Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:42:23.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Church of Rome as a Court of Appeal in the Early Fifth Century: The Evidence of Innocent I and the Illyrian Churches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2013

GEOFFREY D. DUNN
GEOFFREY D. DUNN*
Affiliation:
Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian Catholic University, 1100 Nudgee Road, Banyo, QLD 4014, Australia; e-mail: Geoff.Dunn@acu.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the early years of the fifth century a significant step in the development of the Roman Church's claim to a universal jurisdiction was taken as it clarified its relationship with the Churches of Eastern Illyricum. Among the letters of Innocent i, bishop of Rome from 402 to 417, there are a half dozen addressed to the churches within that prefecture, politically now in the East but ecclesiastically still looking to Rome. Yet the authority exercised by the Roman bishop was not all-encompassing, being restricted primarily to judicial matters. This article considers Innocent's epistula xviii, written to a group of Macedonian bishops, headed by Rufus, bishop of Thessaloniki, Innocent's vicar, in which Rome acts as a court of appeal in the matter of Bubalius and Taurian. What is fascinating is the role that forgery played in the appeal process. It is argued that the evidence should be considered in its own historical context and not in the light of later ecclesiological understandings.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 679 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 
BAV

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

CSEL

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

JK

Philipp Jaffé, Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, 2nd edn, ed. Ferdinand Kaltenbrunner, Leipzig 1885, repr. Graz 1956

E pistula xviii is one in a series of letters between Innocent i, bishop of Rome between 402 and 417, and bishops in Illyricum Orientale in the first two decades of the fifth century concerning the operation of what has come to be called the papal vicariate of Thessaloniki.Footnote 1 These letters should be of enormous historical importance in ecumenical terms for understanding developments in the relationship between Christian West and East, particularly in terms of the growth in the claims for papal primacy made by the Church of Rome. Yet it is an importance that has been undervalued in scholarship, especially with regard to this particular letter. In Weltin's survey of Innocent's correspondence, there is no mention of ep. xviii in his discussion about the papal vicariate of Thessaloniki.Footnote 2 In Erich Caspar's still standard history of Roman bishops in late antiquity, there is the comment in a footnote that the letter gives us ‘nur unvollkommene Kunde’.Footnote 3 Perhaps it is that incompleteness of information in the letter that is responsible for its neglect. Charles Pietri sees it as a severe letter.Footnote 4 I will argue that it is not.

As Caspar pointed out, it is ‘[e]in praktischer Fall’ of the workings of the papal vicariate, and for that reason alone it is worth investigating to see the emergence of Rome as an ecclesiastical court of appeal, which was one step in the development of claims to papal primacy. The relationship that Innocent had with the Illyrians was different from that which he had with some other churches because of the particular connection between Rome and Illyricum in the increasing stratification of ecclesiastical hierarchy emerging in the second half of the fourth century. Therefore, the way in which Innocent interacted with the Illyrians should not be applied to all other churches without differentiation; not all churches turned to Rome as a court of appeal. Prior to this letter there is no evidence of how Rome operated in practice as a court of appeal for those tried before their local bishop or provincial synod of bishops,Footnote 5 and wider evidence about how Rome interacted with other churches on matters other than legal appeals is sketchy, limited largely to the ecclesiastical historians Socrates and Sozomen, except for the mid-third century with the correspondence of Cyprian, which provides some detailed insights.Footnote 6 Those who have commented on Innocent's letter see in it Rome involving itself, uninvited, in the affairs of the vicariate or overturning the decision reached earlier by the Illyrian bishops. The interpretation of this article, reviving one offered in the sixteenth century, is that this is not the case and that Innocent was at pains to point out to his episcopal colleagues that he was completely in agreement with them. The argument put forward here is that much of this modern misunderstanding is due to a failure to appreciate that an ancient misunderstanding had arisen because of forgery: Innocent had heard the appeal against two clerics because they produced forged letters authorising the appeal, and the Illyrians reacted badly because those clerics sent them forged letters from Innocent containing a favourable verdict.

Rome as a court of appeal

This research is part of an ongoing investigation into the relationship between Innocent i and the Illyrian bishops. What has been revealed is that the relationship between bishops in terms of lines of authority was rather fluid from the fourth into the fifth centuries, but was increasingly, though inconsistently, patterned on the late antique Roman imperial system. Just as Roman provincial administration had governors of provinces, vicars of civil dioceses and praetorian prefects of prefectures,Footnote 7 the Church developed metropolitans, primates and patriarchs, although in an uneven, piecemeal, uncoordinated and unconscious manner.Footnote 8 Terms were inconsistently applied (indeed, in ep. xiii Innocent would refer to what we would call metropolitans as primates).Footnote 9 The rights and responsibilities of metropolitan bishops were ill-defined but included rights of veto and confirmation over the appointment of bishops within their areas of responsibility, chairing various assemblies of bishops, and hearing appeals against the decisions of lower-ranking individual bishops within their provinces either alone or in synod with their provincial episcopal colleagues. The Roman civic administration provided a basic model for what to do to ensure unity in the Church beyond the level of a province. Different arrangements seem to have been put in place with regard to appeals against a decision of a provincial synod; this included an appeal to a synod of bishops from a neighbouring province or to the most important bishop within the civil diocese or prefecture, who was usually the bishop of the capital city.

Extraordinary events pushed that pattern in new directions. Julius of Rome and a synod of western bishops heard an appeal from Athanasius of Alexandria in 341, for example, not because Rome had a recognised right to hear such appeals (a point that the eastern bishops at Tyre stressed) but because Athanasius wanted to muster as much support as possible in terms of numbers and prestige to counter his eastern rivals.Footnote 10 It certainly suited Julius to assert that Rome did have the right to hear this appeal,Footnote 11 yet it was probably more a case of wishful thinking than a cherished belief.

The Synod of Sofia (ancient Serdica), involving western bishops, agreed that bishops who wished to appeal a judicial sentence against them could turn to Rome, which would decide if it were worthy of appeal and would appoint fresh judges, with nothing saying that Rome would be the point of appeal.Footnote 12 In Italy itself it seems as though the bishop of Rome operated as the only metropolitan over all the provinces of the two civil dioceses of Italy throughout the fourth century, as recognised by the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea.Footnote 13 This became complicated towards the end of that century with the appearance of a strong-willed, politically experienced and well-connected bishop like Ambrose in Milan, at the time when that city was becoming an imperial residence, although Ambrose's official status as metropolitan is unclear.Footnote 14 It appears to be the case that Illyricum was not considered by Roman bishops as part of their metropolitan area of responsibility, but of a wider area of responsibility associated with the prefecture. Thus, the Roman bishop did not meet regularly in synod with the Illyrian bishops as he did with the Italians, where pastoral policies were implemented and monitored; instead what we find is Rome being used by the Illyrians as a point of appeal in the case of disputed decisions made locally. There are many aspects to the episcopal ministry in late antiquity, as today, but the concern here is primarily with judicial trials and their appeals.

Rome and Thessaloniki

With regard to Illyricum Orientale what we find is that the Roman bishops considered the region to be part of their area of responsibility in some way (as indicated by the canons of the Synod of Sofia and what seems to be implied in the letter of 378 to Gratian and in his response).Footnote 15 The prefecture of Illyricum had sometimes been joined with that of Italy and sometimes had been separate. Although the details are debated, it would seem, for example, that, although previously a western entity, in 379 it was entrusted to Theodosius i as an eastern emperor,Footnote 16 while in 384 it was under the control of Valentinian ii in the West.Footnote 17 In 392 it was entrusted to Theodosius’ elder son, Arcadius, as part of his eastern inheritance, although at the end of 395 the western diocese of Pannonia (Illyricum Occidentale) was given to Honorius in the West, while the two eastern dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia remained with the East (as Illyriucm Orientale).Footnote 18 So a stable civil model for the Church to imitate was not available, in terms of whether Rome or Constantinople was the Church to which ecclesiastical matters in Illyricum Orientale would be appealed. If the imitation of the civic pattern were to have been followed strictly, then oversight of church life in Illyricum Orientale should have switched hands frequently and should have been given to Constantinople from 392. However, the churches of the region continued to use Rome and Rome continued to exercise a degree of responsibility since no one knew that the arrangement of 392 (or 395 for that matter) was going to be permanent; this ecclesiastical situation would not be challenged for several decades and the Illyrians themselves were keen to uphold it into the sixth century. Illyricum Orientale thus provides a clear instance where Rome's responsibility was greater than it ought to have continued to be under the civic model, except for the fact that the civic model was far from clear-cut and set in stone. It represents an important step in the development of papal primacy.

Due to the distance from Rome, its bishop needed someone in the prefecture to exercise Rome's prerogatives for him. This was delegated to the bishop of Thessaloniki, and he has come to be called a papal vicar. While Rome's prerogatives are unclear, the use of a local bishop to exercise them on Rome's behalf is even more lacking in detail. Although the letters of the Collectio Thessalonicensis (where in 531 the Illyrians asserted their ongoing support for the traditional arrangement of having Rome as point of appeal) would imply that Damasus had created the papal vicariate, it can be argued that he did not, since in 380 all that he asked Acholius, bishop of Thessaloniki, to do was use his influence over Theodosius to prevent Peter of Alexandria getting Maximus the Cynic appointed as new bishop of Constantinople.Footnote 19

His successor Siricius moved in the direction of the papal vicariate to counter the influence of Ambrose of Milan in the regionFootnote 20 by inviting, sometime between 395 and 398, Anysius, Acholius’ successor, to approve all episcopal appointments in Illyricum, a responsibility that Siricius believed belonged to Rome, probably from the time when it was the only metropolitan of a vast swathe of the empire in the West.Footnote 21 That Rome believed that it had the right (and that the Illyrian bishops appeared to accept Rome's right) to veto episcopal elections outside its own metropolitan area is an extension of Nicaea's vision. Now Nicaea had recognised a metropolitan's right to give consent for the ordination of all bishops in his province, but Siricius refers to Illyricum, not just Anysius’ province of Macedonia. Obviously some provinces had been electing unsuitable men as bishops and some metropolitans had failed to veto such unsuitable elections. Unless Thessaloniki were the only metropolitan church in the prefecture, which seems unlikely (although it is not certain), then it appears that Anysius was asked to exercise what might be called a suprametropolitan rather than a metropolitan responsibility.Footnote 22 The question to ask is whether Siricius was delegating authority to Anysius or was merely advising him to adopt a practice already in place in other parts of the empire.Footnote 23 The former seems more likely, especially in light of the arrangements put in place after the Synod of Rome in 378, if ‘in longinquioribus partibus’ refers to Illyricum.Footnote 24 However, we do not know how Rome had been involved, if at all, in vetoing the previous elections of unsuitable bishops in Illyricum. If they ever had, Siricius’ letter seems to be admission that in practice Rome was too far away to utilise any such right effectively.

Further, when Innocent became bishop, he mistakenly thought that he was confirming the responsibilities of Anysius, bishop of Thessaloniki (in ep. i), as granted by his predecessors, but was in fact extending them when he commissioned him to investigate whatever needed to be investigated in Illyricum.Footnote 25 Certainly, Siricius had been much more restrictive in what he delegated to Anysius, at least in the surviving letter. Anysius was asked to become more actively involved in more aspects of church life outside his own province than just unsuitable episcopal elections. Several years later, in ep. xiii to Rufus, Anysius’ successor, Innocent spelt out what he thought the responsibilities were that he had delegated: the right to decide which matters were appealed to Rome and which Rufus was to hear himself in concert with other bishops of his choice.Footnote 26 This was an adaptation of the 378 provisions, in that the ability to appeal to Rome or its delegate was now to be determined by that delegate. Instead of appealing straight to Rome, as envisaged in 378, aggrieved parties in Illyricum Orientale (and Innocent lists all the provinces of both dioceses of the prefecture, except Rufus’ own) were to turn to Rufus, who was to hear their appeals or pass them to Rome. This was a delegation to Rufus of Rome's authority, as approved by the synod of 378 and by Gratian. Innocent did not use the term papal vicar, but did refer to Rufus as being nostra uice and as intercessor. Rufus was warned not to step on the rights of metropolitans within their own provinces (i.e. he was to allow them to hear cases at first instance), and to act as first among the primates (metropolitans).Footnote 27

Two of Innocent's other letters show the ways in which this appeals process worked. It is interesting that neither of those letters was included in the Collectio Thessaloniciensis but both were preserved in the Collectio Dionysiana and its derivatives, as well as some other early collectiones. What the Illyrians were to submit to Rome in the sixth century in the Collectio Thessaloniciensis were only those letters that set out the workings of the papal vicariate in theory or showed the positive implementation of that theory in practice. Both letters deal with the fallout from the schism created by Bonosus, bishop of Niš (ancient Naissus), whose views of Mary's perpetual virginity had resulted in him and a significant number of his clergy forming a separate Church in 392. In response to that crisis the Illyrian bishops were prepared to receive back into communion and ministry repentant schismatic clergy, ordained before joining the schism, by means of a reconciliation ritual. When Marcian, a successor to Bonosus in Niš, decided that he would accept them back only after they had submitted to a reordination ritual, and found a willing candidate in Rusticius, two other candidates for readmission (Germanio and Lupentius), unimpressed at this innovation, took themselves off to Innocent to appeal against this innovation, seemingly having bypassed an appeal to Rufus (or rejected his ruling), because he might have supported Marcian's change in practice. Innocent agreed with them and wrote to Marcian (ep. xvi) urging him to reinstate the former practice. While it is the argument of this article that ep. xviii is not an example of Innocent involving himself uninvited by Rufus in the affairs of the Illyrian churches, it is more than possible that ep. xvi is such an example. Epistula xvi is not a positive example of how the vicariate was designed to operate (which may be the reason why it was never included in the Collectio Thessalonicensis), yet Innocent overlooked that procedural irregularity and heard the matter anyway. It is to be noted that the appeal of Germanio and Lupentius was not a legal, but rather an administrative appeal. In other words they were appealing against a policy implemented by Marcian rather than against a judicial sentence, which will be the case with ep. xviii.

With regard to clergy ordained by Bonosus after the schism, the Illyrian practice had been to ‘reordain’ them if they repented of being part of the schism.Footnote 28 Perhaps it was this practice that had influenced Marcian to demand reordination of the validly ordained schismatic clergy like Germanio and Lupentius. Innocent wrote ep. xvii to the Illyrians arguing that while he agreed with them that any ordination that Bonosus had performed after his condemnation was invalid, those individuals invalidly ordained (i.e. ordained by him after his schism) could never become eligible for ordination after that.Footnote 29 The letter from the Illyrians was not an appeal to Rome about a judicial matter, but was a letter seeking Rome's opinion and advice. For that reason it was not appropriate to include it in the Collectio Thessalonicensis.

To turn now to ep. xviii. It too is not found in the Collectio Thessalonicensis but in the Collectio Dionysiana, again probably because it too was an example of how the vicariate did not always operate as intended. Its importance lies in the fact that it is only with Innocent that there are the first examples of how the judicial appeals process worked in practice (and was subverted). We begin by considering the date of the letter, its relationship to other letters sent to the region by Innocent, and the personnel involved. The question of dating is of importance to an understanding of the changes in the relationship between Rome and the Illyrians.

The date of the letter

Early in the eighteenth century Pierre Coustant, the only editor so far of all Innocent's letters,Footnote 30 suggested a date of about 414 for this letter, a suggestions adopted by Jaffé too.Footnote 31 In ep. xvii, securely dated to December 414, Maximian, one of the large number of Illyrian bishops who were its recipients, was in his home region, so either ep. xviii, when Maximian and his episcopal colleague EugeniusFootnote 32 are mentioned as being delayed in Rome, was written before ep. xvii or it was written after it, in 415 or later. To place ep. xviii after xvii as he did, Coustant, subconsciously at least, would have had to conclude that, since Dionysius Exiguus presented Innocent's letters in his collection in what he believed to be their chronological order,Footnote 33ep. xvii was out of place, since it was last in Innocent's letters in the Collectio Dionysiana, while ep. xviii is placed seventh in the list of twenty-one letters.Footnote 34 Pietri also dates ep. xviii after ep. xvii, and associates the genesis of this matter with the reconciliation between Antioch and Rome happening around 413 to 414.Footnote 35 We know from ep. xxii, written to Maximian himself, that he had been in Rome when news of Alexander of Antioch's rehabilitation of John Chrysostom's memory reached there.Footnote 36

Some parameters for the date can be determined by considering those named in the letter. The only definitive terminus ante quem is the death of Innocent in March 417.Footnote 37 A terminus post quem is provided by the presence of Rufus, bishop of Thessalonica, as the first of the listed recipients of the letter. If one accepts the date of ep. xiii from Innocent to Rufus as June 412,Footnote 38 and if one accepts, although this is less widely accepted, that ep. xiii was Innocent's first letter to Rufus,Footnote 39 then June 412 is the terminus post quem.

A comparison of the twenty-three Illyrian bishops listed as recipients of ep. xvii with the seven listed in our ep. xviii reveals that the five bishops common to both lists are listed in the same order (Rufus, Gerontius, Sophronius, Falvian and Macedonius).Footnote 40 This reinforces the notion that it was common practice to list attendant bishops at synod in their order of seniority starting with the metropolitan or primate – in this case, Rufus. In ep. xvii Maximian and Eugenius are listed as fifth and sixth, making them fairly senior as bishops. We know that they had been bishops since at least spring 406, when they were listed as addressees in a letter of John Chrysostom from exile.Footnote 41 In John's letter there are five of the same names as in ep. xvii and in almost the same order (Eustathius and Eusebius are the fifth and seventh listed in John, while in Innocent's ep. xvii Eusebius is listed before Eustathius as second and third). In John's letter Maximian and Eugenius are eighth and ninth. However, in ep. xviii, Maximian and Eugenius are not listed among the recipients because, as the letter itself indicates, they had gone to Rome to present Innocent with a letter on the matter of Bubalius and Taurian. Their delay in returning had prompted this group of seven Macedonian bishops to write a second letter to Innocent on the matter, to which ep. xviii is the reply.Footnote 42 After Rufus, Maximian and Eugenius are the most senior Macedonian bishops mentioned in the letter, even though not among the recipients. Perhaps it is a sign of the importance of the matter that the Macedonians have sent two of their more senior bishops to Rome.

From the differing lists of recipients in epp. xvii and xviii we can conclude that the two letters reflect two different episcopal gatherings. Rufus was papal vicar for the churches of the prefecture of Illyricum Orientale, which comprised the two civil dioceses of Macedonia and Dacia. In ep. xvii we are informed that the participants to whom Innocent addressed his letter were Macedonian and Dacian bishops, if we prefer the reading Daciis from the Collectio Frisingensis prima instead of diaconis from the Collectio Dioysiana.Footnote 43 This preference is suggested by the presence among the recipients of Marcian, who was a Dacian bishop, if he were the same individual as Marcian, bishop of Niš, the addressee of ep. xvi.Footnote 44 Not knowing how many bishops were in the prefecture limits our ability to decide what percentage of bishops is represented in this letter.

Anything else that might be said based upon the lists of recipients remains conjectural. The lengthy list in ep. xvii is probably indicative of an annual synod, in which case that behind ep. xviii might have been an extraordinary gathering, rather than a poorly attended annual meeting.Footnote 45 Of course, the first gathering of bishops to discuss Bubalius and Taurian was probably a better attended annual synod and probably of both Macedonian and Dacian bishops, although we must remember that there is no information about that. If that were the case then perhaps the named recipients of our ep. xviii were bishops close to Thessaloniki, able to attend an emergency meeting with Rufus when they received no response from Innocent. They are referred to simply as Macedonians, with no reference to bishops from the more remote Dacia, the other civil diocese of Illyricum Orientale, which supports this notion.

What can be made of Prosdocius and Aristea, the last two names listed in ep. xviii, the only two who do not appear in ep. xvii? Are they new bishops, which would date ep. xviii after xvii, or did they just not make the synod of ep. xvii, in which case their names reveal nothing about the sequence of letters? Again, the disappearance in ep. xviii of the names of the most senior bishops in ep. xvii, such as Eusebius, Eustathius and Claudius, could indicate that they had died, which would date ep. xviii after xvii, or simply that they were absent, possibly being too far away (in Dacia?) or simply indisposed, in which case we learn nothing.Footnote 46 Not having the list of names of bishops who attended the synod that first discussed Bubalius and Taurian and sent Maximian and Eugenius to Rome also limits our ability to be definitive about the relationship between epp. xvii and xviii.

Pietri's idea, that Maximian and Eugenius were in Rome after an Illyrian synod discussing the situation involving Bubalius and Taurian when news of Alexander of Antioch's move to rehabilitate John Chrysostom's memory arrived, is a simple solution. It must remain possible, however, that Maximian was in Rome on more than one occasion. If Pietri is right, and if the Illyrian bishops only met in synod annually, then it would not have been in 414, for we know about the content of that synod from ep. xvii. So we are left with 413 or 415. Since we do not know exactly when Alexander became bishop (it could have been in 413 or probably in 414),Footnote 47 perhaps 415 is the more realistic option, definitely placing ep. xviii after xvii. If this is accepted then the inevitable conclusion is that, as argued by Coustant and Pietri, Dionysius’ chronological presentation of decretals was not entirely accurate.

The contents of the letter

Ep. xviii was written in response to a second bundle of documents from the Macedonian bishops complaining about Bubalius and Taurian.Footnote 48 The first complaint had been taken to Rome by bishops Maximian and Eugenius after an earlier meeting of bishops (possibly a full Illyrian annual episcopal synod), and their delay in returning home with Innocent's first response, which does not survive, had prompted the repeated communication, this time from this group of seven Macedonian bishops. One imagines that the importunitas temporum that prevented the return home of the two bishops from Rome refers to something like bad weather, the closing of the shipping routes for winter, or perhaps some repercussions from the great upheavals that the Roman Empire had been experiencing in the past generation associated with Gothic incursions and political unrest.Footnote 49 Although Maximian and Eugenius were in Rome when the delegation from Alexander, bishop of Antioch, arrived with news about the Antiochene church's reversal of policy with regard to John's memory,Footnote 50 this reason for their staying in Rome would hardly be described as importunitas, for the embassy from Antioch brought a promising opportunity for Rome to cement a new power relationship with the three major churches of the East. Thus, whether Innocent's term refers to the ecclesiastical situation involving the efforts to include John Chrysostom's name in the diptychs and heal the breach in communion between Rome and the principal eastern churches is debateable given the choice of words. Any further discussion in Rome about what was to be done about Rome's relationship with Constantinople and Alexandria in the light of Antioch's move would be a legitimate reason for Maximian and Eugenius to stay longer, but it is still doubtful whether this would be described as being the cause of ‘the unseasonableness of the times’.Footnote 51 If the two bishops had been held up in Rome only because of winter weather, the second letter from the Illyrians indicates great impatience on their part. One may presume that when they did return to the East, Maximian and Eugenius carried with them two responses from Innocent, only the second of which has survived.

The subject of discussion in ep. xviii concerns Bubalius and Taurian. One may presume with Green that they were non-episcopal members of the clergy.Footnote 52 One may even take the presumption further and suggest that they were clergy in Crete given that Innocent stressed that his position ought to be explained most carefully to the bishops in Crete.Footnote 53

Evidence is scanty: is it possible to reconstruct what happened in the case of these two clerics? It would seem fair to say that Bubalius and Taurian were accused of some crime and were tried by their local bishop, and that the verdict was confirmed by the provincial bishops (although which province in Illyricum Orientale is unclear) in synod, or else tried by a synod itself. The former scenario is probably more likely. The synod had confirmed (or reached) a verdict (iudicium) finding them guilty, as Innocent's letter seems to indicate.Footnote 54 Under the terms of the arrangement by which the bishop of Thessaloniki exercised Rome's ‘patriarchal’ rights over the churches of Illyricum Orientale, which we find Innocent spelling out to Rufus in ep. xiii of 412, such verdicts did not need to go to Rome for final confirmation. Rufus was left free to determine which matters he wanted to pass on to Rome for resolution and which he wished to reserve to himself (after deciding if there was any basis for an appeal). Indeed, no one was permitted to bypass or appeal against Rufus to Rome unless Rufus himself gave permission.Footnote 55 Further, as seems clear in the case of Bishop Photius, mentioned in ep. xvii, the Illyrian bishops could also refer their decisions to Rome for endorsement or to elicit a second opinion when the local churches felt that Rome's support would be advantageous.Footnote 56

Why then is Innocent involved with this matter? If the provincial bishops had confirmed a verdict, then the matter had not been transferred to him for a decision. Pietri's position – that Rufus felt unable to deal with this matter himself and wanted Rome to make the decision on it – cannot stand, given that Innocent refers to a previous iudicium made in Illyricum.Footnote 57 Could they have sent the matter to Rome for endorsement? While possible, there seems little good reason to suppose so. There must have been an appeal against the provincial bishops' decision. Given that the bishops' first letter to Innocent had contained a complaint (querimonia), which was repeated in their second letter, we can infer that they had not appealed their own verdict to Rome or asked Innocent to be involved. It would therefore seem natural to conclude that Bubalius and Taurian themselves had appealed the matter to Rome. Thus again, Pietri's position that Rome got involved on its own initiative stands in need of revision, for someone must have informed Rome.Footnote 58

It must be concluded that technically this was an illegal appeal, i.e. one undertaken without Rufus' approval (as perhaps the one from Germanio and Lupentius mentioned in ep. xvi had been). If Rufus had allowed an appeal to Rome and Rome decided to overturn the Illyrian provincial verdict, then the Illyrians really would have had no real basis for their querimonia (other than being annoyed at having their decision overturned). So it seems that the Illyrians complained not only that Bubalius and Taurian had appealed to Rome without permission, but that Rome heard their illegal appeal. Why did Rome hear the appeal if Rufus had not allowed it? Was Innocent ignoring his own arrangements for Thessaloniki, as it seems he had done when he received Germanio and Lupentius? It is probably more likely, in this instance, that Bubalius and Taurian produced a forged letter from Rufus allowing the appeal to Rome, thereby fooling Innocent. Perhaps there had been repercussions after Germanio and Lupentius, with efforts being made to ensure that the papal vicar was not routinely bypassed.

What was Innocent's decision? Green suggests that in ep. xviii Innocent revised in some way the Illyrian provincial decision and that this is what upset the Illyrian bishops.Footnote 59 The evidence, however, does not support this interpretation. Obviously Green has taken retractabo to mean that Innocent reconsidered his first verdict (one supposedly favourable to Bubalius and Taurian and against the Illyrian provincial decision, remembering that this first reply from Innocent no longer survives) and changed it, this time in line with the original Illyrian verdict. However, when Innocent writes a second time, with ep. xviii, he summarises what he had written the first time (‘metabor compendium’); he does not revise it.Footnote 60 Therefore I take retractabo here as meaning ‘reissue the previous verdict’. He described the two clerics as perditissimi and mali and diaboli anhelius. If these words are a compendium from his first decision, then Innocent was not changing his mind, but was, with ep. xviii, his second letter, simply reaffirming the decision of his first letter, which was to reject the appeal. Innocent is in accord with his Illyrian colleagues.

The Macedonians were not complaining about Innocent's first actual verdict for indeed, when they wrote their second letter of complaint, they had not yet received it since Maximian and Eugenius had not returned. What they did know was that an illegal appeal had been made. What they had received, it seems, were letters forged by Bubalius in Innocent's name (‘obiecerit exemplaria fictarum quasi a nobis litterarum’).Footnote 61 No doubt these forgeries would have indicated that Rome had upheld the appeal and overturned the original verdict of the Illyrian provincial synod. What Innocent must have written at the time was a letter to Bubalius and Taurian judging their appeal negatively. Simply by ignoring the truth and fabricating the desired outcome, the two deposed clerics could present the Illyrian bishops with what appeared to be their ticket to reinstatement. Surprised to hear Innocent supposedly involved in a matter that they had not asked him to consider, and no doubt surprised to hear what was purported to be his verdict, the Illyrian bishops in synod sent Maximian and Eugenius to Rome to complain that Innocent had gone back on the undertaking that he had given when he had commissioned Rufus as papal vicar in 412, by hearing an appeal that Rufus had not referred to him. When they heard nothing back from Rome, even though Innocent had written something, a hastily-gathered smaller group of Macedonian bishops sent a second complaint to Rome.

Innocent's first response, which the Illyrians had not received by the time that they repeated their complaint, was no doubt to assure his colleagues that he had not overturned their decision.Footnote 62 The truth of what they had written, which had been attacked by the condemned clerics, shone through clearly enough for Innocent to support his episcopal colleagues against Bubalius and Taurian.Footnote 63 It seems that Innocent in his second letter, and presumably therefore in his first as well, was trying to reassure Rufus and his colleagues that, even if now he realised that he had been duped by Bubalius and Taurian into believing that they had permission to appeal, he was solidly behind the leaders of the Illyrian churches in the verdict that they had reached. Indeed, now that Rome had looked over it, though admittedly it had not been asked legitimately to do so, the original verdict was even more secure.Footnote 64 Once again, a close reading of the letter itself makes Pietri's opinion that Innocent busied himself with making Roman authority felt among the Macedonians incorrect.Footnote 65

There is certainly embarrassment in Innocent's tone, but it is not the embarrassment of one who had changed his mind under pressure from fellow bishops, but that of one who has been tricked into hearing an appeal that he ought not to have heard because he believed in the authenticity of the forged letter, giving leave to appeal, presented by Bubalius and Taurian. It is little wonder that Innocent does not specify what the whispers (murmur) were about, and little wonder that he does not make explicit the fact that he had been tricked into hearing the appeal.

The significance of the letter

This is early evidence of the operation of the church of Rome as an ecclesiastical court of appeal: it is a very early example of a papal decretal.Footnote 66 The significance of the letter lies in the fact that the Illyrian churches asserted their right not to have matters appealed to Rome if they did not want, and they remonstrated with Rome for violating that right, even if Rome had been inveigled into doing so. What must be borne in mind is that the Illyrian churches did not have the same type of relationship with Rome as other churches across the Mediterranean world. Illyricum Orientale was held to be part of Innocent's area of responsibility as patriarch, if such a term may be employed. Just as he had particular authority as metropolitan over the suburbicarian churches, over which he presided in regular synods, so he also held a supervisory authority as a point of appeal over the other Italian churches, Illyricum Occidentale, Illyricum Orientale, Africa and, in the absence of any bishop of significant stature, the churches of the prefecture of Gaul, Britain and Spain, as primate or patriarch, to use the terms that would later become invested with particular meaning. This is not to suggest that Innocent necessarily had a clear-cut understanding of his various responsibilities in terms of being a bishop, metropolitan, primate and patriarch, nor that we can determine precisely how he exercised his further responsibilities in each of these regions. The evidence would suggest that his authority varied from region to region. But what can be asserted is that whatever varying relationships he had with all these western bishops, they differed significantly from those that he had with eastern bishops, for whom Rome was not a point of appeal. Thus, even though John Chrysostom had ‘appealed’ to Rome at the time of his final exile in 404, it was not the appeal of a subordinate bishop to a superior, but of one bishop to an equally significant colleague asking him to use all his influence. It was not a judicial appeal but a cry for support Indeed, this interpretation is made certain by the fact that John issued the same ‘appeal’ to Chromatius of Aquileia and Venerius of Milan.Footnote 67 There was no notion of Innocent claiming a universal primacy for Rome, but the letters that he sent to Illyricum Orientale show that he certainly considered himself to have a patriarchal primacy.

This authority of Rome within the West (and Illyricum Orientale was still considered by Rome to be western) was not unlimited, being confined mainly to matters of judicial appeal, although as in the case of Germanio and Lupentius Rome could also express an opinion on matters, which local bishops presumably would be loathe to ignore. In the case of Illyricum Orientale, the primatial or patriarchal prerogatives had been delegated to the bishop of Thessaloniki, because of its distance from Rome.

The letter also reveals a weakness in this model of ecclesiastical judicial appeal: the danger of forgery. My reading of the letter indicates that Innocent only involved himself because he mistakenly believed that he had been invited to do so by his Illyrian colleagues and, further, the forged exoneration of Bubalius and Taurian was only revealed when the Illyrians complained that the Roman bishop had involved himself in this matter and seemed to have overturned a decision that they had not sent on appeal. Despite the inadvertent breach of protocol this letter confirms what is known about the earliest years of the papal vicariate of Thessaloniki as a means of restricting appeals to Rome.

However, given the fact that Illyricum Orientale by this time was politically in the hands of the eastern not western emperor, ecclesiastical supervision of it ought to have been transferred as well, in this instance to the bishop of Constantinople, as the East would later try to claim.Footnote 68 This would become a source of increasing conflict between Rome and Constantinople, though only in the decades after Innocent's death. Yet, as time went by and the historical basis for Rome's ecclesiastical claims over the churches of Illyricum Orientale was forgotten, Rome's claims to a universal and not just patriarchal primacy would increase. Epistula xviii provides evidence of just how limited any such claims were in the early years of the fifth century.

Green's view that Innocent had revised an original Macedonian verdict against two clerics (which he sheepishly then reversed) and that this was ‘against the spirit, if not the letter, of his initial charge to Rufus’Footnote 69 cannot be sustained. A careful reading of ep. xviii from Innocent to the Macedonian bishops, his second on this question (although the only one to survive), reveals instead that in his first letter Innocent agreed with the original verdict against the clerics and repeated his view, rather than changed his mind, in the second letter, which he needed to do because the Illyrians had not received his first letter when they complained to him again. Their complaint was that he had heard an appeal that they had not asked him to hear, because Bubalius and Taurian did not have permission from Rufus for an appeal. They must have forged a letter giving them leave to appeal, just as they forged a letter from Innocent to the Illyrian bishops overturning their decision, which had sparked the first complaint. This interpretation, while contrary to that of Green, matches the opinion expressed by the seventeenth-century Jesuit scholar, Philip Labbé (presumably in one of the volumes of Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam), as recorded in Coustant.Footnote 70 A careful reading of the letter indicates that Innocent believed that he was adhering to the terms of the arrangement with Rufus of Thessaloniki when he heard the appeal. It is the fact that he was tricked into doing so that was his underlying, though not acknowledged, excuse.

The final word here is to make a further suggestion about why the Illyrian bishops and then the smaller group of Macedonian bishops complained about Innocent's involvement in this matter. In Innocent's ep. xvi, an earlier letter than ep. xvii, about another aspect of the Bonosan schism,Footnote 71 we find that Germanio and Lupentius, presbyters from Niš, had taken to him their complaint that, although they were ordained validly by Bonosus before his condemnation and before they joined him in schism, now that they wished to rejoin the Church they were being required by Marcian, their local bishop, to undergo reordination, contrary to the accepted norms.Footnote 72 The tone of ep. xvi suggests that they had gone to Ravenna to see Innocent without approval from Rufus. Innocent heard their complaint and informed Rufus of his opinion in that letter. If that were the case then we can well imagine the increasing levels of frustration felt by the Illyrians when it seems to have happened again with Bubalius and Taurian. Indeed, the fact that these two presbyters took the trouble to produce a forged letter giving them leave to appeal to Innocent would seem to suggest that Rufus had earlier made some complaint about Innocent's disregard for the procedural regulations that he had committed himself to for the running the vicariate by hearing the appeal from Germanio and Lupentius without leave from Rufus, and that Innocent then had agreed that he had erred and that all the clergy of Illyricum Orientale were reminded about the role of Rufus as papal vicar.

While Rome increasingly saw itself as a court of appeal for churches in the West, what ep. xviii reveals is that within Illyricum Orientale there was a papal vicar in the person of the bishop of Thessaloniki to regulate appeals from that prefecture. That, however, did not prevent disaffected clergy from trying to find ways around that, relying upon or hoping that the distance between Rome and themselves would obscure their fraudulent and devious means.

The letters from Innocent to the Illyrian bishops provide valuable insight into the slow development of Roman primacy. They remind us that Rome's relationship and authority over other churches was geographically differentiated, and was largely restricted to hearing second-instance appeals, a function delegated to the bishop of Thessaloniki.

References

1 Innocent i, ep. xviii, PL xx.537–9; JK, 304. On the papal vicariate of Thessaloniki see Greenslade, S. L., ‘The Illyrian Churches and the vicariate of Thessalonica, 378–95’, JTS xlvi (1945), 17–30Google Scholar; Macdonald, J., ‘Who instituted the papal vicariate of Thessalonica?’, in Cross, F. L. (ed.), Studia patristica, IV: Papers presented to the 3rd International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford 1959, Berlin 1961, 478–82Google Scholar; and Dunn, Geoffrey D., ‘Innocent i and Anysius of Thessalonica’, Byzantion lxxvii (2007), 124–48Google Scholar.

2 Weltin, E. G., The ancient popes, Westminster, Md 1964, 273Google Scholar.

3 Caspar, Heinrich, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, I: Römische Kirche und Imperium Romanum, Tübingen 1930, 313Google Scholar n. 4.

4 Pietri, Charles, Roma Christiana: recherches sur l'Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440), Rome 1976, 1099Google Scholar.

5 The theory of legal appeals begins to emerge in the West with the Synod of Sofia (ancient Serdica) in 343: Hess, Hamilton, The early development of canon law and the Council of Serdica, Oxford 2002, 179–90Google Scholar.

6 See Dunn, Geoffrey D., Cyprian and the bishops of Rome: questions of papal primacy in the early Church, Strathfield, NSW 2007Google Scholar.

7 See Barnwell, P. S., Emperor, prefects, and kings: the Roman West, 395–565, Chapel Hill, NC–London 1992, 51–70Google Scholar.

8 Norton, Peter, Episcopal elections, 250–600: hierarchy and popular will in late antiquity, Oxford 2007, 118–19Google Scholar.

9 Innocent i, ep. xiii.2, in Silva-Tarouca, K., Epistularum romanorum pontificum ad vicarios per Illyricum aliosque episcopis: collectio Thessalonicensis ad fidem codicis Vat. Lat. 5751, Rome 1937, 22Google Scholar (PL xx.516; JK, 300).

10 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos xxii.2, in H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, ii/1, Berlin 19xx, 103; Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica iii.8.5–8, GCS n.F. iv. 111.

11 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos xxxv.4–5, Opitz, Werke, ii/1, 113.

12 Synod of Sofia, canon 3c, in Hess, The early development, 212: Latin version; IIIc, ibid. 226–8: Greek version; 4, ibid. 214: Latin version; IV, ibid. 228: Greek version); 7, ibid. 214–16: Latin version; V, ibid. 228: Greek version.

13 Council of Nicaea, canon 6, in Alberigo, G., Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta, I: The ecumenical councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787), Turnhout 2006, 23Google Scholar. See L'Huillier, P. L., The Church of the ancient councils: the disciplinary work of the first four ecumenical councils, Crestwood, NY 1996, 46–8Google Scholar, and Dunn, Geoffrey D., ‘The development of Rome as metropolitan of suburbicarian Italy: Innocent i's Letter to the Bruttians’, Augustinianum li (2011), 161–90Google Scholar.

14 See Menis, Gian Carlo, ‘Le giurisdizioni metropolitiche di Aquileia e di Milano nell'antichità’, Antichità Altoadriatiche iv (1973), 271–94Google Scholar; Cattaneo, E., ‘Il governo ecclesiastico nel iv secolo nell'Italia settentrionale’, Antichità Altoadriatiche xxii (1982), 175–87Google Scholar; McLynn, Neil B., Ambrose of Milan: church and court in a Christian capital, Berkeley 1994, 276–90Google Scholar; Humphries, Mark, Communities of the blessed: social environment and religious change in northern Italy, AD 200–400, Oxford 1999Google Scholar; Testa, Rita Lizzi, ‘Christianization and conversion in northern Italy’, in Kreider, Alan (ed.), The origins of Christendom in the west, Edinburgh 2001, 47–95Google Scholar; and Dunn, ‘The development of Rome as metropolitan’, 173–5.

15 On the letters to and from Gratian see Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. and Hill, Carole, Ambrose of Milan: political letters and speeches, Liverpool 2005, 244–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica vii.4.1, GCS n.F. iv. 304.

17 Zosimus, Historia noua iv.47.2, in F. Paschoud, Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, II/2: Livre IV, Paris 1979, 315.

18 Grumel, V., ‘L'Illyricum de la mort de Valentinien ier (375) à la mort de Stilicon (408)’, Revue des études byzantines ix (1951), 5–46Google Scholar; cf. É. Demougeot, ‘Le Partage des provinces de l'Illyricum entre la pars Occidentis et la pars Orientis, de la tétrarchie au règne de Théoderic’, in La Géographie administrative et politique d'Alexander à Mahomet (Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 14–16 juin 1979), Leiden 1981, 30. For a summary of the debate about the civil responsibility for Illyricum see Dunn, “Innocent i and Anysius of Thessalonica’, 125–30.

19 Damasus, ep. viii, Silva–Tarouca, Epistularum romanorum pontificum, 16–18=JK 237.

20 Ambrose, epp. vii.51, CSEL lxxxii. 60–7, and vii.52, CSEL lxxxii. 67–70, indicate Ambrose's interest in the church of Thessaloniki from 383. In dealing with the crisis created by Bonosus, the Illyrian bishops participated in the Synod of Capua in 392, presided over by Ambrose (ep. x.70, CSEL lxxxii/3. 3–6) and appealed to Ambrose about what to do next (ep. x.71, CSEL lxxxii/3.7–10).

21 Siricius, ep. iv, Silva–Tarouca, Epistularum romanorum pontificum, 19=JK 257; Dunn, ‘Innocent i and Anysius of Thessalonica’, 130–41. See Chadwick, Henry, ‘Faith and order at the Council of Nicaea: a note on the background of the sixth canon’, Harvard Theological Review liii (1960), 171–95Google Scholar, and Dunn, ‘The development of Rome as metropolitan’, 170–1.

22 If Siricius had only been referring to Anysius’ own province then this would not have been a matter of delegation but simply one of reminding him to do what Nicaea had required.

23 See Greenslade, ‘The Illyrian churches’, 26; MacDonald, ‘Who instituted’, 479; Malcolm R. Green, ‘Pope Innocent i: the church of Rome in the early fifth century’, unpubl. DPhil diss. Oxford 1973, 38; Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1075–6; and Dunn, ‘Innocent i and Anysius of Thessalonica’, 134–5.

24 Ambrose, Epistula extra collectionem vii.9, CSEL lxxxiii/2,195. This arrangement was confirmed, and extended geographically by Gratian to include the prefecture of Gaul: De rebaptizatoribus=Collectio Avellana, ep. xiii; CSEL xxxv. 54–8. See Liebeschuetz, and Hill, , Ambrose of Milan, 252Google Scholar, n. 7, and Dunn, ‘The development of Rome’, 173; cf. McLynn, , Ambrose of Milan, 91Google Scholar. The discussion, however, was not about the ordaining of bishops but the removal of guilty bishops, yet it suggests Rome's involvement in Illyrian affairs. Those in longinquioribus partibus were to be tried before their metropolitan in first instance, or by Rome or Rome's delegate if the accused were a metropolitan. If the trial bishop were accused of bias (before the trial had begun or after it had finished?) then appeal could be made to Rome or to a panel of at least fifteen neighbouring bishops (presumably from a different province from that of the accused). In terms of the parenthetical question, the latter is the more likely option, making a trial in Rome a second-instance one (an appeal) rather than first–instance one.

25 ‘ut omnia quae in illis parentibus gerentur, sanctitati tuae … traderent cognoscenda’: Innocent i, ep. i, Silva-Tarouca, Epistularum romanorum pontificum, 20=PL xx.465. See Dunn, ‘Innocent i and Anysius of Thessalonica’, 141–7.

26 Innocent i, ep. xiii.3, PL xx.516. See Dunn, Geoffrey D., ‘Innocent i and Rufus of Thessalonica’, Jahrbuch der Österreichen Byzantinistik lix (2009), 51–64Google Scholar. I do not believe that the authority delegated to Anysius and Rufus differed.

27 ‘saluo earum primatu curam, et inter ipsos primates primus’: Innocent i, ep. xiii.3, Silva-Tarouca, Epistularum romanorum pontificum, 22=PL xx.516.

28 Innocent i, ep. xvi, PL xx.519–21=JK 299. See Geoffrey D. Dunn, ‘The letter of Innocent i to Marcian of Niš’, in Dragiš Bojović (ed.), Saint Emperor Constantine and Christianity, Niš 2013, i.319–38. Of course, they only appeared to be reordained, since their first ordination was invalid, whereas Rusticius actually had been reordained.

29 Innocent i, ep. xvii, PL xx.526–37=JK 303. See Dunn, Geoffrey D., ‘Innocent i and the Illyrian churches on the question of heretical ordination’, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association iv (2008), 65–81Google Scholar.

30 I am currently preparing a new critical edition of the letters of Innocent i, funding for which is provided by the Australian Research Council. I am grateful for their generosity.

31 Coustant, Pierre, Epistolae romanorum pontificum et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Clement I usque ad Innocentum III, i, Paris 1721Google Scholar, col. 841; Jaffé, Regesta, 46.

32 In John Chrysostom, ep. clxiii, PG lii.706, and Innocent i, ep. xvii, PL xx. 527, there is a Eugenius listed as an Illyrian bishop, so this reading is preferred to Eumenius, found here in ep. xviii.

33 Coustant, Epistolae romanorum pontificum, col. 820. ‘[E]t in quemdam redigens ordinem titulis distinxi compositis: ita dumtaxat ut singulorum pontificum, quotquot a me praecepta reperta sunt, sub numerorum serie terminarem, omnesque titulos huic praefationi subnectarem eo modo’: Dionysius Exiguus, praef., PL lxvii. 231.

34 For the two manuscripts of the original form of the Collectio Dionysiana see BAV, ms lat. 5845, and BnF, Paris, ms lat. 3837. On the collectio see Maassen, Friedrich, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters, i, Graz, 1870, 422–40Google Scholar; Schwartz, Eduard, ‘Die Kanonnessammlungen der alten Reichskirche’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung xxv (1936), 108–14Google Scholar; Wurm, Hubert, Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius Exiguus, Bonn 1939Google Scholar; Gaudemet, Jean, Les Sources du droit de l'Église en occident du IIe au VIIe siècle, Paris 1985, 134–7Google Scholar; Limouris, G., ‘L'Oeuvre canonique de Denys le Petit (vie s.)’, Revue de droit canonique xxxvii (1987), 127–42Google Scholar; Dura, N., ‘Denys Exiguus (465–550): précisions et correctifs concernant sa vie et son oeuvre’, Revista española de derecho canonico l (1993), 279–90Google Scholar; Kéry, Lotte, Canonical collections of the early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140): a bibliographical guide to the manuscripts and literature, Washington, DC 1999, 9–13Google Scholar; and Gallagher, Clarence, Church law and church order in Rome and Byzantium: a comparative study, Aldershot 2002, 1–18Google Scholar.

35 Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1099. If the news of this move in Antioch only reached Rome while Maximian was there, then one must doubt that the Macedonians had discussed this in a synod first and had sent Maximian to Rome to discuss it.

36 Innocent i, ep. xxii, PL xx.544–6=JK 308, dated to about 415 by Jaffé. This is placed fifteenth in Dionysius’ list of Innocent's letters.

37 Martyrologium Hieronymianum, PL xxx.462; Zosimus, ep. i, PL xx.645. See Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis: texte, introduction et commentaire, i, Paris 1955, p. ccl.

38 Innocent i, ep. xiii, PL xx.515–17=Silva-Tarouca, Epistularum romanorum pontificum, 22=JK 300. See Coustant, Epistolae romanorum pontificum, col. 815; Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, 309; Green, ‘Pope Innocent i’, 13–14, 46; Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1089; and Dunn, ‘Innocent i and Rufus of Thessalonica’, 51–64. This letter is not in the Collectio Dionysiana.

39 Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, 309 n. 2; Jalland, T. G., The Church and the papacy: an historical study, London 1944, 273Google Scholar; and Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1088–9, reject the idea that this was Innocent's first letter, based upon dating ep. xvi to 409 or 410. On dating ep. xvi, PL xx.519–26=JK 299, to 413, thereby preserving ep. xiii as Innocent's first to Rufus, see Coustant, Epistolae romanorum pontificum, col. 819, and Green, ‘Pope Innocent i’, 13–14, 49.

40 Innocent i, ep. xvii, PL xx.526–7: ‘Innocentius Rufo, Eusebio, Eustathio, Claudio, Maximiano, Eugenio, Gerontio, Ioanni, Polychronio, Sophronio, Flauiano, Hilario, Macedonio, Calicratio, Zosimo, Profuturo, Nicetae, Hermogeni, Vincentio, Asilogo, Teretntiano, Herodiano et Marciano, episcopis Macedonibus et diaconis in domino salutem’; ep. xviii, PL xx.538: ‘Innocentius Rufo, Gerontio, Sophronio, Faluiano, Macedonio, Prosdocio et Aristeae episcopis per Macedoniam constitutis’.

41 John Chrysostom, ep. clxiii, PG lii.706. Not ep. clxv, as listed by Coustant, Epistolae romanorum pontificum, col. 841, n. c. On the date of Chrysostom's letter see Delmaire, Roland, ‘Les “Lettres d'exil” de Jean Chrysostome: études de chronologie et de prosopographie’, Recherches Augustiniennes xxv (1991), 174Google Scholar.

42 Innocent i, ep. xviii.1, PL xx.538.

43 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, ms Clm 6243, fo. 58r; cf. BnF, Paris, ms lat. 3837, fo. 122r, and BAV, ms lat. 5845, fo. 96r. Hence I refer to them simply as Illyrian bishops. The difficulty with the reading in the Munich manuscript is that it reads episcopis Machedoniae et Daciis. One would expect more of a parallel, with either Macedonibus to match Daciis or Daciae to match Machedoniae.

44 Wurm, Studien und Texte, 136–7.

45 The idea that this was an extraordinary gathering is supported by Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1099.

46 If the historicity of the synodal letter in Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica. iv.9.1–9, GCS n.F. v. 224–7, is accepted, then the Eustathius mentioned there could be the same individual as the Eustathius of Chrysostom, ep. clxiii, and Innocent i, ep. xvii. In that case he would have been a bishop from at least 375 or 378/9, making him quite senior by 413. Bardy, G.rejected the historicity of Theodoret's documents: ‘Sur un Synode de l'Illyricum (375)’, Bulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétienne ii (1912), 259–74Google Scholar. Jacques Zeiller amended the imperial titles to date the documents to late 378 or early 379 when Gratian was in Sirmium: Les Origines chrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de l'empire romain, Paris 1918, 308–43.

Zeiller is supported by J.-R. Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l'empire romain: contribution à l'histoire des rapports de l'église et l'état à la fin du quatrième siècle, Paris 1933, 498, and R. Gryson, Scolies Ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilée, SC cclxvii, Paris 1980, 107–21. McLynn dismisses the documents as fictions designed to enhance the status of the presbyter Elpidius in his anti-homoean campaign in Asia: Ambrose of Milan, 92–4. Daniel H. Williams sees the documents in Theodoret as ‘suspiciously out of context’ and certainly not supporting the idea that Ambrose was in attendance, given that Paulinus, Vita Ambrosiani xi.1–2 (Pellegrino, Vita, 64) described Ambrose as being in Sirmium for the episcopal ordination of Anemius: Ambrose of Milan and the end of the Nicene-Arian conflicts, Oxford 1995, 123–6. The mention of Eustathius, if he were the same bishop, could lend some degree of support to the historicity of Theodoret's documents.

47 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica v.35.1–3, GCS n.F. v. 337. Fedalto, Giorgio, Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis, II: Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus, Padua 1988, 682Google Scholar.

48 ‘Mora coepiscoporum nostrorum Maximiani et Eumenii, uel potius importunitas temporum fecit, ut uos iteraretis de Bulbalio et Tauriano querimoniam, et nos iterum in homines perditissimos insurgeremus’: Innocent i, ep. xviii.1, PL xx.538.

49 Innocent i, ep. xviii.1, PL xx.538.

50 Innocent i, ep. xix, PL xx.540–2=JK 305.

51 I am grateful to the anonymous reader of this article who drew my attention to the use of the term in the Latin text of 2 Timothy iv.2. On that passage see Malherbe, Abraham J., ‘“In season and out of season”: 2 Timothy 4:2’, Journal of Biblical Literature ciii (1984), 235–43Google Scholar.

52 Green, ‘Pope Innocent i’, 50. Pietri calls them ‘prélats’: Roma Christiana, 1099.

53 Innocent i, ep. xviii.2, PL xx.539. Here I accept the reading of BAV, ms lat. 5845, fo. 90v, over credentibus, found in some manuscripts of the Collectio Dionysio-Hadriana. This is supported by Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1099.

54 Innocent i, ep. xviii.1, PL xx.538. They would have confirmed a verdict if the first scenario is adopted and reached one if the second.

55 Innocent i, ep. xiii.3, PL xx.516.

56 Innocent i, ep. xvii.14, PL xx.535–6.

57 ‘On voit bien qu le vicaire… ne se sentait guère de trancher tout seul; il se couvrait de l'autorité romaine’: Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1099–100.

58 ‘Cette causa major, signalée par Thessalonique, le Siège apostolique s'en était emparé pour la traiter tout seul; aux interlocuteurs macédoniens revenait seulement la mission de prévenir l'Eglise insulaire’: ibid. 1100.

59 Green, ‘Pope Innocent i’, 50.

60 ‘Sed, ut possum, paucioribus uerbis tantorum malorum metabor compendium, et strictim, quae in volumine litterarum uestrarum conspexerim, retractabo’: Innocent i, ep. xviii.1, PL xx. 538.

61 Ibid.

62 ‘non oportuit uideri piissimis mentibus uestris, cuiuscumque retractari iudicium’: ibid. Here retracto is taken in the sense of ‘reconsider in order to change’.

63 ‘quia ueritas, exagitata saepius, magis splendescit in luce’: ibid.

64 ‘et pernicies reuocata in iudicium, grauius et sine poenitentia condemnatur’: ibid. Here iudicium is taken to refer, as I indicated earlier, to the Illyrian decision, not Innocent's.

65 ‘Innocent s'occupait de faire respecter une autorité dont l'influence s’étendait désormais jusqu’à la Crète’: Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1100.

66 Jasper, Detlev, ‘The beginning of the decretal tradition: papal letters from the origin of the genre through the pontificate of Stephen v’, in Jasper, Detlev and Fuhrmann, Horst, Papal letters in the early Middle Ages, Washington, DC 2001, 36Google Scholar.

67 Palladius, Dialogus ii.248–9, SC cccxlii.94. See Dunn, Geoffrey D., ‘Roman primacy in the correspondence between Innocent i and John Chrysostom’, in Giovanni Crisostomo: oriente e occidente tra IV e V secolo, Rome 2005, 687–98Google Scholar, and ‘The date of Innocent i's epistula 12 and the second exile of John Chrysostom’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies xlv (2005), 155–70.

68 Codex Theodosianus xvi.2.45 (14 July 421), SC cdxcvii. 212.

69 Green, ‘Pope Innocent i’, 50.

70 ‘Hinc Bubalum et Taurianum a Macedonibus judicatos ad apostolicam sedem provocasse, ac Macedonas, quod suum ipsorum judicium recognosceretur, iniquo animo tulisse colligitur’: Coustant, Epistolae romanorum pontificum, col. 842, n. g.

71 Dunn, ‘Innocent i and the Illyrian churches’, 66–70.

72 Innocent i, ep. xvi, PL xx.519–21=JK 299.