John Chrysostom, Saint

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Saint. - The greatest Christian orator, one of the greatest orators of all times, was J., called by posterity – beginning in the 6th century – C. (that is, "of the golden mouth").

Born at Antioch, between 344 and 347, of a distinguished family: his mother, Anthusa, widowed at twenty, devoted herself solely to her son, who received the most careful education, in secular studies under the guidance of Libanius and of a philosopher, Andragathius, today unknown, and in religion under that of Bishop Meletius, from whom he received Baptism, around 369, and of Diodore, the future bishop of Tarsus (and it seems, also of the ascetic Carterius). After his mother's death, J. – who only for her prayers had renounced retiring to the desert – having withdrawn by flight from episcopal consecration (the detail can hardly be taken for a literary fiction), led a monastic life for four years, and then lived for two years as a hermit. Returning to Antioch, in 381 he was ordained deacon by Meletius and, after five years, priest (386) by Bishop Flavian, the latter's successor. For twelve years he exercised at Antioch the apostolate of preaching, arousing the most ardent and passionate approval of the crowds, and intervening also, with his persuasive and fiery word, to give comfort and counsel, in extraordinary circumstances, as in 387, when the city, risen up because of the harshness of certain taxes imposed by Theodosius, had gone to excesses of violence, tearing down the Emperor's statues, and was passing through a period of terror and anguish, in expectation of the punishment, which only the intervention of Flavian succeeded in averting.

Toward the end of 387, the see of Constantinople having remained vacant because of the death of Nectarius, he was called to that post, against his will, amid the consent of the clergy and the people, by the emperor Arcadius, on the suggestion and with the support of Eutropius, who had very great influence over him, but secretly opposed by the bishop of Alexandria, the ambitious Theophilus. The latter had as his candidate the old priest Isidore, but nevertheless had to resign himself to consecrating J. bishop of Constantinople; the post, however, was not the most suitable for J. Austere, upright, intransigent in character, he almost immediately aroused around his person and the work of renewal and purification courageously begun, enmities, jealousies and conflicts in the circles of the court and of part of the clergy. The first conflict broke out with Eutropius himself, who was working to have the churches deprived of the right of asylum, and had succeeded in it, despite the resistance of J. A short time later, having fallen into disgrace, Eutropius himself sought asylum in a church and experienced the generosity of J., who opposed himself energetically and at his own risk to his being torn from it by violence. The popularity of J., also as a result of these events, kept growing, and already from the beginnings of his episcopate his action aimed at the conversion of the Arian Goths settled in the city or in its surroundings had given excellent results; he enjoyed a very high prestige, both for his personal merits and for the preeminent position that the see of Constantinople had over the churches of the neighboring regions. Toward the end of the winter of 401, he withdrew from Constantinople for some months and went to Asia for a kind of inspection tour; on this occasion he presided over a synod at Ephesus, and had certain simoniacal bishops summoned and deposed (which created new enemies for him) and had the monk Heraclides elected bishop of Ephesus; on the return journey, at Nicomedia, he deposed Bishop Gerontius. His enemies took advantage of his absence to weave intrigues against him and, among others, his substitute, Severian of Gabala, with whom J. broke off all relations upon his return, but was reconciled afterward through the intervention of the Empress. In the same year begins his conflict with Eudoxia, who, after the end of Eutropius, had acquired a dominant position at court, exercising an ever greater influence over her husband, the weak Arcadius.

It is difficult to reconstruct in all its particulars the phases of this conflict, and to clarify its true causes, since none, or almost none, of the sources is free from the suspicion of partiality; and the writings of J. himself, which could be the surest testimony, are exposed to the doubt of being in part apocryphal or interpolated. It is said that the cause of the conflict was the usurpation, which Eudoxia would have committed, of a vineyard belonging to a widow, which would have provoked the harshest censures, even if veiled, of the patriarch. But the authenticity of the Life of Porphyry, bishop of Gaza, written by his deacon Mark, which would be a precious testimony because it is contemporary with the events, has been suspected, and on the other hand the report itself, which does not appear elsewhere in sources earlier than the 7th century, could have been constructed on the homily of J., where allusion is made to the vineyard of Naboth and the crime of Jezebel. The fact is that at a certain moment the Empress and Theophilus are found allied together against J.

Theophilus had never looked favorably on the election of J.; the case of the "Tall Brothers," four Egyptian monks, accused by him of Origenism and by him forced into exile – who had found a good welcome, together with other monks of Nitria, with J., who nevertheless did not admit them to Communion and limited himself to attempting, but in vain, to intercede in their favor with him – set him openly against J. Despite the accusation of Origenism brought against him by the bishop of Salamis, Epiphanius, who at the instigation of Theophilus had come in 403 to Constantinople to direct there the anti-Origenist campaign, and the intrigues of other bishops, who continued the struggle after the departure of Epiphanius, and of other personages, J., still in favor with Eudoxia, prevailed at first over his enemies. Theophilus himself, the soul of all the machinations, was summoned by Arcadius to Constantinople, in 403, to justify himself against the accusations presented against him by the monks to Eudoxia, before a council that was to be presided over by J. But when Eudoxia changed her attitude toward J., it was not difficult for Theophilus to overturn the situation in his favor, also because of the moderation shown by the bishop of Constantinople, who, as he relates in the letter to Pope Innocent, did not wish to preside over the Council, which was to judge Theophilus, because he did not consider, on the basis of the canons of 381, that he had to occupy himself with Egyptian affairs. Having landed at Constantinople at the head of twenty-six Egyptian bishops loyal to him, Theophilus set about securing the adherence of other elements of the clergy hostile to J., and having libels of accusation presented against him to the Emperor; then, now sure of the support of the Emperor, dominated by Eudoxia, instead of presenting himself as an accused before a council, he convened one at Chalcedon (at Constantinople the people's favor for C. was too great), which from the place where the meeting took place is called ad Quercum. This Synod, of 35 bishops, proceeded in contumacy against J., who had declared himself willing to intervene if Theophilus and three other bishops, among them Severian, notoriously hostile to him, had been excluded from the Synod, brought various more or less calumnious accusations, regarding the private life of the bishop, his administration, his conduct toward certain persons: there was added also the accusation of lese-majesty for having offended the Empress; as a result of this odious judgment J. was deposed and sent into exile.

G. departed for exile, in Bithynia, but soon returned from it in triumph, recalled because of the threatening attitude of the people, and by the Empress herself, frightened, it seems, by an earthquake or some other occurrence. But the reconciliation was short-lived; a few months later another conflict brought the two face to face, over certain demonstrations of joy, of a pagan character, held on the occasion of the inauguration of a statue of the Empress near the Cathedral, demonstrations that had disturbed the sacred functions of the church, and had therefore provoked the most severe protests from G. At the instigation of Eudoxia a Council was convened in Constantinople in 404, made up for the most part of bishops hostile to him, before which he was summoned to appear, and by which he was charged with the illegality of his position for having returned spontaneously from exile and having taken possession of his office again, although deposed by a council, without the consent of another, more numerous synod (a faculty which, moreover, he had lost by virtue of the fourth of the Antiochene canons). The machination was directed, as always, by Theophilus: it was of no avail to object that G. had not returned spontaneously, and that the canon invoked was Arian; it was not deemed necessary to depose him a second time, but only to drive him from the post he occupied without right. G. was therefore arrested and for the second time forced into exile; to avoid disorders among the people, who manifestly wished to oppose his deportation, he surrendered spontaneously to the imperial soldiers, and left by the eastern door of the church, eluding the waiting crowd. It was a particularly harsh exile, first at Cucusus in Cataonia, then in the fortress of Arabissus, finally in Pontus. Death overtook him while traveling at Comana, in Cappadocia, on 14 Sept. 407. His last words were: "Glory to God for all things." In 438 his remains were brought back in triumph to Constantinople and laid upon the episcopal throne in the church of the Apostles, by the son of Eudoxia herself, Theodosius II. It was the recognition, on the part of the whole people, of the holiness of the pastor who, with the word — of which no one ever had a more magnificent gift — and with the example of a life that remained ascetic even in the whirlwind of action and struggle, had renewed (it has been said) the age of the Apostles.

BIBL. Sources: the works of Chrysostom himself, especially the Letters and the De sacerdotio. Also: Palladius, Dialogo storico sulla vita del b. G.; id., Historia Lausiaca; the historical works of Socrates, of Sozomen, of Philostorgius, of Zosimus, of Theodoret, of Nicephorus Callistus. On the Synod ad Quercum, the letter of G. to Pope Innocent and the Acts preserved by Photius (Bibliotheca, cod. 59). Other biographies: by George, patriarch of Alexandria (630), by Theodore, bishop of Trimithus, Intorno alla vita, all'esilio e alle vicende del beatissimo G., detto C. (10th cent.), by an Anonymus Scriptor, Vitae S. Chrysostomi (10th cent.), Vita di s. G. C., in Symeon Metaphrastes (10th cent.), treatment in the Suda; encomiastic fragment by Martyrius, bishop of Antioch (5th cent.). Notices also in Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porphyrii, and in Vita Sanctae Olympiadis diaconissae (in Anal. Bolland, 15 [1896], pp. 409-23). - Studies: Tillemont, I, Paris 1714; E. Martin, St J. Chr., 3 vols., Montpellier 1860; A. Thierry, St. J. Chr. et l'impératrice Eudoxie, Paris 1872; F. Ludwig, Der heilige Ort in seinem Verhältnis zum byzantinischen Hof, Braunsberg 1883; W. R. W. Stephens, St J. Chr. his life and times, London 1885; G. Rauschen, Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen, Freiburg im Br. 1897; P. Ubaldi, La Sinodo « ad Quercum » dell'a. 404, Turin 1902; F. Cavallera, Le schisme d'Antioche, Paris 1905; various authors, Χρυσεσχηλικέ, Studi e ricerche intorno a s. G. C., edited by the committee for the XV centenary of his death, Rome 1908; A. Puech, St J. C., Paris 1913; H. Lietzmann, s. v. in Pauly-Wissowa, IX, col. 1811 SGR.; Chr. Baur, Johannes Chrysostomos und seine Zeit, 2 vols., Munich 1929-30; A. Puech, Hist. de la litt. grecque chrétienne, Paris 1930; H. Grégoire et M. A. Kugener, La Vie de Porphyre, évêque de Gaza, est-elle authentique?, in Bulletin de l'Association G. Budé, 26 (Paris 1930); G. Lazzati, Teofilo d'Alessandria, Milan 1935, especially pp. 49-69.

II. WORKS

The work of G. C. is of an impressive vastness: it comprises treatises, discourses, letters. He was above all a preacher, and even the treatises are, so to speak, a kind of preaching, directed to practical aims, to exhort, to enlighten, to instruct. The treatises belong to almost every period of G.'s life, most of them, however, to the period from 381 to 386.

From the period that preceded the diaconate come the two books — an exhortation and a letter — To Theodore, after his fall, written, it seems, between 371 and 378, to bring back the future bishop of Mopsuestia (for it appears that the addressee of the treatise must be identified with him) to the ascetic life of which he had grown weary; the two books On Compunction, dedicated, the first to Demetrius, the second to Stalechius, composed perhaps not at the same time, between 375 and 376, or, according to others, between 381 and 383; the three books Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life, which are a defense of asceticism against the accusations of the pagans (the inspiration of the writing is Platonic; it also displays Stoic influences, and expresses some personal pedagogical ideas; its date is uncertain, probably it is from the same period as the other writing); the Comparison between the King and the Monk, which develops a motif touched upon in the Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life (the well-known Stoic proposition, developed in the form of a σύγκρισις, is here applied to the relationship between the king and that figure of the practical philosopher who in Christian times is the monk; the word "philosophy," moreover, acquires the meaning of "ascetic life"; the Stoic paradox almost ceases to be such in the Christian vision of life). To the period of the diaconate and then of the priesthood belong the consolatory writing To Stagirius, a young man who in the ascetic life had not found peace of spirit and was consumed by a morbid melancholy — which was attributed to diabolical obsession — that even drove him to thoughts of suicide (G. demonstrates to him the providential function of sorrow and indicates the remedy in a life of activity); the treatise On Virginity, perhaps of 381 (where he displays a notable maturity, both formal and of thought; there the teaching of Paul is followed, according to which marriage is approved, but virginity is considered superior; it is directed against the Marcionites); the one To a Young Widow, a kind of consolatory letter, dedicated to the widow of Tarasius, who had lost her husband after five years of marriage (some consider the writing De non iterando coniugio as an appendix to this treatise). Perhaps from this period — if indeed it is not somewhat later, as the greater experience the author shows he has attained would suggest — is the treatise in six books, in dialogic form, On the Priesthood, on the duties of the priest and the greatness of the priesthood: a work of great loftiness and depth, which displays a remarkable knowledge of the human heart, and is written in a lucid and lively style, which makes it, together with its other qualities of composition and conception, a work without comparison in all the literature, even profane, of the 4th century. It cannot be affirmed whether the two disciplinary treatises Against Those Who Keep Co-habiting Virgins in Their Houses and On the Necessity that Religious Women Not Co-habit with Men belong to the Antiochene or the Constantinopolitan period. From the preceding period is certainly the apologetic writing Against Julian and the Pagans, or On St. Babylas, composed twenty years after the events narrated in it, that is, the burning of the temple of Apollo, which followed the transfer of the relics of the Saint, carried out by order of the Apostate, from Daphne, where Gallus had had them brought, to the city: there religion is defended from the attacks of the Emperor, basing the defense on the miracles of Jesus and on the prodigies that occurred on the occasion of the translation of the martyr's relics; and very probably also the pamphlet Against the Jews and the Gentiles, that Christ is God. To the period of exile belong two treatises which are perhaps two letters, one To Those Who Have Been Scandalized by Recent Events, which is a kind of apology of divine Providence, the other intended to demonstrate That No One Can Be Harmed Except by Himself.

Of the Discourses, most are exegetical; a not insignificant number concern isolated episodes and passages of the Bible (Lazarus and the rich man, the beginning of Acts, individual verses of Paul's Epistles, etc.). More important (also for the overall bulk of such works, which reach the number of ca. 700) are the homilies commenting on entire books or on relevant parts of the Old and New Testaments: among them, particularly notable, the sermons On the Epistles of St. Paul, 250 in number, which constitute the best commentary on those epistles. Especially the 32 homilies On the Epistle to the Romans represent the best that the activity of the Fathers of the 4th century produced in this field: for the loftiness that G.'s speculation on dogma reaches there, for the dialectical vigor he displays there, for the fact that exegesis is not separated there — as indeed all his exegesis is not — from morality, for the feeling of paternal love that warms and pervades these writings, for the sense of sublimity and almost of ecstasy that is communicated to the reader. Except for the homilies on the Epistle to the Colossians and on those to the Thessalonians, these homilies commenting on Paul's Epistles date from the period of Antioch, those on the Epistle to the Romans are from the Constantinopolitan period. Other exegetical discourses are dedicated to the Psalms (to ca. 60 psalms; they are among G.'s most valuable works), to Genesis (9 to certain parts, 67 to the whole of Genesis: the first group from 386, the second from 388), to other historical books of the Old Testament (Hannah, David and Saul, from 387), to the Prophets (6 homilies on Isaiah, I-VI, and 2 De obscuritate prophetarum). There are further commentaries on St. John the Evangelist (in 88 homilies, directed especially against the Anomoeans; from 389), St. Matthew (there are 90 homilies, written at Antioch, it seems in 390, admirable for the vigor of the exegesis and the loftiness of the morality taught there), the Acta Apostolorum (55 in number, from 400-401; they seem to lack the necessary polish). Other discourses are of a moral character (such as the homily Against the Games of the Circus and the Theatres, the 9 On Penance [the authenticity of the last three is doubtful], the 2 Ad illuminandos, before their Baptism, the one On the Calends, the one On Almsgiving, the 3 On Temptations, the 2 De precatione, those On the Mysteries [they refer to the great solemnities of the Lord: Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, not all of certain authenticity]. Discourses both polemical and moral are the 12 sermons Against the Anomoeans, on the Incomprehensibility of God, (in which the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is defended), the homily De non anathematizandis rudibus, and the 8 Against the Jews (from 386, like the sermons Against the Anomoeans, some of which are however later, and the last two are also later than 389). Related to this kind of homily are the Panegyrics, of which notable are the 7 delivered at Antioch in praise of St. Paul, that of Philogonus, and the Eulogies — of Job, of Eleazar, of the Maccabees —, the 3 homilies On the Martyrs, and the Discourses on St. Ignatius of Antioch, Romanus, Lucian of Antioch, Eustathius of Antioch, Meletius, Balaam.

More interesting, and in various respects, are certain discourses which, although always on a moral subject, are closely bound to the occasions that prompted them, such as his first homily, delivered in 386, just after he was ordained priest, in which he expresses his gratitude to Flavian. Famous among these discourses are the 31 homilies On the Statues, of 387 (properly 19, since the first precedes the sedition and the 19th is extraneous to the events), delivered on the occasion of the tragic events at Antioch, which they accompany and allow one to follow, day by day, in their dramatic reality; and the two discourses On Eutropius, delivered after the fall of the powerful favorite of Arcadius (the first of them particularly famous for the powerfully dramatic life that morality takes on in it; it begins with the words of Ecclesiastes "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity"), and the two Before his departure for exile (of 403) and After his return from exile, of the same year. Some of these orations are of doubtful authenticity, and certain ones are certainly apocryphal and interpolated or have come down in stenographic redactions: very probably apocryphal is the oration that would have provoked the wrath of Eudoxia and determined his second exile, from which he was never to return, the one that begins Again Herodias rages, again she dances and demands on a platter the head of John. But the question of the authenticity of G.'s orations is far from being resolved.

G.'s eloquence is natural — skilled, but not a slave to the suggestions of the school — and is always sustained by sincerity of faith and by emotion, which ensures that nothing in it sounds false or declamatory. Qualities of penetrating observation, of lucid and closely reasoned argumentation, warmth of feeling, richness of ideas, imagination, combined to give his eloquence that capacity, which still lives in it, to win souls and to move them. From the familiar homilies, which are, one might say, his own creation, to the exegetical orations, to those that might be called historical, in which the accent of the great Demosthenic and Ciceronian eloquence has not wrongly been recognized (but there is in addition the influence that comes from the Sacred Books), it is one and the same breath of greatness, which animates and elevates his eloquence, even when it descends to the tone of conversation, one and the same abundance that comes from the heart; one and the same breath of "charity."

The Letters, 328 in number, are almost all from the period of exile (404-407), addressed to the friends left at Antioch and at Constantinople; two are addressed to Pope Innocent; particularly noteworthy are those addressed to the deaconess Olympias, to whom he speaks words of comfort and hope; not very important for the history of the times, these letters are the complete testimony of a soul enlightened, amid the harshest trials, by the light of the Faith.

III. THE DOCTRINE

G. C. was not properly a philosopher nor a theologian: it would be better said, he was not an original philosopher nor an original theologian: that he had a broad knowledge of pagan philosophy is certain, of Platonic and Stoic philosophy and perhaps also Neoplatonic. This knowledge did not remain inert in his mind, although there are those who have considered the action of Hellenism in G.'s work to be external and irrelevant, but it was a ferment that in a certain way operated in his thought, together, even if to a much lesser degree, with the inspirations and influences that came to him from the Sacred Books and from apostolic tradition.

As a theologian, G. certainly did not have the speculative spirit of an Athanasius or a Basil, of a Gregory of Nyssa, but one must also consider that he lived at a time when certain problems were no longer felt with the urgency of former times, and Arianism was not as formidable as it had been before, and the Trinitarian dispute seemed, and was, in substance, concluded. His doctrine is therefore of the most scrupulous Nicene orthodoxy, which he defends against the Anomoeans; the accusation of Origenism brought against him by Epiphanius, but afterward withdrawn by him himself, has not the slightest foundation. The problem of the two natures in Christ he does not confront in depth (he never gives Mary the name of theotókos, but neither does he compromise himself in the opposite sense, although attributing to her at times excessively human sentiments), but he affirms the humanity of Christ in his life, in his works and in his death, while at the same time glorifying his divine attributes, and halting before the mystery of his unity. He expounds with clarity the doctrine of the Eucharist and of transubstantiation, so as to merit the title of "Eucharistic doctor," affirming with a realism that may even seem excessive the real presence of Christ. He is an energetic and convinced assertor of free will, but not in such a way that one could make of him a denier of Grace and almost a Pelagian of the letter to the Romans: the problem, moreover, would not be posed until later. He believes, although he does not affirm it explicitly, in the existence of an original fault; he believes in the dogma of hell and of eternal punishments, which he describes in effective colors, and defends it against those who consider it irreconcilable with divine goodness; he believes, against the Donatists, in the efficacy of Penance (and of Confession), which he extends to all sinners, and does not limit to one time only (which was one of the accusations made against him at the Council of the Oak).

G.'s exegetical method was what was to be expected from one who had had the teaching of Diodore of Tarsus and had undergone his influence, that is, it was that of the Antiochene school (of which he was the most illustrious representative), which, in opposition to the Alexandrian tendency, without excluding allegorical interpretation, gave the greater part to the literal method.

As a moralist — one of the greatest moralists Christianity has ever had in all ages, although in some points his vision has seemed to some a little limited and not sufficiently universal — he could rightly be defined a reformer of Christian society. The ideal he aims at is inspired by the life of the primitive Christian communities, and it is a kind of "angelic society," the translation into social life of the life of the cenobitic communities, which he would wish established on earth: a society in which there would be no mine and thine, in which those two plagues that afflicted society in his time would be, if not eliminated, at least reduced to a minimum: pauperism and slavery. Although he regards the origin of wealth as — often, if not always — unjust, he does not condemn individual property in itself (which he nevertheless considers an evil) or wealth, but the bad use of it, and he points to the remedy for social inequality, which is a consequence of wealth, not in its suppression or in a distribution of it to the poor, but — and this is where the problem takes on its moral character — in a kind of "adoption of the poor by the rich." Slavery too is reproved and its limitation is hoped for, if not indeed (which would not be out of the question) its suppression, along with the improvement of the conditions of slaves; but both the one and the other are placed on the moral plane, entrusted to the sense of humanity of the masters (decidedly G. has nothing of the tribune about him).

For G.'s morality is profoundly "optimistic"; it has perhaps the fault of often presupposing in the mass of his hearers the purity of his own sentiments and his natural goodness; it appeals to man's will (whence comes evil?, he asks in homily LIX on St. Matthew, 2-3: from what we will or do not will, he answers; and this willing or not willing, on what does it depend? on ourselves, he concludes); it points to conscience, as well as to the Gospel, as the guide of action; it has recourse to persuasion rather than to coercion or threats; it abstains from personal attacks (he who declares that he fights heresy, not heretics); it is far from any air of self-sufficiency; it places itself on the ground of concrete, living reality, not of rigid systems and theory, and therefore is, at bottom, an indulgent moralist. He considers the intention meritorious, in fact, even when the act does not follow it, and he does not measure the act by its greatness, for example, almsgiving; he finds that certain vices have their justification in certain natural dispositions; he does not preach asceticism, does not impose bodily privations, does not require absolute continence, does not condemn the flesh but only lust and unchastity; he advises treating those who insult us as weak and sick persons; he finds that anger, in certain cases, can serve the good...; he makes the light of hope shine before men, and strengthens their faith in divine mercy.

From all his works an entire code of practical morality could be derived, one that covers almost all aspects of the spiritual life and of conduct: it would perhaps come to form the most elevated, certainly the most human, thing that Christian morality has produced, and not only of the first centuries.

Quintino Cataudella