Cristian Olariu,

Bucharest University

The authors of Church histories from the first half of the fifth century had presented in their work a triumphal view on the Christian success over paganism in the fourth century. In all these works, a man was glorified as the defender of Nicene orthodoxy against the Arian heresy, that is Athanasius, the patriarch of Alexandria. A central figure in the above-mentioned ecclesiastic histories, Athanasius had achieved a great attention by the modern scholars, justified by the role played by the bishop as a central actor in the context of the fight against the Arian heresy, between 328 (the date of his election as bishop of Alexandria) and 373 (the date of his death).

The present paper intends to analyze the patriarch's power in the fourth-century Alexandria. Also, the analysis of the bases of patriarchal power, both legally and informally, represents an important part in the economy of the discussed subject.

Since Augustus established the imperial regime, Alexandria had been the residence of praefectus Aegypti, who acted as the imperial personal representative for the government of Egypt. Residence of imperial administration, Alexandria was endowed with a “senate”, or "boulé", in fact an urban council, after Septimius Severus’ visit to Egypt, AD 199-200. By the end of the third century, the city was the center of a revolt against Diocletian, led by L. Domitius Domitianus and Aurelius Achilleus. But the city had truly appeared on the political scene during the reign of Constantine (306-337), with the starting of the Arian controversy (c. 318). Initially a conflict between the priest Arius and his bishop Alexander, on the theme of relations between God the Father and God the Son, the Arian heresy rapidly spread in the East, among its’ adherents being Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, the imperial residence at that time.

Some considerations have to be made. Firstly, the accept of Christianity among the official religions of the empire by Constantine offered the Church an opportunity to promote its’ religion; then, the Church benefited from imperial assistance, most of the fourth century emperors being Christians, with an exception, Julian the Apostate, 361-363. Constantine promulgated a series of measures that offered the bishops and clergy a privileged position in the Roman state. Due to the imperial support, the Church rapidly thrived; if before Constantine’s reign, we can hardly speak about a dominant Christianity in any province of the Empire, the imperial favor led to the rapid extension of Christianity in the urban centers of Near East. But, the accept of Christianity put also the problem of relations between the imperial power and the Church. Formally, the emperor did not interfere in internal affairs of the Church; but informally, we witness the imperial intervention on one or another side of the conflicting cults, depending on emperor’s religion.

Subsequently, the council of Nicaea (AD 325) represented a major stage in the evolution of Christianity. We might say that the council of Nicaea and its decisions shaped the subsequent development of relations inside the Christian Church, that is, the conflict between Arianism and Nicene orthodoxy. The Alexandrine origin of Arian controversy promoted the Egyptian city to play a key role in the religious struggles. How this was possible?

Firstly, the priests’ position face to the patriarch, as well as their level of education, permitted the birth of Arianism. Then, the conflict, which opposed Arius to his bishop Alexander benefited from a remarkable publicity, in the conditions of support obtained by Arius from Eusebius, his former colleague at the school of Lucian of Samosata, then bishop of the imperial residence (Nicomedia). Also, it should not be forgotten that the election of Athanasius as patriarch, in 328, will bring on the scene of religious conflicts an extremely stubborn and brutal competitor.

According to Sozomen (HE, I. 17.4), at the moment of the death of bishop Alexander, in 328, there gathered 54 egyptian bishops, from Thebaid and the rest of Egypt, in order to elect the succesor. This was Athanasius, deacon of the dead bishop, already designated as successor to episcopal dignity by Alexander. Thus, the election represented a mere fomality, Athanasius being consecrated as bishop of Alexandria in the Church of Dionysius, according to Philostorgius, HE, II. 11. Even so, there existed some rumours that the new bishop secured his recognition from the imperial power by forging a letter addressed by the city koinon to Constantine.

As deacon, Athanasius has already a reputation of "vehemens" (Hilarius, Liber I ad Const., 33), gained at the council of Nicaea, when he attracted the hate of Ariomanites through his speeches against their heresy. After Nicaea, the attempts to solve the Arian controversy will be mainly stopped by the constant opposition of Athanasius to any type of reconciliation, which led to a radicalization of conflict.

The conflict that opposed Arius firstly to Alexander, then to Athanasius, had also a less visible face. First of all, we have to analyze the patriarch’s position in the church of Alexandria. As a metropolitan, the patriarch had authority over all the bishops of province; but Alexandria also represented the administrative center of Egypt, where there had been the residences of the praefectus Aegypti, comes Aegypti, praefectus annonae, rationalis summarum Aegypti, rationalis rerum privatarum (ND Or., XIII. 12 and XIV. 4), procurator monetae Alexandrianae (ND Or., XIII. 8), iuridicus Alexandriae et Aegypti (P. Abinn. 63) and the dux Aegypti (AE, 1934, 7-8, p. 308). From another perspective, the city had, since Septimius Severus, an urban council. Thus, the patriarch’s position was rather weak, because the Christianity being only recently accepted as an official religion, the establishment (that is, members of imperial bureaucracy and the local elite) saw the new competitor (i. e., the patriarch), as a challenger to their authority. Another fact was that the mob of Alexandria was well-known for its’ riots during Late Antiquity. To these, the patriarch responded by creating and maintaining his own pressure groups: he relied on Christian mob and the Egyptian monks, well known for their obstinacy and brutality. Also, even from the beginning he probably relied on the parabalani, an elite corps of 500 men, who usually were hospital attendants, but in case of difficulties, they could also act as patriarchal guards.

On the other hand, the patriarchal authority, even autocratic in theory over his herd and the Egyptian ecclesiastic structure, was challengeable, especially from the part of Alexandrine priests, who considered him rather a primus inter pares than their superior.

Thus, by the beginning of fourth century, in Alexandria there existed several competing factors of power: the local elite, probably mostly pagan, who obstinately defended its monopoly of local leadership; the administrative structure, directly dependent on the emperor; the Alexandrine plebs, turbulent and easy to be instigated to riot. How it was constructed the authority of the Alexandrine patriarch?

There has to be noticed that, while the local elite presented as the head of urban social hierarchy, the bishop had constructed his authority on a void of power: acting as benefactor of the poor, a neglected social category by the traditional elite, the bishop was transformed into a patron of the poor. The poor were registered in matricula, thus becoming enrolled in bishop’s clientela, so being an important factor in ecclesiastic elections: one of the best known cases is that of the widow Lucilla, who through gifts given to the poor, secured the election of her servant, Maiorinus, as bishop of Carthage, in 311. But, from another perspective, it might be said that the local elite interfered in ecclesiastic elections for secular purposes, defending its role as patron of the city. Another pressure group was represented by the monks, who proved to be faithful allies of Athanasius, during his self-exile in the latter part of Constantius’ reign. The monks substituted the philosophers, as the only holders of the monopoly of parrhésia, the free-speaking in front of imperial authorities; several times, there had been registered cases of hermits or monks who, due to their special relationship with the divinity, even took the liberty to reprimand the emperor for misconduct. At a local level, the hermit usually resorts to a “compulsory Christianization” of the countryside, through destruction of pagan temples and shrines, posing as the holder of oracular monopoly; for the Late Roman Egypt, the very active presence of desert monks, usually as allies of the patriarch of Alexandria, as his pressure group, represents a reality. In these conditions, the patriarch still benefited of a precarious authority, mainly based on his role as “defender of the poor”; from the political point of view, the patriarch could not allow any provocation from his priests, as it was the case of Arius. One should also not forget the fact that Arius made appeal to an external instance, so putting under question the patriarch’s authority.

Coming back to the Arian controversy, after his condemnation in the council of Nicaea, the founder of heresy was admitted into communion, as orthodox, by the ecclesiastic councils of Tyre and Jerusalem (335-336). Thus, Athanasius’ refusal to receive the rebel priest into communion was directly linked to the precarious position of the patriarch at that time, because, being at the beginning of his patriarchate, he had not enough the time to consolidate his authority.

Towards the Christians, bishop’s power was autocratic. He had the final decision in all matters, he ordained priests, deacons or other clerics; also, the bishop received new members in the Christian community, but he could exclude them for misconduct. He controlled the incomes of Church, which he distributed at his will, and only a council could depose him. Having thus in consideration all these duties, the power of bishop was, at least theoretically, uncontested in his province. Furthermore, one must not forget the fact that the sixth canon of the Nicene council stipulated that the bishop of Alexandria has a superior authority, the same as those of the bishops of Rome and Antioch. On the other hand, it should be noticed the geographical strategic position of Alexandria. If Rome and later Constantinople owed their authority over the Christian world as imperial residences, and Antioch had the disadvantage to be situated too close to Constantinople for conducting an independent religious policy, Alexandria had a position that transformed it into a privileged city. Hard to be reached by land, Alexandria was far enough both from Rome and Constantinople, in order to pursue an almost independent religious policy. Using a “political balance”, the patriarch of Alexandria managed, through abile maneuvers between Rome and Constantinople, to assure for him and his city, a privileged place in the Christian world, the most obvious example being that of the conflict which opposed John Chrysostom and Theophilus, at the beginning of the fifth century, when the Alexandrine bishop attempted (and finally managed) to undermine the authority of John Chrysostom.

If in a first phase the patriarch was exiled in West, where he won Constans’ favor (it has to be noticed the threat of war launched by Constans to Constantius, in c. 343, in order to force the latter’s hand to receive Athanasius as patriarch), after the council of Sirmium, AD 351, when the patriarch was accused of high treason, to be more precise,

in AD 356, Athanasius sought refuge to the desert monks, where he remained hidden until the death of Constantius. Another version, related to the accusations brought upon Athanasius at Sirmium, is that there existed some correspondence between the patriarch and Magnentius the usurper. Magnentius seemed to be a tolerant Christian, whose model of government was Constantine; remarkable remains the usurper’s try to close in the “dissident” bishops of the East, Athanasius and Paul of Constantinople, as well as his tolerance towards the pagans (C. Th., XVI. 10. 5).

One must observe the difference in tone adopted by Athanasius in two of his works, Apologia ad Constantium and Historia Arianorum. If in the Apologia, Magnentius is presented as a tyrant (6. 6), with all the faults of a tyrant (7. 6b: he killed his master, proved to be unfaithful to his friends, he infringed his oath; he blasphemed, consulting sorcerers and poisoners, in contradiction with the divine law), Constantius is compared with King Solomon (20. 11), being the servant of Christ (17. 9) and God had given him the empire (35. 7). However, Athanasius took the liberty to suggest the emperor, probably due to the pretended monopoly of parrhésia, to follow King David’s example (5. 3).

But, in Historia Arianorum, the patriarch shows a totally different image on Constantius. Thus, the emperor is denounced as Antichrist, being worse than Saul, Ahab and Pontius Pilatus (67/68); further, Constantius is accused for the murder of his family, and that he gave Olympias, the promised bride of his brother Constans, in marriage to a barbarian! (69.1); the conclusion is that Constantius is an unjust ruler, with bad subordinates (69-73).

Which were the causes that Constantius received such a different treatment in these two works? Whether the first work is addressed to the emperor, as a justification against Arian accusations, the second one, meant for the orthodox audience, reveals the hostility towards the protector of Arians. But, using the term “Arian” in Athanasius’ work has a double meaning: on the one hand, it designates the religious enemies, that were not Melitians; on the other hand, it meant simply the personal enemies of the patriarch.

Remarkable is the role played by discourse in the religious conflict. So between Christians and pagans, as between the adherents of various Christian sects, the struggle has also an ideological connotation. In the ideological discourse, the piety played an essential role. This fact is tightly linked to the radicalization of conflicting parties. If we take, for example, Zosimus’ Historia nova, we can observe that he used the same writing technique, which the Christian authors employed in their Church histories, in order to pretend that they are the only holders of the truth. Averil Cameron has noticed: “language, and the control of language, are at the heart of the ‘struggle’ between pagan and Christian culture in the fourth century”. The same attitude manifests in the case of Arian controversy, the most obvious example being that of the Serdica council, in 343. The council, convened by the emperors, gathered around 170 bishops from both East and West (another version counted c. 250 bishops), with the official goal to bring the concordia in the Church. In opposition with the imperial intention, the council proceedings led to the first great break (from the religious point of view) between East and West, the Arian faction retreating to Philippopolis in Thracia. The interesting part is to be found in the synodal letter sent to the churches of the East by the Nicene bishops. Reproduced by Athanasius (Ep. XLVII, AD 343-344), the council’s letter to the Alexandrine church is a masterpiece of ideological manipulation. There, the Nicene bishops stated that the Arian heresy was condemned by the council as a whole, being mentioned the leading bishops of the Arian faction, amongst them George, “the worst of them all” (Athan., Ep., XLVII, 1). In fr. 2 of the same letter, there is asserted that the Arians recognized themselves as the enemies of Christ, and in fr. 6, the deposition of Arian bishops is mentioned, amongst them the “usurper” Gregory, that replaced Athanasius as patriarch of Alexandria during the latter’s exile. But, if we analyze Ep. XLVI (AD 343-344) of the same Athanasius, addressed to the church of Mareotis, there appeared some contradictions with the triumphal tone of the synodal letter: firstly, in fr. 2-3, the Arian bishops were deposed “through consensus of all”, again being mentioned Gregory the “usurper”; but, in fr. 4, there is asserted that not all the bishops signed the document of deposition, thus others signing in their place, “because they agreed”. What one can observe is that the letter to the Alexandrine church is more radical in tone, because Alexandria is the city of Athanasius. Through this letter, the Nicene bishops tried to present in a triumphal way a Nicene victory, whose central theme is the Arian “discourse”, where the defeated party recognized that they are the enemies of Christ (Athan., Ep., XLVII, AD 343-344, 2).

The council’s decisions were without effect in the Eastern parts, being followed by the threats uttered by Constans to his brother, in his attempt to restore Athanasius and Paul of Constantinople to their sees, threats of war against the East (Athan., Hist. Arian., 20.2; Socrates, HE, II. 22; Soz. HE, III. 20). But, only the Persian menace determined Constantius to accept Athanasius, who re-occupied his see in 346, after an embarassing meeting with the emperor at Antioch (cf. Socrates, HE, II. 23). Condemned and deposed again at the council of Antioch, in 349, then at Sirmium, in 351, Athanasius was forced to run into hiding among the desert monks in 356, up to Constantius’ death.

Concluding, we may say that Athanasius benefited from the strategic position of Alexandria in order to defend the Nicene orthodoxy in front of the Arians protected by Constantius. Having at his disposition the Christian populace of Alexandria, an extremely active pressure group, devoted to its bishop (it has to be noticed that the Arian bishops, Gregory and George of Cappadocia, were imposed to the Alexandrines by military force), as well as the monks of the desert (Athanasius had a special relationship with the monks, revealed by his letters), Athanasius successfully managed to pass on the difficult period of Constantius’ reign and to construct the fundament of his power through an intransigent defence of Nicene orthodoxy. It is to be noticed bishop’s ability in the avoidance of accusations brought by his adversaries, who even accused him of high treason (as it was the case in 335, when the patriarch was charged by Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Melitians with the attempt to stop the shipments of grain from Egypt to Constantinople, or at Sirmium, in 351, probably because he fueled the conflict between Constans and Constantius, but rather because of his correspondence with Magnentius.

As for bishop’s power in the fourth century, he has several fundaments: the imperial privileges, since Constantine, conferred to bishop economic and judicial power, as well as sources for patronage; the monks and the poor of the city, who could be used as pressure groups for the consolidation of bishop’s power, even in a violent way.

Athanasius’ authority consolidated in time, due to his intransigent position towards the heretics; but we must notice the fact that several times, for Athanasius,“Arian” meant the personal enemy, thus being created confusion between the two notions. This reality is related to the radicalization of discourse in Late Antique society as means of ideological struggle, and Athanasius pretended to have the monopoly of truth. His intransigent attitude transformed him, from 356 to 362, from a proud prelate, with a rather dubious reputation, into a real statesman, recognized in ecclesiastical and political milieus as the defender of the Nicene faith. This image will prevail in the fifth century ecclesiastic histories, as the model for the orthodox bishop.