Basil the Great: Faith, Mission and Diplomacy in the Shaping of Christian Doctrine

Nicu Dumitra?cu

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317176015
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Regarded as one of the three hierarchs or pillars of orthodoxy along with Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom, Basil is a key figure in the formative process of Christianity in the fourth century. While his role in establishing Trinitarian terminology, as well as his function in shaping monasticism, his social thought and even his contribution to the evolution of liturgical forms have been the focus of research for many years, there are few studies which centre on his political thought. Basil played a major role in the political and religious life between Cappadocia and Armenia and was a key figure in the tumultuous relationship between Church and State in Late Antiquity. He was a great religious leader and a gifted diplomat, and developed a 'special relationship' with Emperor Valens and other high imperial officials.

Part 1

St Basil and Emperor Valens: dignity versus authority

1 St Basil, Emperor Valens and Christianity in Cappadocia

The fourth century is unique in the history of the universal Church. Then took place the most important events, the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) and the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), then lived the most well-known Church Fathers, and were written some of the most important theological works of all time. Moreover, at that time, the most interesting meetings between emperors and bishops took place which marked the evolution of relations between State and Church: imperial power and religious authority. Among them is also included the famous confrontation between Emperor Valens, who ruled in the Balkan and Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, and St Basil, the uncontested leader of the church in Cappadocia and probably the most complex personality of the Christian world of the time. To better understand the importance and short and long-term consequences of such a meeting, on church life from the empire and, especially from Cappadocia, a brief overview of the evolution of military and religious policy of the time will be necessary.

Brief historical insight

After the death of Emperor Constantine the Great (337) a desperate struggle took place between his three sons to monopolise all power, although each received a significant part of the territory of the empire and, they would have had undoubtedly, enough reasons to work together for the good of the state. The eldest, Constantine II, received the provinces of Gaul, Britain and Spain, with the capital at Augusta Treverum (Trier), Constantius II received the prefectures of Egypt, Orient, Asia and Pontus, with the capital at Constantinople, and to Constans was entrusted Italy, Africa, Pannonia, Illyricum and Thrace, with the capital at Sirmium.¹

Unfortunately, their personal ambitions, intrigues, lack of political and proper social preparation, dictatorial behaviour and outright involvement in the church’s policies, brought them into conflict and made them to lose the popular and military support that was given to their father. None of them achieved the dignity and glory of their father. Two sons, Constantine II and Constans, died too young to be able to demonstrate any qualities, and the third, Constantius II, although he reached at the time of his maturity, he tried to find his own place in the history of the Roman Empire.²

Constantine the Great’s sons were raised and educated in a Christian spirit and they did what they believed would strengthen the Christian faith and to make it triumph over the pagan world, but their religious orientations were not uniform. While Constantine II and Constans were confirmed defenders of those subject to the decisions of the Synod of Nicaea, Constantius proved to be an adept of Arianism, which he supported and promoted with great perseverance. It seems that his plan to declare it an official doctrine of the Church was curtailed by his own sudden death.³

Moreover, after his death, the political and religious situation in the Eastern part of the Empire underwent significant change. Constantius had no male descendants, and the imperial throne passed therefore to his cousin Julian, who held different views.

A surprising intermezzo

Admired by some, detested by others, feared rather than adored, Julian remains in history as a character enveloped in mystery. More interested in philosophy and literature, he did not seem to have anything to do with his uncle’s military policy. However, the Emperor Constantius decided to raise Julian to the dignity of Caesar in 355, when he was only 23 years old.⁴ Two years later, in 357, he sent him to fight in Gaul and to the surprise of Constantius, who saw him as a young man in training, as a possible substitute in the perhaps more distant future, Julian proved to have admirable military qualities that transformed him from a faint hope into a certainty. He succeeded in overcoming the resistance of the Gauls and stabilised the border of the empire in Gaul along the Rhine. This unexpected success led Constantius to doubt the wisdom of this choice therefore, with caution, at the beginning of 361, he decided to move a large part of the army under Julian’s leadership into Eastern parts of the empire, on the pretext of strengthening the Eastern frontier. The army rose to proclaim Julian co-emperor in the West, or Augustus. Constantius felt betrayed, refused to recognise him, and decided to prepare a military campaign to punish the younger general, who had now become a forceful opponent. The battle did not take place, because before they met on the battlefield, Constantius became sick and died, thus Julian became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire, East and West.⁵

As far as Julian’s religious policy was concerned, there appeared to be an unanticipated and radical change which would lead to massive disturbances among the population. Raised and educated in Christian spirit, as indeed, were all the other members of the Constantinian dynasty – it was even thought that he might pursue clerical office – once he had become emperor, he radically changed his attitude, becoming a declared adversary of Christianity.⁶ Even if he did not show it openly and immediately, the measures taken by Julian demonstrate that he was considering a long-term strategy to destroy Christianity and restore the ancient, pagan religions.⁷

By virtue of the principle that every citizen is free to practise his own faith, he commanded the reopening of pagan temples and restoration of sacrifices to the gods. At the same time, he granted religious freedom to all the Christian heretics with the dissimulated hope that they would enter into conflict with each other, and with the official Church, thereby destroying each other and weakening Christian unity to the point of destruction. He also changed the signs and the Christian edifices in the army and removed Christian inscriptions from the Imperial coins models; he dismissed Christian servants from civil service, he removed soldiers from the Imperial Guard. Whoever did not obey was exiled or died as a martyr. In order to better camouflage his intention to restore the Greek-Roman religion, he conceived a hybrid ideological system, with elements taken from both neo-Platonic philosophy and Christianity.⁸ He even wrote a book entitled Against the Galileans, in which he tried to prove the uselessness of the Gospel,⁹ and published a decree (17 July 362) that indirectly prohibited the activity of Christian teachers in public schools.¹⁰ His actions would certainly have caused much greater damage to the Christian Church had he not suffered an early and unexpected death, on the night of 26–27 June 362, during the military campaign against Persians.¹¹

After the short reign of the Emperor Jovian (d. 17 February 364), in which peace was restored among Christians, a new era began in the history of the Roman Empire. The new emperor, Valentinian, a distinguished general from Pannonia, recognised for his military achievements and his devotion to the public good, required an associate: a respectable, trustworthy and competent person, to lead with him. He chose his younger brother, Valens. With the division of the empire, Valens received the Eastern side, from the Danube to the borders with Persia, with the capital in Constantinople, and Valentinian reserved for himself the Western part, which included the prefectures of Illyria, Italy and Gaul, with the capital in Milan (Mediolanum). They both professed religious tolerance towards pagans and gave full freedom of public display to both the beliefs of the empire, Christianity, and paganism. If Valentinian was a convinced follower of the Nicaean faith, which he protected, without the intention to declare reprisals against the other Christian groups, his brother, Valens, turned out to be an open defender and protector of the Arians, which would later lead to conflicts of a religious nature.¹² If in the West, Valentinian led wisely, being concerned to improve administration, legislation and taxation; to strengthen the western boundaries of the empire and was less engaged in religious matters (except when certain groups, by their rigid behaviour, affected the interests of the State), Valens proved otherwise and was inferior to his brother, both in terms of military, political, administrative and religious strategy.

Emperor Valens and religious and political ideology

Valens assumed the religious policy of the Emperor Constantius II, although in his case we should consider his lack of religious education. After all, he was a modest Pannonian, raised with strict military discipline, who spoke very little Greek.¹³ Under these circumstances, we may assume that he had serious difficulties in understanding the deeper meanings of the Christian faith, particularly the linguistic or semantic subtleties that made the difference between the Nicaean and Arian or Semi-Arian doctrines. Valens believed that his will to impose the Semi-Arian belief formula from Rimini (359), from the time of the Emperor Constantius, upon all Christians, irrespective of their doctrinal orientation whether Homoiousians, Anomoeans, Novatians, Pneutomachians (Macedonians) or Nicaeans, was completely acceptable.¹⁴ It seemed to the most logical approach as a means of preserving unity of the empire and stability among the various communities. He was aware that, although secondary, the religious factor was important, because the lack of internal cohesion could be extremely dangerous as in the case of wars with the other military forces of the time, the Goths and the Persians (Sassanids). Valens did not have a clear religious doctrine, did not promote an ideological system of his own, but rather militated for a more flexible Christian philosophy, that could be accepted by all Christians, being convinced that complex theological speculations were not for the people, but for the enlightened minds of the Church. In this point, he was probably correct; it is hard to believe that people of a simple Christian faith were able to understand theological subtleties, that even today would confuse most of those who attend Church, and if we are to be honest, even some of those with serious academic study in the field.

If Valens could not himself participate in high theological dialogue, he was clever enough to realise that it was necessary to engage good counsellors do it on his behalf. This led to a so-called double manipulation. On one hand, he was being manipulated by hired counsellors, and on the other, it was about manipulation of the people, most of them being uninitiated in theology and naive enough to believe in the good intentions of their leaders. Effective means of communication were most often reduced to official communiqués coming from the Imperial Court and rumours that circulated from mouth to mouth and which, after a while, lost much of their original truth.

There are therefore many suspicions, questions or concerns about the actual, personal motives and interests of Emperor Valens, about the persecutions directed against the Nicaean party and the support of the Arian and Semi-Arian groups, or specifically, those who practised the Homoean (Acacian) formula, adopted in Rimini (Ariminium), in 359.¹⁵ Especially because Valens, at the beginning of his reign, issued an edict (5 May 365) to exile all the bishops recalled by Julian, and to the end, in 377, before the campaign against the Goths, by another decree, he commanded them to return to their cities as it might be seen below. The analysis of this dual measure with which he treated the religious issues, is interesting not only for the discovery of the truth itself, but, in our case, to better understand his attitude, radical and extreme to the point of death, yet also most admiring of St Basil, the only Nicaean hierarch, who could not be subjected to his will.

It is possible, that Valens may have been the victim of complex internal and external factors and military conflicts, to which perhaps may be added though to a lesser extent, his own religious orientation. The first years of his reign appear to be concerned with strengthening imperial authority, especially after the suppression of Procopius’s revolt, and the heightening of his military prestige in the battles against the Goths on the Danube borders; his direct involvement in the religious life of his s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part 1 St Basil and Emperor Valens: dignity versus authority
• Part 2 St Basil, St Nerses and Armenia: mission and church diplomacy
• Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy: meetings, methods and correspondence
• Part 4 St Basil as model for a leader of Christian opinion: dignity, humility and culture
• General Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index locorum
• Index nominum
• General index