Masculinity, demonology and the health of the soul in John Chrysostom’s rhetoric on the bishop-martyr Babylas against the Roman emperors

  • 0

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between masculinity, demonology and the health of the soul in John Chrysostom’s (ca. 349–407 A.D.) account of Babylas and in his polemic against the figure of the Roman emperor, especially Julian the Apostate. Despite much research on Chrysostom’s demonology and gender perspectives, there is no study that focuses on the relationship between these concepts in his polemic against the emperors. Recent research into Chrysostom’s medical-moral framework underpins the research in this article. The study first examines Babylas’s conflict with a first (unnamed) emperor, who may have been Emperor Philip. After that, the role of Emperor Gallus in the transfer of the relics of Babylas is briefly examined. The central part of the investigation involves Chrysostom’s polemic against Emperor Julian. The article shows that Chrysostom uses mainly the concepts of masculinity, demonology and the health of the soul to present Babylas as an exemplum to his audience. These three concepts work together and create a Christian standard of virtue by which every Christian, man or woman, had to live. Thus, the bishop-martyr Babylas is the exemplum, while two of the emperors fulfil the role of anti-exempla. The study further shows that concepts of masculinity, gender, demonology and the health of the soul are keys to better understanding Chrysostom’s political philosophy, especially on the role of the emperor and the government.

The control of emotion (or “passion”; πάθος) was an important prerequisite for ancient Roman as well as early Christian formulations of masculinity (Clark 1998:170–82), and Chrysostom himself has been shown to have accepted this presupposition about masculinity (De Wet 2014:227–50; 2019:410–63). In Bab. Jul. gent. 32–3 (Schatkin, Blanc and Grillet (eds) 1990:130–2) Chrysostom describes the first emperor who confronts Babylas, surrounded by soldiers, governors and many slaves and servants, clothed in purple and crowned with the diadem. Opposite the emperor stands Babylas, “God’s slave (τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ δοῦλον), the blessed Babylas, with his modesty, simple dress, penitent soul and thought freed from arrogance” (Bab. Jul. gent. 33; Schatkin et al. (eds) 1990:132). Masculinity is not associated here with military or political power, or with imperial pomp and pageantry, as in traditional Roman culture. Referring to Ammianus Marcellinus' depiction of Constantius II’s adventus in Rome, Masterson (2014:143) shows that the majesty of the emperor, which even reflected a kind of otherworldly transcendence, often served as a marker of masculinity, but only when the emperor was also morally exemplary. Chrysostom associates masculinity with Babylas’s embodiment of φιλοσοφία (“philosophy”, which for Chrysostom was synonymous with discipline and self-control; De Wet 2015:183) – by which is meant his modesty, simplicity and self-control. Babylas does not appear with an army or many slaves. Chrysostom regarded one’s dependence on many slaves as an unmanly, even effeminate, and dishonourable condition. Because women, according to Chrysostom, were by nature weak and subordinate to men, they needed many slaves. But men should get by with only what is necessary (De Wet 2017:58–80). Chrysostom’s rhetoric against this first emperor is therefore modelled on a paradox: As God’s slave (δοῦλος), Babylas is, as it were, free and masculine, while the emperor, with all his slaves and masterful appearance, is essentially enslaved and unmanly. In his description of the unnamed emperor, Chrysostom also uses the language of slavery and disease to deride the character of the morally reprehensible emperor.

Chrysostom’s portrayal of the second emperor in the narrative, Gallus, is more positive, as this ruler understands and recognises the power of the martyrs. Gallus is also praised for his careful approach to the problem of Daphne and her unruly inhabitants: “A barricade of the road to the neighbourhood on the basis of an imperial order and authority would no doubt look to the inhabitants of the empire rather like an act of tyranny, cruelty and incivility” (Bab. Jul. gent. 69; Schatkin et al. (eds) 1990:182). According to Chrysostom, Gallus realised that the relics of Babylas would improve the neighbourhood without putting him in a bad light. This is why he transferred the relics of Babylas to Daphne. An imperial barrier to the neighbourhood would also have been impractical: “The order would have been unenforceable, and there would have had to be daily hearings to assess each person’s life. The only acceptable way to prevent such problems was the presence of the holy one” (Bab. Jul. gent. 69; Schatkin et al. (eds) 1990:182). Gallus is thus praised as masculine solely on the basis of his recognition of and submission to the departed martyr Babylas.

Chrysostom’s fiercest invective is aimed at Emperor Julian, and the battle between Babylas and Julian is depicted as a battle between God and the demons. Chrysostom (Bab. Jul. gent. 119, 125–6; Schatkin et al. (eds) 1990:258, 270–2) labels Julian a tyrant (τύραννος), which was a great political insult at that time. “He surpassed all in impiety (ἀσεβείᾳ), reached the imperial throne and took possession of the tyrant’s sceptre,” Chrysostom says, “and he immediately raised his hands against God who created him, and forgot his benefactor” (Hom. Bab. 3; Schatkin et al. (eds) 1990:298). Chrysostom emphasises Julian’s wickedness (ἀσεβεία). Goldberg (2021:123) shows that piety (pietas in Latin; εὐσέβεια in Greek) was one of the most important masculine values ​​of an emperor. By accusing Julian of ἀσεβεία (impiety) Chrysostom thus also attacks his masculinity.

In his accounts of Babylas, Chrysostom uses three emperors to show how the new Christian standard of masculinity can also be applied to the highest authority in the empire. Where the emperor was often, in the past, the epitome of conventional Roman masculinity, the figure of the bishop or martyr replaces this position. If Babylas represents the example towards which one should strive, the unknown emperor and Julian serve the opposite purpose. The fact that Gallus accepted and even used the power of the martyr puts him in a good light. Thus, the bishop-martyr is the exemplum, while two of the emperors fulfil the role of anti-exemplum. Raschle (2013:355–77) and Papadopoulos (2022:196–219) reach similar conclusions in their analyses of Chrysostom’s opinion about Constantine I and his wife, Fausta.

Keywords: Babylas; demonology; early Christian masculinity; Emperor Julian; health of the soul; health in early Christianity; Patristics; Roman emperors

 

Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans

Manlikheid, demonologie en sielsgesondheid in Johannes Chrusostomus se retoriek oor die biskop-martelaar Babulas teen die Romeinse keisers

  • 0

Reageer

Jou e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Kommentaar is onderhewig aan moderering.


 

Top