Глава XII. «...Я не общался с епископами,...которые просили предать смерти неких людей, пусть и уклонившихся в сторону от веры...»

(Ambrose. Letter 24, 12) After receiving baptism, Maxim was impatient to prove himself in the field of defender of the true faith. By the end of the 4th century. Christianity increasingly became the most important factor in politics, and the usurper well understood how the patronage of this religion would raise his prestige and how an alliance with the church would strengthen his power. Very soon such an opportunity presented itself - the western provinces of the Roman Empire, which were in the zone of influence of the usurper, were worried about the new heresy of Priscillian for several years. The Priscillian heresy, unlike most Christian heresies, was named not after its founder, but after its most active figure. The heresy originated in Egypt and was brought to Spain by Mark of Memphis. His students were the rhetorician Elpidius and a certain noble woman Agapia, and from them Priscillian borrowed the heresy. It is known about the latter that he came from a noble family, was rich, but “not partial to wealth and very moderate in its waste” (Sulpicius Northern Chronicle, 46), he was distinguished by education, eloquence and an ascetic lifestyle. Priscillian’s teaching still does not seem clear in all details: many are inclined to see Gnosticism and Manichaeism as the basis of his views, and some even believe that Priscillian was an early church reformer - he was a representative, as I. I. Adamov writes, of “adogmatic Christianity, a kind of pietist who demanded a strictly ascetic life and an appeal to the primary source of Christianity, to the study of the Bible.” There is an opinion that his doctrine of the Trinity and his definition of the names of the three hypostases of the Trinity border on pantheistic type theology. An appeal to the surviving works of Priscillian himself does not clarify much. Most likely, his main “sin” was the desire of educated people, quite common in late antiquity, to reconcile ancient wisdom with the teachings of the church. At the same time, the Priscillianists, in the spirit of Origen, believed that only they had access in their true meaning to those truths that ordinary believers and even uneducated bishops could not comprehend. Priscillian's treatises give reason to find some parallels between his teachings and the Alexandrian Gnostics. Thus, Priscillian recognizes that Scripture needs interpretation and advocates the study of the foundations of faith, since it allows him to understand the meaning of Scripture. The Old Testament, in his opinion, retains its meaning only with an allegorical, spiritual understanding. The ultimate goal of all higher wisdom, penetration into heavenly secrets was mystical unity with Christ, and if Christ is considered the beginning of everything, then man should also be recognized as the dwelling place of Christ. Based on the fact that representatives of the orthodox church took considerable effort to achieve the condemnation of Priscillian, it can be assumed that, in general, the differences in dogma between him and the orthodox were not very significant. The asceticism of Priscillian, who “kept awake for a long time, could endure hunger and thirst,” the image of humility that he “expressed with his lips and appearance” (Sulpicius Severus, 46), knowledge of magic and, possibly, the gift of a fortuneteller, attracted many noble and simple people, and especially women, to the ranks of his supporters, who, “being greedy for novelty, gullible and curious in everything, flocked to him in crowds.” (Sulpicius Severus, 46). Many bishops also joined Priscillian, some even taking an oath of allegiance to him. At first, the new heresy spread only to Spain, but an attempt to immediately stop its spread was unsuccessful. Although Priscillian and his supporters were condemned by the council of Spanish and Aquitaine bishops, held in 380 in Caesar Augustus (the heretics did not appear at the council and were condemned in absentia), the number of adherents of the heresy continued to increase. In order to increase his prestige, Priscillian was made a bishop by the priests around him (before this he had not been ordained). Seeing their inability to deal with heresy on their own, its most zealous persecutors, Bishops Idatius and Iphatius, turned to secular authorities for help. Emperor Gratian, by that time sufficiently enlightened by Ambrose of Milan in matters of faith, issued, at the request of Idatius, a decree ordering the expulsion of heretics from the borders of the Roman Empire. Priscillian and his supporters considered this decision unfair, but did not dare to turn directly to Gratian, but went to Rome to Damasus. On the way to the eternal city, many new supporters joined Priscillian. The growing popularity of the new teaching created a real danger for the orthodox church, but Damasus still did not dare to openly condemn the heresy or listen to Priscillian. The latter tried to appeal to Ambrose, but the Bishop of Milan did not accept the Priscillianists and refrained from condemnation. The neutrality of Rome and Milan in the Priscillian case can be explained by the wait-and-see position of the two most important sees in the West: hasty condemnation of a new teaching that slightly diverged in dogmatic terms from the orthodox church, as well as approval of what was not clear enough, could damage the prestige of churches that claimed the ultimate truth. Boycotting Priscillian in these circumstances seemed the best, although not the most honest and principled way out. In the context of a boycott by the church, Priscillian had no choice but to turn to the secular authorities. His choice fell on Macedonius, who held the post of head of the imperial chancellery and harbored a grudge against Ambrose because of the strengthening influence of the bishop at the imperial court. Thanks to Macedonius, who may have been bribed, the Priscillianists achieved Gratian's decree accepting them into the church. The return of the Priscillianists to Spain led to new clashes with local orthodoxies. True, this time the persecutors became persecuted, and the Priscillianists, having support at the imperial court and relying on the proconsul Volventius, were able to resist even the prefect of Gaul Gregory, who sheltered Ifatius, who had fled to him. However, the usurpation of Maximus that soon followed deprived the Priscillianists of political support from the secular authorities. Having learned that Gratian had been overthrown, Idatius and Ifatius turned to the new ruler and obtained a decree from Maximus to hold a council on the case of the Priscillianists. The council took place in 384 in Burdigal. At it, Priscillian's closest supporter, Istantsius, was deprived of his episcopal rank, and Priscillian himself demanded an imperial trial. Describing the circumstances of this trial, our main source, Sulpicius Severus, condemns the appeal of a religious case to the imperial court and even condemns the bishops who were present at the council in Burdigal for this. It is curious that with all the negative attitude towards the Priscillianists, Sulpicius cannot resist pouring out his indignation on the accusers, who were the same Idatius and Iphatius. The historian testifies that their zeal was caused not so much by heresy itself as by vengeance, and points to the underlying hatred of the accusers towards the accused. Characterizing Iphacius as a man who had nothing prudent and praiseworthy, and noting that he was insolent, arrogant, talkative, shameless, wasteful, very immoderate in food and drink, Sulpicius writes that he “accused all, even holy men, who either showed zeal for reading, or had the intention of fasting, as accomplices or disciples of Priscillian.” (Sulpicius Severus, 50). Even Martin of Tours did not escape accusations of adherence to the heresy of Priscillian, who asked Maximus to be lenient towards the condemned and opposed the secular trial of the Priscillianists. In 385, a secular court found Priscillian guilty of spreading harmful teachings, nightly gatherings with the participation of obscene women and the habit of praying in the nude and imprisoned him along with his followers. The last word was up to Maxim. The usurper, having learned of Priscillian's guilt, sentenced him, along with six of his closest supporters, to death. The basis for such a harsh sentence was the law of Theodosius against the Manichaeans, which for the first time defined the death penalty for the “wrong” faith, but had never been applied until now. It is known that in one of his letters Maxim equated Priscillianism with Manichaeism. Then other Priscillianists were condemned: wealthy members of the sect were subjected to confiscation of property and exile, and common and poor people were subjected to exile, corporal punishment and execution (Sulpicius Severus, 50–51). The massacre of the Priscillianists was the first time in history that a secular government executed people accused of deviating from orthodoxy. This had serious historical consequences. E. Gibbon wrote: “After the execution of Priscillian, crude attempts at religious persecution were replaced by improved techniques of the Inquisitorial court, which distributed the objects of their department between the ecclesiastical and secular authorities. The priests began to hand over the victim doomed to death in the correct order to the judge, who handed him over to the executioner, and the priests began to express the merciless verdict of the church, which explained the spiritual crime of the perpetrator, in the soft language of compassion and intercession.”55 The history of Priscillian's heresy shows the close intertwining of civil and ecclesiastical authorities in resolving religious issues. Both the Orthodox and the Priscillianists, when it was impossible to influence the enemy through church means, resorted to the help of secular authorities, which, depending on the circumstances, acted in the interests of one or another church group. The dependence of church authorities on secular authorities in this matter was quite obvious, and the result of this dependence was tragic. Undoubtedly, Maximus must have had serious reasons for executing the leaders of the popular movement precisely in those provinces that were the base of his power. It must be assumed that the following circumstances played a role here. Firstly, it was natural to expect from Maxim, as a usurper who overthrew the legitimate emperor, the suppression of all supporters of Gratian. The Priscillianists, on the other hand, politically oriented themselves towards Gratian and his entourage, thanks to whom they were again accepted into the fold of the church and acquired legal status. Secondly, Maxim, having usurped power, almost immediately relied on orthodoxy and sought at any cost to win the recognition and support of the church in order to strengthen his political position. Apparently, the conversion of bishops who were considered orthodox and complaining of oppression seemed to Maxim a convenient excuse to prove his zeal for the Christian faith. Third, the nature of the charges against Priscillian leaves no doubt that he was being tried for something more than heresy. Certain elements of Priscillian's teachings, his widespread popularity, and, finally, the danger that Maximus saw in him, give reason to assume that the usurper viewed Priscillian as a political opponent. On the one hand, Priscillian was supported by provincial aristocrats, oppressed by Roman rule, and from a political point of view this posed a threat of separatism. On the other hand, Maxima could not help but be alarmed by Priscillian’s popularity among the common people. Some researchers find it possible to attribute to Priscillian the founding of various monastic organizations and believe that he advocated the renunciation of sexual relations and the consumption of meat, that he saw in the church a society of “perfects” awaiting “new heavens” and “new lands.” However, our main source testifies to the exact opposite: Sulpicius Severus, in addition to accusing the Priscillianists of nightly prayers with women in the nude, cites a rumor about Priscillian’s relationship with a certain Procula, who conceived a child from him and destroyed the fetus in her womb, and notes that the Priscillianists were heading to Rome “with their own and other people’s wives” (Sulpicius Severus, 48). However, accusations of heretics of debauchery were common. Suffice it to remember how common they were in the 2nd and even 3rd centuries. accusations of corruption of Christians by pagans. In the vast majority of cases, these insinuations had no basis and indicated exactly the opposite - a complete refusal of sexual relations. Are not the rumors transmitted by Sulpicius evidence by contradiction in favor of the asceticism of the Priscillianists? An indirect confirmation of this assumption can be the reaction of the leaders of the Orthodox Church to the reprisal against the Priscillianists. First, Martin of Tours, and then Ambrose of Milan 56 and the Roman Bishop Siricius refused to communicate with the bishops who condemned Priscillian, and Idatius even lost his see. Although many bishops approved of the massacre, Ambrose's negative reaction to it can be explained primarily by the active preaching of asceticism, which was led by the Bishop of Milan himself. Therefore, one can understand Ambrose’s indignation at the unjust reprisal of the Priscillianists, as well as his protest against any attempts to question the necessity of a virgin life. The asceticism preached by the Priscillianists undoubtedly carried a certain social burden, for in this kind of heretical movements the discontent of the humiliated and oppressed layers of Roman society found an outlet. Apparently, it was precisely this circumstance that determined the persistence of Priscillian’s heresy, which not only did not disappear with his death, but intensified even more, and those executed began to be revered as martyrs, were magnificently buried in Spain, and oaths were even taken in Priscillian’s name. Soon after the reprisal of the Priscillianists, a new heresy of Jovinian appeared in the West, which shows a different trend in relation to the way of Christian life. The sources do not say anything about the social composition of the adherents of this heresy, but there is reason to believe that the bulk of them were representatives of the upper and middle strata of Roman society, who had something to lose as a result of asceticism. Jovinian and his supporters sought to prove that the virgin life in relation to the heavenly reward is not preferable to marriage, they said that the virgin life was not established by Christ, but was an invention of the bishops, they questioned the virginity of the Virgin Mary, they opposed asceticism in general, in any of its forms, especially fasting, believing that baptism makes the believer incapable of sin and opens access to heaven regardless of lifestyle (Ambrose. Letter 42, 2–10). The first to condemn the new heresy and deprive the heretics of church communion was the Roman Bishop Siricius, who informed the Church of Milan about this in a special letter. Ambrose convened a council on this matter in Mediolanum 57, at which Jovinian and his closest supporters were also condemned. It is interesting that in the condemnation of Jovinian there is an accusation of Manichaeism (Ambrose. Letter 42, 12-13), which undoubtedly pursued the goal (and, apparently, achieved it) to alienate its adherents from this heresy, since such an accusation, as is clear from the example of the Priscillianists, threatened the death penalty. After this council, the heresy began to decline, although it did not completely disappear, and Jerome and Augustine subsequently fought against it. Some time later, Ambrose also returned to the question of this heresy. In a letter to the Church of Vercelle, the bishop writes with condemnation about two monks Sarmatius and Barbatian, excommunicated from the church, who opposed abstinence, virginity and exhaustion of the flesh by fasting (Ambrose. Letter 63, 7), preached luxury and pleasure and, thus, according to Ambrose, were exposed to the temptations of all vices. The bishop accuses them of Epicureanism and bursts out with a long sermon about the virtues of a Christian and a priest, among which, as is his custom, he especially highlights the virgin life. The fight against Jovinian's heresy did not go beyond the church and did not require the intervention of secular authorities. Heresy did not have a political connotation, and therefore it did not pose a danger to the state. The Jovinians were limited only to the moral and ethical side and their ideas were not as widespread as the ideas of the Priscillianists, although they were an indicator of certain trends in the life of late antique society. The history of the heresies of Priscillian and Jovinian allows us to draw some conclusions. The struggle around asceticism and monasticism, of which these heresies were episodes, was a reflection of certain processes in the Late Roman Empire. Extreme asceticism, in which the dissatisfaction of the masses with their position found a unique outlet, was dangerous for the church and the ruling classes of the Roman Empire due to its tendency to redistribute material wealth. In leaving the world and founding the first monasteries, some representatives of the church hierarchy saw the danger of hidden opposition to their authority. But the emergence of monasticism, in addition to moral, ethical, religious and psychological reasons, was due to the crisis of the slave system, the consequences of which prompted people to flee cities and villages. Realizing the impossibility of stopping this process of escape from the “world,” the church, and after it the state, are trying to take control of the monastic movement. At first, this also promised certain material benefits to the church, for the virgin life of wealthy people left the church as the only heir to their wealth, and the entry of poor people into monks saved a certain amount of money spent on charitable purposes. The state also sought to use monasticism in its politics, directing the social energy of people to peaceful service to the “kingdom of heaven.” Thus, moderate asceticism under the control of church and state was adopted as official policy at the end of the 4th century, and deviations from it, both to the left and to the right, came to be regarded as heresy. The consequences of this innovation turned out to be very significant, and monasticism became an integral part of social life in the Middle Ages. Gibbon E. History of the decline and destruction of the Roman Empire. M, 1884. T.Z. P.240. Ambrose mentions this in Letter 24, quoted above, although he does not mention Priscillian by name. The question of the death penalty, discussed by Ambrose in letters 25 and 26, was undoubtedly an echo of the reprisal against the Priscillianists. There are no exact indications of the date of the council in the sources. Some researchers are inclined to favor 390, identifying this council with the one that Ambrose speaks of in letter 51. Others name 392 and 393.