Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Chrysostom preach? *
Addressingassumptionsabout the workload ora bishop
by
W MAYER
(Brisbane)
.An earlier version of this paper was presented in the John Chrysostom Master
Theme at the Thineenth International Patristics Conference, Oxford, 16-21
August 1999. The research on which it is based has been generously funded by
the Australian ResearchCouncil. It is with gratitude that I acknowledge the help-
ful comments of Johan Leemans, upon whose recommendation sevetal changes
were made.
I The technique has been applied to the series on Acts (C/avis Patrum
Graecorum [henceforth CPGj 4426) in particular. See, e.g., J. STILTING,art. De
S. Joanne Chrysostomo,episcopo Comtantinopolitano et ecc/esi4 doctorf', prope
Comana in Ponto, commentarius historicus,in Acta Sanctorum Septembris.Tom. IV,
Antverpiae, 1753, p. 558; M. von BonsdorH: Zur Predigttiitigkeit desJohannes
3See BAUR, Chrysostomand His Time, I p. 299, who continues: "...so this jus-
tifies the tendency of assigning to the Antiochene priestly period all the great
written commentaries which cannot claim a certain reference to Constantinople".
Although Baur here adduces the argument in relation to literary compositions, it
is clear from the passagequoted in the previous note that he considers preaching
and writing to be equally time consuming activities. Moreover, series which he
believes to have been written are generally considered by others (see nn. 4-9) to
have been preached.
.E.g., B. DE MONTFAUCON,Sancti Patris Nostri Joannis Chrysostomiarchiepis-
copi ClJnstantinopolitani operaomnia qU4 exstant,uel qU4 eius nomine circumfiren-
fUr, 13 vols, Paris, 1718-1738, who adduces the argument to explain the poor
quality of the homilies on Acts (IX, Prj:, v ~ PG 60, 5-8) and the seemingly less
polished character of I and II Thessalonians (XI, 424 ~ PG 62, 391-392). In
86 W MAYER
'4Seen. 10 above.
15Cameron,Earthquake400, p. 349; repeatedin A. CAMERON and J. loNG,
with L. SHERRY,Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (The
Transformationof the ClassicalHeritage XIX) Berkeley-LosAngeles-Oxford,
1993,p. 100.
'6 VONBONSDORFF, Zur Predigttiitigkeit,p. 99.
17STILTING,Acta S. Sept.IV, p. 558.
'8H.O. OLD, TheReadingand Preachingofthe Scripturesin the Worshipofthe
Christian ChurchII. ThePatristicAge, Grand Rapids,Mich.-Cambridge, UK,
1998. D. 173.
90 WMAYER
The first view, that espousedby Kelly and Pargoire, also has its
problems. In the case of Kelly's assertion that John preached daily
during special seasons,such as Lent, he appearsto have derived his
assertion from Cameron, who in fact makes this statement on the
basis of not Constantinopolitan, but Antiochene evidence.19In
reality we have no reliably attributed Constantinopolitan sermons
which indicate the rate at which he preached during those seasons
in that city. The next problem rests with the assertion that John
preached at Constantinople only on Sundays. Again Kelly appears
to have derived this opinion from an earlier scholar, in this case
Pargoire, whose reasons for assuming that John preached only on
Sundays rest with his belief that the tenth of the Novaehomiliae was
preached two Sundays after the homily Contra ludos et theatra
(CPG 4441.7) and that together with the twelfth and thirteenth of
the Novae homiliae these two homilies constitute a series of four
homilies preached in July 399, all of them on Sundays. I have dealt
with Pargoire's arguments at length in another article. There I
demonstrate that not only is Contra ludos et theatra most probably
not the sermon to which In illud: Pater meususquemodo operatur
(CPG 4441.10) refers, but also there are no compelling internal
grounds for assuming that Nov. homo7, 12 and 13 could each only
have been delivered on a Sunday.20On the contrary several of the
other Novae homiliae contain evidence which suggests that they
were not delivered on a Sunday. We will examine that evidence
shortly.
If we have no direct evidence for how often John preached
during Lent and other such seasons,and Kelly and Pargoire'ssup-
position that he was preaching ordinarily only on Sundays is also
without foundation, then is the view put forward by Cameron, von
Bonsdorff and Stilting, namely that the rate at which he ordinarily
preached varied between once and twice a week, able to be sub-
stantiated? Once again, the view they espouseis not without its dif-
ficulties. All three scholars base their conclusions on the series of
homilies on Acts (CPG 4426), in particular on the scant evidence
21 In Acta apost. horn. 32 (PG 60, 236 59-61: ...XeE~ 7tpt 6pYTi~ OtE-
AEX6!1I1EV' OUOEVOE KOOAVEtKat orTtI1EPOv'); horn. 44 (PG 60, 312 34-37).
22 In Acta apost. horn. 29 (PG 60, 21742-60: ...'toO'ov'toov I.LEV 7tpo$Tl'tcOv
OEV'tEPOV tI'1~ El3Ool.Laoo~ UI.L1VOtaAEYI.LEVOOV, 'toO'ov'toov oEl I17tOO"tOAOOV,
EuaYYEAtO"tcOV.. .).
23PG 60, 312 36-37: Ota 'tptcOV OE 7toAAciKt~ TJI.LEpcOV
ft Ot' E7t'ta 'tou'to
7tOtOUV'tE~.
24Zur Predigttiitigkeit, p. 99.
25VAN DE PAVERO, Messliturgie, p. 68, concludes that at neither Antioch nor
Constantinople was the eucharist celebrated on a Wednesday. If one assumes that
the Service of the Word preceded the eucharistic liturgy at ordinary synaxes, then
this would exclude the possibility that a sermon was ordinarily preached on that
particular weekday. Instead van de Paverd adduces evidence to demonstrate that
at Antioch eucharistic liturgies were celebrated regularly on Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays, and that at Constantinople this was restricted to Saturdays and
Sundays.
92 W MAYER
must suppose that the day in question cannot have been a Sunday.
In two other instances (De studio praesentium: CPG 4441.5; In
illud: Ne timueritis hom.l: CPG 4414.1) reference to the distrac-
tions caused by the conducting of business and legal affairs may
likewise suggestthat the day in question is not a Sunday.33In the
second of these two homilies John further states that the audience
is expected to turn up twice a week,34implying that two synaxesa
week at which preaching was offered was the norm for
Constantinople.
If we add in the evidence for festival sermons, then the impres-
sion that he preached on occasion at least twice a week, and not
only on a Sunday is reinforced to the point that it becomespossi-
ble to accept his statement that he often preached every third day
and that this could on occasion add up to three, perhaps even four
times a week. Of the Novae homiliae five were delivered on festival
occasions (CPG 4441.1-3,6, 15). Of these two make referenceto
the conducting of business,since this is cited asa distraction (3 and
6),35but the businessreferred to may well be the markets associa-
ted with such festivals and therefore non-determinative; 36another
two, delivered on successivedays (1-2), represent an exceptional
occasion (the importation and reburial of martyrs' remains); 37
while the final sermon (15), was delivered on a day of the week that
is unable to be determined. 38The homily De s. Phoca(CPG 4364)
likewise records a two-day exceptional festival on an occasionwhen
that saint's remains were received at Constantinople, which requi-
33PG 63, 485 35-44; PG 55, 499 24-27. Cf. CTh 11.8.19 of7 Aug. 389
(ed. Mommsen, Berlin 1905).
34PG 55, 501 55-59: ...OOOE AEYro, Kae' ElC!1O"'t'I)V
i]~Epav crxoAa~E,
aUd OEUtEPOVti;<; EI3OO~!100<;...
35Quod frequenter conveniendum sit, PG 63, 461 1-13; Adversus catharos,
Stayronikita 6, f. 8Ov b.8-19 (the codex supplies the contents of the substantial
lacuna which occurs in Montfaucon's text as presented in PG).
36Seep. MARAVAL,Lieux saints etpelerinagesd'Orient. Histoire etgeographiedes
originesa fa conquetearabe,Paris 1985, pp. 219 and 240-245; and further L. DE
LIGT, Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: Economic and socialaspectsofperio-
dic trade in a pre-industrial society (Dutch monographs on ancient history and
archaeology 11), Amsterdam 1993, esp.pp. 225-234. For a general description of
this kind of market day at Antioch see De b. Philogonio (CPG 4319), PG 50,749
46-75035.
37
Hom. dicta postquam reliquiae martyrum etc. and Hom. dicta praesenteimpe-
ratore, PG 63, 467-478.
38In martyres omnes,Stay. 6 fT. 138y-146r (the homily is unedited).
94 WMAYER
have preached by himself on major liturgical festivals asJohn's locum tenens can-
not be sustained and the evidence adduced here would have to be dismissed. On
the other hand, some of the homilies preached by Severian in 400 may possibly
be accounted for by the fact that he was preaching for John in a defacto way as
locum tenens while John was caught up in political matters associated with the
activities of Gainas.
42See In filium prodigum (CPG 4200), PG 59, 627 4 a.i.-629 4 ; De spiritu
sancto(CPG 4188), PG 52, 813 1-4. Cf. De serpentehomilia (CPG 4196), deli-
vered, according to Robert Carter, in mid-August 400, which refers to In illud:
In qua potestatehaecfacis (CPG 4.193) as having been delivered the day before
(PG 56, 505 9-14).
43In ascensionem(CPG 4187), PG 52,77522-30 (Paris gr. 1186 adds at 782
28: 7tpO'ri;~ XeE~ tJv avaAll'l't~).
44De sacrificiis Caini (CPG 4208), K.H. UTHEMANNet al., Hom. pseudo-chry-
sostomicaeI, Brepols, 1994, p. 124 14-17 (suggesting that he is preaching with
regularity on the topic of Genesis); In Noe etfilios eius (CPG 4232), ibid., p. 89
8-17 (preached as part of a series, apparently during Lent); Contra Iudaeos et
Graecoset haereticos,ibid., p. 185 2-8. This evidence offrequent preaching may,
however, be irrelevant to the issue of how frequently John himself preached, if it
proves that none of the homilies adduced here was preached on John's behalf or,
alternatively, that some of these homilies were preached not at Constantinople,
but at Gabala. Assuming that they were preached at Constantinople, however,
they do at least provide evidence of the rate at which opportuntities to preach
were available, even if it should prove that they bear no relevance to John's own
rate of preaching.
45E.g., In illud: Filius ex se nihil facit (CPG 4441.12), PG 56, 24728-36;
Contra ludos et theatra , PG 56, 44- 50; In illuti: Ego dominus deusftci lumen, PG
56, 141 7-9 a.i.; Adversus eosqui non adfuerant (CPG 4441.4), PG 63, 477 32-
33 a.i. ; De studio praesentium, PG 63, 486 43-44.
96 WMAYER
The next question is: how does this information match up with
our knowledge of the frequency of ordinary and extra-ordinary
synaxesat Constantinople? Can a view of preaching from this per-
spective, that is, of opportunity to preach relative to actual pre-
aching, help us to refine our conclusions? If, as Frans van de Paverd
speculates,regular synaxesoccurred at Antioch on Fridays, Satur-
days and Sundays, then the scant evidence for Constantinople
points to Saturdaysand Sundaysonly. 46The main clue is provided
not by internal evidence from John's homilies, but by the com-
ments of Socratesand Sozomen regarding the Arian community's
practice of holding all-night hymn-singing vigils within the city on
the eve of important Nicene (and presumably also Arian) liturgical
occasions.These are identified asSaturdaysand Sundays, the days
on which, Socratesclaims, synaxeswere customarily held throug-
hout the city's churches.47Since in the main the evidence within
both John's and Severian'shomilies points to only two successive
days of preaching, it seemsreasonableto accept this claim. 48The
evidence of twice weekly synaxeslocated in On Actshorn. 29 and In
illud: Ne timueritis horn. 1 supports this conclusion.49 If van de
Paverdis correct, then, in positing that at Antioch ordinary synaxes
are likely to have occurred thrice weekly, then already it can be
noted that, in terms of the ordinary rhythms of the liturgical cycle,
at Constantinople John technically had one third lessopportunities
to preach.
This picture of diminished opportunity at Constantinople is
further strengthened when one considers the rhythms of the festi-
val calendar. Antioch appearsto have had a plethora of local saints
and martyrs, whose festivals were well-established in the
Antiochene calendar. These festivals seems to have clustered, in
particular, around the month of April and into summer, such that
in some weeks (in addition to Lent and the paschal octave) it appe-
50See Cat. 8 (CPG 4472), SC 50bis, 247 1.1-4 (delivered in the week follo-
wing Easter; refers to the recent opportunity to hear numerous sermons due to
the martyrs' festivals of the preceding days); De statuis homo 19, PG 49, 1877-
15 a.i.; DeAnnasermo 1 (CPG 4411), PG 54, 634 7-20 (betWeenEaster and the
present date topics treated in sermons have included "many days" spent on the
festivals of martyrs); De is. Bernice et Prosdoce(CPG 4355), PG 50, 629 1-2 (the
festival occurs less than tWenty days after Good Friday); In s. Julianum (CPG
4360), PG 50, 672 26-674 25 (the weather is clearly pleasant, since John exhorts
the audience to picnic near the martyrium rather than join in the pagan festivi-
ties commencing at Daphne on the morrow; the martyrial celebration apparent-
ly lasts tWo days [PG 50, 676 8-12]); In illud: Domine, non est in homine (CPG
4419), PG 56, 154 6-18; In s. Ignatium (CPG 4351), PG 50, 587 7-13.
Regarding the existence of a particular tWo-day martyrs' festival in summer and
the dates of the first tWO homilies (April 10-11) seeF. VAN DE PAVERD,St. John
Chrysostom, The Homilies on the Statues. An Introduction (DCA 239), Roma,
1991, pp. 290-292. The last tWo homilies refer to a cluster of festivals which
occurred later in the year.
51See Contra ludos et theatra, PG 56, 265 3-18; and De Eleazaro et septem
pueris(CPG 4441.13), PG 63, 52515-23.
52Phocas and, if John Vanderspoel is correct, perhaps the Anaunian martyrs,
Sisinnius and Martyrius. SeeJ. V ANDERSPOEL, Claudian, Christ and the Cult ofthe
Saints, in ClassicalQuarterly 36 (1986) 248.
98 W MAYER
token, if the argument holds true, then we should not expect to see
much difference in the relative rate of preaching between the
second half or so of John's presbyterate and the years of his episco-
pate. Unfortunately we cannot as yet determine whether this is in
fact the case. The problem here is that all of the arguments for
dating and locating homilies within the latter part of his presbyte-
rate rest upon the technique of filling in the blanks with the large
blocks supplied by the exegetical homiletic series.57It is an unfor-
tunate circumstance that the only securely datable Antiochene
homilies all cluster within the first two or three yearsof his presby-
terate.
To sum up the progressof the argument thus far, the assumption
that John preachedlessas bishop becauseof the weight of his duties
restsfrom the beginning on somewhat shaky grounds. Of the three
arguments for the frequency with which John preached at
Constantinople, one has no substance,the belief that he preached
only on Sundays is readily dismissed, while the notion that he pre-
ached once or twice a week is likewise almost certainly a conserva-
tive estimation. Betweenthe definitively Constantinopolitan homi-
lies of John and those which were possibly preached there in his
stead by Severian, it seemsclear that John preached fairly frequent-
ly, that is, two to three times in some weeks, if only once in others.
When this conclusion is matched with the evidence for the num-
ber of opportunities per annum available for preaching, it would
appear that there were less opportunities available at Constanti-
nople than at Antioch and that, within those constraints, John ten-
ded to take advantage of the opportunities that were available to
him. In other words, without at this point going into a detailed
analysis of how often John really did preach at Antioch during his
presbyterate, given the rate of preaching relative to opportunity
that emerges&om the scantevidence for Constantinople, it is quite
likely that the rate of preaching did not in real terms differ sub-
stantially from one location to the other. If we also acknowledge
that in all probability John did in a defacto way take on a propor-
tion of Flavian'sduties during his presbyterate at Antioch, then the
58Soz.,HE 8.10, GCS 50', 363 6-8, statesthat John entrusted the entire
churchto his careduring this period,while Socr.,HE 6.11, GCS NF 1,330 13-
14 simply statesthat while Johnwasdelayedat EphesusSeverian,because of his
continued preaching, grew in popularity. The emphasisplaced on Sarapion's
administrativerole by both authors and the highlighted subsequentill-feeling
betWeenthe tWoparties suggests,however,that Serapioncontinued his duties,
regardlessof Severian'sofficial statusfor the duration of John'sabsence.Under
this interpretation, Severian'smost noticeable function is as locum preacher.
Cf. KELLY,GoldenMouth,pp. 183-184,who arrivesat the sameconclusion.
AT CONSTANTINOPLE,HOW OFfEN ~JOHN CHRYSOSTOMPREACH?
101
59An additional influential factor may be that the weight of visiting bishops
constantlypresentin the city made it impossiblefor him to hand this duty over
to a personof a rank other than bishopwithout insulting his colleagues.It is also
possiblethat Severianwas in any casethe bestavailablealternative,with an alre-
ady establishedreputation at Constantinopleand an already-developedrapport
with that city's audiences.Seethe commentsofPs.-Martyrius, Vita (CPG 6517),
Parisgr. 1519,f. 465 b.8-13.The fact that John soughtout the optimum replace-
ment for himself would further serveto highlight the suspicionthat he placed
considerableemphasison preaching.
60PG 62, 87-88. Regardingthe provenanceof this homily and this interpre-
tation of John'scommentsseeMayer,Provenance (n. 57), pp. 346-350.
61PG 63,51141-5126.
62Palladius,Dial. 8, SC 341, 164 91-97; 13, SC 341, 274 150-156. As
Socrates,HE 6.11, indicates,Severianhimself clearly spent the better part of
three or four yearsthere. When Epiphanius (another bishop)arrived (Socr.,HE
6.12; Soz,HE 8.14), he had no trouble rounding up a number of bishopsbefo-
re whom to pleadhis cause.
102 ~ MAYER
63See the arguments regarding the date of this homily in MAYER, Pargoires
sequence.
64Examples are numerous. See, e.g., In illud: Ego dominus deusfeci lumen, PG
56, 141 9-19 a.i.; In illud: Filius ex se nihil tacit, PG 56, 247 1-13; In illud: Ne
timueritis homo2, PG 55, 511 11 a.i.-512 11 a.i.; De Eleazaro, PG 63, 523 14-
21 a.i.
65The evidence for other bishops preaching before Flavian is slim, but see De
b. Philogonio (CPG 4319), PG 48, 748 2-3 a.i. and 752 47-50, where John indi-
cates that on the festival of Phi logon ius there are preachers other than himself and
Flavian involved. The same situation is reflected in De s. Babyta (CPG 4347), SC
362, 296 5-8. On all of the occasions that John himself preachesbefore Flavian,
a festival is involved, although it is possible that John may not have been unfa-
miliar with the idea of more than one homilist, including the presiding bishop,
preaching on more ordinary occasions.
66PG 62, 88 28-35.
AT CONSfANllNOPLE, HOW OFfEN DID JOHN CHRYSOSfOMPREACH?
1 03
re-entering the city was to detour via the Church of the Holy
Apostles where he preached to a receptive crowd a short extempo-
re sermon.67Preaching was a vital means of establishing charisma-
tic authority and John shows by his actions that he well knew its
significance. The sermon which he preached on his return from
Asia Minor is another example of John exploiting the medium as a
means of re-establishing his authority and working to redress any
weakening of his audiences' loyalties that might have occurred
during his absence.68In the case of his predecessor,it could be
argued that Nectarius did not need the charismatic status provided
by preaching (Martyrius tells us that he was not very good at it),69
since his networks amongst the senatorial classand the palacewere
sound and he did little during his seventeenyears to upset the sta-
tus quo. This observation, of course, does not mean that Nectarius
did not likewise preach frequently at Constantinople. It simply
establishesthat his audiencesdid not respond very favourably to his
offerings. John, on the other hand, with his penchant for reform,
once he had started out preaching at a high level, was, I would sug-
gest, obliged to maintain a high profile as a preacher as time
progressed in order to maintain his popularity and to redressthe
discontent his non-homiletic activities engendered among his cler-
gy and in other quarters. In other words, once he emarked on a
regimen of frequent preaching he would in time have found that he
could not afford to slow down for a variety of reasons.
This point leads us to one final question. Why did John under-
take to preach frequently at Constantinople in the first instance?
His predecessorhad set a low standard, and, with his ability, John
could presumably have maintained an acceptabledegreeof audien-
ce loyalty by preaching with less frequency. The key to this final
question lies, I think, in Martyrius' comments concerning the
effects of Nectarius' poor preaching upon attendance, and in the
tone of the second sermon that John preached at Constantinople
(Contra Anomoeoshorn. 11: CPG 4324). Martyrius suggeststhat
when John arrived in the city he inherited small audiences.70People
expectedgood preaching and, if the bishop was not worth listening
to, they developed lazy habits and considered that regular church
attendance was not necessaryto their salvation. John, as his second
and subsequentsermons suggest,had other ideas and was anxious
to build up a small, asyet by no means dominant community. The
key to this endeavourwas to exerciseleadership through preaching
and to ensure that it becamedesirable for the Nicene Christians of
Constantinople to attend. In both ContraAnomoeoshomo11 and in
De divinitate Christi (CPG 4325), delivered shortly afterwards,
John emphasises the efficacy of regular attendance,71while he
opens the latter semon by stating that there is a noticeable increase
in attendance with each successivesynaxis.72By the time we come
to sermons such as In illud: Pater meususquemodo operaturand In
illud: Filius ex senihil tacit, preached at successivesynaxesprobably
within twelve months or so of those first few homilies,73 from the
audience'spoint of view other preachersare suffering by comparis-
on with John and it would seemthat his popularity is at something
of a peak.74Thus, even if John quickly realised that such populari-
ty was useful, if precarious and needing to be worked at to be main-
tained, initially it would seem that he embarked upon a program-
me of frequent preaching at Constantinople becauseof a desire to
build up active church-going within the Nicene Christian commu-
nity, since he considered this practice important and it had either
lapsed during the episcopate of Nectarius or, under the leadership
of Gregory Nazianzen, had in the first instance never effectively got
off the ground.
To sum up this final section of our analysis, then, not only is it
likely that John preached frequently at Constantinople relative to
the opportunities available to him, but his actions in the case of
Severian would appear to support this conclusion. The evidence
further suggeststhat he embarked on a programme of ftequent pre-
aching right from the beginning of his episcopateand that, regard-
lessof the pressure of non-homiletic duties, once he had establish-
ed such a norm he would have found it difficult, perhaps evendan-
gerous, to resile from it. In addition, we see both that he valued
preaching in its own right as significant to the health of people's
Summary