My first two "Homework" questions are essential to everything that follows:
Question 1 - "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"
Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"
In trying to give an answer to these and other questions, I depend on the translations from the original Latin texts and some comments from the following authors. These are well known and respected theologians and, while differing on some details, agree on the importance and reliability of the documents in question.
Henry Chadwick (died 2008) was a leading academic and researcher on the early Church and its relation to ancient society. His monograph "Priscillian of Ávila, The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church" (1) is still the definitive text on the history of Priscillian.
Marco Conti is Professor and Lecturer on Latin Literature, Patristics and History of Religion at three Universities in Rome.
Question 1- "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"
Although there are some who would question (or even deny) Priscillian's authorship of Tractates I and II, both Conti and Chadwick are in little doubt that the Apology (Tractate I) and the Letter to Damasus (Tractate II) are the work of the Bishop of Ávila. There is some debate about the context and dating of the Apology (Tractate I), which do not in fact detract in any way from the importance of this summary of Priscillianist belief.
In fact the Apology places far more emphasis on what the Priscillianists do NOT believe, than on stating details of what they do. It was written to the "most blessed priests" (para. 5, 75, 195, etc.). One of the Councils of Bishops who had met to consider the teachings of Priscillian being the obvious recipient.
V. Burrus says:- The most likely context for the Apology is, however, the conflict at Merida after the Council of Saragossa and before Priscillian's ordination, and the most likely author is Priscillian himself. The treatise was therefore probably composed earlier than the Letter to Damasus and may be the work referred to at the end of that letter. (2)
The internal evidence in Tractate I is quite clear that the author is a well born citizen of good social standing (para. 15 - 20 and 194 - 200). He has been accused by Ithacius of "magic enchantments" (para. 380)
Tractate II is the petition addressed by Priscillian, as leader of his group, to Pope Damasus. This effectively dates it to the period between the rescript of Gratian (an Imperial edict obtained by bishop Hydatius stating that the heretics must not only leave their churches and cities but be banished from all countries) and Priscillian's visit to Rome A.D.381 -382. (3)
Taking the internal evidence and the historical details given by Severus and the Canons of the Council of Saragossa, the conclusion reached by Conti and Chadwick would appear to be correct. The author of Tractates I and II is Priscillian, one-time Bishop of Ávila.
Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"
The answer to this may depend more on pre-conceived ideas and 'gut feeling' than on written evidence!
That there can be no "half-way house" between our total rejection of the Tractates as the truth about Priscillianist belief, and their being a false presentation built on lies with intent to deceive, is obvious. There are however some testimonies on which we can call.
The quality and loyalty of the friends of Priscillian must say something about his integrity and the deep impression his teaching, and lifestyle, had on his close associates. The fact that, included among those condemned with him, were Bishops of long time good standing within their own dioceses speaks for itself. They would have known the basis of the Priscillianist teachings, and would certainly have known if they were heretical.
The bishops Instantius and Salvianus (whose sees are not recorded) were the consecrating bishops at Ávila in 381 A.D. According to Severus they had "bound themselves to Priscillian by an oath".(4) Bishop Instantius was exiled to the Isles of Scilley at the trial in Trier, where Priscillian and others were subject to questioning by torture. (As already noted, Bishop Salvianus died during the visit to Rome and Milan).
Bishop Hyginus of Cordoba had quietly remained in the background but was accused of being sympathetic to the heretics and was also exiled. Remember, the loyalty of these and others to their leader is probably best expressed by that un-named cleric at the Council of Toledo (A.D.400) where he cried out '"of his own accord, not under interrogation" that Priscillian was catholic and a holy martyr who had been orthodox to the end and had suffered persecution at the hands of the Bishops'.(5)
If Priscillian was deliberately lying about his beliefs and those of his group, then those standing trial with him, his long term friends and fellow clergy would have known. It seems far more likely that they were firm in their belief, seeing in it nothing unacceptable to the "faith once delivered to the saints".
Taking as the answer "yes" to Question 1 and the answer that "Priscillian was telling the truth" (with a certain reticence) to Question 2, we can now move on in the next blog to the second set of questions on the beliefs and practices of the Priscillianists.
(1) Oxford Press 1976
(2) Burrus Virginia The Making of a Heretic. Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy
University of California Press, Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
© 1995 The Regents of the University of California. p. 56.
(3) Chadwick p.35 and Severus. Chron.ii.47.6
(4) Chadwick p. 20 - quoting Severus Chron.ii.46.1 ff
(5) Chadwick p. 184 - 5 citing the Acts of the Council of Toledo.
No comments:
Post a Comment