Markus (R. a.)_The Imperial Administration and the Church in Byzantine Africa

7/23/2019 Markus (R. a.)_The Imperial Administration and the Church in Byzantine Africa

1/7

American Society of Church History

The Imperial Administration and the Church in Byzantine AfricaAuthor(s): R. A. MarkusSource: Church History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1967), pp. 18-23Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of the American Society of Church HistoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3162341.

Accessed: 10/11/2013 15:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University PressandAmerican Society of Church Historyare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Church History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:55:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aschhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3162341?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3162341?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aschhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/7

THE

IMPERIAL

ADMINISTRATION

AND

THE

CHURCH IN BYZANTINE

AFRICA

R.

A.

MARKUS,

University

of

Liverpool

There

are

only

two

moments

during

the

Byzantine

era at

which

the

African

Church

emerges

into

something

like

daylight:

on the

morrow

of

the

reconquest,

in the

middle

years

of the

sixth

century,

and

again

almost

a

century

later,

under

the

emperors

Heraclius

and

Constans

II.

Both

in

the

controversies

over

the

'three

chapters'

under

Justinian,

and

in

those

over

monothelitism

in

the seventh

century,

the

African

Church

took

the

lead

in

resisting

what

seemed,

in the

eyes

of its

leading

churchmen,

attempts

by

the

Court

to

subvert

the

Chal-

cedonian

orthodoxy.

Both

these

episodes

in the African Church's

history

are

tolerably well-known,' though

in

both cases

one

could

wish for a

much

greater

volume

of

material

than

exists

to

throw

light

on

the

details

of

the

part

played by

the

imperial

administration

in

Africa.

The

eighty

or

so

years

between

these

two

episodes

are

years

of

almost

total

darkness,

broken

only

by

a few

stray rays

of

light

during

the

pontificate

of

Gregory

the

Great. His extensive cor-

respondence

gives

us

some

tantalizing glimpses

of the African

Church

during

a

few

years

at the

turn

of the

century.

From

these

glimpses

we

certainly

cannot

construct

anything

like

a

complete

picture,

even

an outline

sketch,

of

the

life

of

the

African

Church.

It

is

tempting

to fill out the hints

by

interpreting

them on the

analogy

of what we

know

of

the African

Church

at

other and much

more

fully

docu-

mented

periods,

for

instance,

at the time of

Saint

Augustine.

This

is,

it seems

to

me,

what all current

interpretations

of the

evidence

have

done

in

effect. The

allusions

to a revival

of 'Donatism' and

the references to

the

imperial

authorities

in

Africa

have

all been

construed

in the

light

of

parallels

with

the

classical

period

of

the

Donatist

schism,

at

the

end

of

the

fourth

century

and the

beginning

of

the fifth.

I

have

studied

the evidence

for

the

reality

concealed

behind

Gregory

the Great's words about 'Donatism' elsewhere,2and

concluded

that

it

will

not

bear

the

interpretation

universally

placed

upon

it. Of

'Donatism' in

any recognizable

sense

there

is no

evidence

in Africa

by

the

sixth

century.

That

the schism

lasted well

into the

Vandal

period

we

may accept;

but

beyond

this all

is

obscure

and the

alleged

evidence

for

its

survival

in

the sixth

century-and

later-

needs

careful

sifting. By

the

590's

all

that

we

can be

sure about is

that

there

were

churches

in

Africa,

and

especially

in

Numidia,

in

which

intervention neither

by

imperial

nor

by

papal

authority

was

welcome.

In this

paper

I

wish

to

re-examine

the

evidence

on

which

the

current views

on

the

attitude

of the

imperial

authorities

to

the Church

1. Cf.

C.

Diehl,

L'Afrique

byzantine

(Paris

1896);

L.

Duchesne,

L'eglise

au

sixienme siecle

(Paris

1925),

among

other

accounts.

2.

'Donatism:

the last

phase,

Studies

in

Ch7urch

history,

vol.

I.

1964, 118-26.

18

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

BYZANTINE

AFRICA

are

based.

As

a

rough summary

of

these views

I

quote

the

judg-

ment

of

J.

Ferron

and G.

Lapeyre,

which has

the

added

merit

for

my purpose of being endorsed in the latest instalment of Pere Gou-

bert's

Byzance

avant l'Islait.3

In

their 'remarkable

article'

on Carth-

age,

as

Pere

Goubert

refers to

it,

they

write:

The successors

of

Justinian

and

especially

Maurice

[the

text

has

Maxime],

while

favour-

ing

the

Catholic

Church,

exerted

themselves

to

keep

a

religious

peace

by

means

of

enacting

laws

of toleration

in

favour

of

Jews

and

Do-

natists.

The

Churches

of

Africa

are

turning

towards

Rome,

a

stream of

letters

and

emissaries

passes

between them.

The

bishops

appeal

to

Rome

against

the

government,

and so

forth.

Gregory

I,

in

particular,

intervenes

very frequently

in

the

ecclesiastical and

even

the

civil affairs

of

Africa,

and re-establishes

in

Africa

unity,

concord and

ecclesiastical

discipline.

Here

we

have,

in its

simplest

form,

the view

expressed

by

most

scholars

in

a

more

guarded

form.

With

various

qualifications

it

is,

in

substance,

common

to

historians

of

Byzantine

Africa4

of

Donatism,5

of

the

papacy

and

of

the

pon-

tificate of

Gregory

I

in

particlar.6

But

there is

nothing

in the

evidence

that

supports

such

a

view

of

the

African

Church,

united with the

papacy,

estranged

from

and

opposed

to

the

government

and united

in

concord and

ecclesiastical

discipline

under

Gregory I,

and there is

a

great

deal

that

points

in

quite

another direction.

Of the

policies

pursued

at the court

in

Constantinople

with

re-

gard

to

the African Church

we

know

next

to

nothing,

but

the

little

we

do

know

is that there

was

no

question

of

legislative

toleration

of

Donatism.

Maurice,

we

know,

had issued

iussiones

which

gave

clear

testimony,

in

Gregory's

eyes,

of

the

emperor's

turning against

the

wicked

depravity

of

the

Donatists,

moved

by

concern

for

righteous-

ness and

zeal

for the

purity

of

religion. 7

The

iussiones

referred

to

have not survived; but Gregory's language scarcely entitles us to con-

clude

that

they

were laws

granting

toleration

to

Donatists.

In

this

respect

the

emperor's policy

for

Africa contrasts

with

his refusal

to

take

coercive

measures

against

the

Istrian

schismatics.

If

however

the

iussiones

themselves

met with

Gregory's

approval,

their

execu-

tion

by

the

authorities

in

Africa

left much

to

be

desired.

In

the

Af-

rican

provinces,

Gregory thought

the

Catholic

faith

was

being

pub-

3.

DHGE,

XI.

1208-9,

quoted

by

P.

Goubert,

Byzance

avant

l'Islam, t.2;

Byzance

et

I'Occident

sous

les

successeurs

de

Justinien,

II:

Rome,

Byzance

et

Carthage

(Paris,

1965), 235. Of. also the judgment of P. Romanelli, referred to ibid., 235-6. (Much of

the text

of

Ferron

and

Lapeyre

is

taken

from

Diehl,

op.

cit.,

510.)

4. Cf.

Diehl,

op.

cit.,

510-6.

5. W.

H.

Frend,

The

Donatist

Church

(Oxford 1952),

300-314.

6. E.

Caspar,

Geschichte

des

Papsttums,

II

(Tiibingen, 1933),

442-6;

F.

H.

Dudden,

Gregory

the

Great

(1905),

I,

414-28.

7.

Ep. VI.61;

cf.V.3

(All

references

to

Gregory's

letters are in

the edition

of

the

Register

by

Ewald and

Hartmann,

M.G.H.,

Epistolae,

I

and

II).

19



4/7

CHURCH

HISTORY

licly

sold ;

and

inevitably,

he

blamed the

refusal

of

the

African

ad-

ministration

to

put

the

imperial

policies

into

effect

on Donatist

bribery.8

Gregory's

own

correspondence

contains

ample

evidence

of

the

reluctance felt

by

the

officials

on

the

spot

to enforce

whatever

the

anti-Donatist

policies

of

the

court

amounted

to.

The

most

revealing

instance in

this

connection is

the case of

Paul,

bishop

of an

unknown

see

in

Numidia.

In

the

summer

of

594

we

find

the

pope

asking

the

Prefect of

Africa to

send

this

bishop

off

to

him

without

delay,

in

order

that

he

might

have his

first-hand

report

on

the

situation and

that

they

might

consult

together

as

to

how

to

deal most

effectively

with the

trouble.9 As

early

as

three

years

before

this, Gregory

had

urged

the

Exarch of

Africa

not to

delay

any

Numidian

bishops

who

wished

to

go

to

Rome;10

but

it

was

not

until

the

year

596

that

Paul

arrived

in

Rome. In

Rome,

Paul

explained

that far from

being

as-

sisted to make

his

way

to

the

pope,

he

had been

hindered

in

many

ways.

Further,

he

said,

his

complaint

was

not

so

much

that

he

had

incurred

enmity by

his

zeal

in

coercing

Donatists,

but

that

his

ef-

forts

in

defence

of

the

Catholic

faith

had met

general ingratitude.

He

added some

further

charges,

which

the

pope

did

not

judge

the

time

right

to

specify

in the

letter

he

wrote

to remonstrate

with

the

Ex-

arch.

Bishop

Paul's chief

enemy appears

to

have been the

Exarch

himself;

Gregory,

in

view

of

the

fact

that the civil

authority

was

in-

volved

in

the

case,

referred

bishop

Paul to

the

imperial

court,'2

com-

mending

him

to

the

Emperor's

support

with

unusually

vehement lan-

guage

about

his

adversaries.

Eighteen

months

later

we

meet

Paul

back

in

Rome with his case

referred

by

the

Emperor

for

trial,

not

by

the

Pope

but,

significantly, by

a

synod

in

Africa.l3

How

little

Gregory

could

rely

on African

officials

in the

furtherance of

his own

aims

is

further illustrated

by

a

letter

he

wrote

to

one

Boniface,

vir

mag-

nificus-an

unknown

official?-summoning

him and others of his

mind to

come

to

Rome

and

clear themselves of

the

suspicion

of

heresy

which

they

have

incurred.'4 On

another

occasion,

again,

it

was

a

local

official

who

had

been instrumental

in

the

failure

of

an

eccle-

siastical case

reaching

Rome,

notwithstanding

the

Emperor's

wish

that

it should

be

judged

there.l5

The

pope's

frequent

appeals

to

Af-

rican

administrative

personnel

and a lack

of

adequate

scrutiny

of

the

8.

Ep.

VI.

61.

9.

Ep.

IV. 32.

A

similar

letter

which has

not

survived

must

have

been

sent to

the

Exarch

at this

time--f.

Ep.

VI. 59.

10.

Ep.

I. 72.

11.

Ep.

VI.

59. The

further

charges

in all

probability

refer

to

the

refusal

of

the

adminis-

tration

to

put

the

imperial

iussiones

into

effect--f.

Ep.

VI. 61.

12.

Ep.

VI.

61;

ef.

VII.

2,

where it

appears

that the Exarch

had

sent

his chancellor

along

with

three members

of

Paul's

church

to

give

evidence

against

Paul.

13.

Ep.

VIII.

13, 15;

the

inference

is

made

by

Caspar,

op.

cit.

445.

14.

Ep.

IV.

41.

The

'heresy'

of

which

they

are

suspected

can

only

be

'Donatism.'

15. Cf.

Ep.

IX. 27.

20



5/7

BYZANTINE AFRICA

only

cases where we

can follow

their

response,

have

combined

to

ob-

scure

the

fact that what

Gregory

saw

as a

heresy

had

much

support

among the ranks of the imperial administration and, at least so far

as

our

evidence

goes,

no

opposition

whatever.

It

would

be

quite

unjustified

however

to

assume

that

what

the

government

in

Africa was

conniving

at was

identical

with

the

heresy

the

spectre

of which

looms so

large

in

Gregory's

correspondence.

Bishop

Paul's

case

again

is instructive:

it

is clear

that

this

Numidian

busybody

had

incurred

widespread unpopularity

among

the

African

episcopate,

even

to the extent of

being

excommunicated

by

a

provin-

cial

council.l6

The

scanty

evidence

combines

to

suggest

that he

was

distrusted for his fussy intransigence not only by the government

but

also

by

his

fellow-bishops.

Elsewhere

I

have

argued

that

in

any

case

the

distinction

between

'Dontatist'

and

'Catholic'

had

lost

much

of its old

sharpness,

and

in

all

probability

had

by

this

time

ceased

to

have

any

meaning

to

African churchmen.17

The two

communities-

if indeed

there were

two

communities-had

learnt

to

live

in

peaceful

co-existence,

broken

only

by

trouble-makers

such

as

Paul. The

image

projected

onto

the African scene

by

Gregory

had

lost contact

with

the

reality;

like much

else in

his

awareness

of more

distant

parts

of

the world, it was formulated in terms of a fiction which

had

once

corresponded

to

the facts.

This does

not mean that

there was

nothing

Gregory

need

have

had

misgivings

about. The case of

bishop

Paul

displays

a

fact

for

which

there

is

much

other evidence:

that

the

African Church

prefer-

red to

keep

the

papacy

at

arm's

length.

Even

Paul's

excommunica-

tion

by

the

Numidian

bishops

was not disclosed

to

the

pope by

the

primate

or

the

province,

as

Gregory

noted

somewhat

peevishly,

but

by

the

Exarch. 8

The Numidian

bishops,

in

particular,

were

in no mind

to follow papal directives. Gregory's special agent and informant

among

them,

bishop

Columbus,

was to

find

his

friendship

with

the

pope

a dubious

asset:

in

596 he

complained

of

becoming

unpopular

in

his

province

on account

of

the

many

letters

sent

him

by

the

pope.19

And

even with

the

help

of this

confidential

agent,

Gregory

could

not

count

on

Numidian councils

acting

in

accordance

with what he

thought

to

be

in line

with

the tradition

of

the

Fathers

and

the canons.

Where

the

bishops

failed

him,

Gregory

was

prepared

to resort

to

the

Exarch,20

or

even

to the

superintendent

of

the

Roman

Church's

African

lands,21

to try

to

get offending

measures

reversed. There is

no

evidence that

his

efforts

met

with

any

success.

Furthermore,

the

bishops,

far

from

16.

Cf.

Ep.

VI. 59.

17. Cf.

my paper

referred

to

above,

n.

2.

18.

Ep.

VI.

59.

19.

Bp.

vn.

2.

20.

Ep.

IV.

7,

cf.

also

Ep.

I.

72.

21.

Ep.

I.

82;

IL 46.

21



6/7

CHURCH

HISTORY

appealing

to Rome

against

the

government,

were

flocking

to

the

Court

to

avoid

having

their

cases

judged

by

Rome.22

WVhether ny of Gregory's appeals to the secular authorities in

Africa

met

with

success,

we

cannot

know. The

only

evidence

points

to a

notable

lack

of

readiness

on

their

part

to

further

his

aims,

and

a

tendency

to

identify

themselves

with

the

independent

line

taken

by

the

African

episcopate.

The

inference

that

Gregory

must have

brought

his

plans

to

fruition

because in his

later

years

references

to

Donatism

disappear

from

his

correspondence

rests on

the

shakiest

of founda-

tions.

There

is,

on

the

contrary,

an

air of

disillusion

about

Gregory's

later

dealings

with

the African

Church,

born

out

in his conduct both

over the case of the primate of Byzacena,23and with regard to

Numidia.24

There

is

nothing

to

suggest

that

he

found

it

any

easier

to

get

his

way,

only

that he

had

come to

recognize

and to

some extent

Io

accept

the situation

as

inevitable.

The

exception

to

the

general

impression

of the

position

of

the

papacy

in

Africa

created

by

Gregory's

correspondence

is the

see

of

Carthage. Gregory's

correspondence

with the

primate,

Dominicus,

stretching

over

nine

years,

suggests

a

close

personal

friendship.

Even

if

we

make the

necessary

allowances

for

therapeutic flattery-an

art

of which the pope was a master-Gregory could, it seems, count on

support

in

Carthage.

Among

the

several reasons

which

may

account

for

this I

single

out

one:

the see of

Carthage

and

the

Proconsular

province

in

general

was

differently

placed

and did

not

share

the

same

concerns

as

the Church

in

Numidia,

and

even

in

parts

in

Byzacena.

How

very

different

the

Carthaginian

point

of

view was

at

this

time

appears

clearly

in

the

year

594. In this

year

a

Carthaginian

Coun-

cil

had decreed

to

put

into

effect the

imperial provisions

for

the

re-

pression

of

Donatism. The

Council's

decrees

laid down

heavy penal-

ties for failure to combat the heresy by the clergy. When Gregory

was

notified

of

these

regulations,

he was horrified

by

the

likelihood

he

foresaw

of serious

opposition

to

such

legislation

in

the other

Af-

rican

provinces.25

The

Carthage

attitude,

plainly,

was

almost as

re-

mote

from the

realities

of

the

other

African

provinces

as the Roman.

There

is

no

evidence to

justify

the

view

that

the

support

of

men

like

Dominic-any

more

than

of Numidians

like Columbus

or

Paul-made

the

slightest

contribution

to the

alleged

re-establishment

of

unity,

con-

cord and

ecclesiastical

discipline

in

Africa. 26

22. Cf. Epp. IX. 24, 27.

23.

Epp.

IX.

24,

27;

XII. 12.

24.

Cf.

Epp.

XII.

8,

9.

25.

Cf.

Ep.

V.

3.

The

Council must

presumably

have

been

one

of

the

whole

African

Church,

since

the

legislation

was

meant to

apply

not

only

in

the

Proconsular

province.

If

this

is

the

case,

it

is

interesting

that such a Council

could enact

legislation

as

severe

as

this

in this

matter.

The

implication

is that few if

any

bishops

from

the other

provinces

were

present.

26.

Diehl,

op.

cit.,

510.

Cf.

above,

n.

4.

22



7/7

BYZANTINE

AFRICA

The

conclusion

to

be

drawn from

this

enquiry

is that

in

order

to

answer

the

question

what the

relation of

the

government

to

the

African Church was like we need to make two sets of distinctions:

first,

it

will matter

greatly

whether we have in

mind the Court

in

Constantinople,

or

the

Exarch

and other

African officials.

Secondly,

it will

matter even

more

whether

we

have in

mind

the

Church

of

Rome

or

that

of

Numidia,

of

Byzacena

or

Proconsularis. Neither

the

Church

(even,

as

I

have

argued,

the

African

Church)

nor the

gov-

ernment

can be

treated

as monolithic

in

this

respect.

If we

look

at

the

relations between

Church

and

government

in

this

perspective,

the

situation

during

the

years

of

Gregory

I's

pontificate

will not seem

so

very very

different

from

the

situation

some fifty years

earlier

or

some

forty years

later. Much of

the old

sense

of

constituting

an

autonomous

province

with

its own traditions was

still

alive

in

the

African Church. Under

Justinian

this sense found

an

outlet

in the

courageous

stand made

by

African

churchmen

against

his

Kirchen-

politik.27

At

the

turn

of

the

century

it

served

to

define its

Autono-

miegefiihl

with

regard

to Rome.

In

the

seventh

century

it

led

natu-

rally

to the alliance between the

African Church and

the

African ad-

ministration

against

the

Emperor

Constans

II.

The one

essential

difference

between

the

situation

around

640

and a

century earlier,

under

Justinian,

is

that the

administration had become

closely

identified

with

African

interests,

among

them not least those of the

African

Church.

The

period

with which I have been concerned

in this

paper

marks

an

important

stage

in

this

development.

27.

Cf.

my

paper

Reflections

on

religious

dissent

in North Africa in the

Byzantine

period,

Studies

in

Church

history,

3,

1966,

140-9.

23

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:55:58 PM

Documents

Markus (R. a.)_The Imperial Administration and the Church in Byzantine Africa