From H.A. Drake (ed.), Violence in Late Antiquity.

Perceptions and Practices (Ashgate, 2006), 157-166.

Chapter 13

Exiled Bishops in the Christian Empire:

Victims of Imperial Violence?
Eric Fournier
University of California, Santa Barbara

Episodes of exiled bishops abound in Late Antique texts, but surprisingly this phe-
nomenon has not attracted much attention in recent scholarship.1 By contrast, the
new status and privileges enjoyed by bishops as a result of Constantine’s conver-
sion has been long recognized.2 However, the vulnerability of bishops, as they
continued to depend on the support of imperial authorities for their prominent po-
sition, has not been sufficiently emphasized by historians. An investigation of exile
as a sanction used against bishops by Christian rulers will certainly help to redress
the balance concerning the status of this new elite. Moreover, it will allow us both
to nuance our view of the role and power of bishops in the political landscape of
Late Antiquity and understand the circumstances under which violent resolutions
could be negotiated and, as in this instance, mitigated.
The nature of ecclesiastical disciplinary measures and Constantine’s adoption
of exile as the best way to enforce these ecclesiastical measures made success in
ecclesiastical politics, for a bishop, depend upon the network of support he was
able to construct.3 In order to support this claim, I will first look at the cases of two

1
A sample is given by R. MacMullen, “Cultural and Political Changes in the 4th and 5th
Centuries,” Historia 52 (2003) 465-95, at 482, n. 43. The only study devoted to exiled bish-
ops, to my knowledge, is I. Milewski, “Miejsca Zsyłek Biskupów Wschodniorzymskich w
IV I V wieku,” Vox Patrum 19 (1999) 367-85, with an English summary at 385.
2
C. Rapp, “The Elite Status of Bishops in Late Antiquity in Ecclesiastical, Spiritual, and
Social Contexts,” Arethusa 33 (2000) 379-99; cf. T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius
(Cambridge, MA, 1981) 51.
3
These measures are described by the Apostolic Constitutions 8.47.74-6 (SC 336.302-5) and
reveal the origins of the praescriptio fori enjoyed by bishops. Because corporal punishments
are forbidden (8.47.27), the most severe forms of punishment used by the Church to reform
its members are deposition, exclusion, and excommunication. See the introduction of M.
Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques 2 (Paris, 1986 [SC 329]) 100-5; A.H.M. Jones, The
Later Roman Empire (Baltimore, 1964) 491-2; J. Gaudemet, L’Église dans l’Empire
Romain (IVe-Ve siècles) (Paris, 1958) 70-4, 229-71, 277-80; J. Gaudemet, “Les formes
anciennes de l’ex–communication,” RSR 83 (1949) 64-77; A. Steinwenter, “Der antike
158 Eric Fournier
bishops who suffered imperial punishment, Priscillian of Avilla in the West and
John Chrysostom in the East, and then at three bishops, Ambrose of Milan in the
West, and Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, who arguably behaved
in a punishable manner but were able to avoid sanctions. In each of these cases
success or failure was directly related to two important variables. The first was the
individual bishop’s ability to cultivate imperial support, while the second, and most
important, was his ability to cultivate the support of fellow bishops.
The pattern that Christian rulers followed when dealing with troublesome bish-
ops was first set by Constantine.4 Called upon by the African bishops to mediate
the Donatist controversy, Constantine chose to take advantage of the procedures
already in use by the Church and to organize a council of bishops to investigate the
matter.5 More important, for present purposes, than Constantine’s use of the
conciliar method was the sentence of exile he used to discipline clergy in the East,
starting with those who refused to accept the compromise that was finally achieved
at Nicaea. Arius and the two bishops who refused to sign the Creed were exiled in
the months following the first ecumenical council.6 Thereafter exile was to become
the typical imperial sentence for any bishop deposed by a council. I use imperial
because the Church had no means whatsoever to put its sentence into effect. It had
to rely on imperial intervention to enforce its decisions. Constantine, however,
never clearly specified the limits of imperial intervention in the Church. This lack
of clarity partly explains the case of Priscillian of Avilla, which established a
negative precedent for future Christian rulers to avoid.7

kirchliche Rechtsgang und seine Quellen,” ZRG KA 23 (1934) 1-116; E. Vacandard, “La
déposition des évêques I: Nature et effets de la deposition,” Revue du Clergé Français 35
(1908) 388-402. For networks of support see E.A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy
(Princeton, 1992) 11-42 and important bibliography on social network theory at 17, nn. 45-
7.
4
Aurelian’s involvement in the Paul of Samosata controversy is frequently presented as the
precedent for Constantine’s ecclesiastical intervention (Eus. HE 7.30.19-21; F. Millar, “Paul
of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in
Third-Century Syria,” JRS 61 [1971] 1-17). By contrast with Constantine, Aurelian got
involved only to solve a matter of property.
5
Optatus, Contra Parmenianum Donatistam 1.22 (M. Edwards tr., Optatus: Against the
Donatists [Liverpool, 1997] 23); see also H.A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops
(Baltimore, 2000) 212-21 and 227-9; J.-L. Maier, Le dossier du donatisme 1 (Berlin, 1987)
137-254 (for Constantine); W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church (Oxford, 2000 [1952]) 141-
68.
6
Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais, and Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, were exiled along with
Arius at Nicaea: Philost. HE 1.9a-10 (GCS 21.10-11). Arius’ exile is also described by Soc.
HE 1.8; Gel. HE 2.33.5; Soz. HE 1.21.4-5; Theod. HE 1.7.8.
7
The execution of Christian bishops by Shapur II could also have served as a negative pre–
cedent (Soz. HE 2.9-14). But perhaps as a foreign ruler, Shapur’s negative example simply
confirmed Roman stereotypes about non-Romans. The question warrants further investi–
gation.
 Exile of Bishops 159
In the early years of the 380s, a Spanish council deposed Priscillian, bishop of
Avilla.8 Displeased with the result of this council, Priscillian attempted to gather
support from more powerful ecclesiastical allies by traveling to Rome and Milan.9
Politely rebuked by the bishops of these two cities, Priscillian then attempted an-
other appeal, this time further north, where Magnus Maximus had recently usurped
power. Priscillian may well have thought that Maximus, who also needed allies to
bolster his position, would be a willing partner. But he was tragically mistaken in
his understanding of the networks of power at play. The Christian Maximus, in
need of recognition from the so-called orthodox intelligentsia of the West, could
not grant his patronage to a bishop accused of heresy, whatever the truth of that
accusation.10 Maximus, however, did agree to convoke another synod at Bordeaux
to reexamine the case. The council first examined Priscillian’s accomplices, who
were all condemned. Inferring that his fate would be similar, Priscillian, in an epi-
sode that strongly recalls Athanasius’ appeal to Constantine after the synod of
Tyre, exercised his right, as a Roman citizen, of appealing to the Emperor.11 But
this proved to be a mistake, since Maximus found Priscillian guilty of
Manichaeism and ordered him to be executed.12
It is important to notice how little support Priscillian was able to muster, for
both Ambrose in Milan and Damasus in Rome refused to endorse his case. But
more importantly, Maximus’ decision did not become a new precedent, replacing
or at least providing an alternative to the pattern of exile established by Constan–
tine. Unfortunately for Maximus’ subsequent reputation, the bishops who had
refused to support Priscillian were even less willing to approve this kind of

8
For Priscillian and the legacy of the Priscillianist controversy, see Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.46-
50 (CSEL 1.100-103); Prosper, Chron. a. 385 (Chron. Min. 1.462); Hyd. Chron. a. 386 (SC
219.108-9); V. Burrus, The Making of a Heretic (Berkeley, 1995) 79-101; N.B. McLynn,
Ambrose of Milan (Berkeley, 1994) 149-51; A.R. Birley, “Magnus Maximus and the
Persecution of Heresy,” BRL 66 (1982-3) 13-43; H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avilla (Oxford,
1976) 1-56, 111-48.
9
Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.48-9; Chadwick, Priscillian, 36-42; Birley, “Magnus Maximus,” 19-
24; Burrus, Making of a Heretic, 84-94.
10
In a letter to Siricius of Rome, probably written in 386, Maximus reminds the pontiff that
he had been baptized by a Catholic bishop: Coll. Avell. Ep. 40.1 (CSEL 35.1.91). On Maxi–
mus’ political situation, see T.D. Barnes, “Religion and Society in the Age of Theodosius,”
in H.A. Meynell ed., Grace, Politics and Desire (Calgary, 1990) 162.
11
Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.49; Birley, “Magnus Maximus,” 28-9. For the Athanasius episode,
see H.A. Drake, “Athanasius’ First Exile,” GRBS 27 (1986) 193-204.
12
Probably after he had been tortured, if Pacatus’ remark is accepted as referring to this
event: Pan. Lat. 2(12).29.3 (E. Galletier [Paris, 1955], 3.96). This parallel was first men–
tioned by Chadwick, Priscillian, 139 and then accepted by both Birley, “Magnus Maximus,”
34 and C.E.V. Nixon, Pacatus (Liverpool, 1987) 83, n. 95. For the result of the trial and the
ensuing sentence, see Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.50-1; Birley, “Magnus Maximus,” 34-5; R.W.
Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul
(Washington, D.C., 1989) 12-3.
160 Eric Fournier
imperial behavior towards one of their peers. Ambrose and a group of Gallic bish-
ops thereafter denied communion to Felix, the bishop of Trier who had supported
Maximus’ intervention, causing the Felician controversy that followed Priscillian’s
execution.13 Instead of setting a new precedent, Priscillian’s case therefore raised a
new question. Was a deposed bishop liable to capital punishment? As Barnes
rightfully notes concerning the Constantinian Empire, the bishops gained “a rela-
tive immunity from coercion by secular authorities. No matter what his crime, a
bishop could only be deposed and exiled.”14 The abundant cases of bishops who
were subsequently punished by exile show that later emperors acknowledged the
pattern first set by Constantine and certainly wished to avoid following Maximus’
precedent. Exile was the most severe punishment to which a Christian emperor
could sentence a bishop, without appearing as a persecutor to other bishops.
Similarly, the famous case of John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople dur-
ing the reign of Arcadius, illustrates that imperial support could be a double-edge
sword.15 Independent and outspoken, Chrysostom remained in his see as long as he
kept imperial support on his side. With imperial support, he made forays out of his
jurisdiction, going on a tour of Asia to depose between six and sixteen bishops and
to find successors who would certainly be loyal to him.16 Unsurprisingly, Chryso–
stom alienated a significant number of other bishops in the process. Several factors
contributed to his downfall. First of all, Chrysostom clashed with Severianus, the
cathedral preacher who, in the bishop’s absence, had become the favorite of the
imperial couple.17 Secondly, a conflict erupted with Bishop Theophilus of
Alexandria, caused by the arrival of the Tall Brothers in the capital.18 Finally,
Chrysostom sermonized against the empress because a public ceremony, during
which her statue was installed in front of Hagia Sophia, had disturbed the liturgical

13
Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.51; Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism, 11-8.
14
T.D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (Cambridge, MA, 2001 [1993]) 174. See also
Gaudemet, L’Église, 256, n. 6 and 281-2, who concludes that Priscillian’s case was an exce–
ptional one. It is important to note that the other clergymen tried by the synod of Bordeaux,
who did not appeal to Maximus, were simply sent into exile (Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.51).
15
For detailed studies on Chrysostom’s fall see: T.D. Barnes, “The Funerary Speech for
John Chrysostom (BHG3 871 = CPG 6517),” Studia Patristica 37 (2001) 328-45; S. Elm,
“The Dog that Did not Bark,” in L. Ayres, G. Jones eds, Christian Origins (NY, 1998) 68-
93; J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth (Grand Rapid, MI, 1995); J. Delmaire, “Les «lettres d’exil»
de Jean Chrysostome,” RecAug 25 (1991) 71-180; J.W.H.G. Liebeschuetz, “The Fall of
John Chrysostom,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 29 (1985) 1-30; J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz,
“Friends and Enemies of John Chrysostom,” in A. Moffatt ed., Maistor (Canberra, 1984)
85-111; F. van Ommeslaeghe, “Que vaut le témoignage de Pallade sur le procès de Saint
Jean Chrysostome?” AB 95 (1977) 389-414.
16
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 163-80. For the number of bishops exiled, Pall. Dial. 15 states six,
while Soz. HE 8.6 mentions thirteen. But other sources specify more cases of deposition for
which see Kelly, Golden Mouth, 176.
17
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 182-3, referring to a fragment of Soc. (PG 67.733).
18
Pall. Dial. 7-8 (SC 341.141-81); Kelly, Golden Mouth, 191-202; Elm, “Dog,” 78-81.
 Exile of Bishops 161
celebrations.19 As a result, Chrysostom lost both imperial and ecclesiastical sup-
port. He was exiled and recalled at the end of 403, only to be exiled for a second
time in June 404.20
It is significant that while awaiting the result of the procedures against him be-
fore his second exile, two months according to Kelly, Chrysostom attempted to
gather support from the West, sending letters to the Bishop of Rome and to other
western bishops.21 According to Palladius, Chrysostom also had more than forty
bishops supporting him and a powerful influence over the volatile mob of Con-
stantinople.22 Why, then, could he not avoid being exiled? Possibly, Chrysostom
would have had enough support to sustain the pressure in a normal see, but Con-
stantinople, as an imperial capital, was not a normal see. Thus imperial support
proved to be the decisive factor. That and Chrysostom refused to defend himself in
front of the synod of the Oak on the ground that the assembly was illegally consti-
tuted.23 Additionally, the forty bishops who supported Chrysostom presented in
their turn a list of seventy crimes against Theophilus, arguing that Chrysostom’s
supporters were more numerous than the bishops assembled at the Oak (forty
against thirty-six), were from different provinces and included seven metropolitans
while the council of the Oak was formed of thirty-six bishops from the same

19
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 238-42, drawing mainly on Soc. HE 6.18 and Soz. HE 8.20. See
also Pall. Dial. 6 (SC 341.127) where John’s enemies falsified his homilies in order to turn
them into clear attacks against the empress. For Eudoxia, see the paper of Wendy Mayer in
the present volume.
20
The circumstances leading to his exile are described by Pall. Dial. 9-11 (SC 341.181-231)
and his conditions of living while in exile are described in the Letters to Olympias (SC
13bis): Ep. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. See Elm, “Dog,” 68-93 for a more detailed account of these
events.
21
On the chronology see Kelly, Golden Mouth, 245, without any reference to Pall. Dial.
10.19-20 (SC 341.204): five days after the end of the Pentecost. For the attempts to gather
support see Kelly, Golden Mouth, 212, 246. The letter to Innocent is included in Malin–
grey’s edition of Palladius (SC 342) 68-95, along with a French translation. See also Om–
meslaeghe, “Témoignage,” 391-2 and appendix at 414 for a reminder that the letter was
from John himself and not originally part of Palladius’ text.
22
Pall. Dial. 9 (SC 341.190); Kelly, Golden Mouth, 241. For control over the mob, see Soc.
6.14-5; Soz. 8.14 and 18; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 208, 229, 231-2, 241; F. van Ommeslaeghe,
“Jean Chrysostome et le people de Constantinople,” AB 99 (1981) 329-49; T. Gregory,
“Zosimus 5, 23 and the people of Constantinople,” Byzantion 43 (1973) 61-81. Cf.
MacMullen, “Cultural and Political Changes,” 478-95; and N. McLynn, “Christian
Controversy and Violence in the Fourth Century,” Kodai 3 (1992) 15-44, esp. 19-29, for
opposite understandings of popular violence in this period.
23
See Photius, Bibl., cod. 59.1 (SC 342.100) and Pall. Dial. 8.166-84 (SC 341.172), where
the bishops supporting John write to the synod of the Oak arguing that Theophilus violated
the third canon of Nicaea, which forbids a bishop to supervise a trial beyond the limits of his
jurisdiction (SC 341.172, n. 1).
162 Eric Fournier
province. But without imperial support, both Chrysostom and his supporters
proved to be powerless.
The important point, as far as violence and exile are concerned, is that the
bishop was never sentenced to death. Arguably, he died as a result of the harsh
conditions of his exile.24 But at least from the Emperor’s point of view, the official
procedure had been respected, particularly the bishop’s privilege to be judged by
his own peers instead of the more usual imperial courts.25 No doubt the court was
not unhappy with this outcome and may even have engineered it. But officially,
these unhappy consequences were only part of the imperial enforcement of the
ecclesiastical sentence pronounced against John Chrysostom. At this point, how-
ever much support the bishop was able to muster became irrelevant. The balance
had shifted, as Chrysostom alienated key bishops and lost imperial support. From
his position of power in which he benefited from the highest support possible, he
was now on the wrong side of those in power. The case of Priscillian, preceding
Chrysostom’s case by about twenty years, helps to explain the factors that moti-
vated the imperial decision to use exile against the Eastern bishop and not to
prosecute the alleged accusation of maiestas reported by Palladius, which could
have entailed a death sentence.26 Here, the court was careful to avoid repeating the
scandal caused by Maximus’ intervention in Gaul. The parallel with Priscillian also
illustrates that imperial support was one of the most important factors to take into
account when dealing with indicted bishops.
The importance of imperial support becomes even clearer in the cases of bish-
ops who were not exiled but, arguably, should have been, as their behavior was
troublesome or exceeded the limits of their power. At Milan, one of the imperial
residences in the West, the case of Ambrose, roughly contemporary with Priscil-
lian’s and some 20 years earlier than Chrysostom’s, involved an altogether differ-
ent relationship with the court. During Easter in 386, the court of Valentinian II
requested a church for its Arian services.27 When Ambrose refused, the partisans of
the young Valentinian and his Arian mother orchestrated a display of force, using
the law to block any potential opposition by the bishop.28 Ambrose, a former
governor with a background in legal training, knew that legal principles were not

24
Death: Pall. Dial. 11.75-156 (SC 341.222-30); Kelly, Golden Mouth, 272-85. Harsh
conditions of his exile: J.Chrys., Ep. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9 (SC 13bis).
25
The privilege of bishops to be judged by their peers is repeated by imperial constitutions:
CTh 16.2.12 (355), 16.2.23 (376), with the exception of criminal offenses (16.2.35 [405]).
See J. Lamoreaux, “Episcopal courts in late antiquity,” JECS 3.2 (1995) 143-67 and the
works referred to at n. 3 above.
26
Pall. Dial. 8.237-49 (SC 341.178-9). See F. van Ommeslaeghe, “Jean Chrysostome en
conflit avec l’impératrice Eudoxie,” AB 97 (1979) 131-59 for a study of this alleged accu–
sation.
27
Soc. 6.6; Soz. 8.4; Theod. 5.32; McLynn, Ambrose, 181-95. Cf. Kelly, Golden Mouth
157, for a similar request made by Gainas for his Arian soldiers.
28
CTh 16.1.4 ; McLynn, Ambrose, 181.
 Exile of Bishops 163
on his side.29 In reaction to what he felt was an unacceptable request, Ambrose
occupied the church in question. While occupying the church, Ambrose was ac-
cused of failing to restrain his congregation, an accusation which made Ambrose
vulnerable to exile for breaking the law that condemned any turbulent opposition.
Ambrose, then, responded rather insolently, for which he risked being formally
accused of maiestas.30
Two important factors prevented Valentinian’s court from using such an impe-
rial sentence against the bishop. First, Ambrose had something the court lacked, a
tremendous network of support in Northern Italy and beyond, as he had clearly
demonstrated at the Council of Aquileia in 381.31 Secondly, the court undoubtedly
wished to avoid following the shocking example of Maximus’ execution of Pris-
cillian, still fresh in everyone’s memory since it had occurred only a few months
before. It is clear from Ambrose’s case that a ruler who wished to punish a bishop
needed ecclesiastical sanction. In conflicts between emperors and bishops, the
emperor needed the formal support of a council before disposing of an unpleasant
bishop.
In contrast to Ambrose, who used his network of support to avoid potential le-
gal charges, Theophilus of Alexandria benefited from imperial support in order to
avoid ecclesiastical sanction. Theophilus, who initially was summoned by an im-
perial official to come to Constantinople to be judged in front of a synod presided
over by John Chrysostom, wound up presiding over the trial of the bishop who was
to have judged him.32 How did it happen? In part, the support that Theophilus gath-
ered en route to the capital offers an explanation. Theophilus took his time before
departing Alexandria and deliberately chose the slower land route over the faster
maritime one in order to recruit the bishops Chrysostom had previously deposed
and alienated.33 With their help, and the aid of Egyptian partisans he brought,
Theophilus convinced still more bishops along his way to support him, while
agents went ahead by sea to prepare the ground in Constantinople. Once there,
Theophilus then secured imperial support, turning the tide against Chrysostom.34
Here once again, relations with the imperial court made the difference, though one

29
A. Lenox-Conyngham, “Juristic and Religious Aspects of the Basilica Conflict of A.D.
386,” Studia Patristica 18.1 (1985) 55-8.
30
Amb. Ep. 76(20).10 (CSEL 82.3 113.67-9); McLynn, Ambrose, 191.
31
R. Lizzi, “Ambrose’s Contemporaries and the Christianization of Northern Italy,” JRS 80
(1990) 156-73; McLynn, Ambrose, 124-37, 276-90.
32
Pall. Dial. 8.91-7 (SC 341.164).
33
Elm, “Dog,” 80-1; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 197-217.
34
Theophilus was housed in an imperial villa: Soc. HE 6.15; Soz. HE 8.17; Kelly, Golden
Mouth, 214.
164 Eric Fournier
must not discount the role that relatively widespread ecclesiastical support
played.35
Finally, Cyril of Alexandria’s confrontation with the prefect of Egypt Orestes
provides yet another example of a bishop who managed to avoid exile in spite of
his behavior.36 During a conflict between the Christian and the Jewish communi-
ties, some members of the Jewish congregation flogged one of Cyril’s partisans. In
order to avenge this insult to his episcopal dignity, Cyril organized the expulsion of
most of the Jewish community, which had been established in Alexandria from its
foundation by Alexander.37 The prefect became infuriated when he learned about
the bishop’s action, which led to an escalation of the conflict. A nephew of the
very Theophilus who had opposed Chrysostom, Cyril was described by Socrates as
going “beyond the limits of [his] sacerdotal functions, and assum[ing] the admini-
stration of secular matters.”38 Indeed, the bishop’s attempt at reconciliation, urged
by his congregation, was nothing less than an attempt at securing the prefect’s
submission. For according to Socrates, “Cyril extended toward him the book of
gospels, believing that respect for religion would induce him to lay aside his re-
sentment.”39
The matter only got worse. Monks from a nearby monastery, either drawn by
their own zeal to defend the Alexandrian Christians or in answer to a summons
from Cyril, came to the city and confronted the prefect, at whose head someone
threw a brick.40 Ammonius, the monk responsible for this attack on the prefect,
died as a result of the tortures that were inflicted on him as a punishment.41 As the
violence escalated, the celebrated philosopher Hypatia was put to death by an en-
raged Christian mob.42 Whether or not Cyril should be implicated in Hypatia’s
murder, it is obvious that his conflict with Orestes, the representative of imperial
authority, should have cost him the bishopric. Instead, only dispatches to the court

35
D. Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks (Berkeley, 2002) 190-9, at 198 emphasizes the
additional role of monks in the conflict and views their association with Theophilus as “a
patron-client collaboration in the old Roman political mold.”
36
Soc. HE 7.7, 13-15. For a detailed analysis of that conflict, see J. Rougé, “La politique de
Cyrille d’Alexandrie et le meurtre d’Hypatie,” CrSt 11.3 (1990) 485-504. More generally,
see N. Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (New York, 2000) 3-11; C. Haas, Alexandria in Late
Antiquity (Baltimore, 1997) 295-315; M. Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, F. Lyra tr.
(Cambridge, MA, 1995) 66-100. See also E. Watts in this volume.
37
Soc. HE 7.13; John of Nikiu, Chron. 84.89-99; Russell, Cyril, 6-8; Rougé, “Politique de
Cyrille,” 489-92.
38
Soc. HE 7.7.4 (GCS 1 [Berlin, 1995] 353; NPNF tr.)
39
Soc. HE 7.13.20 (GCS 359; NPNF tr.); Haas, Alexandria, 305; Russell, Cyril, 8; and
Rougé, “Politique de Cyrille,” 491-2.
40
Soc. HE 7.14.
41
Soc. HE 7.14.
42
Soc. HE 7.15; John of Nikiu, Chron. 84.102-3; Rougé, “Politique de Cyrille,” 495-503;
Dzielska, Hypatia, 83-95.
 Exile of Bishops 165
in Constantinople by both Orestes and Cyril are attested.43 The sole consequence of
the subsequent imperial inquiry was a reduction in the number of hospital workers
under the bishop’s control, to blunt his abusive employment of these workers.44
It seems that Cyril should have been punished, but his local strength allowed
him to escape any serious consequences. Orestes, on the other hand, had no mili-
tary power at his disposal and so was powerless to confront a bishop who con-
trolled an outstanding amount of men and resources.45 More significantly, the pre-
fect hesitated perhaps out of a concern for the weakness of the imperial power at
that time, as Theodosius II, the reigning Emperor, was only fourteen years old.46 It
seems reasonable to suggest that very few imperial officials would have thought it
timely to attempt anything against the bishop of such an important see as Alex-
andria, in this context. Certainly only a minority of people at court would have
supported Orestes in his challenge to Cyril’s authority and the prefect was un-
doubtedly aware of this. Cyril’s actions thus posed a difficulty. Bishops could be
punished by exile if condemned by a council, but councils met primarily for theo-
logical issues or matters of internal discipline. How was a bishop who broke public
laws to be held accountable for his actions?
As exile was the preferred punishment for wayward bishops, the support of
other bishops was essential. Without ecclesiastical support, no emperor could exile
a bishop. Conversely, with the support of their peers, bishops could avoid imperial
punishment. In the end, Christian rulers rarely, if ever, emulated the precedent set
by Maximus, who put Priscillian to death. Quite possibly the prestige of bishops,
as a new elite of Late Antiquity, largely explains the choice of exile as a sentence
for dealing with problematic bishops, the more so since such a mild sentence
stands in contrast with the fate of traditional elites, who gradually lost their
immunity to torture and corporal punishments.47 Christian rulers especially wished
to avoid being labeled tyrants or persecutors, which would undoubtedly have hap-
pened if they had followed Maximus’ example. Therefore emperors had to demon-
strate some respect towards the holders of the highest religious authority. The best

43
Rougé, “Politique de Cyrille,” 500, takes two extant laws as “fragments” of the imperial
response: CTh 12.12.15 (416) and 16.2.42 (416).
44
CTh 16.2.42 (416). See Haas, Alexandria, 314-6; Dzielska, Hypatia, 95-6, with references
to earlier works.
45
J. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death
of Justinian I (New York, 1958 [1923]) 218, n. 2 for the lack of military power. See also
Russell, Cyril, 3-4.
46
Bury, History I, 214, n. 1; Haas, Alexandria, 301-2.
47
Any reader of Ammianus’ description of the numerous trials at Rome and Antioch would
notice this change, as emphasized by N. Lenski, Failure of Empire (Berkeley, 2002) 218-34.
See also J.D. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1999) 122-35; A.
Rousselle, “Torture,” in G. Bowersock, P Brown, O. Grabar eds, Late Antiquity (Cambridge,
MA, 1999) 729; R. MacMullen, “Judicial Savagery in the Roman Empire,” Chiron 16
(1986) 147-66; and P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire
(Oxford, 1970).
166 Eric Fournier
way to display this respect was to follow the pattern set up by Constantine in his
use of councils of bishops to settle the matters of the Church. But were the exiled
bishops victims of imperial violence?
First, exile ranks fairly low in the spectrum of violent acts, especially when
compared with harsher alternatives such as torture and execution, as we have seen
in the cases of Priscillian and Ammonius. Of course, more violent results might
have happened as an unfortunate, indirect consequence of exile. But the important
point is that officially, at least, imperial power would not use more violent means
of coercion against the highest representatives of Christianity. Secondly, rulers
generally only used exile to enforce an ecclesiastical sentence that had already
been pronounced by a council of bishops. Thus ecclesiastical sanction further in-
sulated the emperors from the charge of behaving like persecutors. From the point
of view of imperial power, then, exile became the most suitable non-violent way to
enforce ecclesiastical disciplinary punishments. But this mechanism, in which
bishops were responsible for judging their peers, had important consequences. It
thereafter became of paramount importance for a bishop to establish and maintain
a strong network of support both among his peers and at the imperial court.