One of the most striking differences between late Roman society and that of earlier centuries is the increasing prominence of bishops within their communities. In part this was a result of the extra-ecclesiastical powers that Constantine bestowed on them (e.g., 12.5). It was also a reflection of their continuity – the fact that they usually held office in the same community until their death, unlike senior imperial officials who could expect to serve in a province for perhaps two to three years before moving on elsewhere. That stabilising role became even more important as the infrastructure of government began to crumble in the west during the fifth century. Finally, there is the fact that bishops were increasingly drawn from the local elites who had been used to providing community leaders for centuries.
The passages in this chapter direct attention to various themes relating to bishops. After considering an episcopal career inscription that epitomises some of those themes (12.1), the issue of selection of bishops is examined through the requirements laid down by a church council in the mid-fourth century (12.2), while a cautionary tale from the experience of Augustine shows why and how things could go wrong when such elementary principles were ignored (12.3). Another document, from the late fifth century, implies concern about the priorities of those being appointed bishops (12.4).
The most important extra-ecclesiastical power Constantine gave bishops was the right to hear court cases (12.5) – a responsibility that could prove to be a mixed blessing, at least for those bishops who took their duties seriously (12.6; cf. 11.10 (8)).
Much of the surviving epigraphic evidence about bishops reflects their role as builders, whether of churches (12.7) or of other structures of benefit to the wider community (12.8). This leads naturally into the other charitable activities of bishops, whether it be relieving a famine (12.9), almsgiving (12.10), or organising institutions to provide the needy with help in the longer-term (12.11) (cf. 13.12 for the ransoming of prisoners). It is perhaps not surprising that these final items derive from the post-Roman west.
Further reading: Jones 1964: ch. 22; Chadwick 1980; Lane Fox 1986: ch. 10; Brown 1992: 96–103; Barnes 1993: ch. 19; Hunt 1998b; Rapp 2005.
12.1 An episcopal career: MAMA 1.170
This inscription presents the interesting case history of a bishop in Asia Minor during the early fourth century. Significantly, his family background was in the local elite. He spent a period of time in imperial service – most scholars assume in the army, though since militia could mean service in the civilian administration in Late Antiquity, this is an alternative possibility (cf. Wischmeyer 1990: 235). By this stage, he was a Christian (for Christians in the army of this period, see Tomlin 1998: 23–5) and he duly suffered persecution at the hands of Maximinus Daia’s associates. Subsequently, he went to live in the city of Laodicea in Phrygia (his place of origin may have been a village in its territory) where he was appointed bishop. In this capacity he engaged in – and advertised – construction activities analogous to those which his non-Christian forbears might have been expected to do on behalf of their city in times past. (It has been suggested that he might in fact have been bishop of a heterodox Christian group, but the evidence is circumstantial.)
Further reading: Wischmeyer 1990; Mitchell 1993: vol. 2, 82, 102; Tabbernee 1997: 426–44; White 1997: 171–7.
I, Marcus Julius Eugenius, son of Cyrillus Celer of Kouessa, town councillor (bouleutēs), did military service in the office of the governor of Pisidia and married Flavia Julia Flaviana, the daughter of the senator Gaius Nestorianus. I served with distinction, and during the period when the order was issued by Maximinus for the Christians to sacrifice and not be released from the army, I stood firm through very many tortures at the hands of the governor Diogenes. I was eager to be released from the army and defend the faith of the Christians. After spending a short time in the city of the Laodiceans, I was appointed bishop by the will of almighty God, and served with great distinction as bishop for twenty-five whole years. I rebuilt the whole church from its foundations and all the adornments around it – porticos, four-sided porticos, paintings, mosaics, a fountain, a gateway – and I put up all the stone work – in a word, everything. When I was about to depart this human life, I made a tomb and sarcophagus for myself on which I had these words inscribed for the enhancement of the church and of my family.
12.2 Qualifications of would-be bishops: Council of Serdica Canon 10
The Council of Serdica was called by the emperors Constans and Constantius II in 343 primarily to determine the orthodoxy or otherwise of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, but since the eastern and western bishops disagreed so strongly on this issue that the former refused to attend, the council ended up being a western affair presided over by the experienced Spanish bishop Ossius. Among its conclusions was the following which set out expectations as to the prior experience of anyone being considered for appointment as a bishop, and ‘appears to be the earliest enactment of its kind’ (Hess 1958: 105). Needless to say, the fourth century subsequently produced some prominent exceptions to this rule, most famously Ambrose of Milan. On the background to the council, see Barnes 1993: ch. 8; for this canon, see Hess 1958: 103–8.
Ossius the bishop said, ‘And I think very careful consideration needs to be given to the following. If any wealthy man or lawyer from the courts or the bureaucracy should be requested as bishop, he should not be appointed unless he has first carried out the responsibility of reader and the offices of deacon and presbyter, and he may advance through each grade (if he is worthy) to the highest rank – the episcopate. For by holding the ranks for a considerable length of time, he can be tested as to his faith, moderation, seriousness, and modesty, and if he is deemed worthy, he can be honoured with the holy episcopate. For it is not appropriate, nor do good sense or order allow, for someone who is newly baptised to be ordained casually or lightly as bishop or presbyter or deacon – especially since the teacher of the gentiles, the blessed apostle [Paul] is seen to have forbidden this and commanded that it not be done [1 Tim. 3.6]. But those whose life as been tested over a long period of time and whose worth has been proven [are to be appointed].’ Everyone said that they approved this.
12.3 A cautionary tale: Augustine Letter 20*.2.3–5.4
The following extract from the longest of the newer letters of Augustine presents a cautionary tale on the need for great care in the selection of bishops. Augustine openly acknowledges his responsibility for the problems that resulted from the over-hasty ordination of the young man in question, while also indicating the part played by contemporary circumstances, namely the great influx of former Donatists into the church following the Council of Carthage in 411 (for an alternative reading of the affair, more sympathetic to the individual in question, see McLynn 2010). At the same time, the letter contains much interesting detail relevant to other subjects, such as the existence of formal registers of the poor in receipt of church support (cf. Rouche 1974; Waha 1976), and the fact that Punic – the language of the Phoenician settlers who had founded Carthage in the eighth century BC – was still widely spoken in rural north Africa and was a consideration in the appointment of clergy (cf. Brown 1968; Millar 1968).
2. . . . (3) Antoninus came to Hippo as a small boy with his mother and stepfather. They were so poor that they lacked the means to feed themselves on a daily basis. Then when they had thrown themselves on the resources of the church and I had discovered that Antoninus’ natural father was still alive and that the mother had joined herself to this other man after separating from her husband, I persuaded both of them to observe continence. (4) The man entered the monastery with the boy, and she was placed on the register of the poor (matricula pauperum) whom the church supports, and in this way, by the mercy of God, they all came to be under our care. (5) Then with the passage of time – I won’t linger on the many details – the man died, the mother grew old, the boy grew up. He took on the position of reader among his fellows, and began to show such potential that brother Urbanus (at that time a presbyter with us and in charge of the monastery, but now bishop of the church at Sicca) wanted him to be made presbyter on a certain large rural estate in our diocese; I was absent at the time, but before setting out I told him to provide someone whom a neighbouring bishop could ordain for that place, if my return was not imminent. (6) In the event this was not able to happen because Antoninus was unwilling. But when I learned about this later, I began to consider him capable of such a responsibility, not because I knew him as well as I should, but on the recommendation of head of the monastery.
3. Meanwhile I was finding it hard to manage such a large diocese in the way circumstances demanded, since many people had joined the church from the Donatists not only in the city but also in the countryside. After careful deliberation with the brothers, it seemed best to me that in the settlement of Fussala (which came under the see of Hippo) someone should be ordained bishop who could take responsibility for that region. (2) I sent a message to the senior bishop, he agreed to come, but at the last minute the priest whom I had thought suitable deserted us. What then was I to do, if I were not to postpone such an important business? (3) I was afraid that when the holy old man who had with difficulty come to us from far away returned home from us without having accomplished anything, the hearts of all those for whom this was of vital importance would be broken and there would be found those whom the enemies of the church would deceive with mockery of our failed efforts. So I believed it would be best to propose for ordination someone who was at hand, whom I had heard knew the Punic language, and when I proposed him, the responsibility rested with me. For they did not request him on their own initiative, but in the same way they did not dare to reject someone from my people of whom I approved.
4. In this way I imposed such an enormous responsibility on a young man not much more than twenty years of age who was unproven in the work of the successive grades of clergy and was unknown to me with regard to matters about which I ought to have known beforehand. (2) My great error will be obvious to you. Observe what followed. The heart of the young man took fright at his sudden elevation to the rank of bishop when he had done nothing previously to warrant it. Then realising that the clergy and people submitted to him in whatever he instructed, he became puffed up with the arrogance of power and instead of teaching by word, he compelled by command in everything. He was glad to see himself feared when he did not see himself loved.
5. So that he might fill out the role, he sought out like-minded men . . . 6. . . . (3) Anyone who fell into their hands lost money, furniture, clothing, livestock, produce, wood, even stones. (4) The homes of some people were seized, and were even torn down in certain cases, so that they could be carried away for the construction of new buildings he was demanding. Some things were bought without being paid for. The fields of some people were invaded and left stripped of several years’ produce. Some of them were retained and occupied pending an episcopal decision.
12.4 Appropriate conduct for a bishop: Ancient Statutes of the Church Canons 1–10
The document from which the following extract comes was written with a view to reforming the western church in the final decades of the fifth century. Although its authorship is uncertain, it was written in southern Gaul and its most recent editor has argued that it was the work of Gennadius of Marseilles. It ranges quite widely, but it begins by focusing on the lifestyle appropriate to bishops, which suggests that the author saw this as a fundamental problem in this period in the west. Its advocacy of ascetic principles reflects the influence of monasticism, and implies that contemporary bishops were seen as not being sufficiently separated from worldly concerns. The document is also of interest since it anticipates many of the reforms of the Gallic church championed by Caesarius of Arles in the early decades of the next century. Another theme is the need for the bishop to show due deference to his clergy.
Further reading: Munier 1960; Klingshirn 1994: ch. 3.
(1) A bishop should have a humble dwelling not far from his church.
(2) A bishop should occupy a more elevated seat in a meeting of presbyters in church, but at home he should acknowledge the presbyters as his colleagues.
(3) A bishop should not make his personal property a matter of concern for himself, but should give his time only to reading, prayer, and preaching the word of God.
(4) A bishop’s furniture should be of minimal cost and his tableware and food simple, and he should acquire the authority of his rank from his faith and his upright living.
(5) A bishop should not read pagan books (gentilium libros), and should only read heretical writings from necessity or circumstance.
(6) A bishop should not undertake the legal protection of wills.
(7) A bishop should not himself directly administer the support of widows, orphans, and travellers, but should do so through a senior presbyter or archdeacon.
(8) A bishop should not go to court when provoked over trivial matters.
(9) A bishop prevented from attending a synod by a sufficiently serious constraint should nevertheless send a representative in his place, adopting with the saving truth of faith whatever the synod decides.
(10) A bishop should not ordain clergy without the advice of his fellow presbyters, so that he can enquire into their reputation among the populace.
12.5 The judicial power of bishops: Sirmondian Constitutions 1
In this law, Constantine reiterates an earlier edict of his (cf. Theodosian Code 1.27.1 (318)) establishing a judicial role for bishops, but because it has been preserved in a manuscript independent of the edited version in the Theodosian Code, it includes a fuller exposition of its background and rationale. One of the most interesting features of this document is the fact that the reiteration was prompted by the disbelief of a senior official (and a Christian, at that) that Constantine had really intended to give bishops such wide-ranging powers. Although changes designed to reduce the scope of episcopal power in this area were introduced during the first half of the fifth century, Constantine’s initiative marks a dramatic step in the enhancement of bishops’ community-wide role.
Further reading: Lamoreaux 1995; Hunt 1998c: 272–6; Humfress 2011.
The Emperor Constantine Augustus to Ablabius, Praetorian Prefect:
We are very surprised that Your Gravity, who is replete with justice and the true religion, wished to make certain from Our Clemency what Our Moderation had previously decided concerning the judicial rulings of bishops and what we now wish to be observed, Ablabius, dearly loved ‘father’. And so because you wanted us to provide you with this information, we are again promulgating the programme of the salutary law we previously issued. As the provisions of our edict made clear, we decree that judicial rulings of any kind made by bishops are to be treated as unalterable and imperishable, irrespective of the age [of the litigants]. In other words, whatever has been finalised by the decision of bishops is to be regarded as forever inviolable and worthy of respect.
Accordingly, whether a case involves minors or adults, we wish responsibility for the implementation of decisions made by bishops to rest with you, who holds the highest position in judicial matters, and with all other judicial authorities. Whoever is involved in a case, whether plaintiff or defendant, may opt for the court of the bishop’s holy law and, irrespective of whether the case is in its initial stages or has been under way for a period of time, whether it is in its concluding stages or judgement has already begun to be pronounced – immediately, without any question, the litigants are to be directed to the bishop, even if the other party objects. For the innate authority (auctoritas) of the holy religion searches out and makes known many matters which the deceitful snares of legal technicalities do not allow to be brought into the open. All cases, therefore, whether dealt with under praetorian law or civil, are to be confirmed by the law of lasting permanence when finalised by the judgements of bishops, and a matter decided by the judgement of a bishop shall not be re-examined.
Furthermore, every judge is to accept a bishop’s testimony beyond all doubt, and other testimony is not to be heard when that of a bishop has formally been promised by one of the parties. For that testimony is upheld by the authority of truth, that testimony is not open to improper influences when it is the product of the morally sound conscience of a holy man.
We decreed this in our previous salutary edict, and we confirm it in lasting law, thereby suppressing the malicious seeds of litigation, so that wretched men caught up in the lengthy, almost endless snares of legal action may escape from unprincipled lawsuits or from misguided greed through a timely resolution. Therefore, Your Gravity and everyone else shall observe what Our Clemency has decreed concerning the rulings of bishops and has now encompassed in this law, produced for the lasting benefit of all. Issued on the 3rd day before the Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the consulates of Dalmatius and Zenophilus [5 May 333].
12.6 The judicial burdens of bishops: Augustine Commentaries on the Psalms 25.13
The bishop’s responsibility to hear legal cases not only imposed on his time, it also tested his patience and placed him in an invidious position vis-à-vis the litigants, as Augustine explained in the course of elucidating a psalm for his congregation. (Note that the numbering of Psalms in the old Latin Bible differed slightly from that in modern Bibles: hence Augustine’s Psalm 25 is equivalent to Psalm 26 in modern versions.) For the experience of another bishop, cf. 11.10 (8).
For example, it happens that two people bring a case before a servant of God. Both of them say their case is a legitimate one, for if either of them thought there were no grounds for their case they would not ask for a judge. So this party considers their case to be justified, and so does the other party. They come before the judge. Before the verdict is given, they both say, ‘We accept your decision; whatever you decide, God forbid that we should reject it.’ What are you to say? ‘Decide the case how you wish, but just make a decision; if I should take exception to anything at all, let me be excommunicated.’ Both parties love the judge before he gives judgement. Nevertheless, when the decision has been pronounced, it will go against one of them, though neither of them knows against whom it will go. . . .
But if the party against whom the decision has gone cannot now undo it – for as it happens it is not upheld by the law of the church, but by the law of the authorities of this world who have granted to the church that whatever verdict is reached there cannot be annulled – if therefore the decision cannot be undone, the losing party does not now want to reflect on their own role, but turn their blinded eyes against the judge, disparaging him as much as they can. ‘He wanted to favour the other party’, they say. ‘He has taken the side of the wealthy – either he has accepted something from them, or he was afraid of offending them.’ They accuse him as though he has taken bribes. Moreover, if someone poor has brought a case against someone wealthy, and the decision has gone in favour of the poor person, then the wealthy person likewise says, ‘He has taken bribes.’ What bribes can be had from a poor person?! ‘He saw the poor person’, they say, ‘and to avoid being criticised for acting against the poor, he has suppressed justice and given a verdict contrary to the truth.’ Since these accusations will necessarily be made, understand that only in the presence and sight of God, who alone sees who takes bribes and who does not, is it possible for those who do not take bribes to say, ‘But I have walked in my integrity; redeem me and have mercy on me. My foot has stood firm on righteousness’ [Ps. 26.11–12]. I have been harassed on every side by the disputing and provocation of those who, with human recklessness, have found fault with my judgement, but ‘my foot has stood firm on righteousness.’ Why ‘on righteousness’? Because he has earlier said, ‘And trusting in the Lord, I will not be moved’ [Ps. 26.1].
12.7 Episcopal church-building: CIL 12.5336 (= ILCV 1806)
The following inscription, from a damaged lintel lacking its right-hand end, records the building activity of a fifth-century Gallic bishop who oversaw the reconstruction of his church at Narbonne following its destruction by fire (possibly as a result of a Gothic attack in the 420s or 430s: Marrou 1970: 339). It is of interest, therefore, as another example of episcopal building activity, but also for the evidence it provides of an episcopal dynasty and for the prominent role of a pious layman of high status in encouraging the work and covering a substantial portion of its costs. From the data in the inscription, it can be deduced that Rusticus became bishop on 9 October 427; he is known from other sources to have died in 461/2 (Marrou 1970: 348–9).
Further reading: Marrou 1970; Matthews 1990: 341–2; Loseby 1992: 151–2.
By the mercy of God and Christ, this lintel was put in place in the 4th year [of the reconstruction work], when Valentinian [III] was consul for the sixth time, three days before the Kalends of December [29 November 445], in the 19th year of Rusticus’ episcopacy < . . . > In the 15th year of his episcopacy, on the 5th day of that year, three days before the Ides of October [13 October 441], with Ursus the presbyter and Hermes the deacon and their assistants supervising, Bishop Rusticus – son of Bishop Bonosus and of the sister of Bishop Arator, companion of Bishop Venerius in the monastery and his fellow-presbyter in the church at Marseilles – began setting up the wall of the church which had previously been burnt down. On the 37th day <of the episcopal year? Of the work?>, the dressed blocks of stone began to be put in place. In the 2nd year [of the reconstruction work], seven days before the Ides of October [9 October 443], Montanus the sub-deacon completed the apse. Marcellus, Prefect of the Gauls, and a worshipper of God (cultor Dei), entreated the bishop to undertake this work, promising the required resources which he provided from the two years of his administration: 600 solidi as pay for the artisans, 1500 solidi for the other expenses. Contributions [were received] from the following: from the holy Bishop Venerius, 1< . . . > solidi, from Bishop Dynamius 5< . . . > solidi, from Oresius 2< . . . > solidi, from Agroecus < . . . > and Deconia< . . . >, from Saluti< . . . >
12.8 Other forms of episcopal building work: AE (1911) 90 and IEJ 13 (1963) 325
(a) AE (1911) 90
This is one example of episcopal building activity of practical benefit, though nothing further is known about the bishop in question, while the Zenonopolis of the inscription could be in either Isauria or Lycia.
Further reading: Delehaye 1911 (though he wrongly dates the inscription to 488, rather than 487: cf. Bagnall et al. 1987: 509).
Firminianus, our most devout bishop of this famous city of Zenonopolis, has completely restored the whole aqueduct of the holy martyr Socrates [in the year] after the consulate of the illustrious Flavius Longinus, in the 11th year of the indiction, and it flowed for the first time in the fountain in the four-sided portico of the same victorious [martyr] in the month of February. So pray, you who benefit, that by the intercession of the holy martyr this [aqueduct] is preserved intact for many very long ages. Auxanon, aqueduct-builder from Prymnesseus, did the work.
This inscription, from Scythopolis in Palestine, records the charitable building activities of the local bishop (‘shepherd’ was a common term for the office in Late Antiquity) on behalf of a marginalised group in need of practical help. The inscription was found outside the ancient city walls; if this is a fair guide to the location of the baths, then it is consistent with the usual exclusion of lepers from society.
Further reading: Avi-Yonah 1963.
Having repaired the baths, Theodoros the shepherd assigns them to those ill with the very serious disease of leprosy. In the time of the 7th year of the indiction, in the year 622 [558/9].
12.9 Episcopal crisis-management: Sidonius Apollinaris Letters 6.12
Despite its heavily eulogistic tone, there is much to be learnt from the following letter, written by one fifth-century Gallic bishop to another. Most obviously, it illustrates episcopal intervention of a very practical sort in a large-scale crisis – food shortage arising from war. But even the more standard catalogue of virtues enumerated in the opening sections shows what was expected of a good bishop: concern for the poor, the ability to influence secular authorities, an ascetic lifestyle, construction of churches, skilled preaching, and the conversion of pagans or heretics. The letter also highlights the aristocratic origins of many Gallic bishops in this period: the recipient, Patiens of Lyons, has sufficient personal wealth to be able to provide the grain needed to relieve the food shortage, while Sidonius’ use of hunting metaphors and allusions to pagan mythology likewise reflects an aristocratic milieu (for the broader context to all this, see Mathisen 1993: esp. ch. 9). It is also worth noting that ‘implicit in Sidonius’ admiration for Patiens’ demonstration of charitable largesse is an acknowledgement of more mundane considerations; in other years Patiens would not have handed out his stocks for nothing, he would have sold them’ (Harries 1994: 227).
The crisis arose as a result of Gothic attempts to expand their Aquitanian kingdom north and north-east beyond the Loire and Rhône, as a result of which Sidonius’ episcopal seat of Clermont in the Auvergne was repeatedly besieged during the early 470s. That Clermont survived was to a significant degree due to Burgundian aid, and it is their ruler Chilperic who is alluded to in (3) (for background, see Harries 1994: 222–7). Like most other barbarian peoples settled in the empire, the Burgundians adhered to the heretical Arian strand of Christianity, to which Sidonius’ reference to Photinians (4) is an allusion (Photius was a fourth-century bishop whose heretical teachings had much in common with those of Arius).
Sidonius to the Lord Bishop Patiens, greetings. (1) People hold varying views, but I believe that a man really lives for his own benefit when he lives for the benefit of others and, compassion on the misfortunes and neediness of the faithful, accomplishes on earth the works of heaven. ‘What are you getting at?’, you ask. That maxim applies especially to you, blessed father, for whom it is not enough only to supply resources to those situations of need of which you are aware and who, by extending your pursuit of love to the far boundaries of Gaul, is accustomed to show concern for the interests of the needy before worrying about their identity. (2) No one suffering from poverty or physical infirmity is disadvantaged if they are unable to seek you out, for you come first with open hands to those whose feet lack the strength to reach you. Your vigilance crosses into other provinces and in this way the breadth of your care is spread abroad so that the straitened circumstances of those situated far away receive attention; and it happens that because the diffidence of those at a distance moves you no less than the pleas of those nearby, you have often wiped away the tears of those whose eyes you have not seen.
(3) I say nothing of what you daily bear through unceasing watchfulness, prayer and financial outlay on account of the needs of your impoverished townsfolk. I say nothing about the moderation with which you always behave, and the high regard for both your cultivated tastes and your self-restraint so that, as is well known, the present king is always praising your dinners, and the queen your fasting. I say nothing about your enhancing the church entrusted to you so attractively that an observer is unsure whether the new work rising up or the old being restored is better. (4) I say nothing of your responsibility for the emerging foundations of basilicas in many places and for their greatly increased adornment. And while the stature of the faith is increasing in many ways through your activities, the number of heretics alone is decreasing: as if on an apostolic hunt, you snare the wild hearts of the Photinians in the spiritual nets of your preaching, and the barbarians, compliant now whenever they are convicted by your word, follow your trail until you, ever trustworthy angler for souls, pull them out from the deep abyss of error.
(5) Credit for some of these deeds ought perhaps to be shared with other colleagues. But there is one item owed to your credit, by ‘individual entitlement’, as the jurists say, the truth of which your modesty cannot deny: after the Goths had finished their plundering and the cornfields had been consumed by fire, at your own personal expense (peculiari sumptu) you sent free grain to meet the general scarcity throughout the devastated parts of Gaul, although you would have been giving more than enough help to people wasting away from hunger if that produce had been for sale and not a gift. We have seen the roads congested with your grain; we have seen more than one granary along the banks of the Saone and the Rhône filled by you alone.
(6) Let the fictions of pagan myths give way, especially Triptolemus, supposedly received in heaven for discovering ears of grain for the first time – he whom his homeland of Greece, famous for its builders, artists and sculptors, consecrated temples to, made statues of and depicted in paintings. A tale of dubious worth presents him as travelling among the still uncivilised people of Dodona in two boats (to which the poets in time assigned the shape of serpents) distributing sowing seed which was unknown to them. I will say nothing about your generosity to the inland regions, but you filled two rivers rather than two boats from your granaries for distribution to the cities on the Tyrrhenian Sea. (7) But if as a man of religion you are perhaps displeased at being praised through examples drawn from the Hellenic superstition of Eleusis which you consider inappropriate, let us draw comparisons with the historically attested diligence of the revered patriarch Joseph (setting to one side respect for his mystical understanding); since he foresaw the failure of the crops that was to follow the seven fruitful years, he was easily able to provide relief. In keeping with the moral spirit of the story, it is my view that a man who, without inspired foreknowledge, provides relief in an unexpected crisis of a comparable kind is in no way inferior.
(8) I cannot conjecture the full extent of gratitude discharged to you by the leaders of the communities of Arles, of Riez, of Avignon, of Orange, of Alba, of Valence and of Tricastina, because it is difficult to measure in full the thanks of those to whom, as we know, food has been supplied without any charge. However, I give you the most profound thanks on behalf of the chief town of the Auvergne [Clermont], to which you thought to bring aid without the inducement of being in the same province, of geographical proximity, of a convenient river, or of any offer of payment. (9) And so they relay through me their great gratitude for having been fortunate enough to achieve, through the abundance of your bread, a sufficiency of their own. If I seem to have fulfilled adequately the duties of my designated role, I will now become a messenger in place of an envoy. I want you to know at once: your achievement is spoken of throughout all Aquitania; in the hearts and prayers of everyone, you are loved and praised, you are longed for and honoured. In the midst of these evil times, you are a good priest, a good father, a good year to those for whom it has been worthwhile to experience their hunger and its risks, if they could not otherwise have experienced your generosity. See fit to remember me, Lord Bishop.
12.10 A bishop’s charitable activities: CIL 8.20905 (= ILCV 1103)
This mosaic inscription, set in the floor of the cemetery chapel at Tipasa in north Africa, commemorates one of the town’s bishops from the late fourth or early fifth century, emphasising in particular his charitable activities.
Further reading: Brown 2002: ch. 1; Finn 2006: 198–9.
Bishop Alexander, born to these very laws and altars, having discharged his times and honours in the catholic church, guardian of chastity, dedicated to love and to peace, through whose teaching innumerable people in Tipasa flourished, lover of the poor (pauperum amator), wholly devoted to almsgiving, who never lacked the resources from which he performed the heavenly work: this man’s soul is refreshed while his body rests in peace, awaiting the resurrection which will be first from the dead, so he may become a partaker with the saints in gaining the heavenly kingdom.
12.11 Episcopal organisation of charitable institutions: the Lives of the Holy Fathers of Merida 5.3
The following passage, probably written in the seventh century, provides a particularly interesting case of the deployment of church resources for the benefit of the poor, in this instance in Gothic Spain during the late sixth century. It describes the operation of a hospital and, even more intriguingly, a sort of ecclesiastical bank.
Further reading: Fear 1997: xxix–xxxiii (context), 72–6 (commentary).
At the very beginning of his episcopacy Masona established many monasteries, enriching them with much land, he built several churches of marvellous construction, and he brought many souls to dedication to God there. Then he built a hospice (xenodocium) and endowed it with great estates, and after providing it with servants and doctors, he commanded them to devote themselves to the needs of travellers and the sick and he gave them the following precept, that the doctors should go unceasingly throughout the whole area of the city and whoever they found ill, whether slave or free, Christian or Jew, they should take them up in their own arms and carry them back to the hospice. After preparing a bed of fresh straw, they were to lay the sick person there and provide them with enough simple, nourishing food until with God’s help they restored the invalid to their former healthy state. But whatever quantity of comforts were provided from the hospice’s estates for the many ill brought in, the holy man still regarded it as insufficient. Adding even greater benefits to all these, he ordered the doctors to see to it with prudent care that they receive a half of all the rents brought to the church courtyard by all the accountants from all the church’s estates, and that these be distributed to the patients.
Furthermore, if any inhabitant of the city or peasant from the countryside came to the church in need, and asked for wine, oil, or honey from his stewards and produced a very small jar into which it could be poured, and the holy man saw him, then, always happy in appearance with a joyful face, he used to order the little jar to be smashed and provided a larger one.
God alone knows the full extent of his generosity towards the poor. However let me also recount one particular instance of this. So great was his concern for the afflictions of all the poor that he entrusted 2,000 solidi to the care of a respected deacon at the basilica of the most holy Eulalia by the name of Redemtus. Whenever anyone approached the deacon with a pressing need, after giving a guarantee [of repayment], he received as much as he wished from this fund without delay or difficulty and took care of his straitened circumstances.