilica are at odds: Harry O. Maier suggests that the Homoians never gained access to the basilica ("Private Space as the Social Context of Arianism in Ambrose's Milan," Journal of Theological Studies , n.s., 45 [1994]: 72-93], while Daniel H. Williams argues that they did (''Ambrose, Emperors and Homoians in Milan: The First Conflict over a Basilica," in Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Conflicts , ed. Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993], pp. 127-46, 137-39). [BACK]

38. Maier has fruitfully applied the public-private distinction to the analysis of the Milanese conflict, pointing first to the privileged claim to authority inherent in the occupation of public space and the resulting intensity of the "battle" to control that space, and, second, to the fluid adaptability of Christian movements that were privatized following upon their "defeat" ("Private Space"). Note that Maier has challenged the widespread assumption that the Homoians had one or two of their own basilicas during Ambrose's episcopacy; if he is right, the Homoian attempts to acquire basilical space may become still more significant for our understanding of the issues at stake in the conflict. Where Maier's use of the public-private distinction is not in complete harmony with mine is in his tendency to accept somewhat uncritically both the rhetorical polarization of public and private and the negative valorization of the private sphere; while clearly a "battle" of some sort was being waged over public space in Milan, the terms of that "battle'' continue to be defined by Ambrose, so that I might, for example, question whether the Homoians themselves always experienced their private location negatively as a "defeat." On the late-ancient privatization of heresy more generally, see Harry O. Maier, "Religious Dissent, Heresy and Households in Late Antiquity," Vigiliae Christianae , forthcoming. [BACK]

39. Richard Krautheimer has demonstrated the value of the topographical approach for the study of the architectural construction of a public Milanese orthodoxy ( Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983], pp. 68-92). Maier refines the approach by attempting to construct a complementary "map" of privatized heterodox movements in Milan ("Private Space"). While Krautheimer's treatment of Ambrosian Milan highlights Ambrose's construction of Milan as an episcopally centered "Christian capital" in direct competition with Constantinople's imperially centered capital, Maier calls attention to the conflict within the Milanese "capital," articulated spacially in the division of public and private meeting places. [BACK]

40. Paulinus of Milan, Vita Ambrosii 13; cf. Augustine, Conf. 9.7, and Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1986), pp. 141-43, 174-76. [BACK]

41. I emphasize this point in my "Ascesis, Authority, and Text: The Acts of the Council of Saragossa," Semeia 58 (1992): 95-108. [BACK]

42. Maier, "Private Space," p. 93. [BACK]

43. Ambrose, De spir. sanc. 1.1.19-20. [BACK]

44. In a review of Roger Gryson's critical edition of the "Arian Scholia" ( Scolies ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilée [Sources chrétiennes 267; Paris: Éd. du Cerf, 1980]), Yves-Marie Duval has emphasized the competitive motive behind Theodosius' decision to call a general eastern council at Constantinople in the same year in which Gratian's general council at Aquileia had been scheduled by agreement of the two emperors; this unexpected development provided an opening for Ambrose, who offered Gratian the possibility of continuing with his plans for a council while yet recasting it in such a way that the council would not be in direct--and unsuccessful--competition with Constantinople ("La Présentation arienne du concile d'Aquilée de 381," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 76 [1981]: 317-31, 327-28). Neil McLynn adds that ''it is unlikely . . . that Gratian foresaw the effect that the revised arrangements would have upon the conduct of the council'' ("The 'Apology' of Palladius: Nature and Purpose," Journal of Theological Studies , n.s., 42 [1991]: 52-76, 71). [BACK]

45. Palladius' Apology is preserved in the "Arian Scholia" published by Gryson, Scolies ariennes , pp. 264-74. [BACK]

46. The history of continued conflict between pro-Nicene and anti-Nicene factions in Milan, culminating in the struggle over the basilica in 386, is well known. McLynn has recently emphasized the significant threat represented by the opposition of Palladius even after the Council of Aquileia ("'Apology' of Palladius," pp. 70-76). [BACK]

47. The Council of Saragossa, which met in October of 380, provides the absolute terminus a quo for the dating of the rescript, but a period of some months must have elapsed, during which both the conflict at Merida and Priscillian's ordination occurred; in addition, Priscillian's mention of Ambrose in relation to the rescript suggests a date when Gratian was either in Milan or in close touch with Ambrose, e.g., March 381 or the months following (on Gratian's whereabouts during this period, see Otto Seek, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. [Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919], p. 256). The death of Gratian in August 383 provides the absolute terminus ad quem for both the rescript and Priscillian's visit to Italy, but again chronological "space" must be allowed for Priscillian's return to Spain, Volventius' summoning of Ithacius, Ithacius' flight, Gregory's intervention and report to Gratian, and Macedonius' engineering of the transfer of the case to Spain; this makes it unlikely that Priscillian's visit to Milan could have taken place later than 382. [BACK]

48. Mathisen emphasizes the close connections between Ambrose and Gallic bishops ( Ecclesiastical Factionalism , p. 11); note that Ambrose' Ep. 87 is addressed to Phoebadius and Delphinus. [BACK]

49. Babut dates Filastrius's Diversarum hereseon liber to 383 and places great emphasis on the significance of his testimony to the geographical spread of Priscillianism ( Priscillien , pp. 6-8, 79-83). Puech challenges Babut's use of Filastrius' text, noting that the document cannot safely be dated with greater precision than 375-92 and rightly stressing its unreliability as a source of information about Priscillian's movement ("Les Origines du priscillianisme," pp. 84-89). Filastrius, remains a useful source about impressions of Priscillian at a relatively early stage in the controversy, however; if--as most would agree--the text does refer to the Priscillianists, it probably dates to the period between the first emergence of conflict and Priscillian's execution--that is, between 380 and 386 or 387. [BACK]

50. Filastrius, Diversarum hereseon liber 61, 84. Filastrius' language suggests that his report of the dualistic teaching of the "abstinents" is simply inferred from their ascetic practice (see Babut, Priscillien , p. 7). The identification of these ascetics with gnostics and Manichaeans may also be based on such an inference; however, given the probable content of Hydatius' communication to Ambrose, Filastrius could easily have known of the specific charge of Manichaeism. [BACK]

51. It is unclear whether Ambrose's asceticism was a further point of significant vulnerability--as well as strength--at this early date. Some years later, the "anti-ascetic" Jovinian seems to have accused Ambrose of Manichaeism, and Ambrose neatly turned the charge back on his accuser; see David G. Hunter's analysis of Ambrose, Ep. 42 to Siricius ("Resistance to the Virginal Ideal in Late-Fourth-Century Rome: The Case of Jovinian," Theological Studies 48 [1987]: 51-53). If controversy over Ambrose's asceticism was already in the air in the early 380s, this would have made him still more cautious about any association with Priscillian. However, the conflict with the Homoians seems clearly the more significant context for interpreting Ambrose's response to Priscillian, while Ambrose's own ascetic agenda in many respects aligns him more closely with Priscillian's opponents than with Priscillian. [BACK]

52. Ambrose, Ep. 20.17-18. [BACK]

53. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 34.10-11, 35.21-24, 41.8-10, 41.16-17, 42.24-43.7. On preference for ecclesiastical judgment, cf. Can. Ep. Pauli 46. [BACK]

54. Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

55. Jerome, De viris inlustribus 121. [BACK]

56. This is not certain, since Jerome's rhetorical context provides him with another possible motive for his neutral presentation of Priscillian. Jerome's De viris inlustribus was written at the request of Nummius Aemilianus Dexter, a powerful figure at Theodosius' court in the mid 380s, and Matthews points out that in order to please his Spanish patron, Jerome seems to have included references, not only to Dexter's father, Bishop Pacianus of Barcelona, but also to Priscillian, Tiberianus, and Latronianus. Obviously, for this strategy to be effective, Jerome would have to assume that, at least in Dexter's eyes, the reputations of Priscillian, Tiberianus, and Latronianus were not entirely negative ( Western Aristocracies , pp. 133-34, 167-68; see now Stefan Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis: Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen [Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992], pp. 213-15). [BACK]

57. Charles Pietri, Roma Christiana (Rome: École française, 1976), pp. 423-27, and Maier, "Topography of Heresy and Dissent." [BACK]

58. Note that the Roman "schism" is more complicated than the Milanese, not least because the Roman factions cannot be neatly aligned with "pro-Nicene" and ''anti-Nicene'' positions: although Liberius was exiled for his strong pro-Nicene commitments, he was also later bitterly maligned as a compromiser and traitor to the Nicene cause; nor does Felix seem to have had an "Arian" theological orientation, in spite of the fact that he was the preferred choice of the emperor Constantius (see the helpful account of Pietri, Roma Christiana , 1: 237-68). Harry Maier has recently highlighted the private-sphere location of many out-of-favor factions or "protest movements": just as Liberius' supporters were probably driven into private meeting places during Felix' episcopacy, so Felix's supporters seem to have occupied the private sphere when driven out of the basilicas following Liberius' return ("The Topography of Heresy and Dissent in Late-Fourth-Century Rome," Historia [forthcoming]). That the Damasan-Ursinian factions stand in some sort of important historical continuity with the Liberian-Felician factions is clear, and Maier places particular emphasis on this connection in order to demonstrate the "private" persistence of the Felician faction. However, as Pietri notes, while "le conflit qui oppose Ursinus à Damase pour la succession de Libère prolonge une ancienne querelle," it was also doubtless fuelled by "nouvelles oppositions," stemming in his opinion from resistance to the effects of the conversion of the aristocracy ( Roma Christiana , 1: 407-8). I would add that while Ursinus struggled to define himself as the legitimate successor to Liberius in part by casting Damasus as a "Felician," Damasus certainly would not have represented himself that way by 366, and we have only his opponents' word that his supporters were identical with those who had supported Felix. [BACK]

59. "Et hoc gloriae vestrae" ( PL 13.575-84); Ambrose, Ep. 11. [BACK]

60. Charles Pietri provides an overview of the disorderly state of ecclesiastical politics in Italy in the 370s, during which not only Damasus but also Ambrose found himself embroiled in conflict with Ursinus; with the help of the emperor, Damasus was able to restore order and reestablish Rome's prominence among the Italian churches, but in the 380s, Milan emerged as a formidable rival to Roman supremacy in Italy ( Roma Christiana , 1: 729-54). [BACK]

61. A hostile libellus circulated shortly after Ursinus' ejection from Rome in 368 claims that Damasus was so much esteemed by the matrons of the city that he was called matronarum auriscalpius ("tickler of matronly ears") ( Collectio Avellana 1.9); as André Hoepffner notes, "elle établit que Damase fréquentait avec assiduité les dames de la bonne société romaine et qu'il y était un hôte choyé" ("Les Deux Procès du Pape Damase," Revue des études anciennes 50 [1948]: 296). Hoepffner argues for the reliability of the testimony of the Liber Pontificalis , which records that Damasus was accused of adultery but cleared by a synod of bishops ( Liber Pontificalis: Damasus 3); he further suggests that this synod is to be identified with the Council of Rome of 378 ("Deux Procès," pp. 289-304). That same council had also petitioned Gratian to recognize the right of bishops to be tried only by a council of their fellow bishops ( Ep. "Et hoc gloriae vestrae" 3 and 10). Priscillian may therefore have had good reason to hope that Damasus would support his own request for a hearing from an episcopal council. [BACK]

62. Cf. Maier, "Topography of Heresy and Dissent." [BACK]

63. See Gratian's rescript, Collectio Avellana 13. Bishop Damasus' imperial support is particularly emphasized by Pietri, Roma Christiana , 1: 414-31. [BACK]

64. Pietri, Roma Christiana , 1: 461-68. Note that Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals , pp. 94-105, adds another church to the list of those projects initiated by Damasus: the sumptuous basilica at the site of Paul's grave. [BACK]

65. Note that John Baldovin has recently challenged the dating of the "systemization" of the Roman stational liturgy to the episcopacy of Damasus, without however denying that significant enhancement of stational "practices" probably took place under Damasus' leadership ( The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy [Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987], pp. 119, 147-51). [BACK]

66. Pietri provides a critical review of the sources for the chain of events immediately following Liberius' death ( Roma Christiana , 1: 408-12), largely following the chronological and geographical reconstruction of Adolf Lippold ("Ursinus und Damasus," Historia 14 [1965]: 105-28). The terminology of "first" and "second" Christian establishments is Pietri's. [BACK]

67. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals , pp. 12-20. [BACK]

68. In attributing the building of St. Paul's Outside the Walls to the initiative of Damasus, Krautheimer associates Damasus with a new "classical tenor" in architectural style "which looks back to the Hadrianic and Augustan past of Rome" (ibid., p. 104). [BACK]

69. Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

70. Severus suggests that both bribery and persuasion played a role in the Spaniards' success ( Chron. 2.48). Persuasion was not out of the question: recall that Priscillian claims that the quaestor found their requests fair ( Tract. 2, 41.15). Macedonius and Ambrose do not seem to have been on friendly terms; see Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii 37. Rousselle suggests that Gratian was probably absent from Milan at the time of Priscillian's visit and, as was customary, had delegated greater powers to his magister officiorum during his absence ("Quelques aspects politiques," pp. 88-89). This may not be a necessary condition for Macedonius' interference. [BACK]

71. The "legislative incoherence" of this rescript of Macedonius has an interesting parallel in a report of the urban prefect Symmachus to Valentinian II, dated 384 and indicating that Macedonius had on at least one other occasion been responsible for the issuing of a rescript that conflicted with previous imperial directives. Certain members of the salt-workers' guild had been exempted from their duties, but the guild was demanding that those exempted be forced to return to service, on the grounds that it was otherwise unable to fulfill its obligations; the exempted workers countered by citing "a divine directive" and were found to be "protected by the support of Macedonius." Symmachus comments carefully that only direct action of the emperor could untangle the knot of conflicting imperial rescripts, some of which had been "extracted unfairly"--a disapproving reference to Macedonius' initiative ( Rel. 44.1). Note that Macedonius' behavior can hardly have been unique. Such incoherencies in imperial policy should probably not be attributed solely either to the deficient characters of a few individuals or to the lags and gaps in communication that inevitably plagued a highly centralized government ruling so wide a geographical area; inconsistency also had its positive function, responding to the need for a certain flexibility of policy within the context of the patronage system undergirding imperial governance. [BACK]

72. Severus, Chron. 2.48. [BACK]

73. Barbero de Aguilera goes so far as to suggest that support for Priscillian came primarily from rural areas whose native inhabitants resisted the new alliance of Roman and episcopal authority in a time of social and economic crisis ("El priscilianismo: ¿Herejía o movimiento social?" pp. 16-25); he has more recently been followed in this interpretation by Narciso Santos Yanguas, "Movimientos sociales en la España del Bajo Imperio," Hispania 40 (1980): 237-69. There are serious problems with the argument, at least as it is applied to the early stages of the Priscillianist controversy, in which the primary context was clearly urban; see Van Dam, Leadership , pp. 90-91. Nevertheless, there may be some truth in the suggestion that there was local resentment of Hydatius' invocation of the authority of the imperial court to expel leaders with popular support in their own communities. [BACK]

74. Rousselle speculates, perhaps unnecessarily, that this was accomplished at the request of Priscillian's patron Macedonius ("Quelques aspects politiques," p. 90). [BACK]

75. Severus, Chron. 2.49. [BACK]

76. Ibid. [BACK]

77. See Maximus, Epistula ad Siricium papam . Birley argues against the view that Maximus in this letter is responding to Siricius' criticism of his handling of the Priscillianist affair. Birley suggests, rather, that Maximus replies to a more general question about the catholic faith and spontaneously offers his handling of Priscillian as proof of his outstanding orthodoxy ("Magnus Maximus and the Persecution of Heresy," pp. 36-37). If this interpretation is accurate, it further confirms the impression that Maximus viewed the Priscillianist controversy as a chance to demonstrate his own zeal for orthodoxy. [BACK]

78. Severus, Chron. 2.49. [BACK]

79. Klaus Girardet, "Trier 385: Der Prozess gegen die Priscillianer," Chiron 4 (1974): 587-89. [BACK]

80. Severus, Chron. 2.49. [BACK]

81. Girardet, "Trier 385," pp. 593-94. Rousselle offers the innovative suggestion that Priscillian's appeal was directed not at Maximus but at the court of Valentinian II at Milan ("Quelques aspects politiques," p. 93). [BACK]

82. Severus reports disapprovingly: "Priscillianus . . . ad principem provocavit; permissumque id nostrorum inconstantia, qui aut sententiam in refragantem ferre debuerat, aut si ipsi suspecti habebantur, aliis episcopis audentiam reservare, non causam imperatori de tam manifestis criminibus permittere" ( Chron. 2.49). [BACK]

83. Prosper, Chron . 1187. [BACK]

84. The tendency to view Priscillian's trial and execution as a foreshadowing of later medieval developments exaggerates the impression that the events surrounding Priscillian's death were out of place or are inexplicable in their late-fourth-century setting. The comment of Peter Stockmeier is representative: "Der Blutspruch von Trier leitet eine Entwicklung in der Geschichte der Kirche ein, die in Religionskriegen und Inquisition endet" ("Das Schwert im Dienste der Kirche: Zur Hinrichtung Priszillians in Trier," in Festschrift für Alois Thomas [Trier: Selbstverlag des Bistumsarchivs, 1967], p. 428). [BACK]

85. Priscillian, Tract. 2, 41.16-17; id., Can. Ep. Pauli 46; id., Tract. 1, 22.14-19. [BACK]

86. Severus, Chron. 2.50. [BACK]

87. Severus, Dial. 3.11. Note that here, as elsewhere, Severus avoids any mention of the term "Manichaean"; nevertheless, this was almost certainly the label invoked by Ithacius. Manichaeans were frequently identified by their fasting, paleness, and dress. Jerome, for example, describes the suspicions of certain Christian women in Rome with regard to their ascetic sisters: "quam viderint pallentem atque tristem, miseram et Manichaeam vocant: et consequenter: tali enim proposito jejunium haeresis est" ( Ep. 22.13). [BACK]

88. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 23.22-24.3; Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

89. Ibid. 2.48. [BACK]

90. Priscillian's anonymous Roman contemporary "Ambrosiaster" describes the Manichaeans' supposedly duplicitous and immoral behavior as follows: "None are as troublesome, as treacherous, as deceitful as these very ones who are known to cultivate one idea and to confess something else, to bear one notion inwardly and to claim something else in public. For they defend purity and live shamelessly by their own supporting law. . . . They find women who want to hear something on account of its new appearance, and through what is pleasing they recommend to them what is foul and unlawful" ( Commentaria in epistulam ad Timotheum secundam 3.6-7). An early work of Augustine's, written around 388 in Rome, highlights more specifically the purported Manichaean use of contraception: "Is it not you who consider begetting children, by which souls are bound in flesh, a more serious sin than copulation? Is it not you who used to advise us to observe, as much as possible, the time after menstruation when a woman is most ready for conception and to refrain from copulation at that time, so that the soul would not be entangled in flesh?" ( De moribus Manichaeorum 18.65). According to M. K. Hopkins, abortion and contraception were not consistently distinguished in ancient thought, nor could many of the recommended methods have been effective, with the possible exception of the use of certain vaginal suppositories ("Contraception in the Roman Empire,'' Comparative Studies in Society and History 8 [1965]: 124-51). More recently, John Riddle has argued for widespread knowledge, particularly among women, of the effective use of herbal contraceptives as well as early-stage herbal abortifacients; he also traces a growing reticence on the part of late-ancient male physicians to prescribe abortifacients, reflected in the common mistranslations of Hippocrates to the effect that to assist in abortion is a violation of the physician's oath ( Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992]). From the point of view of late-ancient Christian authors, who clearly shared these negative views of abortion, contraception and abortion remain closely linked precisely through their association with duplicitous sexual behavior, especially on the part of women, as the texts collected in the study of Michael Gorman indicate ( Abortion and the Early Church [New York: Paulist Press, 1982], pp. 63-73). [BACK]

91. Both Severus and Prosper refer to Ithacius' deposition: Severus, Chron. 2.51; Prosper, Chron. 1193, an. 389. [BACK]

92. Isidore, De viris illustribus 14. [BACK]

93. Severus, Chron. 2.50. [BACK]

94. Ibid. [BACK]

95. Ambrose, Ep. 24.12. Cf. Ambrose's (later?) expressions of disapproval of those bishops who accused criminals in the context of public trials, some actively calling for the sword, others merely approving such "bloody triumphs of bishops" ( cruentos sacerdotum triumphos ) ( Ep. 26.3). [BACK]

96. Severus. Chron. 2.50-51. The simplest explanation seems to me to be that Ithacius withdrew at the same time that Maximus did, and that the trial also officially became a sorcery trial at that point, rather than a personal consideration by the emperor of the charge of Manichaeism. Severus' account, however, leaves some confusion as to the sequence of events: as Girardet notes, his report of Ithacius' withdrawal seems to be added out of order, as a further elaboration of the events already narrated ("Trier 385," p. 600). [BACK]

97. Severus, Chron. 2.50. [BACK]

98. The Council of Elvira (309) had also ruled against women's attendance of vigils, on the grounds of suspected immorality: "Placuit prohiberi ne foeminae in coemeterio pervigilent, eo quod saepe sub obtentu orationis latenter scelera committunt" (can. 35). On magic and vigils, cf. Codex Theodosianus 9.16.7. [BACK]

99. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 18, 140. It is highly unlikely that Priscillian actually prayed completely naked. "I have looked in vain for historical accounts of practices of nakedness," Margaret R. Miles comments in reference to late ancient Christian asceticism ( Carnal Knowing [Boston: Beacon Press, 1989], p. 63). [BACK]

100. Maximus Augustus, Epistola ad Siricium papam 4. [BACK]

101. Augustine, De natura boni 47. [BACK]

102. Severus, Chron. 2.50-51. Jerome records a similar list of those initially condemned, substituting the name "Julianus" for "Armenius" ( De viris inlustribus 122). [BACK]

103. Pacatus, Pan. 29. [BACK]

104. Ausonius, Prof. 5.35-38. [BACK]

Chapter Four "Priscillianist" Heresy Inquisitions at Toledo and Tarragona

1. Severus, Chron. 2.51; Hydatius, Chron. 16, an. 387. [BACK]

2. "In fact, in some respects Priscillianism seems to have replaced Manichaeism in Spain and southern Gaul as a homebred idiom of heresy with which people articulated unacceptable aspects of their communities" (Van Dam, Leadership , p. 108). [BACK]

3. E.g., Braga I (561). [BACK]

4. The term Priscillianistae appears in five anti-heretical laws of the Codex Theodosianus ; of these, two were issued in the west and appear to refer to the Spanish sect (16.5.40, 16.5.43), while three were issued in the east and appear to refer to the followers of the Montanist prophet Priscilla (16.5.48, 16.5.59, 16.5.65) (cf. Jones, Later Roman Empire , 3: 323-324 n. 33). [BACK]

5. E.g., Augustine, De haeresibus 70 (c. 429). Augustine may get the term from the Galician Orosius, whose Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum (414) represents the earliest extant use of the vocabulary of "Priscillianism" of which I am aware. See Introduction, n. 7, above. [BACK]

6. E.g., Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 174-76, 181-85, and id., "The New Letters of St. Augustine," Journal of Theological Studies , n.s., 34 (1983): 434-36. [BACK]

7. These include (1) the Transcript of the Professions Held in the Council of Toledo against the Sect of Priscillian (hereafter Exemplar ) (critical edition by Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 234-39), and (2) the Acts of the Council of Toledo (400) (hereafter ACT ). There is also a third document traditionally attached to the first Council of Toledo, a rule of faith with accompanying anathemas; this document occurs in both longer and shorter recensions. It is now generally acknowledged that neither of these versions of the Regula fidei was originally promulgated by the Council of Toledo. The shorter recension appears unrelated to Priscillianism and probably dates back to the period before the outbreak of the Priscillianist controversy. The longer recension is clearly an anti-Priscillianist work but appears to be considerably later than the first Council of Toledo; it has been suggested that it is the mid-fifth-century work of the Galician bishop Pastor (Barbero de Aguilera, "El priscilianismo: ¿Herejía o movimiento social?" pp. 25-36). [BACK]

8. Ep. 11* ( CSEL 88 [1981], pp. 51-70). This letter is part of a collection recently discovered by Johannes Divjak, including twenty-six new letters of Augustine and three of his correspondents. [BACK]

9. ACT , preface. [BACK]

10. Augustine ( Contra mendacium 5), Leo ( Ep. 15.16.1), and Hydatius ( Chron. 32, an. 400), also seem familiar with this portion of the council's minutes. [BACK]

11. On the manuscript tradition, see Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 179-81, 234. [BACK]

12. ACT , ll. 1-9. It is almost universally assumed that Symphosius was bishop of the Galician capital Astorga, but as Van Dam points out, "his see is nowhere explicitly stated" ( Leadership , p. 109 n. 100). [BACK]

13. Exemplar , ll. 3-43. [BACK]

14. Exemplar , ll. 44-154. [BACK]

15. Exemplar , ll. 70-74. [BACK]

16. Exemplar , ll. 74-94. [BACK]

17. Exemplar , ll. 82-84, 90-103. The openings filled by Symphosius' ordinations may have resulted in part from the spread of Christianity into the Galician countryside and the corresponding emergence of new rural episcopacies. Alain Tranoy highlights the importance of the emergence of the villae and the reoccupation of the castra in fourth-century Galicia and notes that these social developments must have favored the proliferation of rural Christian communities ( La Galice Romaine , pp. 409-434, and "Contexto histórico del priscilianismo en Galicia en los siglos IV y V," in Prisciliano y el priscilianismo [Oviedo: Cuadernos del norte, 1982], pp. 78-79). It is unclear whether Dictinius was co-bishop of Astorga alongside his father Symphosius or ordained by Symphosius to lead one of the rural communities in the vicinity of Astorga. [BACK]

18. Exemplar , ll. 84-90. [BACK]

19. See Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 152 n. 3. [BACK]

20. Exemplar , ll. 78-81. [BACK]

21. Exemplar , ll. 25, 30, 31, 32-33, 37, 58, 59-60, 65-66. [BACK]

22. Exemplar , ll. 15-16. [BACK]

23. Exemplar , ll. 11-14, 17; 20; 87. Cf. Augustine, Contra mendacium 5. [BACK]

24. Dictinius cites Matthew 16.19 ( Exemplar , ll. 12-13), and Galatians 1.8-9 ( Exemplar , ll. 63-64); the latter passage is twice cited by Priscillian, once in an important statement on canon and orthodoxy ( Tract. 1, 7.11-13 and 30.11-20). [BACK]

25. Exemplar , ll. 25-26, 65-66. [BACK]

26. Exemplar , ll. 61-63. Cf. Comasius's statements ( Exemplar , ll. 38-43, 49-50). [BACK]

27. Priscillian, Tract. 6, 74.13. As Chadwick points out, Priscillian's use of the term innascibilis to emphasize the paradox of the birth of the unbegettable appears neither technical nor unorthodox ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 88-89). [BACK]

28. Exemplar , ll. 27-30. [BACK]

29. Exemplar , ll. 34, 51. [BACK]

30. Exemplar , ll. 137-44. Innocent of Rome eventually responded to the Council of Toledo and supported its reinstatement of Symphosius and Dictinius ( Ep. 3). [BACK]

31. Exemplar , ll. 108-35. [BACK]

32. Exemplar , ll. 147-54. [BACK]

33. Hydatius, Chron. 32, an. 400. [BACK]

34. This seems to be the sense of the following passage: "[Symphosius] nullis libris apocryphis aut novis scientiis quas Priscillianus composuerat involutum; Dictinium epistolis aliquantis pene lapsum" ( Exemplar , ll. 84-85). [BACK]

35. Exemplar , ll. 18-23, 86. [BACK]

36. Augustine, Contra mendacium 5. Augustine is our sole informant, and he probably knew the Libra only through the distorted lens of Consentius' anti-Priscillianist writings; Consentius, a monk on the Balearic islands, may in turn have derived his information from the Galician Orosius (Van Dam, "Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," pp. 528-30). [BACK]

37. Augustine clearly attributes the defense of lying to Dictinius' Libra (Contra mendacium 35). The reliability of Augustine's report is compromised both by his source--Consentius--and by the close conformity of the reported content of Dictinius' work with Augustine's own stereotype of Manichaeans, with whom he categorized the Priscillianists. On the other hand, Augustine's refutation of Dictinius' position in Contra mendacium 26-34 consists of a fairly detailed discussion of scriptural passages cited as precedents for dissimulation, and both the level of detail and the scriptural emphasis suggest that Augustine may after all have had more than a simple caricature of Dictinius' position before him (see Anne-Marie la Bonnardière, "Du nouveau sur le priscillianisme ( Epist. 11*)," in Les Lettres de saint Augustin décourvertes par Johannes Divjak [Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1983], pp. 207-8, 212-13). In the end, we know too little about Dictinius' work to claim it as evidence for the existence of a secret or elitist sect of Priscillian in Galicia either before or after the Council of Toledo; cf. the discussion of Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 155-56. [BACK]

38. Leo, Ep. 15.16.1. [BACK]

39. Hydatius remarks upon the confused elections and resulting shameful state of ecclesiastical order in Galicia: "deformem ecclesiastici ordinis statum creationibus indiscretis" ( Chron. pref. 7). Although he is apparently referring primarily to the disruption resulting from the barbarian invasions of Galicia, it appears that Galicia had no strong or clearly defined ecclesiastical hierarchy even before the invasions (Tranoy, La Galice romaine , pp. 409-34). [BACK]

40. Exemplar , ll. 147-52. [BACK]

41. As noted above, the Toledan bishops command that the churches from which their "brother Ortygius" had been driven away be returned to him ( Exemplar , ll. 153-54); the Galician chronicler Hydatius, who was familiar with the Acts of the Council of Toledo , further identifies Ortygius as a "bishop who had been ordained at Celenis, but was driven away by the powerful Priscillianist factions for his catholic faith and banished" ( Chron. 32, an. 400). Chadwick suggests that Exuperantius of Celenis, who sat among the bishops at Toledo, was a former Priscillianist who had replaced Ortygius but managed to dissociate himself from the Priscillianists before the council ( Priscillian of Avila , pp. 157, 171). Tranoy proposes alternatively that Ortygius was bishop of a small rural community in the neighborhood of Exuperantius' see of Celenis, noting that Hydatius states merely that Ortygius was "ordained at Celenis" and may thereby imply not that he was bishop of Celenis but that he was under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Celenis ( Hydace: Chronique , vol. 2 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974], p. 30). Tranoy's proposal avoids the need to hypothesize that the Exuperantius who sat with the bishops at Toledo was a reformed Priscillianist; it now also has the support of his analysis of Galician social structure ( La Galice romaine , pp. 409-34, and ''Contexto histórico del priscilianismo en Galicia," pp. 78-79). One might compare the case of Astorga, where there also seem to have been at least two bishops, Symphosius and Dictinius, in or around a single city. [BACK]

42. Here the parallels with the use of the figure of Arius at the Council of Aquileia (381) are intriguing. [BACK]

43. Exemplar , ll. 3-4. [BACK]

44. Concilium Toletanum Primum. Decem et novem episcoporum actum Arcadii et Honorii temporibus sub die VII. Iduum Septembrium, Stilicone consule era CCCCXXXV. Cf. Exemplar , l. 44. [BACK]

45. ACT , preface. Patruinus' see is identified by Innocent ( Ep. 3.8). [BACK]

46. Nicea I (325), can. 4. In light of Symphosius' ordination of Dictinius as cobishop in Astorga and of the apparent existence of two bishops in Celenis, it is possible that Patruinus also had in mind a more obscure ruling in which the Nicene bishops instruct that former Novatianists who have been ordained to clerical office are to retain that office unless a situation results in which there are two bishops of one city; in that case, the former Novatianist bishop might be demoted to the rank of presbyter or "country bishop" (can. 8). With this ruling, the Nicene council (and perhaps also the Toledan council) supports a more urban and hierarchical ecclesiastical structure than seems to have been common among either the Novatianist or Galician Christians. [BACK]

47. Innocent indicates that the Galicians may not, however, have been the only ones failing to observe the Nicene canons in respect to episcopal ordinations. He reprimands two bishops of unspecified sees for their irregular ordinations following the Council of Toledo; at least one of these--Minicius--seems to have been from the Tarragonese province, since he ordained a bishop in Gerona, in the far east of that province ( Ep. 3.5). [BACK]

48. Hess, Canons of the Council of Sardica , pp. 36-38. [BACK]

49. Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality , p. 88. As Roger Gryson points out, the Council of Elvira (309) to which Laeuchli refers was somewhat precocious in this respect, and it was not until the late fourth century that the issue of clerical celibacy began to be seriously debated in Spain ( Les Origines du célibat ecclésiastique du premier au septième siècle [Gembloux: Éditions J. Duculot, 1970], pp. 180-82); indeed, Gryson considers it likely that can. 33 of the Council of Elvira, which requires that bishops, presbyters, and deacons observe sexual continence, is a late-fourth-century addition to the council's original rulings ("Dix ans de recherches sur les origines du célibat ecclésiastique," Revue theologique de Louvain 11 [1980]: 160-64). [BACK]

50. ACT , can. 1. [BACK]

51. Exemplar , ll. 149-52. [BACK]

52. See Sotomayor, "El canon 3," pp. 183-87. [BACK]

53. ACT , can. 14. [BACK]

54. ACT , can. 6. [BACK]

55. D. B. Botte, O.S.B., cites two other instances in which this term seems to indicate an ascetic: the title of a lost work by Macrobius the Donatist-- Ad confessores et virgines --and Jerome's use of confessio to indicate a religious now (Botte, "Confessor," Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 16 [1942]: 137-48). [BACK]

56. The office of reader appears to have been established relatively early in Spain: the Passio S. Fructuosi, Augurii et Eulogii , which records the martydom of the bishop of Tarragona in 258, refers to a reader named Augustalis. See Alexandre Faivre, Naissance d'une hiérarchie: Les Premières Étapes du cursus clérical (Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1977), pp. 269-70. [BACK]

57. ACT , can. 7. [BACK]

58. ACT , can. 9. [BACK]

59. Relatively little is known of the development of the lucernarium and other daily prayers from practices of private devotion to "cathedral" or "monastic offices." Egeria, a contemporary ascetic from Spain or Gaul, was familiar with the lucernarium , perhaps in a monastic context ( Peregrinatio Egeriae 24). The bishops at Toledo appear to be establishing or protecting an episcopally led evening liturgy by opposing private devotions, at least in a nonmonastic context. [BACK]

60. The devota , in contrast to the professa mentioned in the ninth decision, is probably a virgin consecrated by the bishop. This hypothesis is supported by the council's particular concern with the sexual purity of devotae , who by episcopal consecration might be seen as "daughters" of the church or the bishop, and whose sexual purity was therefore closely associated with the honor of the higher clergy. [BACK]

61. Consentius to Augustine, Ep. 11*.9.2. [BACK]

62. In Ep. 12* Consentius indicates he first wrote Augustine in about 415 (Van Dam, "Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," p. 528). Lack of scholarly consensus as to whether the Consentius of Ep. 11* and Ep. 12* (both probably written in 419) is to be identified with the Consentii of Epp. 119 and 120 or Ep. 205 makes the extent and length of their correspondence debatable. Jules Wankenne supports the identification of the authors of Epp. 11*, 12*, and 119 ("Le Correspondance de Consentius avec saint Augustin," in Les Lettres de saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak [Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1983], pp. 225-42), while Van Dam is skeptical of such identification (''Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," pp. 532-35); more recently, Carol Quillen has reaffirmed the theory of a single Consentius as author of Epp. 119, 11*, and 12* ("Consentius as a Reader of Augustine's Confessions ," Revue des études augustiniennes 37 [1991]: 87-109, 87 n. 2). [BACK]

63. For the dating of the letter and events reported therein, see Van Dam, "Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," pp. 517-18. In 417, Patroclus was involved in intense struggles to support the newly asserted metropolitan rights of Arles. In the course of his struggles with the bishop of Marseilles, at least one of his opponents was accused of Priscillianism, a circumstance almost certainly related to Patroclus' interest in encouraging the proliferation of anti-Priscillianist literature. See Zosimus, Ep. 4.3; Van Dam, "Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," pp. 529-30; and Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism , pp. 48-60. [BACK]

64. Ep. 11*.1.1-3, 24.1. Consentius seems aware that the story might seem so amazing as not to be believable, and he assures Augustine: "de historiae veritate nulla cunctatio sit" ( Ep. 11*.24.2). Augustine appears to have retained certain doubts, pointing out to Consentius that Fronto's professed enthusiasm for lying might compromise the reliability of his tale ( Contra mendacium 4). M. Moreaux highlights similarities between Fronto's narrative and the hagiographical romances of the martyrological tradition and suggests that Fronto's account has at the very least been extensively embellished by Consentius ("Lecture de la Lettre 11* de Consentius à Augustin: Un Pastiche hagiographique?" in Les lettres de saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak [Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1983], pp. 215-22). I am less inclined to doubt the basic reliability of Fronto's account and would furthermore attribute any embellishing of the tale to Fronto himself, since there is evidence of a certain discrepancy between Consentius' framing of the story and the story itself, above all in Consentius' consistent use of the label "Priscillianist," which appears nowhere in Fronto's account. It is possible that Fronto had already put the account into writing before he reported it to Consentius; or perhaps Consentius actually had it transcribed by stenographers. [BACK]

65. Ep. 11*.21-27. If Consentius really intends to refer to Hippo with the phrase in ista praecipue urbe (27.3), his reliability as a witness to the spread of Priscillianism in the early fifth century is seriously compromised indeed. [BACK]

66. Ep. 11*.2.1. [BACK]

67. Ep. 11*.1.4-5. [BACK]

68. Contra mendacium 6. See La Bonnardière, ''Du nouveau sur le priscillianisme," pp. 206-7. [BACK]

69. Ep. 11*.2.2. It is puzzling that Consentius was able to identify Severa by name. Perhaps he knew her from a former sojourn in Tarragona or relied on reports from Fronto or some other correspondent. Or perhaps it was merely Consentius' generic description of heretics or Priscillianists that appeared to Fronto to point clearly to Severa. [BACK]

70. Ep. 11*.10.3-10. [BACK]

71. Ep. 11*.2.2. [BACK]

72. Van Dam emphasizes this lack of evidence confirming the identification of Fronto's "heretics" as "Priscillianists" ("Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," pp. 515, 523). Other scholars have accepted Consentius' assessment of the Tarragonese ''heresy," e.g., Henry Chadwick ("New Letters of St. Augustine," pp. 434-36), Manuel Díaz y Díaz ("Consencio y los priscilianistas," in Prisciliano y el priscilianismo [Oviedo: Cuadernos del norte, 1982], pp. 71-76), W. H. C. Frend ("The Divjak Letters: New Light on St. Augustine's Problems, 416-428," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 [1983]: 510-11), and La Bonnardière ("Du nouveau sur le priscillianisme," pp. 211-12). [BACK]

73. Ep. 11*.2.3; 3.1. [BACK]

74. Ep. 11*.2.5; 2.7. [BACK]

75. Ep. 11*.2.4-3.2. [BACK]

76. Ep. 11*.2.3; 3.3. [BACK]

77. Ep. 11*.2.7. Fronto suggests that Sagittius was motiviated by a desire to keep the "sweet poisons" of the books, which "insanely pleased him." But perhaps it was, rather, either personal loyalty to Severus or--on a more cynical interpretation--the perceived opportunity for blackmail that led Sagittius to send Titianus some, but not all, of the books. [BACK]

78. Ep. 11*.4.1. [BACK]

79. Ep. 11*.5-6. [BACK]

80. Ep. 11*.7.2-3; 4.3. Count Asterius is also known to us from Hydatius: "Vandali, Suevorum obsidione dimissa instante Asterio Hispaniarum comite" ( Chron. 74, an. 420). [BACK]

81. Ep. 11*.7.1. [BACK]

82. Ep. 11*.2.1. [BACK]

83. Ep. 11*.9.2-11.1. [BACK]

84. Ep. 11*.11.8; 12.2-13.10. [BACK]

85. Ep. 11*.15.1; 16. [BACK]

86. Ep. 11*.14.3-4. Presumably, Sagittius' story also somehow explained Severus' possession of the book supposedly in Syagrius' keeping. Fronto appears to be covering up certain aspects of Syagrius' involvement, since Syagrius had ultimately assisted Fronto. Although Sagittius and Syagrius both initially supported Severus, Fronto attributes this to heresy only in Sagittius' case, attributing Syagrius' actions to too much kindness and simplicity. Likewise, Fronto never explicitly states that Ursitio secretly restored the books to Syagrius as well as Sagittius or that the lie proposed by Sagittius would have protected Syagrius as well as Sagittius and Severus, although both seem likely. [BACK]

87. Ep. 11*.15.2-3. [BACK]

88. Ep. 11*.17.1-19.1. [BACK]

89. Ep. 11*.19.2-20.2. [BACK]

90. Ep. 11*.21.2. [BACK]

91. Ep. 11*.21-23. [BACK]

92. Ep. 11*.2.1. Fronto makes no mention of other members of his community, and Chadwick suggests that Fronto's monasterium may have been a mere hermit's cell ("New Letters of St. Augustine," p. 435). Van Dam is less sceptical, pointing out that monasteries are known to have existed at Tarragona ("Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," p. 515 n. 3). [BACK]

93. Ep. 11*.1.2, 12.2. [BACK]

94. Ep. 12*.2.3; cf. 12*.14.3. [BACK]

95. Contra mendacium 4. [BACK]

96. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 132-37, and L. J. van der Lof, "The Threefold Meaning of Servi Dei in the Writings of Saint Augustine," Augustinian Studies 12 (1981): 43-59. [BACK]

97. Ep. 11*.5.1; 13.1; 7.3. [BACK]

98. Ep. 11*.14.2, 15.1, 15.3, 18.3, 19.3. [BACK]

99. Ep. 11*.14.2, 15.3. [BACK]

100. Van Dam, "Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," p. 525. [BACK]

101. Ep. 12*.14.1. This rhetorical stance is discussed by Quillen in the context of Consentius' response to "the power which is attributed . . . to reading itself" in Augustine's Confessions ("Consentius as a Reader of Augustine's Confessions ," 91). [BACK]

102. Ep. 11*.2.3, 4.3, 11.8. [BACK]

103. Ep. 11*.17.5; 3.2. [BACK]

104. Ep. 11*.16.3. [BACK]

105. Fronto may have insulted Asterius' "very powerful" daughter, but both the reliability and the content of this claim are uncertain; see Ep. 11*.7.2, 9.2. [BACK]

106. Roland Delmaire, "Contribution des nouvelles lettres de saint Augustin à la prosopographie du Bas-Empire Romain ( PLRE )," Les Lettres de saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1983), pp. 83, 86, and Van Dam, "Sheep in Wolves' Clothing," p. 519. [BACK]

107. Severa is at least not likely to have been extremely young, since Asterius' daughter--herself no longer a child--is identified as Severa's granddaughter or niece: "[Severa] ad neptis suae Asterii comitis filiae potentissimae feminae auxilium convolaret" ( Ep. 11*.4.3). [BACK]

108. Ep. 11*.3.3, 9.2. [BACK]

109. The bishops of the Baetican and Carthaginian provinces in Spain originally protested the reacceptance of the reformed Dictinius by the Council of Toledo. However, Innocent of Rome supported his reinstatement ( Ep. 3.2-4), and Augustine still considered Dictinius a Catholic, corrected of his error ( Contra mendacium 5). [BACK]

Chapter Five "Gnostic" Priscillian Reinterpreted by Sulpicius Severus and Jerome

1. Isidore of Seville, De viris illustribus 15. Cf. Severus' note that Ithacius initially defended the appropriateness of his participation in the criminal lawsuit (perhaps in part by arguing for the seriousness of Priscillian's crime?), but later shifted his strategy and accused the allies who had advised his course of action ( Chron. 2.51). [BACK]

2. Prosper, Chron. 1193; Severus, Chron. 2.51. [BACK]

3. Babut, Priscillien , pp. 33-56. [BACK]

4. Babut's source theory has been most recently endorsed by Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , pp. 22, 152, 201. [BACK]

5. Filastrius, Diversarum hereseon liber 84. This dual association of Priscillian's movement with gnosticism and Manichaeism may be because of the strict ascetic practices attributed to both heresies, as to Priscillian's movement, and to Priscillian's use of apocryphal writings deriving from both gnostic and Manichaean circles. Although fourth-century texts do not explicitly refer to the Manichaeans as "gnostics," some link between Manichaeism and gnosticism was commonly acknowledged. Fourth-century writers draw upon the heritage of anti-gnostic polemics in their denunciations of the Manichaeans, who are deemed guilty of similar "errors" of christology and cosmology. The influential Acta Archelai hints at parallels between the life of Mani and the life of the first "gnostic," Simon Magus (Samuel N. C. Lieu, ''Some Themes in Later Roman Anti-Manichaean Polemics: I,'' Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 68 [1985-86]: 446), and Cyril of Jerusalem, relying in part on the Acta Archelai , explicitly describes Mani as the successor of the "gnostics" refuted by Irenaeus: Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Menander, Carpocrates, the Ebionites, Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus ( Catecheses 6.14-33). [BACK]

6. For the dating of Jerome's works, I have generally followed Ferdinand Cavallera, Saint Jérôme: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Louvain: "Specilegium Sacrum Lovaniense" Bureaux, 1922), vol. 2. [BACK]

7. Jerome, De viris inlustribus 121. [BACK]

8. Ibid. [BACK]

9. As noted above, Babut proposes that Ithacius had already linked Priscillian with the Irenaean Mark ( Priscillien , pp. 37, 45-56). Ithacius had likewise identified this Mark as a disciple of Mani; Babut suggests, therefore, that Jerome, or perhaps an intermediary source like Lucinus, had "corrected" Ithacius' hypothetical error of chronology by omitting mention of Mani. [BACK]

10. Irenaeus seems rather to imply that Marcus is of the school of Valentinus ( Adversus haereses 1.13.1); he clearly does not associate him with the school of Basilides (described in 1.24.3-7). Parallels that might have led Jerome to make this connection include Irenaeus' description of the licentious habits of the followers of Basilides and of their use of magic (1.24.5), practices likewise attributed to Mark (1.13). There are a number of other inaccuracies in Jerome's account of Irenaeus. Babut and his followers have viewed this as support for the theory that the Irenaean allusion derives from Ithacius, the implication being that so careful a scholar as Jerome would never have made such errors, while Ithacius is easily believed to have done so (e.g., Babut, Priscillien , p. 33 n. 1, and Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 22). It would not, however, have been entirely out of character for Jerome to have introduced either careless inaccuracies or willful misinterpretations into his citation of a source. [BACK]

11. Whether Irenaeus in fact means that Mark was himself active in the Rhône district is irrelevant; Jerome clearly understands Adversus haereses 1.13.7 to imply a Gallic sphere of activity for the gnostic Mark. [BACK]

12. The question that drives such speculations is: Are there two Marks or one in the tradition surrounding Priscillian? Babut judges it highly improbable that there could be more than one and likewise suggests that this one Mark is identical with the gnostic Mark described by Irenaeus; his connection with Priscillian is thus purely fictional ( Priscillien , pp. 33-56). Babut's solution requires attributing the Irenaean connection to Ithacius and making both Jerome and Sulpicius Severus dependent on Ithacius. Puech, although originally supporting a theory of two Marks (" Priscilliani quod superest , ed. G. Schepss, 1889," Journal des savants [1891]: 112), later concedes that one fictional, Irenaean-based Mark is, if by no means certain, at least the simplest solution ("Les Origines du priscillianisme," p. 163), and most scholarship in this century has followed Babut's theory of one Mark. However, given the tenuous nature of the evidence, it is necessary to acknowledge the possibility that two different Marks may in fact have made their way into the tradition surrounding Priscillian, and also to keep in mind that only Jerome's Mark is explicitly identified with the Irenaean tradition. V. C. de Clercq argues for the existence of a fourth-century Manichaean Mark who was active in Cordoba in the years 325-40 ("Ossius of Cordova and the Origins of Priscillianism," Studia Patristica 1 [1957]: 601-6). [BACK]

13. Jerome, Ep. 75.3. [BACK]

14. Ibid. [BACK]

15. Priscillian, Tract. 1, 29.13-15 and 11.18-19. [BACK]

16. Jerome probably derived the fifth name from Irenaeus, who attributes the title "Abraxas" to the chief of the Basilidean heavens ( Adversus haereses 1.24.7). As to the role of Lucinus as a source for Jerome, note that Babut suggests that Lucinus may have derived his knowledge of Priscillian from Ithacius' Apology , and thus may have served as the transmitter of the Ithacian tradition to Jerome ( Priscillien , p. 37 n. 1). I consider it likely that Lucinus had sources more reliable and closer to home than Ithacius' Apology , which was probably published in Gaul: Lucinus was, according to the address of Jerome's Ep. 71, a native of Baetica, likewise the home of Hyginus, first an accuser and later a supporter of Priscillian (Severus, Chron. 2.46), and of Tiberianus, also among Priscillian's supporters (Jerome, De viris inlustribus 123). [BACK]

17. Jerome, Ep. 75.3. [BACK]

18. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.13.7. [BACK]

19. Severus' account suggests that Euchrotia's estate was in the vicinity of Bordeaux, situated at the mouth of the Garonne River ( Chron. 2.48). [BACK]

20. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.13.1-7. [BACK]

21. Irenaeus may already allude to this passage when he states that Mark's disciples deceived and defiled many "little women" ( Adversus haereses 1.13.6); however, unlike Jerome, he does not exploit the full implications of 2 Tim. 3.6-7, nor does he show any interest in creating a close association of women and heresy elsewhere in his work. See my "Hierarchalization and Genderization of Leadership in the Writings of Irenaeus," Studia Patristica 21 (1989): 42-48. [BACK]

22. Jerome, Praefatio in Pentateuchum (398) and Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5 (408-9). [BACK]

23. Jerome, Praefatio in Pentateuchum and Ep. 120.10 (407). [BACK]

24. Jerome, Commentarius in Amos 1.3 (406). [BACK]

25. Jerome, Ep. 120.10. [BACK]

26. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 6 (406); Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5. [BACK]

27. For Jerome's restriction of the canon, see Praefatio in libros Samuel et Malachim; Praefatio in libros Salomonis ; and J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), pp. 160-61. [BACK]

28. Jerome, Praefatio in Pentateuchum : "Maximeque quae evangelistarum et apostolorum auctoritas promulgavit [Origenes]: in quibus multa de veteri Testamento legimus, quae in nostris codicibus non habentur; ut est illud." (There follow five examples of New Testament citations of authoritative words: Matt. 2.15 and 23; John 19.37 and 7.38; and 1 Cor. 2.9.) "Interrogemus ergo eos, ubi haec scripta sint: et cum dicere non potuerint, de libris Hebraicis proferamus." (There follow the Hebrew sources for the New Testament citations: Hos. 11.1; Isa. 11.1, Zech. 12.10; Prov. 18.4; Isa. 64.4.) "Quod multi ignorantes, apocryphorum deliramenta sectantur; et Iberas naenias libris authenticis praeferunt." [BACK]

29. Priscillian actually uses one of the New Testament examples cited by Jerome--Matt. 2.15--as proof that not all prophecy is contained in the canonical scriptures ( Tract. 3, 48.3-7). [BACK]

30. A work with which Priscillian was familiar ( Tract. 3, 47.18-20). [BACK]

31. Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5. 1 Cor. 2.9 was also one of the texts cited by Jerome in the Praefatio in Pentateuchum . [BACK]

32. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 6. [BACK]

33. Priscillian, Tract. 3, 52.10-24. [BACK]

34. Jerome, Ep. 120.10. [BACK]

35. In a letter addressed to Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage, and his wife Anapsychia, Jerome responds to a question about the origin of the soul, repeating his opposition to the teachings of Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen, on the one hand, and the Stoics, Manichaeus, and "the Spanish heresy of Priscillian," on the other, and specifying that the common heresy of the Stoics, Manichaeus, and Priscillian consists in the teaching that human souls are a part of the substance of God ( Ep. 126 [411]). Jerome gives no indication of the source of his knowledge of Priscillian's doctrine. He may have simply inferred it based on a stereotype of gnosticism. However, the transcript of the anti-Priscillianist professions from the Council of Toledo (400) accuse Priscillian's "follower" Dictinius of teaching that the soul was part of God ( Exemplar , ll. 15-16), and it is possible that Jerome already knew of this charge by the time he wrote Epp. 120 (407) and 126 (411). In 414, Jerome was to meet the Galician Orosius, who must have informed him at that point of Priscillian's supposed heretical teachings concerning the soul (cf. Orosius, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum 2). [BACK]

36. Jerome clearly knew of Euchrotia's connection with Priscillian as early as 392, when he lists Felicissimus, Julianus, and Euchrotia as those executed alongside Priscillian at Trier ( De viris inlustribus 122). He does not, however, identify Euchrotia as the wife of Delphidius. [BACK]

37. Jerome, Ep. 120, preface. [BACK]

38. Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5. [BACK]

39. Jerome had first inserted this "name" into the catalogue a few years earlier ( Contra Vigilantium 6 [406]). He had also grouped Priscillian's doctrine of the soul with the Manichaean doctrine ( Ep. 120.10 [407]). [BACK]

40. In the Letter to Theodora , the link between Priscillian and Mark is secured by the placement of the story of Mark in the context of the praise of Lucinus' zeal in fighting the Spanish heresy in his own time. In the Commentaries on Isaiah , it is the reference to Lusitania that clearly points to a connection between Mark and Priscillian. Priscillian's episcopal see of Avila may have been considered part of Lusitania, and his disputes with the Lusitanian bishops Hydatius and Ithacius were familiar to Jerome ( De viris inlustribus 121). [BACK]

41. Jerome, Ep. 120.10. [BACK]

42. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

43. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.5. [BACK]

44. Jacques Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," pp. 359-61. [BACK]

45. "Hoc autem scito, quod in novissimis diebus instabunt tempora periculosa" (2 Tim. 3.1 [Vulgate]). G. K. van Andel points out this scriptural reference and provides a careful discussion of Severus' eschatology in The Christian Concept of History in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1976), pp. 99, 117-38. [BACK]

46. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

47. Ibid. As noted, Babut was an early proponent of the theory that Ithacius' Apology was Severus' major source on Priscillian ( Priscillien , pp. 33-44). [BACK]

48. Severus, Chron. 2.47. [BACK]

49. Most scholars reject the highly speculative suggestions of Babut that Elpidius and Agape are the Christian names of Delphidius and Euchrotia, or, alternatively, that they are names derived from Irenaeus' description of the gnostic aeons ( Priscillien , pp. 49-52); see, e.g., the response of Puech, "Les Origines du Priscillianisme," pp. 89-95. [BACK]

50. A number of scholars have commented on the parallels between Severus' portrait of Priscillian and Sallust's portrait of Catiline; see, e.g., the recent interpretations of Fontaine ("L'Affair Priscillien," pp. 362-65), and van Andel ( Sulpicius Severus , pp. 72-74). [BACK]

51. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

52. Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," p. 362. [BACK]

53. Cf. Sallust: "L. Catilina, nobili genere natus, fuit magna vi et animi et corporis sed ingenio malo pravoque" ( Cat. 5.1). [BACK]

54. Cf. Sallust: "Corpus patiens iediae, algoris, vigiliae supra quam credibile est" ( Cat. 5.3). [BACK]

55. Cf. Sallust: "Alieni appentens, sui profusus, ardens in cupiditatibus. . . . Vastus animus immoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat. . . . Lubido maxuma invaserat rei publicae capiendae" ( Cat. 5.4-6). See also Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," p. 364. [BACK]

56. Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," pp. 368-71. [BACK]

57. Severus describes Priscillian as "habendi minime cupidus" but "plus justo inflatior profanarum rerum scientia"; his female followers are "novarum rerum cupidae . . . et ad omnia curioso ingenio" ( Chron. 2.46). The contrast then, is between the desire or greed for possessions, on the one hand, and curiosity, or the desire or greed for knowledge, on the other. Priscillian and his followers are guilty of the latter. [BACK]

58. 2 Tim. 3.2-4 (Vulgate): "et erunt homines se ipsos amantes, cupidi, elati, superbi, blasphemi, parentibus inoboedientes, ingrati, scelesti, sine affectione, sine pace, criminatores, incontinentes, inmites, sine benignitate, proditores, protervi, tumidi, voluptatium amatores magis quam Dei." [BACK]

59. Chron. 2.46: "quippe humilitatis speciem ore et habitu praetendens." Cf. 2 Tim. 3.5 (Vulgate): "habentes speciem quidem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes." [BACK]

60. Severus, Chron. 2.46. [BACK]

61. Cf. Sallust: "satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum" ( Cat. 5.5). [BACK]

62. Fontaine, "L'Affair Priscillien," p. 365, and van Andel, Sulpicius Severus , p. 74. [BACK]

63. Sallust, Cat. 15. [BACK]

64. Ibid. 24.3: "Ea tempestate plurimos cuiusque generis homines adscivisse sibi dicitur, mulieres etiam aliquot." [BACK]

65. Ibid. 24.3-4, 25. [BACK]

66. E.g., Sallust, Cat. 28.4; Jug. 19.1; Cat. 48.1; Jug. 66.2; Cat. 57.1; Cat. 37.1; Jug. 46.3; Jug. 66.2. Fontaine, "L'Affaire Priscillien," p. 367. [BACK]

67. 2 Tim. 3.6-7 (Vulgate): "Ex his enim sunt qui penetrant domos et captivas ducunt mulierculas oneratas peccatis quae ducuntur variis desideriis semper discentes et numquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes." [BACK]

68. I have been unable to detect specific allusions to Irenaeus or any other nonscriptural heresiological text; but whatever the specific sources of influence may be, it seems clear that Severus was familiar with the terms of what had become standard Christian heresiological discourse. [BACK]

69. Le Boulluec demonstrates that irenaeus modifies Justin's heresiological scheme in such a way as to accentuate the "heresiological paradox" of otherness and identity ( La Notion d'hérésie , 1: 157-86). [BACK]

70. Severus, Chron. 2.48, 50. [BACK]

71. 2 Tim. 3.12-13 (Vulgate): "Et omnes qui volunt pie vivere in Christo Jesu persecutionem patientur, mali autem homines et seductores proficient in peius, errantes et in errorem mittentes." [BACK]

72. Severus, Chron. 2.50, 51. [BACK]

73. Augustine's Ep. 166, addressed to Jerome in 414 or 415, functions in part as a letter of introduction for Orosius. Orosius' depiction of Priscillian and his movement is contained in his Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum , addressed to Augustine shortly before this date. [BACK]

74. The exception is Ep. 126, where Jerome appears to be quoting his correspondent when he names Priscillian. [BACK]

75. Virgil, Georgics 2.325-27. [BACK]

76. Jerome, Ep. 133.3. [BACK]

77. Note that Jerome with this phrase clearly "corrects" his first reference to Priscillian, in which he states that only some people thought him heretical ( De viris inlustribus 121). [BACK]

78. Orosius, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum 2. [BACK]

79. Ibid. [BACK]

80. Jerome, Ep. 133.4. [BACK]

81. Cf. the following reference to 2 Tim. 3.6-7: "Nulla enim heresis nisi propter gulam ventremque construitur, ut seducat mulierculas oneratas peccatis semper discentes et numquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes." (Jerome, Commentarius in Hieremiam 1.57 [415-20]). [BACK]

82. Jerome Ep. 133.4. [BACK]

83. Severus' Mark is Priscillian's "grandparent" in false teaching, whereas Jerome's Mark is a figure of the distant past, living either two or three hundred years before Priscillian. [BACK]

84. I follow D'Alès in taking Agape as the subject of "habuit" (Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne , p. 177). [BACK]

85. There has been much discussion of the identity of "Galla," revolving around the interpretation of the phrase non gente sed nomine ; see D'Alès, Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne , pp. 174-88, and Ferdinand Cavallera, "Galla non gente sed nomine," Bulletin de littérature ecclesiastique 38 (1937): 186-90. Most recent scholarship has followed Cavallera, interpreting the phrase in relation to "Galla," which seems to imply that Galla is the name of a person and not the designation of native country and therefore precludes an identification with Euchrotia or Procula; see, e.g., Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila , p. 38. The grammatical sense of the text is, however, ambiguous. Given the fact that Jerome knew of Euchrotia and her execution alongside Priscillian, and now also seems to know Severus' narrative, I think it is far more likely that the reference is in fact to Euchrotia or Procula or the other women of Priscillian's Gallic entourage, and I would therefore interpret the phrase non gente sed nomine to modify not "Galla" but germanem , and to signify either that she was named Galla, but was not Gallic, or that she was Euchrotia's or Procula's sister in some metaphorical sense. [BACK]

86. D'Alès, Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne , pp. 177-82. Note that this identification of the empress Galla as an Arian is controversial. Daughter of the notorious Arian Justina, Galla may have renounced her Arian loyalties in the course of the negotiations of her marriage to the fervently orthodox Theodosius in 387, as Steward I. Oost suggests ( Galla Placidia Augusta [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968], p. 48). Whether such a hypothetical conversion to orthodoxy would have precluded her continuing association with Arianism in the mind of a writer like Jerome is another question. [BACK]

87. Jerome, Dialogus contra Pelagianos , prol. 1. [BACK]

88. According to Paulinus, Severus was in his prime as a rhetorician: "Tu, frater dilectissime, ad Dominum miraculo maiore conversus es, quia aetate florentior, laudibus abundantior, oneribus patrimonii levior, substantia facultatum non egentior et in ipso adhuc mundi theatro id est fori celebriate diversans et facundi nominis palmam tenens, repentino inpetu discussisti servile peccati iugum et letalia carnis et sanguinis vincula rupisti" ( Ep. 5.5). [BACK]

89. Severus' friendship with Paulinus predated Paulinus' and Therasia's conversions circa 393 (Paulinus, Ep. 11.5), and both Severus and the broader Aquitanian public associated Severus' slightly later conversion with that of Paulinus (Paulinus, Ep. 1.4). Severus began to visit Martin in 393 or 394, perhaps at the urging of Paulinus, whose cataracts Martin had healed (Severus, Vita 19; see also Vita 25). Severus later honored both Martin and Paulinus with portraits and inscriptions in the baptistry erected at Primuliacum (Paulinus, Ep. 32.2-4). A third major influence on Severus was Bassula, who may have converted to asceticism at around the same time as her son-in-law. Paulinus refers to Bassula as Severus' spiritual parent ( Ep. 5.6,19; cf. the designation of Bassula as parens venerabilis in the adscription to Severus' Ep. 3). [BACK]

90. Severus seems to have given up both his paternal inheritance and the property acquired through his prestigious marriage into a consular family; on Severus' rejection of his patrimony, see Paulinus, Epp. 1.1 and 5.6, and on his marriage, Ep. 5.5. [BACK]

91. On the location of Primuliacum, see Claire Stancliffe, St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 30 n. 3. [BACK]

92. See ibid., pp. 80-81, on the dating of the Chronicle and Dialogues . [BACK]

93. Even Severus' property at Primuliacum was transferred to the legal ownership of the church: "te contra adhuc infelicem et in luto faecis infernae adhaerentem ingemiscas, quod vel unum, ut scripsisti, praediolum non vendidisse videaris, cum ipsum quoque aeque ut venditum a tuo iure praesenti alienaveris" (Paulinus, Ep. 24.1). [BACK]

94. Paulinus, Epp. 24.3 and 27.3. [BACK]

95. Paulinus, Ep. 23.3-10. [BACK]

96. Paulinus, Epp. 24.3 and 27.3; cf. Carm. 24.715. [BACK]

97. Severus indicates that the company gathered at Primuliacum on one occasion included a Gallic disciple of Martin, the traveller Postumianus, the presbyter Refrigerius, the presbyter Evagrius, Aper, Sabbatius, Agricola, the presbyter Aetherius, the deacon Calupio, the subdeacon Amator, and the presbyter Aurelius; all are identified loosely as "monks" ( Dial. 1.1, 1.14 and 2.1). Paulinus also mentions a Postumianus ( Epp. 16.1 and 27.1-2), and he addresses Epp. 38, 39, and 44 to Aper; these may be identical with the Postumianus and Aper mentioned in the Dialogues . [BACK]

98. Gennadius, De viris inlustribus 19. [BACK]

99. Severus implies that Bassula's sojourn at Trier at the time of Martin's death in 397 was anomalous; she is "far from her native country," and her absence is causing her "son" in Toulouse (or in Primuliacum in the area around Toulouse?) much grief: "Ego enim Tolosae positus, tu Treveris constituta et tam longe a patria filio inquietante divulsa" ( Ep. 3.3). See Sulpice Sévère: Vie de Saint Martin , ed. Jacques Fontaine, vol. 3 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969), pp. 1279-81. [BACK]

100. Severus, Ep. 3.2. Cf. Paulinus' reference to Bassula's generosity:"socrum sanctam omni liberaliorem parente" ( Ep. 5.6). Fontaine suggests that this generosity may have gone well beyond providing Severus with stenographers: "Qui sait même si ce n'est pas à sa 'générosité' que Sulpice a dû non seulement les tachygraphes d'élite qu'elle a mis à sa disposition, mais encore les ressources qui lui ont permis de faire vivre la communauté ascétique de Primuliacum?" ( Sulpice Sévère: Vie de Saint Martin , 3: 1267-68). [BACK]

101. Bassula seems to have promoted Severus' Martinian writings vigorously. Severus was perhaps only half joking when he charged his mother-in-law with sending spies to steal his private or unfinished manuscripts ( Ep. 3.2-3). [BACK]

102. Therasia sent Bassula a piece of the cross brought back from Palestine by Melania circa 403; Paulinus explains that the gift--to be enshrined in the new basilica at Primuliacum--is intended for both Severus and Bassula, who share a common religious calling and--evidently--a common interest in the building project at Primuliacum ( Ep. 31.1). [BACK]

103. Paulinus passes on greetings to Severus from his own partner Therasia and begs Severus to greet his "holy mother" in Paulinus' name ( Ep. 5.19). [BACK]

104. Paulinus, Epp. 31.1 and 32.1. [BACK]

105. Paulinus criticizes Severus' courier on the basis of his worldly clothing, ruddy complexion, and unshaven head, accusing him of being no real monk ( Epp. 17.1 and 22.1). In contrast, he praises the monk-courier Victor and takes the opportunity of giving Severus a long discourse on the advantages of simple diet and a shaven head ( Ep. 23); one has the impression he suspects Severus of not taking these disciplines seriously enough. Cf. Paulinus' response to Severus' claim that his own austerities fall short of Paulinus' and his ironic expression of concern that Paulinus has made himself so poor that he cannot afford to entertain visitors ( Ep. 11.12-13). Regarding Paulinus' dietary recommendations, Peter Dreyer notes that "vegetarians in antiquity might have had fava beans (although the Pythagoreans banned them), lentils, chickpeas, of course, and various field peas, but beans as we now commonly know them-- Phaseolus vulgaris in its many varieties--are New World plants and could not have been available. Conceivably, western Manichaeans and early Christian ascetics also had Mung and Urd beans to eat if these plants had by then reached the Near East and Europe from India. But absent Phaseolus vulgaris and other New World species (no potatoes, tomatoes, or sweet peppers), the diets of Severus and his ilk must have been austere indeed; malnutrition may have been widespread among them, one imagines--perhaps in part the cause of the pallor of the Manichaeans" (personal communication). [BACK]

106. Paulinus outraged the traditional Gallo-Roman aristocracy (Ausonius, Epp. 27, 28, and 29, and Paulinus, Ep. 1.4-7) and provoked the envy of the clergy of Rome (Paulinus, Ep. 5.13). Martin was threatened with the label of Manichaeism because of his support for Priscillian and the Spanish ascetics (Severus, Chron . 2.50; Dial . 3.11-13). Afterwards, Martin determined to have no further dealings with other bishops ( Dial. 3.13). Nevertheless, he continued to meet with opposition even within his own monastery and episcopal see. The monk and presbyter Brictio, who succeeded Martin as bishop of Tours, accused him of impurity on the basis of his years as a solider, and he further denied the legitimacy of the miracles and visions that constituted the basis of Martin's unusual authority ( Dial. 3.15). As was perhaps also the case with the aristocratic Paulinus in Rome, the ill-defined and uncontrolled source of Martin's authority as ascetic and miracle-worker seems to have been perceived as a challenge to the more clearly defined official authority of his fellow bishops and clergy. [BACK]

107. Severus, Ep. 1, Dial. 1.26. [BACK]

108. See Van Andel, Sulpicius Severus , pp. 139-42. [BACK]

109. Severus, Vita 27. [BACK]

110. Severus, Chron. 2.51. [BACK]

111. Severus, Dial. 1.26. [BACK]

112. Ibid. 1.2. [BACK]

113. Ibid. 1.12. [BACK]

114. Ibid. 3.16, 18. [BACK]

115. Jerome, Ep. 58.11; Ep. 61; Ep. 109; Contra Vigilantium . [BACK]

116. Paulinus, Ep. 5.11. [BACK]

117. This somewhat controversial position has been most recently and carefully argued by Stancliffe, St. Martin , pp. 297-311. Elizabeth Clark, who accepts Stancliffe's argument, suggests that Rufinus may have played a crucial role in turning Vigilantius against the ascetic position represented by men like Jerome, Paulinus, and Sulpicius Severus ( Origenist Controversy , p. 36). Stefan Rebenich, who rejects the identification of the two Vigilantii ( Hieronymus und sein Kreis , pp. 249-51), nevertheless addresses the question of the "conversion" of the Vigilantius who began as the client of the ascetic Paulinus and ended as the anti-ascetic controversialist opposed by Jerome, suggesting the importance not of the eastern Origenist controversy but rather of the local Gallic situation (pp. 247-49, 258). [BACK]

118. The exact location of the church in which Vigilantius served as presbyter is unknown, but it must have been in the vicinity of St. Bertrand-de-Comminges (in which diocese Vigilantius' native Calugirris was located) and Toulouse (home of the deacon Sisinnius, who delivered the letter of the presbyters Riparius and Desiderius along with the works of Vigilantius) ( Contra Vigilantium 1, 3). Gennadius reports that the Gallic Vigilantius was head of the church of Barcelona ( De viris illustribus 36); if Gennadius is right, he probably refers to a later period of Vigilantius' life, since Jerome clearly describes controversies taking place not in Spain but in Gaul. [BACK]

119. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 1. [BACK]

120. Paulinus, Ep. 31.1. [BACK]

121. Jerome, Ep. 109, Contra Vigilantium 4-9. It is tempting to see in the reference to the heavenly altar of Apoc. 6.9-11, embedded in a passage that also contains the striking image of the throne of God, an allusion to the episcopal cathedral and altar as earthly reflections of the heavenly archetype. [BACK]

122. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 10. [BACK]

123. E.g., Paulinus, Epp. 1.1, 5.6, and 24.1-4. [BACK]

124. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 14. [BACK]

125. Ibid. 15. [BACK]

126. Ibid. 2. [BACK]

127. Severus, Vita , pref. [BACK]

128. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 3. [BACK]

129. Severus, Dial. 1.9. [BACK]

130. Ibid. 2.8. [BACK]

131. Ibid. 2.6-2.8. [BACK]

132. Ibid. 2.12. [BACK]

133. Ibid. [BACK]

134. Stancliffe suggests that Jerome provides an indirect link between Severus' discussion of gender and his debate with Vigilantius. Severus attempts to placate an unfriendly Jerome through his explicit affirmation of Jerome's controversial criticism of free relations between male and female ascetics or male clergy and female ascetics; the context for Jerome's presumed coolness toward Severus is primarily the dispute over Origen between Jerome and Rufinus (the latter a friend of Paulinus)--and now also between Jerome and Vigilantius--and secondarily Jerome's reservations about the purity of a Gallic asceticism exemplified by a former solider ( St. Martin , pp. 297-312). Stancliffe also points out that the laxer "traditional ascetics," or continentes , are the more immediate target of Severus' criticism of male-female relations ( St. Martin , pp. 272-73, 311). I am here proposing still another audience for Severus' remarks regarding the separation of male and female ascetics: Vigilantius and his episcopal supporters. Severus' anti-ascetic opposition may well have constituted his primary intended audience for the discussion of gender. [BACK]

135. It is not clear whether Vigilantius also used gender to symbolize the disordered state of the ascetic community. In Contra Vigilantium 9, the argument against vigils on the basis of sexual promiscuity seems more likely to have been introduced by Jerome. [BACK]

136. Severus, Dial. 2.12. [BACK]

137. Van Andel, Sulpicius Severus , pp. 55-116. [BACK]

138. Stridon was apparently located near the western border of Dalmatia, within easy striking distance of Aquileia (Kelly, Jerome , pp. 3-5). [BACK]

139. Jerome, Ep. 7, Chron. an. 374; Rufinus, Apologia contra Hieronymum 1.4; and Kelly, Jerome , pp. 31-33. [BACK]

140. These include the deacon Julian, the subdeacon Niceas, the monk Chrysogonus, the elderly scholar Paul of Concordia, a group of virgins in Emona, the monk Antony of Emona, and the presbyter Heliodorus, to whom Jerome's Epp. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are addressed respectively. [BACK]

141. Kelly, Jerome , p. 33. [BACK]

142. Ibid., pp. 38-79. [BACK]

143. Jerome, Liber contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum 41. If Jerome's rhetoric can be trusted, he accepted ordination grudgingly, probably as a sign of support for Bishop Paulinus in his struggle against other Antiochene factions; see Kelly, Jerome , p. 58. [BACK]

144. See now Stefan Rebenich's careful account of Jerome's Roman ''network'' ( Hieronymus und Sein Kreis , pp. 141-80). [BACK]

145. Note that by highlighting the significance of these early conflicts at Rome for Jerome's shift in attitude not only toward Priscillian but also toward broader issues of community, authority, and gender, I diverge somewhat from traditions of scholarship that would place more emphasis on the later Origenist controversy in explaining changes in Jerome's positions. Willy Schatz, focusing specifically on Jerome's depictions of Priscillian, locates the crucial moment of transition from a spiritual or charismatic model of authority to an institutional model of authority in Jerome's decision to support Theophilus rather than the "Origenist" monks of Egypt ( Studien , pp. 224-28). Peter Brown, surveying Jerome's views of bodies and sexuality, links Jerome's changes in attitudes toward gender with his abandonment of Origen's highly spiritualized anthropology, which seems to have entailed equality of mature, well-educated minds, whether male or female ( Body and Society , pp. 368-83). [BACK]

146. That the writings attributed to "Ambrosiaster" reflect the viewpoint of the Roman clergy who opposed Jerome's teachings is persuasively argued by David G. Hunter in " On the Sin of Adam and Eve : A Little-Known Defense of Marriage and Childbearing by Ambrosiaster," Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989): 283-99; and "The Paradise of Patriarchy: Ambrosiaster on Woman as (Not) God's Image," Journal of Theological Studies , n.s., 43 (1992): 447-69. [BACK]

147. In a letter to his friend Asella, Jerome highlights accusations of sexual immorality regarding his relations with Paula and likewise refers to rumors that he deceives by means of "Satanic arts" ( Ep. 45.2). In the same letter, he goes on to report that he has been called maleficus and identifies himself defiantly as the servant of Christ, who was labeled magus , and the follower of the apostle who was called seductor ( Ep. 45.5). Cf. Jerome, Apologia 3.21, and Kelly, Jerome , pp. 111-15. While Jerome does not explicitly acknowledge charges of Manichaeism, it is not unlikely that he would have been threatened with such a label at this point. In his Letter to Eustochium , he notes that many Roman Christians equate fasting and a pale and mournful demeanor with Manichaeism ( Ep. 22.13); cf. his comment that some have attacked him on the basis of his appearance and manner ( Ep. 45.2). Some years later, Jovinian in Rome accused Jerome of upholding Manichaean positions (Jerome, Ep. 48.2-3 and Adv. Jov. 1.3 and 5, and David Hunter, "Resistance to the Virginal Ideal," p. 50). [BACK]

148. This letter was known to Severus, who refers to it approvingly in Dial . 1.8-9. [BACK]

149. Jerome, Ep. 22.23. [BACK]

150. Ibid. 17. Cf. Jerome's condoning of Asella's visits to the martyrs' shrines on the grounds that she maintained her privacy to such an extent that even when she appeared in public she was unnoticed ( Ep. 24.4). [BACK]

151. Jerome, Ep. 22.16-17, 23, 25-29. [BACK]

152. Ibid. 5-6, 13-14; cf. ibid. 26, 27, and 29. [BACK]

153. Ibid. 28. [BACK]

154. Ibid. 38. [BACK]

155. Ibid. 16. [BACK]

156. Elizabeth Clark points out several instances of Jerome's use of familial language to describe relationships between ascetics: "He accepts Marcella's mother Albina as his own [ Ep. 32.2]; he calls himself Blaesilla's 'father in the spirit, her guardian in affection' [ Ep. 39.2]; all Christians are his children [ Ep. 79.1]; and he urges Christian ascetics to view each other as foster-fathers, brothers, and so forth, depending on their age in relation to each other [ Ep. 117.11]" ( Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends: Essays and Translations [New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1979], pp. 54-55). Clark rightly highlights the radicality of language that establishes a "new" Christian family based on the dissolution of traditional family relationships. However, I am suggesting that such language can also be seen as less radical and more simply reflective of the private-sphere orientation of the Christian community within which Jerome operated in Rome. Aristocratic women's patronage of learned men as mentors or teachers was not an utter novelty (see, e.g., Peter Brown, ''Pelagius and His Supporters," p. 97). The relationships between ascetic women and their male teachers appeared radical and shocking primarily when viewed through the lens of a publicly defined church. [BACK]

157. Jerome, Ep. 45.2. [BACK]

158. Cf. Jerome's negative contrast of the hustle and bustle of worldly Rome with the peace of the countryside, which is so conducive to the ascetic life; he recognizes one exception to this general rule in the senatus matronarum , or the private gatherings of ascetic Christian women in Rome ( Ep. 43.3). But again, there is no place for male ascetics in the city. [BACK]

159. Jerome, Ep. 22.34-36. [BACK]

160. Kelly, Jerome , pp. 129-40. [BACK]

161. Jerome, Ep. 108.20. [BACK]

162. Kelly, Jerome , pp. 195-209. [BACK]

163. See Jerome's translation of Epiphanius' letter to John ( Ep. (51.1-2). On the other hand, Jerome took the side of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria in his quarrel with the monks of Egypt. [BACK]

164. Jerome, Ep. 130.17. [BACK]

165. Here and elsewhere, Jerome conflates this text with Ephesians 4.4. [BACK]

166. Jerome, Ep. 130.17. [BACK]

167. Elizabeth Clark has not only highlighted the importance of the moral or ascetic hierarchy for Jerome but also demonstrated the remarkable persistence of Jerome's concern with this issue from his debate with Jovinian through his participation in the Origenist and Pelagian debates ( Origenist Controversy , pp. 121-51, 221-27). [BACK]

168. Jerome, Ep. 75.3. [BACK]

169. Jerome, Ep. 120.10. [BACK]

170. Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam 17.64.4-5. [BACK]

171. While Clark has persuasively demonstrated the continuity in Jerome's construction of the Origenist and Pelagian debates ( Origenist Controversy , pp. 221-27), "Origenism" was in the late fourth century a heresy less easily personified than "Priscillianism." Origenism's eponymous "founder'' was historically remother, and the continued popularity of his exegetical works made his "heretical" identity more ambiguous; Evagrius Ponticus, also mentioned in Jerome's initial lineup of Pelagian forerunners in the letter to Ctesiphon ( Ep. 133.3), might have been a convenient stand-in, and indeed he does stand at the center of Clark's own construction of ''Origenism" (see pp. 50-84), but she points out that it was only very late in the Origenist controversy that Jerome seems to have "discovered" Evagrius (pp. 122, 146-47). In addition, Priscillian's western origins may have made him an appealing figure for the role of immediate "perfectionist" forerunner in a heretical Pelagian succession. [BACK]

172. Jerome, Ep. 133.4. [BACK]

173. Cf. Alberto Ferreiro's argument in "Sexual Depravity, Doctrinal Error, and Character Assassination in the Fourth Century: Jerome against the Priscillianists," Studia Patristica 28 (1993) 29-38, that the list is intended "to hurl a devastating blow against the Priscillianist sect" (p. 33) or "to develop a typological critique of Priscillian" (p. 37). [BACK]

174. Jerome, Ep. 130.19. [BACK]

175. Jerome, Ep. 52. [BACK]

176. Jerome, e.g., Ep. 14.8. [BACK]

177. As noted above, Willy Schatz argues that Jerome's decision to support Bishop Theophilus in the Egyptian disputes is closely linked with the shift in his attitude toward Priscillian as representative of a charismatic ascetic spirituality ( Studien , pp. 224-28). [BACK]

178. Jerome, Ep. 51.1-2. [BACK]

179. Severus, Dial. 1.27. [BACK]

180. Severus, Vita 25; Dial. 2.4 and 3.13. [BACK]

181. Severus, Dial. 1.7. [BACK]

182. Jerome's deep friendships with women have been widely celebrated in recent scholarship; see, e.g., Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends , pp. 35-106, and Rosemary Rader, Breaking Boundaries: Male/Female Friendship in Early Christian Communities (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), pp. 99-110. [BACK]

183. Jerome, Ep. 22.13. [BACK]

184. Jerome, Ep. 48.2-3; Adversus Jovinianum 1.3 and 5. [BACK]


1. Nachman Ben Yehuda, Deviance and Moral Boundaries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 20. [BACK]

2. Jonathan Z. Smith, "Differential Equations: On Constructing the 'Other'" (Thirteenth Annual University Lecture in Religion, Arizona State University, 1992), p. 14. [BACK]

previous chapter
next section