21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 2006 Communication (VI.

3 Theology, Texts, Orthodoxy) Ilinca Tanaseanu University of Bayreuth, Germany Between Philosophy and the Church: Synesius of Cyrenes Self-Display in His Writings 1. Introduction Late antiquity is marked by an increased importance of self-display. In this respect, Synesius of Cyrene is a typical child of his age. Proud of his ancestral nobility, he also stresses his philosophical demeanour and his activities on behalf of his province. With his election to the episcopal see of Ptolemais in 411 he accedes to new resources of power and display, without, however, abandoning his identity as a philosopher. He accepts the election only after some months deliberation on the compatibility between philosophy and the bishops office. Once a bishop, he assumes the duties of his position, which beside enforcing ecclesiastical discipline most prominently include taking part in the defense against the barbarian raids and the involvement in local politics. The latter leads to a clash with the new provincial governor Andronicus. Synesius tries everything in his power to obtain Andronicus deposition letters to his connections at court as well as ecclesiastical constraint amounting to excommunication. In these endeavours, his own person looms large, because Synesius expands on it to justify his proceedings. His philosophical life as well as his role as a bishop are brought into play. His strategies and final success shall be the focus of this paper.1 2. The Conflict The appointment of Andronicus from Beronike as provincial governor of the Pentapolis is described by Synesius as the utmost possible calamity. Unfortunately we possess only Synesius one-sided, rhetorically exaggerated account.2 According to it, Andronicus had come to office illegally, in spite of his Libyan origin. His uppermost concern is the collection of taxes. He seems to have put pressure on the decurions,3 not only as tax payers but also as the traditional tax collectors. Synesius claims that Andronicus used new methods of torture in order to extract money from them and abused their situations for his own benefit.4 Nevertheless, the decurions had in fact lost their privilege of exemption from torture.5 The
In the paper I have followed the text of the edition of Synesius correspondence by D. Roques and A. Garzya, Paris 2000. When a closer look to certain passages in larger letters is required, I give the line numbers of the Greek text in the same edition. 2 Of the same kind as e. g. Libanius Or. XXXIII against Tisamenus. 3 A strained working relationship with the decurions is a current complaint against provincial governors (see e.g . Libanius, Or. XXXIII 13-20.) 4 Ep. 72. In spite of its exaggerations, it is no new assertion: cf. also Libanius, Or. XLVI 8-10 against Florentius, the governor of Syria, written however unlike Synesius letters after Florentius had fallen into disgrace. For the relationship of provincial governors with the curiales see P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire (Madison 1992) 29-58. 5 Cf. J.-M. Carri, Le gouverneur romain lpoque tardive: orientations de l enqute, AnTard 6 (1998), 17-30 here 27 referring to CTh XII 1, 126, protecting only the principales. The evolution can be traced from CTh XIII 1, 80 and 85 from 380 resp. 381 forbidding torture and particularly flogging of decurions over the decision to employ flogging against decurions guilty of embezzlement and illicit or excessive tax exaction contained in CTh XII 1,117 from 387 to the provision of CTh XII 1, 126 (392), which pertains only to loyal principales who owe
1

conflict escalates when a certain Magnus embezzles or is robbed of part of the collected taxes. Andronicus keeps him imprisoned in isolation, depriving him of nourishment and water and torturing him, even more so when Magnus finally sells part of his property to the military governor and not to the person envisaged by Andronicus.6 The affixion of edicts denying debtors the right of church asylum to the very door of the church prompts Synesius to his first attempt at excommunication.7 Andronicus promises to improve, the excommunication is delayed, but Magnus is tortured to death and the excommunication letter is published.8 A letter to Synesius to Theophilus of Alexandria shows Andronicus a broken man for whom Synesius magnanimously intercedes.9 3. Synesius First Attempt: the Letter to Troilus The first step against Andronicus seems to be a letter Synesius wrote to the sophist Troilus, one of the counsellors of Anthemius, the praetorian prefect of the east. Synesius accuses Andronicus of having illegally gained his office by bribe and of trying to stage false law suits against his enemies, only to please a nameless woman. In order to gain his point, Synesius hails Troilus as a philosopher and lover of mankind and portrays himself as a polites philosophos, a philosophically-minded citizen 10 pleading for his province. He stresses the status of the Pentapolis as a Roman province threatened with disappearance.11 Synesius identifies himself with it12, speaking in the first person plural, citing oracles of old, which allegedly had predicted the ruin of the Pentapolis through the corruption of its governors and calling out to Troilus, and through him, to Anthemius, for a lawful governor as the sole remedy to this decline. Anthemius must remain true to the laws he has just reinforced forbidding to govern ones home province, because only the laws preserve the Empires efficacy.13 Only to emphasize Andronicus arbitrary cruelty does Synesius devolve briefly upon his own person, stating that he has in vain tried to visit a person unjustly imprisoned.14 What is striking, is that Synesius does in no way allude to his episcopal office, but instead appeals to Troilus attention and regard on the old foundation already laid during his embassy to Constantinople more than a decade before. This foundation is constituted by the common love of letters and philosophy.15 The epistle has no religious overtones at all, the appeal is that of a leading provincial to the laws of the Roman state. This is an interesting instance of what

nothing. See also Libanius, Or. XXXIII 20 about similar treatment of the Antiochene decurions at the hands of their governor. 6 Ep. 41, 42 and 72. 7 Ep. 42. 8 Ep. 72. 9 Ep. 90. 10 Ep. 73, l. 1-3. 11 Ep. 73, l. 34-36. 12 Ep. 73, l. 68. 13 Ep. 73, l. 77-83. 14 A standard episcopal duty; cf. Augustine, ep. 151-153 and J. Gaudemet, Lglise dans lempire romain (IVeVe sicle) (Paris 1958/1989), 350-355. 15 See ep. 91, 118 or 123. On the importance for paideia as the medium of communication par excellence for the members of the local and imperial elite in the late Roman empire see Brown, op. cit. 35-47.

actually was expected from Synesius as metropolitan of the Pentapolis: to continue using his influence on behalf of the province, not so much as a religious, but as a political figure.16 4. The Escalation of the Conflict The letter to Troilus seems to have effected nothing, and within a few months we see Synesius taking quite another stance both in a letter to a former friend, Anastasius, who had become the tutor of the imperial children, and in a speech held before the Pentapolitan synod prefacing the formal decree of excommunication. The two pieces show close textual parallels, especially where Synesius own person is concerned, which now becomes one of the pivotal arguments. Anastasius had asked Synesius to intervene on behalf of the priest Euagrius, forced by Andronicus to reassume his duties as a decurion.17 The extensive legislation on the matter ever since Constantine, constantly trying to prevent decurions from becoming members of the clergy and thus gaining exemption from their duties,18 shows that Andronicus decision was commonplace. Nevertheless, Synesius uses the occasion to depict Andronicus proceedings in the gloomiest colours to Anastasius, said to protect the latter at court.19 He expands upon the allegedly novel tortures, upon the rudeness and cruelty of Andronicus staff and upon the latters disregard for every honest man and association with dubious figures.20 He also relates a circulating rumour that Andronicus measures, especially those concerning particular decurions, aim to fulfil a dream prophecy obtained by Anthemius stating that those deaths would cure him of his prolonged illness.21 Synesius picture is that of madness, credulity and cruelty conjoined, against which any decent man is powerless. And at this point he passes to himself. Andronicus, who had twice narrowly escaped arrest at Alexandria through Synesius intercession now slights him completely, not even respecting his grief at the death of hs firstborn son. His antagonism forces Synesius to turn his thoughts from his private despair to the public misfortunes and thus unintendedly helps him master himself.22 Despondently he reminds Anastasius that death had been predicted to him for a certain day of the year and he identifies it with the day of episcopal consecration which has brought about a metabole biou. He has lost the inner happiness which had before elevated him over all devotees of philosophy on account of his philosophical and political successes. 23 And, worst of all, he has for the first time experienced the dejection of abandonment by God.24 By keeping him
This is clearly shown by a former letter to Troilus written at the beginning of his episcopate (Ep. 91). There Synesius speaks about the episcopal office in terms of a standard civic leitourgia, strongly savouring of Platons Apology: But now God ordered me to live in a clearly designed place and to hold myself a certain post (taxis) within the city and live among a numbered set of men, and therefore would I be of some use to those who have chosen me and do as much good as I can by every man in private as well as by the city as a whole. Elsewhere he states that some villagers under his metropolitan jurisdiction had been guided in their choice of a bishop by the principle that a proper bishop had to be able to help his friends and cause damage to his enemies (ep. 66). The same sharp distinction between spiritual and political functions of the bishop can be found in Sozomenus, HE III, 3-4. 17 Ep. 79, l. 1-2 and 86-93. 18 CTh XVI 2, 2-3/6/15/17/19/21/32, discussed by Gaudemet, op. cit. 144-148. 19 Ep. 79, l. 130-131. 20 Ep. 79, l. 8-55. Seeking support in the city, Andronicus had had to manoeuvre between different factions and had chosen to ally himself with Iulius, Synesius long-time adversary (cf. ep. 95 for the rivality). 21 Ep. 79, l. 56-85. 22 Ep. 79, l. 94-108. 23 Ep. 79, l. 108-115. 24 Ep. 79, l. 117-123.
16

incessantly but uselessly involved in the misfortunes of the decurions, Andronicus bars him from his accustomed schole.25 Therefore Synesius entreats Anastasius to use whatever influence he has on behalf of himself and the Pentapolis rather than Andronicus. The schole Synesius longs for is of course not mere idleness, but the basis of a philosophical life, free from worldly cares and completely devoted to the souls turning to God. It is thus a prerequisite for communication with the divine. Synesius contrasts it here sharply with the episcopal duties. By the description of his past happiness and present distress he evokes the image sedulously cultivated by him throughout his former life and thus throughout his acquaintance with Anastasius, who belongs to the circle of Troilus26: the image of a nobleman devoted to philosophy but eager to defend his homeland if necessary. In the name of friendship, Anastasius seems bound to help him, so that Synesius can be himself once more as far as possible. The basis of this endeavour is the rhetoric of friendship, so prominent in late antique and early Byzantine letters and in Synesius own correspondence.27 The letter is the means through which absent friends can come together and cultivate their mutual bond. Disregard of a letter from a friend in distress amounts to a flat refusal in the friends face. This is precisely what Synesius reproaches Anastasius with in a later letter, having learned from other acquaintances at Constantinople that Anastasius abused him openly. He warns him that his behaviour surpassed that of Amasis who shamefully left Polycrates in order to avoid sharing his distress.28 After the failure of these first attempts to solve the Andronicus problem by traditional means, Synesius chose another course emphasizing his role as a bishop. He waited for an opportunity to isolate Andronicus by excommunication. This opportunity seemed to present itself when Andronicus nailed edicts against church asylum to the door of the church. 29 Synesius seized upon his unguarded exclamations and presented them as frightful blasphemies demanding excommunication.30 In order to justify his course of action he delivered a speech before the synod of the Pentapolitan bishops who were presented with the sentence against Andronicus already carefully prepared.31 This decision constitutes something of a novelty: though many late antique bishops engage in close correspondence and sometimes conflict with Christian provincial governors the ultimate step of actually excommunicating the adversary seems not to have been envisaged before.32 Moreover two edicts of the Codex Theodosianus dating from
25 26

Ep. 79, l. 123-125. Ep. 26. 27 See H. Hunger, Die profane hochsprachliche Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. 1 (Mnchen 1978), 222 224 and P. Brown, op. cit. 45-47. 28 Ep. 48. 29 Probably the edicts were not Andronicus own idea and composition, but imperial edicts which the governors were supposed to publish sometimes with their own additions in their provinces (see Carri, op. cit. 19). 30 Ep. 42, l. 15-38 and 57-60. 31 The council of Nicea determined that excommunications must be decided upon by the provincial synods, comin together twice a year in spring and autumn (can V). The provision was expressly intended to prevent solitary action on the part of single bishops. 32 For the relationship between bishops and governors see , here 27 about the situation described by Basil of Caesarea for Cappadocia. A similar case can be found in the decision of Auxilius of Nurco against the comes Africae Classicianus (related by Augustine, ep. 250, Migne, PL 33, 1066-1068). Classicianus was excommunicated because he had persuaded fugitives who had taken asylum in a church to come out of their own accord. Classicianus appealed to Augustine, who significantly sided with him against the bishop. As Augustine

this period expressly forbid church asylum for debtors of any kind, let alone for state debtors.33 Synesius therefore needed a sound strategy in order to obtain the bishops support. Therefore he begins with an ample discourse on the role of evil natures in the cosmos. God makes good use of beings naturally bent upon evil-doing like Nebuchadnezar, locusts, barbarian raiders or simply wicked governors in order to purify people from their sins. Nevertheless, such natures have freely chosen wickedness and so they are liable to Gods punishment. Just like Judas, Andronicus cannot escape the just reward of his cruelty. He will fare like the locusts and the barbarians who were eventually annihilated after having served the purification of the Pentapolitans.34 After having securely established this flattering connection between Andronicus and sundry enemies of God, Synesius turns to himself. For him Andronicus is the instrument by which the devil tempts him to desert his sacred ministry.35 And in order to prove this he engages into a minute description of his autobiography and conceptions about the episcopate, on the same lines of the letter to Anastasius, but far more elaborate. The election to the episcopal see appears here, too, as a decisive turning point in his life. Formerly, his life had been determined even from childhood by peaceful leisure, which alone corresponds to divine natures and allows fruitful commerce with God. Neglecting the common sports and pursuits of childhood, youth and adulthood, he strove to preserve his inner peace and detachment, dividing his life between books, prayer and hunting. Due to his wondrous gift of persuasiveness he also proved to be a successful patron for cities and individuals alike, without any detriment for his philosophical way of life36. Confronted with the episcopal see, he tried to renounce it by all means, driven both by awe and by his attachment to philosophy. Only slowly did he come to accept it, and only on the basis of repeated assurances from older bishops that his philosophical serenity would not suffer, but increase.37 Nevertheless, the subsequent development proved his hesitations but too right. Once in office he was assailed by the multitude of people persecuted by Andronicus. All his attempts to protect them were vain; his supposed influence turned out to be illusory. Moreover another motive parallel to the letter to Anastasius God receded into infinite distance and Synesius prayers remained unheard for the very first time of his life. The depression caused by the death of his son, too great to be overcome even by philosophy, is mentioned, as well as the need to master himself in order to cope with Andronicus. Thus he finds himself deprived of all his former serenity, useless for his fellow citizens and particularly abased by Andronicus measures against a decurion who has been robbed of the collected tax funds and is at the moment imprisoned in strict isolation without nourishment,

presents the case, Auxilius seems to have been younger and less experienced than himself, having been ordained less than a year before the occurrence. The case is discussed by H. Langenfeld, Christianisierungspolitik und Slavengesetzgebung der rmischen Kaiser von Konstantin bis Theodosius II (Bonn 1977), 184-189 and briefly mentioned by Chr. Traulsen, Das sakrale Asyl in der Alten Welt (Tbingen 2004), 273, n. 45, who sees it as a singular and most untypical case for the period between 350 and 431. Traulsen does not take Synesius case into the account. 33 CTh IX 45, 1 (392) and IX 45, 3 (398). The edicts are discussed by Traulsen, op. cit. 277-283. 34 Ep. 41, l. 1-86. 35 Ep. 41, l. 87-89. 36 Ep. 41, l. 94-125. 37 Ep. 41, l. 125-151.

so that no one, not even Synesius, should rescue him. At the same time Andronicus tries by all means to discourage anyone from buying the prisoners property.38 Confronted with such affronts, Synesius pictures himself as a noble martyr of the ignoble Andronicus. With the latters dubious origin and low occupation he proudly contrasts his own aristocratic ancestry going back to Eurysthenes, the colonizer of Libya.39 Thus any attempt to dishonour him cannot be directed at his person, but to the bishop as Gods representative and thus eventually to God himself.40 But before proving this assertion by the letter of excommunication, Synesius launches himself into a digression upon the episcopal office. His failure must convince his audience of the impossibility to attend both to spiritual and to political matters. The bishop is to represent his congregation before God in passionless contemplation, and this in turn requires a safe distance from the muddle of everyday affairs. In other words, a good priest has to be a good philosopher and keep his schole, because theoria and praxis are incompatible. Surprisingly, before the assembly of the Pentapolitan bishops Synesius quotes Plato to support his view of the episcopal office.41 So, he lays down strict rules for his future conduct: as he has never been a public philosopher, he will not be a public priest and will henceforth keep aloof from politics. Nevertheless, he reserves for himself the right to intervene occasionally. If the Pentapolitans consider themselves neglected they are to appoint an auxiliary bishop or substitute Synesius altogether.42 To sum up, Synesius draws a strong opposition between the general expectations connected with the bishops office and its innermost core, which he defines in terms of philosophical contemplation. He reminds the bishops of having accepted his charge only reluctantly and on condition that it be compatible with philosophy. Throughout the letter he emphasizes his identity as a philosopher. Philosophy appears as the uppermost authority in his life, to which he turns at his sons death and which offers the interpretatory frame for the episcopal ministry. Conversely, Andronicus is painted as a base, uneducated nature, the devils instrument bent on insulting God and robbing the Pentapolitans of Synesius. Synesius knows very well that the Pentapolitans have elected him not so much because of his philosophical habitus, but mainly because of his social position, influent connections both at Constantinople43 and at Alexandria44 and his political and military abilities. The perspective of a bishop spending his life in contemplation of the divine and praying for his flock cannot appear very attractive to them. Therefore the speech can be seen as a sort of bluff: Synesius threatens to retire, conveniently appealing to the provisos he had prudently made on accepting the see.45 The unspoken question is: Can the Pentapolitans afford losing such an able man and perhaps offend Theophilus of Alexandria? Just at this point the speech ends, the decision
38

Ep. 41, l. 152-235. Synesius pictures the idea that he could save the decurion by force as completely derisory and proof for Andronicus cruelty and contempt. Nevertheless, his letters show that this wasnt so very absurd, as he had once at least compelled a prosecutor to drop his charge of maiestas against the decurion Iulius (ep. 95). 39 Ep. 41, l. 239-248. 40 Ep. 41, l. 248-257. 41 Phaidon 67b. 42 Ep. 41, l. 267-367. 43 These connections were formed during the embassy; the most important beside Troilus and Anastasius is Aurelian, the praefectus praetorio of the East of 397. 44 Hypatia, whose circle of students consisted mainly of influential persons (cf. M. Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria (Cambridge, Mass./London 1998) 27-44) as well as bishop Theophilus, who had officiated at Synesius marriage and had strongly advocated his becoming a bishop (ep. 105). 45 See ep. 105 and 11.

about the bishop is suspended and postponed, and the letter of excommunication is read, thus giving the bishops the opportunity to support and thus keep their metropolitan.46 In the letter of excommunication, Synesius speaks exclusively as bishop, identifying himself with the Church. He pretends to have suffered the second crucifixion of Christ when Andronicus nailed his edicts to the church door.47 Trying to succour Andronicus victimes he provoked the latters fury and led him to declare that the tortured decurion had in vain placed his trust in the Church, as he wouldnt escape even if he embraced the feet of Christ himself. Upon such a blasphemous utterance Synesius feels bound to excommunicate him in order to maintain the purity of the Church unsullied. Andronicus, his familiars and his followers are forbidden to enter sacred spaces of any kind. Moreover, private citizens as well as state officials are forbidden any social intercourse with them and clerics mustnt speak to them or attend their funerals on pain of excommunication. The Pentapolitan bishops eventually decided in favour of the excommunication, but seemingly very hesitatingly. This is shown by their reaction to Andronicus attempt to avoid the excommunication by professing repentance and asking for a respite. They forced Synesius to comply and grant it, in spite of his wishes. Probably their experience, which Synesius was lacking, led them to appreciate how thin an ice they were moving on with an excommunication of an imperial official on the grounds of the delicate issue of church asylum. Thus they probably thought Andronicus repentance a unexpectedly satisfying result. Nevertheless, Synesius prevailed in the end and excommunicated Andronicus after a wellborn decurion died under torture.48 5. The Outcome Synesius risky course was proved right by the events.49 A last letter coming like an appendix to the conflict shows Andronicus as victim of injustice.50 Now the Church i. e. Synesius feels bound to step to his aid. He has suffered much more than malediction, because on his account Synesius has grieved the rulers of the day. Seemingly, Synesius Constantinopolitan acquaintances finally, though unwillingy dissociated themselves from their former protg after the excommunication. The traditional mode of communication and self-representation as a cultivated member of the imperial lite, a philosopher living up to hs duties as a citizen and asking for the protection of the hallowed Roman laws against a corrupt governor had clashed with other structures of patronage and failed. But Synesius disposed of other resources of power in his ecclesiastical position. He brought them to bear by ably turning the issue into a
Ep. 41, l. 368-371. Ep. 42, l. 24-25. 48 According to A. Garzya, Sinesio e Andronico, in Hestiasis. Studi tardoantichi I (Messina 1986), 93-103, who compares the two extant versions of ep. 42, Synesius seems to have been more guarded in his final letter, reducing the excommunication from maior to minor by canceling the provisions of social ostracism, and dropping any overt mention of the church asylum issue. It must however be kept in mind that the terminology and classification of excommunication were still very fluid in late antiquity (cf. J. Gaudemet, Note sur les formes anciennes de lexcommunication, RevSR 23 (1949), 64-77). Moreover, the shorter version of ep. 42 reads a bit like a completion exercise, because the affair of the tortured decurion which is needed to understand Andronicus alleged blasphemy is only alluded to but never actually described, so that the letter would remain unintelligible for anyone not acquainted with the first, fuller version. 49 Though his situation is very much the same as that of Auxilius of Nurco the young, newly-ordained bishop braving the imperial official against the wish of his older colleagues the outcome is diametrally opposed. 50 Ep. 90.
47 46

decision not so much against Andronicus, but for Synesius, the philosopher-priest. Surprisingly, Synesius bluff proved efficient and he could use his new weapon successfully against an imperial official, thus proving more progressive and far-sighted than the members of the elite who, like Libanius, confined themselves to traditional mechanisms of influence.51

51

His endeavour can therefore be regarded as an able adjustment to the structure of the new symbolic order of the Empire, in which the Church had come to play an ever-increasing part. Though incomparably more modest in scale than the memorable confrontation between Ambrose of Milan and Theodosius, the confrontation between Synesius and Andronicus is structurally similar and can be viewed as an instance of the transformation of political power in the fourth centruy which G. Bowersock has described (G. W. Bowersock, From Emperor to Bishop: The Transformation of Political Power in the Fourth Century, in Classical Philology 81 (1986), 298307).