Although the emancipation of women was very different, and very limited compared to today, there have always been women of great power and charisma able to leave a tangible mark on history.
Queens, princesses, saints, no age is without great women worth reading about!
Today we are talking about Pulcheria and Aeudocia, two women and two saints who left an indelible mark in their time and who helped shape Christianity as we know it today.
Let's start with our first Saint, Aelia Pulcheria. A character who would have ended up in the history books even if she had not been canonized: nephew of Theodosius I the Great, daughter of Arcadius, sister and regent of Theodosius II, Empress herself as Marcian's wife, dominated the life of the Empire for more 40 years old.
In 414, it is assumed that he was 15 or 16 years old, Pulcheria took over the regency of the Eastern Roman Empire on behalf of his still child brother Theodosius II. The reporters tell us great wonders about her: as beautiful as she is intelligent, as cultured as pious ... but we know they are reporters and it is their job to incense those who pay them. There is little doubt, however, that despite her age she was a sly and capable woman, shrewd enough to make a public vow of chastity to eliminate the possibility that some ambitious general could hope to gain access to the throne by marrying her (and especially the Great Dane, and worse an arian, Magister Militum Aspar,).
Theodosius II came of age in 416, but his sister's influence remained very strong, especially his dominion of the court, which, our chroniclers always tell, he had transformed into a true monastery.
Pulcheria's religiosity was evident and special was her devotion to Mary the Virgin (with strangely Gnostic overtones), a true obsession that made her build churches and collect Marian relics, if the emperor was the Vicar of Christ on earth, she called herself the Bride of Christ, protector of the church and during the mass she passed the Iconostasis to take communion in the sanctum as the emperor himself, she, a woman!
A pious woman certainly, but also the author of works, which for our mentality, are a little less so: such as the exclusion of pagans from court posts and the expulsion of "deicidal" Jews from Constantinople, alas anti-Semitism has very ancient roots.
However, the coming of age of Theodosius involved another fundamental step, marriage and, hopefully, the generation of an heir, and here our second Saint enters the field.
It is not well known how, the then called, Athenais arrived at court: the chronicles tell that, on the death of her father, the brothers had stripped her of the inheritance and she had gone to Constantinople to present a petition and ask for justice and here during the audience had made the young Theodosius fall in love and enchanted the whole court.
It sounds a lot like Cinderella's tale and is such a widespread thopos that it is probably really just a fairy tale. Maybe Athenais came to court just to be examined and selected as a possible imperial bride. It was not unusual that, for this purpose, in late antiquity, real selections were held, which gathered from the provinces girls of marriageable age known for their skills to choose the most suitable as a consort for the emperor or for high aristocrats. of court.
Whatever happened, Athenais stood out for beauty and charm (our usual chroniclers) and for culture and elegance, she was ultimately the daughter of the philosopher Leontius, the Scholar of the Platonic Academy of Athens and was chosen by Aelia Pulcheria herself.
Athenais had only one defect, she was, like her father, pagan, but it was a solvable problem, under the guidance of some Syriac monks adequately catechized and was baptized immediately before the marriage with the name of Eudocia, the right doctrine. Never was a name more a harbinger of disasters.
It is certainly an extremely male-dominated saying, but it is said that putting wife and sister-in-law under the same roof is a good recipe for causing quarrels. Male or not, I think it is true (and I take full responsibility for my statement), and if it is a problem in the homes of ordinary mortals, in the Sacred Palaces on the Bosphorus, it threatened real disasters.
If Pulcheria hoped to have found a docile, maneuverable and grateful girl for the opportunity to join the imperial family, she was wrong.
The chronicles are not very helpful, or they are blatantly biased or try to gloss over and silence the disagreements, so we do not know how it began. Maybe, I enjoy thinking, it was a question of priority: who was to go first? The Augusta Porphyrogenita, niece, daughter and sister of Emperors, or the young Imperial consort? From there it will then have moved on to discord over who to favor on court appointments: a dispute over the name of a Sacellarius, or a Silentiarius or perhaps the Protosebastos, who knows…
However, the young Empress flexed her muscles and expanded her influence, in areas previously absolute domination of her sister-in-law. We certainly know that if Pulcheria was rigidly anti-pagan and anti-Jewish, the Hellenistic culture in which she had been immersed from a young age led Eudocia / Athenais to be more tolerant and to pose as their protector. In the end, the rupture, the open confrontation, was inevitable.
In December 427, Sisinius I, the patriarch of Constantinople, died and his successor had to be named. The two court parties were ready to battle to direct the choice of Theodosius II.
Here, however, we must stop, pause, and explain how the church was organized in the fifth century. In a very different way from the modern church.
Each city had its bishop, each imperial province had its Metropolitan and the known world (ie the empire) was divided into 5 patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria of Egypt, Antioch of Syria and Jerusalem (the Pentarchy). Above all, the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Emperor.
To delude oneself that the system worked smoothly and without contrasts means ignoring human nature and earthly ambitions, widespread even where one thinks of the divine and a delicate and unstable political balance was in force among the 5 Patriarchates.
Jerusalem was certainly the least important Patriarchate, for a long time only an honorary title, even subjected to the authority of the Metropolitan of Caesarea, but rivalries flourished among others.
The doctrine was led by the wealthy Alexandria and Antioch, the seats of the two main theological schools. Obviously in contrast, Antioch was based on the direct sources of Jewish and Syriac thought by emphasizing the importance of the text and its historical origins, Alexandria enriched its theology with Hellenistic and mystical thought (and, for its opponents, a little too much gnostic).
In the west, Rome was in theory the first among the Patriarchs, but suffered from its geographical and linguistic isolation (the Gospels and theology were basically Greek), and the decline of the Western empire.
Constantinople was the last to come, the ambitious upstart, his apostolic descent could even raise doubts (whispered with caution), but it was the rich imperial capital, the center of political power. If the other patriarchs had to send messengers and ambassadors, that of Constantinople had the dubious and dangerous privilege of having continuous access to the emperor.
Theodosius II chose as the new Patriarch of Constantinople the favorite candidate of his wife Eudocia, a Syrian monk, pupil of the famous Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius.
It was the defeat of Pulcheria and the powerful and ambitious patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril.
Another very wise saying says that enemies should be chosen with even greater care than that with which friends are chosen: Nestorius and Eudocia had chosen the wrong ones.
The crisis that would have marked the fate of Nestorius and Eudocia and incidentally defined the dogmas of the Christian church and changed the world was founded on the main Christological problem, what is still a mystery of faith, and its greatest paradox: what is nature of Christ, how do human and divine natures merge and relate in him?
If the problem is huge and millenary, the spark was banal and extemporaneous: a homily by Anastasius, one of the Syrian monks who arrived in Constantinople in the following of the new Patriarch.
To the great scandal of the faithful Anastasius rebuked the simple people who defined Our Lady Theotokos, mother of God, how could she be the "mother" of God, existing since the beginning of time? Rather, she should be defined Theodochos, she who receives God (and yes the theologians loved these word games so much).
A scandal broke out, and probably a small riot, and Nestorius, a little chap who certainly did not lack arrogance and self-confidence, intervened to defend his monk: he understood that he was little loved by the Constantinopolitan clergy, who saw him as an intruder. and he feared that denying a close associate would only encourage his enemies. Moreover, theologically the one claimed by Anastasius could not be more correct, Mary had been an instrument of God, not his creator, the definition of Mother of God, she remembered too much past pagan cults: Cybele, Isis.
Theologically, perhaps he was right, but touching Our Lady, even on the surface, never brings luck to theologians, go and ask Anselmo d’Aosta.
Pulcheria and Cyril were waiting for nothing else.
What were these distinctions? Was Nestorius distinguishing between the divine and human natures of Christ? Did it presuppose different natures? Did it even go back to the times of the heretic Arius? Was he Apollinarian? Or maybe, did he even question the divinity of Christ like the adopters and the Ebionites?
It was largely about characterizations and forcing, some original works by Nestorius rediscovered at the end of the nineteenth century seem to indicate a much more moderate and "orthodox" position than the one that has gone down in history, but, as we know, history is written the victors and it is they who have passed down to us their version of their adversary's doctrine in their writings.
The controversy did not stop, on the contrary. Nestorius, as I said, was not the type to take steps backwards, or to reach compromises (and least of all with the hated Alexandrians) and Cyril was fine with that, every opportunity was good to stoke the flames.
We even have letters from Theodosius II addressed to Cyril, in which he reproaches him and asks him to stop writing letters that cause discord in the imperial family and in the palace. Emperor, but with very familiar problems, I do not envy him.
While Theodosius tried to calm the waters by convening a commission of bishops to be held as soon as possible and, presumably, avoided being in the same room with his wife and sister, Cyril realized that he could not drop the matter and let him take his time. , he knew well that the "commissions", since they were invented, only serve to have time to strangle good ideas and silence problems: he wrote to the Patriarch of Rome, Celestinus, explaining, in his own way it is to be assumed, discord and the problem ("similar to the putrid plague of Apollinaris and Arius. Which mix the union of the Lord in man with a confusion of a sort of mixture"), and asking him to intervene, like Primus Inter Pares and wise father of the church.
Did Celestino understand exactly what was happening and the heart of the matter? I have doubts and even Cyril himself had them, who considered him a rather poor theologian, but the political reality was clear: Rome would not have missed a perfect opportunity to downsize its rival Constantinople, the city that thought it was the new center of world and to be able to usurp the primacy of the See of Peter.
The Roman response was quick and crystalline and exactly what Cyril expected: Nestorius's teaching was wrong and he had ten days to abjure and correct himself, under penalty of excommunication, worse, as a final offense he delegated Cyril to excommunicate him in case of failure. acceptance.
Cyril wasted no time and rewrote Nestorius telling him to abandon his affirmations and to accept the concept of Hypostatic Union as agreed by Alexandria and Rome, to the letter I am attaching the appendix of the 12 anathemas which was then the basis of the council of Chalcedon and the foundation of today's Catholic and Orthodox dogma.
For Theodosius the problem was serious, and not only because of the discord it caused among the women of his family. Constantinople was in turmoil both for the dispute itself and for the brisk methods with which Nestorius, who was proving more and more uncompromising every day, was dealing with his religious or secular opponents: beatings, arrests were the order of the day. , the killers were not lacking.
Had it been up to him, Theodosius would have freed himself from both Nestorius and Cyril, but ousting the former would have meant questioning the wisdom and appropriateness of his own choice and appointment and this was not acceptable. On the other hand, the latter was also untouchable, the Patriarch of Alexandria was a power in Egypt, capable of challenging imperial authority and there was no doubt that acting against him would not be without consequences, perhaps an open one revolt of the province.
The solution was offered to him by the only point that united the two rivals: the request for an ecumenical council.
He announced it, in Ephesus, to be held in June 431. The Third Ecumenical Council after Nicaea and Constantinople.
Cyril was sure of the support of Rome, of Pulcheria (who saw in Nestorius' attack on the Virgin Mary a clear criticism of his personal spirituality) and of many Bishops of the same Patriarchate of Constantinople. Furthermore, Ephesus was an ideal terrain, both symbolically, the city in which it was said that Our Lady had ascended to heaven, and politically, an ancient seat of apostolic tradition that had also had to give way to the arrogant Constantinople.
Even Nestorius felt secure, he was sure of his opinions and the strength of his reasoning, and he counted on having the whole patriarchate of Antioch behind him, and he also counted on the support of Theodosius himself (he understood well how his deposition would be a blow to imperial prestige).
The reader should not think that the word "Council" should lead one to suppose something organized or structured, the Bishops arrived in dribs and drabs and, fatally for the hopes of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Antioch with his family lingered on the road, while Cyril instead and his entourage were present from the early days.
I will not bore you with the theological questions that were faced and which were themselves as refined as they were secondary, the battle took place mainly in terms of procedural law.
Cyril immediately left to attack: Nestorius had already been excommunicated by him and by the patriarch of Rome, it was useless to hear it was enough to ratify what had already been done. The imperial delegate, Patritius Candidianus, replied that the Imperial convocation superseded any act of the patriarchs and therefore all the parties involved had to be listened to.
Cyril then tried to speed up the times to take advantage of the delay of the Syrian bishops allied with Nestorius, he was also blocked here by Candidianus who, when the situation began to heat up excessively, did not hesitate to have the troops available to intervene. .
So, Candidianus is another character that I do not envy at all. History, written by the victors, has passed as a biased man, siding with the evil heretic Nestorius, but in truth on closer examination his interventions seem decidedly dictated by the attempt to remain impartial and maintain public order. Cyril and the Egyptians were also known to be willing to settle matters quickly and hastily, with a beating or a providential lynching and Nestorius himself had expressed concern for his safety.
The council was swaying on the verge of chaos, the Syrians did not arrive, the heat in the city was increasing and the Bishops wanted to hurry, the Bishop of Ephesus, Mennon, openly sided with Cyril and prevented the supporters of Nestorius from accessing communion, stirring up the crowd.
Nestorius refused to participate further in the work and took refuge in the governor's palace protected by Cadidian's soldiers. Meanwhile, Cyril obtained the support of Juvenal Patriarch of Jerusalem and remained in control of the assembled bishops, and passed a new motion of excommunication.
At the end of the month, John, the patriarch of Antioch, finally arrived, who, given the situation, just to increase the confusion of the poor historians of subsequent eras, gathered his followers and those of Nestorius in another place and thought it best to depose and excommunicate a in turn Cyril, Mennon and Juvenal.
To try to resolve the situation, Candidianus turned to the Emperor, who eventually gave the order to all the bishops present in the city to meet "together" and find a "peaceful" solution, but it was the arrival of the Roman delegates that unlocked the situation. . With them Cyril took the situation back in hand and among the protests of the Syrians he managed to confirm the excommunication of Nestorius and also to pass the deposition of John of Antioch, then, just to put his own, in the chaos that followed Candidian he had Cirillo arrested.
The ball then returned to poor Theodosius II who was forced to choose whether to ratify the results of one of the two "councils" or the arrest of Cyril.
While the feuds continued at court, there were clashes in the streets and Theodosius considered whether it was appropriate to really ratify everything and even more: via Nestorius, via John, but also via Cirillo, Mennon and Jovenal. The idea of making a clean sweep must have seemed attractive, but in the end, put under pressure, he accepted the excommunication and the deposition of only Nestorius.
Nestorius was exiled first comfortably to his Syria, then to Arabia and finally to finish his days as a prisoner in the Egyptian desert in the land of his adversaries, who knows if he will be consoled by living to old age in observing the subsequent ruin of his enemies in Chalcedon .
Many of his followers fled across the border into Persia, where the Sassanids immediately took advantage of the opportunity to have a Christian church unrelated to Roman rivals and the Nestorian church was born, the Patriarchate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, which for centuries thrived throughout the country. 'Asia.
In the meantime, after Nestorius was deposed, Proclus, friend of Cyril and the great protege of Pulcheria, was appointed Patriarch in Constantinople. They had won the battle.
In the following years the position of Eudocia gradually eroded, in particular after the death of the only son, Arcadius, but the games seemed to reopen with the arrival at the court of a new player, the eunuch Chrysaphius, the new favorite. of the Emperor, the new rival of Pulcheria.
Eudocia allied himself with the new rising star, in order to hit his rival of all time, and the two managed to convince Theodosius II to confine Pulcheria to the Palace of Magnaura, on the outskirts of Constantinople, where he could have led his pious and ascetic life without distractions. of the court.
Needless to tell you that it did not end like this, having freed himself of Pulcheria, Chrysaphius also eliminated Eudocia, making her accused of adultery and exiling her in Palestine.
The two great rivals would never meet again, even if they would have had the opportunity to side again with opposing sides during the new infamous council of Ephesus (the so-called Brigandage of Ephesus), but from afar, both without the power of the past.
Eudocia ended her days in exile living between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, financing the construction of churches, writing fine verses in classical Greek and acting as protector of the Jews. She is buried in the basilica of St. Stephen in Jerusalem, built by her, and is a saint for both Catholics and Orthodox.
Pulcheria… no Pulcheria did not stop there, on the death of Theodosius she left her retirement, married (provided she respected his chastity anyway) General Marciano and ascended the throne by his side. Last of the Theodosian dynasty to reign in the East.
Chrysaphius died a few weeks later, conveniently lynched by an angry mob, at this point I don't think it surprises you, and Pulcheria quickly took revenge on all his other enemies and adversaries, and this too, I would say, should no longer catch you. surprise.
It was his old Alexandrian friends who had sided with Crisafio who suffered his wrath. It was the council of Chalcedon, it was the defeat of the patriarchate of Alexandria, it was the Monophysite schism.
But that of Eutyches, Dioscorus and Flavianus is obviously another story, to be told maybe another time, if you liked this one, but I assure you it is much better than anything a Hollywood screenwriter is able to even imagine.
A 20-episode series on Ecumenical Councils alone is what HBO should do. Other than Game of Thrones.
History, on the other hand, is much more interesting and unpredictable than any fantasy!
Ah! As I said, Pulcheria is also a saint. September 10. And perhaps this surprises you, now that you know it a little better.
Sources:
John Philip Jenkins:
“Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years”
“The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died”.
“Storia della Chiesa nella tarda antichità” by Ewa Wipszycka. Translation by Emanuele Rizzardi AssoByzantion
Commenti