CHAPTER 3 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON POVERTY Wendy Mayer INTRODUCTION In the opening lines of a homily preached at Antioch John once described himself as an ambassador of the homeless poor dwelling at that time in the alleys and agoras of the city.1 This image has been enduring.2 Equally enduring has been the epithet – John of almsgiving (ž ĞǻĜ őĕďđĖęĝƴėđĜ) – ascribed to him by the Byzantine biographer “George of Alexandria”.3 Both give the impression of a church Father with an exceptional compassion for the poor and profound emphasis on almsgiving, images which are reflected in a repeated interest in the literature on these aspects of his thought.4 In this chapter we take a step back from these dominant images and from the 1 De eleemosyna; PG 51, 261, ll. 1-6: ûěďĝČďưċė ĞēėƩ ĎēċĔċưċė ĔċƯ ĕğĝēĞďĕǻ ĔċƯ ĚěƬĚęğĝċė ƊĖȉė ŁėƬĝĞđė ĚęēđĝƲĖęėęĜ ĞƮĖďěęė ĚěƱĜ ƊĖǬĜä…Ğȥė Ďƫ Ğƭė ĚƲĕēė ęŭĔęƴėĞģė ŞĖȉė ĚĞģġȥė őĚƯ ĞċƴĞđė Ėď ġďēěęĞęėđĝƪėĞģė… 2 Cited directly by P. Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, Lectures on the History of Religions NS 13 (New York 1988) 309; and A. Dupleix, “Jean Chrysostome. Un évêque social face à l’empire”, in Recherches et traditions. Mélanges patristiques offerts à Henri Crouzel, S.J., Théologie historique 88 (Paris 1992) 119-139, at 124, who characterises John as an “apostle of the poor”. J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom – Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London 1995) 97, talks of John’s “passionate championship of the poor”. 3 Georg. Alex., Vita Iohannis; ed. F. Halkin, Douze récits byzantines sur Saint Jean Chrysostome, Subsidia hagiographica 60 (Brussels 1977) 325. So Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 64, describes John as the “master-preacher of charity”. Whether the attribution of this Vita to George of Alexandria in the manuscripts is valid is a matter of debate. 4 For the most important scholarship see, in chronological order, A. Carillo de Albornoz, “Aspectos sociales del s. IV a través de las obras de Juan Crisóstomo”, Razón y Fé 100 (1932) 455-476; 101 (1933) 204-217, 507-525; id., San Juan Crisóstomo y su influencia social en el imperio bizantino del siglo IV (Madrid 1934); id., “Mas sobre el comunismo de san Juan Crisóstomo”, Razón y Fé 110 (1936) 80-98; E.F. Bruck, “Die Gesinnung des Schenkers bei Johannes Chrysostomus. Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis zwischen theologischer und juristischer Willenslehre”, Mnemosyna Pappoulia (Athens 1934) 65-83; id., “Kirchlich-soziales Erbrecht in Byzanz. Johannes Chrysostomus und die mazedonischen Kaiser”, in Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel XL anno del suo insegnamento, vol. 3 (Palermo 1936) 377-423; id., “Ethics versus law. St. Paul, the Fathers of the church and the ‘cheerful giver’ in Roman law”, Traditio 2 (1944) 97-121; O. Plassmann, Das Almosen bei Johannes Chysostomus (Münster 1961); A. Sifoniou, “Les Fondements juridiques de l’aumône et de la charité chez Jean Chrysostome”, Revue de Droit Canonique 14 (1964) 241-269; A. Ferrari, “Las dos ciudades cristianas de san Juan Crisostomo. Antioquia (Matt. hom. 66) y Constantinopla (Act. Ap. 69 Wendy Mayer varied analyses of his social vision in order to develop a fresh assessment of his approach to poverty that steers a course between the social context within which his discourse was developed, the influence of traditional philosophical as well as Christian ideas, and John’s own personal formation. As argued in Chapter 2, the problematic associated with the interpretation of Christian discourse on poverty is significant and the task requires caution. With this problematic in mind we begin by carefully establishing the context. At its most obvious level, this is twofold, since, on the one hand, John was born in Syrian Antioch c. 350 CE, where he was educated and spent a large part of his career as a priest; on the other hand, he concluded his career in Constantinople as its bishop, after he was elected in 397 to the throne of the see of the imperial capital. He thus delivered his discourse within two geographically distinct locations, in only the second of which he held the rank of bishop. This distinction is important for Brown’s thesis as outlined in Chapter 1. In order to make it possible to determine whether there is a distinction to be drawn between John’s discourse in each location, we explore in brief the socio-economic context of the two cities within which the discourse was delivered. To expand the context further we discuss in summary fashion the relative degree of importance of the sources in regard to the discourse, and, finally, the caritative and evergetical models on hom. 11)”, Boletin de la real academia de la historia 158 (1966) 25-105; A. Natali, “Christianisme et cité à Antioche à la fin du IVe siècle d’après Jean Chrysostome”, in C. Kannengiesser (ed.), Jean Chrysostome et Augustin. Actes du colloque de Chantilly 22-24 Septembre 1974, Théologie historique 35 (Paris 1975) 41-59; R. Brändle, “Jean Chrysostome. L’importance de Matth. 25,31-46 pour son éthique”, VC 31 (1977) 47-52 (repr. in id., Studien zur Alten Kirche [Stuttgart, Berlin, and Cologne 1999] 16-20); id., Matthäus 25,31-46 im Werk des Johannes Chrysostomus. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegungsgeschichte und zur Erforschung der Ethik der griechischen Kirche um die Wende vom 4. zum 5. Jahrhundert, Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 22 (Tübingen 1979); A. Natali, “Église et évergétisme à Antioche à la fin du IVe siècle d’après Jean Chrysostome”, StP 17 (1982) 1176-1184; A. Stötzel, Kirche als “neue Gesellschaft”. Die humanisierende Wirkung des Christentums nach Johannes Chrysostomus, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 51 (Münster 1984); A.M. Ritter, “Between ‘theocracy’ and ‘simple life’: Dio Chrysostom, John Chrysostom and the problem of humanizing society”, StP 22 (1989) 170-180; B. Gordon, “The problem of scarcity and the Christian Fathers: John Chrysostom and some contemporaries”, StP 22 (1989) 108-120; P. Klasvogt, Leben zur Verherrlichung Gottes. Botschaft des Johannes Chrysostomos. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pastoral, Hereditas. Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 7 (Bonn 1992); B. Leyerle, “John Chrysostom on almsgiving and the use of money”, Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) 2947; A. Hartney, John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City (London 2004); M. Mitchell, “Silver chamber pots and other goods which are not good: John Chrysostom’s discourse against wealth and possessions”, in W. Schweiker and C. Mathewes (eds), Having. Property and Possession in Religions and Social Life (Grand Rapids, MI 2004) 88-121; J. Tloka, Griechische Christen – christliche Griechen. Plausibilierungsstrategien des antiken Christentums bei Origenes und Johannes Chrysostomos, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 30 (Tübingen 2005); R. Brändle, “This sweetest passage: Matthew 25:31-46 and assistance to the poor in the homilies of John Chrysostom”, in S.R. Holman (ed.), Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society, Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History (Grand Rapids, MI 2008) 127-139; F. Cardman, “Poverty and wealth as theater: John Chrysostom’s homilies on Lazarus and the rich man”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 159-175. 70 John Chrysostom on poverty which John’s discourse is based. Discussion of the last of these facets is divided into two parts: a survey of the models likely to have had the greatest influence on John in his formative years at Antioch; and a brief discussion of the influence of Greek paideia on his discourse in regard to philosophical tradition and its teachings on virtue and poverty. Following a discussion of the context, the categories of the poor that appear in John’s discourse are explored in relation to the moral argument concerning poverty and almsgiving that they evoke. These fall loosely into three types – the socio-economic poor, the spiritually poor, and the voluntary poor. The role of the poor and poverty in his discourse is then summarised to show that he presents a relatively coherent argument across differences in both personal status and location. Here the role of almsgiving within his discourse on poverty is also discussed. This leads to consideration of the relationship between reality and rhetoric in his homiletic constructions of the poor and poverty. Finally, some brief conclusions are drawn regarding John’s position on poverty in the context of the late fourth- and early fifthcentury East. 1. ECONOMIC CONTEXT 1.1. Antioch By contrast to the problems caused the city of Constantinople by its location (see below), the siting of Antioch on the Orontes River, with access to a nearby Mediterranean port, proved in the long term to be of economic benefit. The construction of only a few kilometres of aqueduct secured for the city a constant supply of fresh water from the springs in the nearby suburb of Daphne.5 The Amuq Valley, towards the southern end of which Antioch lay, produced sufficient grain and other fresh produce for the city’s supply. In the city itself market gardens were situated along the banks of the river, which supplied fresh water for their cultivation.6 The site was strategic not just in terms of supply, but also in terms of trade routes and military logistics. Syria was a significant staging-post for military detachments in the East, and the Orontes was one of the few rivers that provided access by water through the mountain chains that bordered the Mediterranean coast.7 Because of their importance to military supply and troop movements, maintenance of the channel between the harbour 5 On the city’s water supply and the costs of accessing it, see K. Butcher, Roman Syria and the Near East (Los Angeles, CA 2003) 161-163. 6 For evidence of the gardens see John Chrys., In Acta apost. hom. 38; PG 60, 274, ll. 55-58, and Libanius, Or. 11.234; ed. Foerster, vol. 1, 518-519. In regard to irrigation in the region see J. Leblanc and G. Poccardi, “L’Eau domestiquée et l’eau sauvage à Antioche-sur-l’Oronte. problèmes de gestion”, in B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, and C. Saliou (eds), Antioche de Syrie. Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique. Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4-6 octobre 2001, Topoi supplément 5 (Lyon 2004) 239-256. 7 Butcher, Roman Syria, 132. 71 Wendy Mayer and the northern bend of the river near Antioch, and of the harbour itself was conducted for the main part at imperial expense.8 The security of the eastern border of the empire was administered from Antioch, where in the fourth to fifth centuries the military commander for the East (magister militum per Orientem) was headquartered. In addition the city was the seat of the governor of the province of Syria (consularis Syriae), as well as the administrative headquarters of the count of the imperial diocese of Oriens (comes Orientis). This necessitated the constant maintenance of the road systems and supply of food and lodging throughout the region to ensure the effectiveness of bureaucratic communication via the cursus publicus, usually at local expense. Military pay and the operation of the cursus publicus in turn ensured the circulation of coinage, which was in part supplied from the imperial mint in Antioch.9 Recent studies of the region emphasise the importance of viewing Antioch within the context of the Syrian provincial economy.10 That is, while Syrian coastal cities were more internationalised in comparison to those further inland, trade and communication networks internal to the province served to keep its cities grounded in a regional culture. One of the fundamental characteristics of Syria was that the basic social and economic unit was the village, rather than the villa estates of western provinces.11 As the largest city in the region, Antioch was a major consumer of its surplus agricultural produce. It was itself most probably only a minor producer. There is some evidence of the export to Rome of low quality linen clothing,12 the city was the site of both an imperial mint and an imperial arms factory,13 and it is possible that in Constantinople the emperor Constantius II (337-361) employed mosaic artists from Antioch for the embellishment of baths and other projects.14 In addition to regional products, Antioch imported some of its fine wares from other eastern provinces, including an example of a columnar sarcophagus in marble from a workshop in Asia 8 See Descriptio totius mundi et gentium 28; ed. A. Riese, Geographi latini minores (Hildesheim 1964) 110, which attributes work on the harbour in the fourth century to Constantine/Constantius II, and further Butcher, Roman Syria, 132-133. In preceding centuries Seleucia Pieria had served as a major naval base. 9 On the Antiochene mint see P. Grierson and M. Mayes, Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection. From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius (Washington, DC 1992) 58-59; and Butcher, Roman Syria, 220. On the role of the military payroll and cursus publicus in coin distribution see M.F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450 (Cambridge 1985) 602-613. 10 G.W. Bowersock, “Social and economic history of Syria under the Roman empire”, in J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthmann (eds), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie 2 (Saarbrücken 1989) 163-180, is at the watershed between the two views. Butcher, Roman Syria, is characteristic of the new perspective. 11 Butcher, Roman Syria, 138. 12 J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch. City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford 1972) 60, and Butcher, Roman Syria, 211. 13 Liebeschuetz, Antioch, 57-58, and Butcher, Roman Syria, 220. 14 See Ö. Dalgiç, “Late Antique Floor Mosaics of Constantinople prior to the Great Palace”, unpub. PhD Diss. (New York 2008), regarding the dating and style of the mosaics of the Constantinianae thermae. 72 John Chrysostom on poverty Minor.15 Local limestone and basalt was predominantly used in the construction of buildings and sarcophagi in the region. In Syria granite and marble were imported, an expensive and labour-intensive process, which tended to restrict their use to cities such as Antioch, with access to transport by sea.16 In Syrian cities wealth tended to be generated via their role as conduits for the flow of taxes and goods.17 Antioch, by virtue of its access to both the interior and the Mediterranean, controlled the distribution of goods throughout a significant region of the province and provided a nexus between land- and sea-based transport.18 A percentage of the trade controlled by the city constituted goods brought by caravan through northern Syria from Asia, although the bulk will have been comprised of regional and Mediterranean trade.19 The lifestyle that this flow of goods generated was prosperous, as witnessed by the sophisticated mosaics excavated in the city and its suburbs.20 The vibrancy of the economy in the late fourth century is further indicated by the constant building activity, of which Libanius boasts in his encomium on Antioch.21 Unlike in other cities where dusk terminated commercial activity, in Antioch the cardo or main axis of the city was lit by torches well into the night.22 The economic benefits brought by this control of distribution and by the imperial salaries that flowed into the city were not enjoyed uniformly. Luxuries such as night-time shopping came at a cost to the shop-owners who fronted the city’s colonnaded main street. Libanius pleads the case that the requirement that shop-owners maintain three lights outside their shops at night placed an intolerable strain on their financial resources.23 More generally, the intimate link between the city and military affairs in the East meant that gearing up for war tended to disrupt the balance of regional production and consumption, with Antioch affected by associated grain shortages and price gouging.24 The financial burden of billeting military personnel and their abuse of 15 Now displayed in the Hatay Archaeological Museum, Antakya. Regarding the provenance, date, and transportation of the sarcophagus see Ö. Esen, “The Antakya sarcophagus: aspects of decoration, transportation and dating”, Bilkent University, The Department of Archaeology & History of Art, Newsletter No. 3 (2004) 28-32. 16 Butcher, Roman Syria, 174 and 206-210. 17 Butcher, Roman Syria, 187. 18 On the critical nature of the riverine system throughout the region see J. Casana, “The archaeological landscape of late Roman Antioch”, in I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch (Oxford 2004) 102-125, at 106-110. 19 Butcher, Roman Syria, 184. 20 See D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 2 vols (Princeton 1947), and S. Campbell, The Mosaics of Antioch, Subsidia Mediaevalia 15 (Toronto 1988). 21 Libanius, Or. 11.227; ed. Foerster, vol. 1, 516. Cf. John Chrys., In Phil. hom. 7; PG 62, 236, ll. 5156, of which the provenance is, however, uncertain. See P. Allen and W. Mayer, “Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: a re-examination of the fifteen homilies In epistulam ad Philippenses (CPG 4432)”, VC 49 (1995) 270-289. 22 Libanius, Or. 11.255-258; ed. Foerster, vol. 1, 527-528, indicates that the sale of fish and other foodstuffs continued past nightfall. 23 Libanius, Or. 33.35; ed. Foerster, vol. 3, 183. 24 Butcher, Roman Syria, 166-167. 73 Wendy Mayer the obligations of local citizens to provide for their basic needs at these times could also be considerable.25 John estimated that 10% of the city were wealthy, another 10% very poor, and the rest fell somewhere in the middle.26 To sum up, Antioch was a city that was well supplied and well established within the regional economy. Wealth appears to have been generated less by production than by control of the transport of goods throughout the region and between the Mediterranean and the Syrian hinterland. The city, which expedited the flow of taxes from Syria to the imperial capital, was also the beneficiary of taxes in the form of military and bureaucratic salaries and of imperial works such as the dredging of the harbour at Seleucia Pieria and of the channel of the Orontes River. The city enjoyed a number of luxuries, but was also vulnerable to the impact of military activity throughout the region. At the same time, its role as an administrative centre ensured a degree of economic stability. 1.2. Constantinople Constantine’s choice of site for his eastern capital – the western coast of the Bosporus – made sense strategically, but proved to be a poor choice from an economic perspective. It had no natural water supply, no convenient grain supply, and was not a desirable port, since for much of the navigable season the winds were unfavourable to sailing to it from the direction of the Mediterranean and a strong current flowed through the Bosporus from the north that favoured the western shore.27 To add to the expense of developing the site, there were no natural defences to the west.28 These features help to explain why, despite its location, Byzantion, the town on which Constantinople was built, had remained for centuries a backwater of little significance. Much of the second half of the fourth century and first half of the fifth was spent in investing large sums of tax money in developing the necessary infrastructure to enable the city to function in the role it had been assigned. Throughout the reign of Constantius II major difficulties were experienced with the water supply, which required the construction of a network of aqueducts more than 100 km in length to bring water from the Istranca Mountains in Thrace. The network 25 Liebeschuetz, Antioch, 58-59. In Matt. hom. 66/67.3; PG 58, 630. 27 This did not make sailing to Constantinople impossible during the shipping season, but certainly complicated matters. B. Labaree, “How the Greeks sailed into the Black Sea”, American Journal of Archaeology 61 (1957) 29-33, argues, concerning the antique period, that ships attempting to navigate through the Bosporus to take on goods from Black Sea ports would have experienced delays of up to a week or more as they waited for the occasional favourable wind. The same situation persists today. 28 C. Mango emphasises these aspects in C. Mango and G. Dagron, Constantinople and Its Hinterland, Papers from the Twenty-seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993 (Aldershot 1995) 3-5, when he answers in the negative the question of whether Constantinople ever fulfilled what would have seemed to have been its “natural” trading role with the Black Sea. 74 26 John Chrysostom on poverty could not easily be defended and was constantly vulnerable to attack.29 It was not until the mid-fifth century under Theodosius II that a second, more massive set of defensive walls was completed that adequately defended the city itself to the west. The grain supply, which was imported from Egypt more than 1,000 km to the south, rather than from Black Sea ports, was equally vulnerable to disruption, and the city was constantly in danger of starving until a sophisticated infrastructure of storage and unloading facilities had been developed.30 These were major investments by the imperial administration.31 It took until the reign of Justinian (527-565) before all of the infrastructures and systems required to guarantee the security of the city and its food and water supply had been set in place. As a result of its own lack of natural resources, Constantinople was a major consumer of imported goods. As already mentioned, its grain supply was brought in from Egypt.32 In some respects the heavy dependence on goods from elsewhere was mitigated by the taxation system, which in the eastern provinces of the empire flowed towards this city.33 A percentage of the non-perishable foodstuffs required by the city (grain, olive oil, fish sauce, dried fruit, and wine, for example) thus arrived in the form of tax in kind. Secondary and tertiary goods filled any empty spaces in such cargoes, which were then traded on arrival in the harbours of Constantinople. From the grain supplied to the imperial administration via taxation a dole (annona) was allocated to the citizens of Constantinople, at an initial distribution of 80,000 annonae to a population of 250,000.34 Perishable foodstuffs cannot have been traded or sent as tax in kind over any distance, however, and will have been produced locally. Johannes Koder calculates that fresh vegetables grown in the suburbs of the city could have supplied a population as large as 500,000 under normal conditions.35 In general, goods other than foodstuffs were sourced to a large extent from the region of the Aegean. This is particularly the case with building materials. The most 29 Hinterland, 5, and id., “The water supply of Constantinople”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 918. For details of the construction of aqueducts and cisterns between the foundation of the city and the time of Justinian see J. Crow, J. Bardill, and R. Bayliss, The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople, Journal of Roman Studies Monograph No. 11 (London 2008) 9-19. Much of the cistern construction during the reign of Theodosius II appears to have been a response to securing the water supply from attack. 30 Mango, in Hinterland, 4-5. 31 J. Crow, “The infrastructure of a great city: earth, walls and water in late antique Constantinople”, in L. Lavan, E. Zanini, and A. Sarantis (eds), Technology in Transition A.D. 300-650 (Leiden 2007) 251-285, at 280, estimates that digging the ditch for the Theodosian defensive wall would have involved the excavation of 910,000m2 of soil and clay alone, without calculating the quantity of brick and stone required. He estimates that the ditch itself would have taken over 600,000 days of labour. 32 See J. Durliat, “L’Approvisionnement de Constantinople”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 1933. 33 Hendy, Byzantine Monetary Economy, 561-569, characterises the city as a centre for the concentration of wealth and consumption. 34 Durliat, “L’Approvisionnement”, 20, who also mentions panes aedium allocated to citizens who undertook to build new houses. 35 J. Koder, “Fresh vegatables for the capital”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 49-56. 75 Wendy Mayer desirable stone at Constantinople in late antiquity was Proconnesian marble. The buildings of the city in that period display a vast consumption of that material.36 The vacuum created by the redirection of Aegean exports to Constantinople in the fourth and fifth centuries had the flow-on effect of opening up and/or expanding markets for other provinces across the Mediterranean. Some products, such as glass, were imported from traditional centres of production in other eastern parts of the Mediterranean, while the products of any local workshops within Constantinople will have supplied local demand, and then only a fraction of it.37 A mint was established in the city in the time of Constantine, however, that produced predominantly high denomination coinage for distribution throughout the eastern provinces.38 To sum up, Constantinople at the time of John Chrysostom was a city that placed considerable economic strain on imperial resources, exported little, and was a major consumer of goods produced in the region of the Aegean. While the city produced some of its own necessities, such as fresh food, as the population grew the city increasingly diverted trade in the Aegean away from other parts of the Mediterranean. For its development and maintenance, it depended to a large extent on the flow of taxes from the eastern provinces. Because of this dependence and its own vulnerabilities throughout this period it was susceptible to disruptions in water and food supply. It was central, however, to the eastern provincial monetary economy, through the production of coinage and its distribution throughout the provinces via both military and bureaucratic payrolls and, to a lesser degree, the operation of the cursus publicus. 2. BACKGROUND TO THE SOURCES As was pointed out in Chapter 1.2, above, the corpus of genuine works of John Chrysostom that survives comprises roughly fourteen treatises, 820 homilies and 240 letters.39 A number of the treatises address issues relevant to the ascetic life or voluntary poverty,40 and in Quod nemo laeditur, on the Stoic principle that no one can 36 See N. Asgari, “The Proconnesian production of architectural elements in late antiquity, based on evidence from the marble quarries”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 263-288. 37 See J. Henderson and M. Mundell Mango, “Glass at medieval Constantinople: preliminary scientific evidence”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 333-356, esp. 334 and 338, for the early Byzantine period. 38 On the Constantinopolitan mint see Grierson and Mayes, Late Roman Coins, 61. 39 These are detailed in CPG 4305-4495 and CPG Suppl. 265-289. The definition of genuine is somewhat variable. See most recently S. Voicu, “L’immagine di Crisostomo negli spuri”, in M. Wallraff and R. Brändle (eds), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren. Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105 (Berlin and New York 2008) 61-96. 40 Ad Theodorum lapsum Bks 1-2 (CPG 4305), Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae Bks 1-3 (CPG 4307), De compunctione Bks 1-2 (CPG 4308-4309), Ad Stagirium a daemone vexatum Bks 1-3 (CPG 4310), Contra eos qui subintroductas habent virgines (CPG 4311), Quod regulares feminae viris cohabitare non debeant (CPG 4312), De virginitate (CPG 4313), Ad viduam iuniorem (CPG 4314), De non iterando coniugio (CPG 4315), De sacerdotio Bks 1-6 (CPG 4316). There is still some hesitation about the status of the treatise Comparatio regis et monachi (CPG 4500), which Geerard lists as dubious and Voicu, “L’immagine”, rejects, but others accept as genuine, e.g., D. Hunter, 76 John Chrysostom on poverty be harmed by anything except themselves,41 the topic of poverty is raised in brief. In regard to the letters, because they all stem from the period of his exile (404-407) where the primary preoccupation is rehabilitation, poverty is of little concern, except occasionally in regard to the welfare of John’s supporters in Constantinople,42 or tangentially in letters addressed to or concerning monks (voluntary poor) who are active in the mission field in Phoenicia.43 The topic is also raised by him in regard to its role in voluntary poverty in a letter to the deacon and ascetic Olympias,44 although again it is not treated centrally. It is in his homilies that the topic of poverty receives the most detailed and, at times, focused attention. Aside from the usual problems associated with the utilisation of homilies as a source, in the case of those of John Chrysostom the task of determining which homilies originate in Antioch and which in Constantinople, and therefore the identity of their audience and context, is particularly problematic.45 Consequently any assessment of how his discourse on poverty developed over time remains conjectural. A small number of external sources provide fragments of information about John’s pastoral activities in regard to the poor as bishop of Constantinople. They include the model legal defence of John composed in 408 by his supporter, Palladius, bishop of Hellenopolis;46 the funeral oration composed in late 407 or early 408 by another supporter, known as ps-Martyrius;47 and the record of the charges brought against John at the Synod of the Oak, preserved in the ninth century by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople.48 Contextual data concerning Antioch and its territorium at the time that John Chrysostom resided there are provided by Libanius, one of the premier sophists of the city, among whose output there survives a substantial body of letters, orations and literary exercises.49 None of these additional sources is free of bias, and, as is the case with the Chrysostomic corpus itself, reading the data concerning poverty that they contain requires care. “Borrowings from Libanius in the Comparatio Regis et Monachi of St. John Chrysostom”, Journal of Theological Studies NS 39 (1988) 525-531, who dates the work to c. 379. 41 Quod nemo laeditur nisi a se ipso (CPG 4400). 42 Ep. 122; PG 52, 676 (Marcianus is commended for his philanthropy towards the poor); and Ep. 217; PG 52, 731 (Valentinus, an enthusiastic patron of the poor, is exhorted to extend his support to a crisis situation involving widows and virgins). Cf. Ep. 225; PG 52, 735 (to Constantius, a presbyter elsewhere who is engaged, among other activites, in poor relief). Cf. Chapter 2.2.3, above. 43 Epp. 53, 55, 123, 126; PG 52, 637-640, 676-678, 685-687. 44 Ep. 8 ad Olymp.; SC 13bis, 158-216, at 176-180. 45 The problematic is discussed at length in W. Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance. Reshaping the Foundations, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 273 (Rome 2005) 315-513. 46 Dialogus de vita Iohannis Chrysostomi; SC 341. 47 M. Wallraff (ed.) and C. Ricci (trans.), Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi (Ps.Martyrius Antiochenus, BHG 871, CPG 6517), Quaderni della Rivista di Bizantinistica (Spoleto 2007). 48 Bibl. cod. 59; SC 342, 100-114. 49 See R. Foerster (ed.), Libanii opera, 8 vols (Leipzig 1903-1915). 77 Wendy Mayer 3. MODELS 3.1. Ascetic models The living models available to John for emulation during his own formation were all practitioners of Syrian asceticism. These were the ascetic teachers Diodore and Carterius, and the bishops of the Nicene 2 community in Antioch, Meletius and Flavian. During his career he came into close contact with yet other Syrian-trained ascetics including Acacius, bishop of Beroea, and Isaac, the acknowledged leader of the Constantinopolitan ascetical community. With the exception of Palladius,50 all of the sources agree that John’s own training as an ascetic in Antioch was urban, involved being mentored and taught in schools identified with specific ascetical teachers (most likely modelled on traditional agora-based philosophical and rhetorical schools), and was conducted in the company of other young men for all of whom there was a close link between baptism and askesis.51 In the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates and Sozomen, John attends church assiduously during this period and is trained by ascetic masters in two different asketeria.52 When speaking in praise of one of those teachers, Diodore, who was later visiting Antioch from his see of Tarsus, John says that he led an apostolic life, owning nothing in private, but being fed by others and devoting himself to the teaching of Scripture and prayer.53 This description of Diodore’s activities fits neatly with the style of asceticism ps-Martyrius attributes to his pupil John, that is, the reading of Scripture and constant prayer.54 Flavian, who prior to his ordination to the priesthood helped to shepherd the Nicene community on and off through the middle half of the fourth century,55 had undergone a similar ascetical formation.56 Diodore and Flavian were not the only ascetics to provide leadership. In the mid 360s-370s when the Nicene community led by Meletius was banned from the churches of Antioch, they were joined by the Syrian hermit Aphraat in caring for the community’s spiritual and pastoral needs.57 Consequently within the local Christian 50 For the argument that the monastic training that Palladius described is both Egyptian and anachronistic and is therefore to be discounted see M. Illert, Johannes Chrysostomus und das antiochenisch-syrische Mönchtum. Studien zu Theologie, Rhetorik und Kirchenpolitik im antiochenischen Schrifttum des Johannes Chrysostomus (Zürich and Freiburg i.Br. 2000) 95-102. See also W. Mayer, “What does it mean to say that John Chrysostom was a monk?”, StP 41 (2006) 451455. 51 See Illert, Mönchtum, 95-102. 52 Socrates, HE 6.3.2-6; GCS NF 1, 313-314; Sozomen, HE 8.2.5-7; Fontes Christiani 73/4, 954-956. 53 John Chrys., Laus Diodori; PG 52, 764, ll. 21-28. 54 Ps-Mart., Oratio funebris 6-7; Wallraff (ed.) and Ricci (trans.), 48-50. 55 So John Chrys., In Eustathium; PG 50, 604-606, claims that Flavian took over their care when Eustathius was exiled c. 327 until Meletius was consecrated bishop in 360 (supported by Theodoret, HE 2.24.7-11; GCS NF 5, 154). Theodoret, Hist. rel. 8.6-7; SC 234, 384-388, and HE 4.25; GCS NF 5, 263-264, details how Flavian and Diodore held the community together during Meletius’ exiles. 56 On the long-standing nature of the connection between Flavian and Diodore see Theodoret, HE 2.24.7-11; GCS NF 5, 155, where as laymen Flavian and Diodore led protest vigils in Antioch’s martyria at the ordination by Leontius (c. 355) of the radical homooian Aetius to the diaconate. 57 Theodoret, Hist. rel. 8.8; SC 234, 388-392, and HE 4.25.6; GCS NF 5, 264. 78 John Chrysostom on poverty community to which John attached himself in Antioch following his secular studies, he was surrounded from the beginning by leaders all formed within the same tradition. The probable influence of this peculiarly Syrian style of ascetical formation on both his theology and understanding of poverty and caritative activity needs constantly to be borne in mind. It is also important to note that the role of evergetism in the model of asceticism within which John was raised could be variable. Whereas Diodore is said to have owned nothing in private and to have been the recipient of the benefaction of others when it came to daily necessities, Flavian kept his patrimony, requiring no personal support and instead using his private wealth and property to support needy strangers.58 The latter approach is not dissimilar to the practice that John later encountered in some circles in Constantinople, where the extraordinarily wealthy ascetical widow Olympias bestowed her largesse on a wide range of institutions and individuals in addition to the Nicene ecclesiastical establishment, while retaining properties within the city and sufficient wealth to continue to assist John in his exile even after paying a substantial fine in gold on her own behalf.59 The impact of John’s intense scriptural training under Diodore and Carterius, which followed a local north-west Syrian approach to scriptural interpretation,60 should also not be minimised. As Clark argues, at this period there was an intimate connection between ascetic reading and the ascetic body, in which the development of strategies for reading Scripture within a framework of renunciation played a major role.61 She categorises John Chrysostom’s own strategy as one in which he seeks to marry both the scriptural past and the Christian present so that his approach to the household is to argue for the importance of marriage, while urging that the household be run on ascetic lines, excepting the requirement of virginity.62 This readings of his approach to Scripture in regard to renunciation and gender meshes with the readings of Hartney, who views John’s promotion of almsgiving, not virginity, as the highest virtue as influenced by his ascetical reading of Scripture.63 While John’s approach to askesis within households excuses the requirement of virginity for the general Christian 58 See W. Mayer, “Poverty and generosity towards the poor in the time of John Chrysostom”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 140-158, at 146-147. 59 See Mayer, “Poverty and generosity”, 143. 60 For a summary of the status quaestionis with regard to current approaches to the so-called “school of Antioch” and where it situates itself in relation to other exegetical models see R. Laird, St John Chrysostom and the čėƶĖđ. The Critical Faculty Accountable for Sin in His Anthropology, Early Christian Studies (Strathfield, forthcoming). For greater detail see E.A. Clark, Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton 1999) 70-78; and H. Amirav, Rhetoric and Tradition. Chrysostom on Noah and the Flood, Traditio exegetica Graeca 12 (Leuven 2003). 61 Clark, Reading Renunciation, esp. 58. 62 Clark, Reading Renunciation, 156-162. 63 See Hartney, Transformation of the City, esp. ch. 6-11. E. Makris Walsh sees almsgiving as central to John’s scripturally-based theology: E. Makris Walsh, “Overcoming Gender. Virgins, Widows and Barren Women in the Writings of St John Chrysostom, 386-397”, unpub. PhD diss. (Washington, DC 1994); and ead., “Wealthy and impoverished widows in the writings of St. John Chrysostom”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 176-186. 79 Wendy Mayer community and in this respect differs to some extent from the teachings of his near contemporary Basil of Caesarea on almsgiving, there is a certain shared background in their linking of the requirement of generosity and baptism regarding the ascetic and, by extension, civic life.64 Although there is no indication that Basil’s own caritative activities in Cappadocia, as exemplified in the basileias, were a direct model for John,65 it is possible that via one of John’s mentors, Meletius, and the passion for the neo-Nicene cause that Meletius and Basil shared, Basil and his circle contributed indirectly to the caritative models which John had available to him.66 3.2. Philosophical models Regardless of John’s own rhetoric arguing for the superiority of the Christian philosophic life (asceticism) over that promoted by Greek philosophers,67 the link between Syrian asceticism and the Greek philosophical traditions that circulated in Antioch is an intimate one. For instance, the lifestyle pursued by John’s mentor, Diodore, that John himself praises in his encomium to the effect that Diodore owned nothing in private and relied on others for his food,68 could as readily describe an adherence by that individual to a Cynic as to a Christian form of asceticism.69 At the same time, the paideia shared by all late-antique males who had access to the full secular educational programme was infused with a broad range of Greek philosophical ideas. Given John’s own education within the grammatical and rhetorical schools of Antioch prior to his ascetical training, it is thus not surprising that certain of the same ideas regarding the character and pursuit of virtue and the importance of detachment from wealth are to be found alike in the orations of Libanius and Themistius and in the teachings of John Chrysostom.70 All three shared a similar oratorical training, and at 64 For this in Basil’s teachings see P. Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley, CA 1994) 178. This was not necessarily a consistent strand in Basil’s thought, but is certainly linked to his ascetic ideals. 65 On Basil’s foundation of the basileias and his activities in Caesarea see Holman, The Hungry Are Dying, 74-76. 66 On the connection between Basil and Meletius see Rousseau, Basil, 288-305. 67 See G. Dorival, “Cyniques et chrétiens au temps des pères grecs”, in M. Soetard (ed.), Valeurs dans le stoïcisme. Du portique à nos jours. Textes rassemblés en homage à Michel Spanneut (Lille 1993) 63-65. 68 See n. 53 above. 69 On the voluntary poverty that informs radical Cynicism see W.D. Desmond, The Greek Praise of Poverty. Origins of Ancient Cynicism (Notre Dame, IN 2006) 6 and 17. 70 Cf., for example, Themistius, Or. 21; ed. G. Downey and A.F. Norman, Themistii orationes quae supersunt, vol. 2 (Leipzig 1971) 32; trans. R.J. Penella, The Private Orations of Themistius (Berkeley, CA 2000) 72-73, and John Chrys., De Lazaro conc. 6; PG 48, 1033-1034. In both the audience is encouraged to pity the wealthy for their spiritual poverty, and not to respect the outward display of wealth, but look to a person’s inner virtue. The similarities in the approach towards wealth and poverty between John and Libanius have recently been detailed by J. Maxwell, “Shifting attitudes toward education and social class in John Chrysostom and Libanius”, paper delivered at Antioch Day, Seminar of the Center for the Study of Early Christianity, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 20 March 2009. 80 John Chrysostom on poverty times in John Chrysostom’s works the difference between his own message regarding wealth and poverty and that of the Greek philosophical tradition on which it is based resides more in the way in which the idea is framed than in its content.71 We have already referred to John’s treatise Quod nemo laeditur, which in its arguments and message is profoundly Stoic.72 Viansino, who has analysed at length the philosophical underpinnings of John’s teachings on poverty, wealth and almsgiving, uncovers in addition to numerous traces of the Cynic and Stoic ethics Aristotelian, Platonic, and the occasional Epicurean element.73 He also demonstrates that this is not a phenomenon unique to the discourse employed by John, in that some of these same Stoic and Cynic ideas are to be found in the works of earlier eastern Christian writers and in at least one of John’s contemporaries, Gregory of Nazianzus. The point to be made here is that in assessing the discourse of John and other eastern bishops on the topics of poverty, wealth, virtue, and evergetism one should not expect it to be either novel or uniquely Christian, but rather deeply rooted in the Greek philosophical tradition. Their distinction lies rather in the way that they filter long-existing philosophical tropes through the Christian Scriptures, transforming them in the process into a specifically Christian ethic. 4. JOHN’S DISCOURSE ON POVERTY AND ALMSGIVING In this section we analyse John’s discourse on poverty and almsgiving and the required response to it from the perspective of the categories of poverty that he addresses or describes. Because he addresses the topics of poverty and almsgiving so frequently in his corpus and because his discourse has been analysed by earlier scholars either 71 On John’s exploitation of other images and concepts from Greek philosophy see T. Nikolaou, Der Neid bei Johannes Chrysostomus, unter Berücksichtigung der griechischen Philosophie, Abhandlungen zu Philosophie, Psychologie und Pädagogik 56 (Bonn 1969); A.-I. Bouton-Touboulic, “Présence des ‘Moralia’ de Plutarque chez les auteurs chrétiens des IVe et Ve siècles”, Pallas 67 (2005) 95-113; K. Bosinis, “Two platonic images in the rhetoric of John Chrysostom: ‘the wings of love’ and ‘the charioteer of the soul’”, StP 41 (2006) 433-438; and Laird, Chrysostom and the čėƶĖđ, forthcoming. Stötzel, Kirche als “neue Gesellschaft”, documents at length the contribution made by Greek philosophy to John’s vocabulary and thought. On the influence of Greek paideia in general on other aspects of his thought see Tloka, Griechische Christen; and K. Bosinis, Johannes Chrysostomus über das Imperium Romanum. Studie zum politischen Denken der Alten Kirche (Birmingham 2006). 72 On the negative relationship between attachment to wealth and virtue in relation to the promotion of the true philosophy in this treatise see A. Cioffi, “L’eredità filosofica e retorica (diatriba e sentenza) nel ‘Quod nemo laeditur nisi a seipso’ di Giovanni Crisostomo”, Nicolaus 6 (1978) 3-45; and id., “Giovanni Crisostomo e il ‘vero’ filosofo”, in Giovanni Crisostomo. Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 93 (Rome 2005) 513-520. On Stoic reflections in John’s teaching, including this text, see A.-M. Malingrey, “Résonances stoïciennes dans l’oeuvre de Jean Chrysostome”, Diotima. Revue de recherche philosophique 7 (1979) 116-121. 73 G. Viansino, “Aspetti dell’opera di Giovanni Crisostomo”, Koinonia 25 (2001) 137-205. See also the earlier work of A. Ferrari, “Las dos ciudades”, who, in analysing the 90 homilies on Matthew and 55 on Acts, sees largely Stoic influences in John’s emphasis on “the simple life” and related aspects of his discourse on wealth, poverty, evergesia, and virtue. 81 Wendy Mayer thematically or from the perspective of the chief scriptural exempla that he exploits, here we may subject their conclusions to scrutiny from a somewhat different angle. If we bear in mind that the boundaries of the terms used to describe the types of poverty represented in John Chrysostom’s discourse are frequently blurred, that movement occurs between and within categories over the course of a person’s life, and that John himself could describe the same individuals or groups within the communities he addresses in a number of different ways, in essence three broad categories of poverty can be found in his discourse. These are socio-economic poverty (related to level of wealth and capacity to survive), spiritual poverty (related to an individual’s value system), and voluntary poverty (ascetic practice). When John refers to concrete examples of each, he is addressing one of two specific social contexts, Antiochene or Constantinopolitan, and, whether he speaks in abstract or concrete terms, he is again addressing an audience situated within one of those two contexts. As indicated in the preceding sections, this nuancing of his discourse is important, but complicated by the difficulty frequently encountered in regard to his homilies in determining precisely which of these two audiences is engaged. 4.1. Socio-economic poverty Within John’s discourse we find all three categories of economic poverty described in the literature outlined in Chapter 1.1.3. (endemic, episodic, and epidemic).74 In surveying these, we need to draw a careful distinction between what John himself means when he refers to “poverty” and “the poor” and how he indicates that the terms are understood when used by members of his audience. At the one end of the spectrum he makes reference to the volatility of wealth and to the speed with which individuals who enjoy extreme wealth and power can slip into destitution. While the underlying causal factor in the cases to which he refers is usually not economic, that is, poor management of assets, but political, with the individual stripped of assets and honours by the emperor or a senior imperial official, John himself usually frames the cause as a failure in morality or virtue. An event of this kind that took place one month previously in Constantinople is alluded to in Quod frequenter conveniendum sit (CPG 4441.3). There the individual’s current sufferings are attributed exclusively to greed (ĠēĕęġěđĖċĞưċ, ĚĕďęėďĘưċ).75 In addition we are told that the consequences are so momentous that they affect the entire city,76 a clear indication that the individual is prominent, either politically or socially. His property has been broadly redistributed;77 the individual in question is currently without a home, without a city and lacks even the most basic essentials; he has fled beyond the borders and fears momentarily for his 74 The following survey is by no means comprehensive – there are also cases in his homilies in which economic poverty is evoked as an isolated exemplum. E.g., in In peccata fratrum non evulganda; PG 51, 353-355, cited below. 75 PG 63, 461, ll. 22-25 and ll. 35-38. 76 PG 63, 461, ll. 25-27. 77 PG 63, 461, ll. 31-35. 82 John Chrysostom on poverty life.78 Those who once flattered him now plot against him; others enjoy his possessions.79 The level of destitution depicted in this case is extreme and not entirely rare. Other spectacular evaporations of wealth, including that experienced by the eunuchconsul Eutropius,80 are adduced as compelling moral examples at Constantinople. At Antioch, because of the presence in the city of powerful imperial officials, John was able to evoke similar concrete examples, while speaking in more generic terms.81 In a homily of less certain provenance John talks of a slightly different scenario involving the loss of wealth. There, adducing the parable about building on rock instead of sand (Matt 7:24-27), he remarks that there are numerous examples in cities where houses, slaves, and entire patrimonies have been lost to the owners’ enemies. In this case he claims that he could list individual sufferers by name, but remains silent to spare their feelings.82 The mania of wealth Each of these examples of slippage from wealth into poverty is used to make a particular point. In the latter example, it is that in heaven one does not have to fear that when one dies another enemy will turn up and take over the patrimony, since the dwellings of the saints that are the sole housing there are imperishable. One should therefore spend one’s money on building the latter kind of dwelling. To do so requires no architects or labourers, since it is the hands of the poor (ĚƬėđĞďĜ, that is, the lame, the blind, and the crippled) that build them. Almsgiving (őĕďđĖęĝƴėđ) is in itself a craft and a patroness of those who practise it.83 In the homily delivered at Antioch (In Colossenses homilia 7), the exemplum of dramatic slippage from wealth and power by public officials is the beginning of a lengthy polemic about the insubstantial nature of wealth, the madness wealth fosters, and the dishonour that is in reality exhibited when one is held in honour on the basis of one’s possessions.84 Smash all of these absurd possessions, John argues, and give to the poor (ĚƬėđĞďĜ) instead.85 Such is the madness 78 PG 63, 461, ll. 38-42. PG 63, 461, ll. 43-44. 80 This is discussed at length in W. Mayer, “The audience(s) for Patristic social teaching: a case study”, in J. Leemans, B. Matz, and J. Verstraeten (eds), Patristic Social Ethics. Issues and Challenges, CUA Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, DC, forthcoming). 81 See In Col. hom. 7; PG 62, 347, ll. 5-13, and the analysis in P. Allen and W. Mayer, “Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: a new approach to the twelve homilies In epistulam ad Colossenses (CPG 4433)”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 60 (1994) 21-39, esp. 30-34. 82 In Heb. hom. 18; PG 63, 222, ll. 48-54. On the uncertain provenance of that homily see P. Allen and W. Mayer, “The thirty-four homilies on Hebrews: the last series delivered by Chrysostom in Constantinople?”, Byzantion 65 (1995) 309-348. Cf. In illud: ne timueris hom. 1; PG 55, 502, ll. 3841, where he claims that his audience is familiar with countless examples in their city of the untimely demise of wealth, where the individual lives on, but the wealth perishes. 83 In Heb. hom. 18; PG 63, 222, l. 54-223, l. 11. 84 PG 62, 347-350. 85 PG 62, 350, ll. 48-50. 79 83 Wendy Mayer that wealth induces that the church is surrounded by the poor (ĚƬėđĞďĜ) and yet, despite the wealth of the baptised, not a single church-goer comes to their aid. While the rich get drunk and relieve themselves in silver chamber pots, the poor starve.86 Here the rhetoric is pushed to extremes in order to invert traditional values of shame and honour and to shame the audience into action.87 In regard to the two Constantinopolitan homilies, in In Eutropium the plight of Eutropius becomes the focus for an extended reflection on the insubstantiality and instability of power and wealth, leading John to invoke Eutropius involuntarily as his co-teacher in his message concerning poverty and wealth.88 Eutropius’ fate, his presence and the consequences of his actions are woven into John’s instruction as a powerful demonstration of the truth of his message. Simply from seeing this most powerful and wealthy man brought so low, he expects that rich persons would have their arrogance knocked out of them and would depart reflecting on human affairs in the philosophical way that they ought. The poor should be comforted by the realisation that their poverty affords them security. In Quod frequenter conveniendum sit the lesson drawn from the example of slippage is different yet again. Embarking on the topic of the mania associated with wealth, John provides contrast to his contemporary example by adducing both Moses and Elijah as examples of figures who voluntarily rejected wealth in favour of a life of simple poverty89 – in the case of Elijah, he describes this as “the angelic philosophy” (ž Ğƭė ŁččďĕēĔƭė ĠēĕęĝęĠưċė őĚƯ Ğȥė ŕěčęė [sic] ĎďȉĘċĜ).90 From there, however, as he adduces the NT exempla Peter and Paul, his focus shifts so that by the end of the homily the topics of wealth and its opposite are abandoned in favour of how God demonstrated their weakness and showed that we can achieve nothing without his help.91 Wealth and poverty as ‘indifferents’ In his discourse John adduces not only those who have slid into destitution from extremes of wealth, but also those lower on the economic scale who are vulnerable to slippage or who vacillate above and below subsistence level. In De Anna homilia 1, delivered in Antioch,92 John adduces the example of how many agricultural workers, since they live in direst poverty (őė ĚďėưǪ ĐȥėĞďĜ őĝġƪĞǹ) and do not have sufficient silver coin to purchase an ox or a sheep, are obliged to approach their landlord for up to 86 PG 62, 351, l. 8-352, l. 1. For a further analysis of the discourse in this homily and on possessions see Mitchell, “Silver chamber pots”. 88 PG 52, 393-395. 89 MS Stavronikita 6, folia 62v-63r, which fills in the lacuna at PG 63, 464, l. 4. 90 “…who demonstrated the angelic philosophy in regard to possessions”: Stav. 6, folio 63r b 10-14. John clearly styles him as an ascetic. 91 PG 63, 464-468. 92 The homily was delivered after Easter 387, as indicated by the clear reference to his return from Constantinople following the riots in Lent that year and the mention of the presence of rural-dwellers during the martyr festivals that followed (PG 54, 634, ll. 7-24). 84 87 John Chrysostom on poverty half the cost, on the promise of being able to repay the debt from the coming harvest.93 This practice is contrasted with the actions of Samuel’s mother, Hannah, who did not promise to repay a percentage, but gave her entire son to God in payment of her debt. Here economic poverty is marginal to exploring Hannah’s virtue in desiring a child not for her own benefit, but for God’s. Later in the homily poverty itself becomes the focus of discussion. There, returning to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, John argues that criticism of God, whether one is rich or poor, does not result naturally from either condition, but is a matter of choice or free will. One of John’s reasons for reading the parable to his audience is to show that not even wealth can benefit the person who is lazy, while not even poverty can harm the person who is alert. It is neither poverty nor sickness that compels a person to curse God, but rather disposition or dereliction of virtue.94 A similar idea is expressed in the homily In peccata fratrum non evulganda, in which the working poor are likewise adduced. There he argues that being rich is not in itself bad but rather the bad use of wealth; nor is poverty inherently good, but that virtue attaches to the good use of poverty, for example, patience, and enduring one’s lot with a thankful heart.95 In both instances the Stoic principle of wealth and poverty as indifferents is close to the surface of John’s discourse.96 The benefits of poverty In De Anna homilia 5 John approaches the role of this sector of society in quite a different way. There, in arguing for the goodness of divine providence, he takes to task those who condemn God when they observe economic inequality.97 The existence of wealth and poverty, he argues, is on the contrary direct proof of God’s providence. If one were to take away poverty, one would take away everything that holds life together and destroy our life. The necessity of poverty sits over each of them and compels them, even though unwilling, to their labour. If everyone were rich, everyone would live in idleness, and so everything would perish.98 The inequality between rich and poor that is 93 PG 54, 641, ll. 15-20. Concrete references to agricultural workers of this kind may well be significant in the context of Antioch. One of the few obvious distinctions between each city was the likelihood of encounter between agricultural workers and city-dwellers. At Constantinople goods and taxes in kind were largely brought in by ship, whereas at Antioch local producers from the surrounding countryside came into the city in person to market their wares. See De b. Philogonio; PG 48, 749, where John describes the delivery of sheep, cattle, barley, wheat, and other produce by vendors. 94 De Lazaro conc. 3; PG 48, 1002. 95 PG 51, 355, l. 45-356, l. 16. Cf. In Illud Isaiae: ego dominus deus feci lumen (CPG 4418); PG 56, 147-148; and In 1 Cor. hom. 11; PG 61, 94, ll. 32-34. Regarding the discourse on poverty that emerges from John’s exegesis of this parable see W. Mayer, “John Chrysostom’s use of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)”, Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique 4 (2008) 45-59. 96 This is a common theme in John’s homilies. See In illud: ne timueris hom. 1; PG 55, 503, l. 47-504, l. 3; In illud Isaiae: ego dominus; PG 56, 147-148; and Viansino, “Aspetti”, 151 n. 44. 97 PG 54, 672, l. 53-673, l. 9. 98 PG 54, 673, ll. 13-24. 85 Wendy Mayer commonly perceived may exist as part of God’s divine plan, but it is not unjust in reality, since it ceases to be inequitable when viewed from another angle. The audience may believe that a rich person possesses more than one who is poor, but in fact this is not the case.99 A rich person may have Thasian wine and many other cocktails to drink, but the city’s fountains provide water for rich and poor alike. Water is more essential and useful than wine, and in this lies the poor person’s true wealth.100 John then proceeds to show how the poor in fact possess more than the rich in regard to physical health, since they eat only what is essential.101 Likewise, being childless is no burden for the poor person, while the rich person agonises about who will inherit his assets.102 Even in death the poor person is better off. The rich clothing the wealthy person is buried in attracts grave-robbers, who strip the body naked, while the cheap clothing on the poor corpse preserves it from nudity.103 Beggars In De eleemosyna, a third category of the Antioch poor, beggars (ĚĞƶġęē), are the focus of John’s discourse.104 Their sufferings are said to be particularly bad in winter, when the weather makes homelessness unpleasant.105 While some beggars are permanently incapable of achieving subsistence due to physical disabilities, for example, amputated hands, missing eyes, and incurable sores,106 others are reduced to begging for only part of the year because of their dependence on seasonal labour. In summer, John claims, 99 Throughout the arguments that follow John appears to maintain the equation between the artisanal class and the poor, but at one point segues into talking about beggars. See PG 54, 674, ll. 52-58, where he evokes the image of a rich man lying on a soft mattress, with domestic slaves and servinggirls at his beck and call, who hears a poor person (ĚƬėđĜ = ĚěęĝċưĞđĜ) crying out in the street below, begging for bread. 100 PG 54, 673, ll. 39-56. 101 PG 54, 673, l. 57-674, l. 60. 102 PG 54, 674, l. 60-675, l. 14. 103 PG 54, 675, ll. 13-34. 104 PG 51, 261, ll. 1-6, where John claims the beggars have elected him their ambassador. Similarly Augustine calls himself the legatus of the poor: see Chapter 4.4.2. It is to be noted that beggars, as opposed to those barely at subsistence level and those who slipped in and out of indigence as a result of employment as seasonal labourers, are unlikely to have been present in the audience at either Antioch or Constantinople. They are in the main referred to by John as situated outside the doors of the church soliciting those who enter and emerge. See, e.g., In Matth. hom. 89/90; PG 58, 786, ll. 3-8; De paen. hom. 3; PG 49, 294, ll. 16-17 and ll. 37-40; In 1 Cor. hom. 30; PG 61, 255, ll. 31-34; In I Thess. hom. 11; PG 62, 466, ll. 19-29; In Col. hom. 7; PG 62, 351, ll. 8-11. When he refers to the rich as receiving the eucharist next to the poor (e.g., In 1 Cor. hom. 27; PG 61, 230-231), it is most likely to other categories of poverty that he is referring. See, however, Cat. 2.13; SC 50bis, 140, ll. 1-8, were John explicitly describes beggars and the wealthy and powerful communing together. If this reflects reality, rather than representing hyperbole, it is the exception rather than the rule. For a contrary view see J. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity. John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge 2006) 70-72. 105 PG 51, 261, ll. 39-45. Cf. Ad Stagirium 3.13; PG 47, 490, ll. 31-56, in which John similarly describes the plight of the homeless in Antioch. 106 PG 51, 261, ll. 8-11. 86 John Chrysostom on poverty work is easier to find, since the building and shipping industries take on temporary workers, as do agricultural enterprises.107 To add to the picture, whether due to seasonal variation in employment opportunity or natural disaster, many of those currently begging in the city are not even citizens of Antioch, but have fled there from elsewhere, creating suspicion and resentment.108 Thus in this one homily it becomes apparent that the class of beggars is far from homogeneous. It includes the disabled and able-bodied, those who are permanently reduced to begging, unskilled labourers at the mercy of the local economy, local citizens, and strangers driven by circumstances to seek out alms in a well-populated and prosperous city. Elsewhere John indicates that the strategies adopted by the more “professional” of the beggars vary widely. In some instances they resort, successfully, to becoming street entertainers.109 In others they compete for scarce alms by maiming their children or stripping their wives naked to make their family appear more pitiful.110 The fact that those homilies where beggars are adduced that can be attributed to one city or the other with certainty stem predominantly from Antioch should not be taken as evidence that beggars became of less utility to John in his discourse on poverty once he arrived in Constantinople.111 Similarly, the fact that examples of slippage into destitution from positions of wealth and power occur in homilies more readily attributable to Constantinople should not be taken as an indication that such exempla were more common and therefore of greater utility to the preacher at that location. Given our limited ability to determine the provenance of the Chrysostomic homiletic corpus, it is impossible to determine whether this apparent distribution is genuine or constitutes a false impression. õċƯ ĞċƴĞđĜ Ďƫ ęƉĔ őĕƪĞĞęėċ ŕġęğĝēė ŒĞƬěċė ĚċěċĖğĒưċė, Ğƭė ĞǻĜ őěčċĝưċĜ ďƉĔęĕưċėä ęŮ čƩě ĞƩĜ ęŭĔưċĜ ęŭĔęĎęĖęƴĖďėęē, ĔċƯ ęŮ Ğƭė čǻė ĝĔƪĚĞęėĞďĜ, ĔċƯ ęŮ Ğƭė Ēƪĕċĝĝċė ĚĕƬęėĞďĜ, ĞǻĜ ĞęƴĞģė ĖƪĕēĝĞċ ĎƬęėĞċē ĝğėďěčưċĜ (PG 51, 261, ll. 31-35). őė Ďƫ ĞǼ ĞęȘ ġďēĖȥėęĜ ƞěǪ...ĞƱ Ďƭ ĚƪėĞģė ġċĕďĚƶĞďěęė, ęƉĎƫ őěčċĝưċĜ ĞưĜ őĝĞēė ċƉĞęȉĜ ďƉĚęěưċä ęƉ čƩě őĚēĞěƬĚďē ĞęȘ ŕĞęğĜ Ş ƞěċ (PG 51, 261, ll. 39-47). 108 ʼnĕĕċ ĞưĜ ċƉĞȥė Ş ďƉĚěƲĝģĚęĜ ĚěƲĠċĝēĜä ïěċĚƬĞċē ĞēėƬĜ ďŭĝē, ĠđĝƯ, ĔċƯ ĘƬėęē, ĔċƯ ĖċĝĞēčưċē, ĔċƯ ĞƩĜ ċƉĞȥė ŁĠƬėĞďĜ ĚċĞěưĎċĜ, ďŭĜ Ğƭė ŞĖďĞƬěċė ĚƲĕēė ĝğȖȗƬęğĝē. ïēƩ ĞęȘĞę ęƏė ŁčċėċĔĞďȉĜ, ďŭĚƬ Ėęē, ĔċƯ ĞƱė ĝĞƬĠċėęė ĞǻĜ ĚƲĕďģĜ ĎēċĞưĕĕďēĜ, ƂĞē ĔęēėƱė ĕēĖƬėċ ĚƪėĞďĜ ċƉĞƭė ďųėċē ėęĖưĐęğĝē, ĔċƯ ĞǻĜ őėďčĔęƴĝđĜ Ğƭė ŁĕĕęĞěưċė ĚěęĞēĒƬċĝēà ïēƩ ĞęȘĞę Ėƫė ęƏė ŁčƪĕĕďĝĒċē ŕĎďē ĔċƯ ġċưěďēė, ƂĞē ĔċĒƪĚďě ďŭĜ ĔęēėƱė őĖĚƲěēęė ĞƩĜ ƊĖďĞƬěċĜ ġďȉěċĜ ĞěƬġęğĝēė ņĚċėĞďĜ, ĔċƯ ĖđĞƬěċ Ĕęēėƭė ďųėċē ĞċƴĞđė Ğƭė ĚƲĕēė ėęĖưĐęğĝē. (PG 51, 269, l. 65-270, l. 9). ...ĞęƳĜ ŁĕĕċġƲĒďė ĚěƱĜ ŞĖǬĜ ĔċĞċĠďƴčęėĞċĜ ... (PG 51, 270, l. 21). 109 In 1 Cor. hom. 21; PG 61, 177, ll. 54-58. On the Antiochene provenance of this homily see Mayer, Homilies, 368-369. Cf. In Rom. hom. 4; PG 60, 420, l. 58-421, l. 7, where slaves sent out of the house on an errand by their masters are said to be habitually distracted by beggars who perform conjuring tricks in the agora, and In 1 Thess. hom. 11; PG 62, 465, ll. 30-37. 110 In 1 Cor. hom. 21; PG 61, 177, ll. 26-36. 111 In In Acta apost. hom. 3; PG 60, 39, ll. 27-30, which can be connected weakly to Constantinople (see Mayer, Homilies, 328), he complains that the bishop is abused by ĚƬėđĞďĜ ĞěēģČęĕēĖċȉęē when he crosses the agora, but it is not clear that he uses the term to refer to beggars. It occurs towards the beginning of a lengthy argument in which he seeks to persuade his audience of the unenviability of the episcopal office. 107 87 Wendy Mayer Redemptive almsgiving John’s discourse on poverty naturally tends towards the promotion of almsgiving. Those who exist permanently below subsistence require material assistance to survive, and theft and begging are two of the mechanisms to which individuals at this economic level are obliged to resort in order to obtain it. That within the traditional GraecoRoman value system begging was associated with criminality has been discussed elsewhere.112 What is of interest here is how John tackles these attitudes in the service of his own moral agenda. In In Hebraeos homilia 11 he addresses at length a range of negative attitudes attached to beggars. He rebuts the common belief that the beggar, who is free, is considered of less worth than a slave, since slaves fulfill a need, by arguing that the beggar fulfils a far greater need, by standing beside the almsgiver on the day of judgement and snatching her away from the fire.113 He then strives to demonstrate the inconsistency in the values that the audience espouses. It is not the beggar who has sinned and who is in need of God’s pardon, but the audience who, on seeing a beggar wearing rags, almost dead with cold and with chattering teeth, remain unmoved and pass on by. It is absurd to bestow honour for the sake of vainglory on a corpse that is insensible of the expense of the clothing in which it is dressed, while ignoring the living body that is wracked by starvation and hypothermia and the accompanying fear of God.114 It is also absurd to criticise beggars for being lazy, when the audience themselves have not laboured to achieve what they have, but instead inherited it.115 Accusations that beggars are fraudulent, while admittedly true, should be assigned their proper root cause. It is due to the hardheartedness of those solicited that beggars are obliged to resort to stratagems. No one would choose to humiliate themselves and their families in the way that they do, if people responded instantly.116 After further refuting the belief that beggars, including those who are monks, are shameless imposters, and exhorting the audience to instead have pity, John concludes by reminding the audience of his recent argument: if one gives indiscriminately, one exercises generosity (almsgiving); but if one starts to scrutinise, it is no longer almsgiving.117 In De eleemosyna, another homily in which the topics of beggars and almsgiving coincide, John reaches the same conclusion via an entirely different tack. There he adduces the apostle Paul as the true patron and benefactor of those who live in poverty.118 It is Paul who persuades us that the poor are saints and that we should marvel at the poor who are pious and despise the rich who spurn virtue.119 This leads him to explore at length the identity of the saints referred to in 1 Corinthians 16:1 112 See Mayer, “Poverty and generosity”, 149-154. See also Chapter 1 above on pagan views of poverty and almsgiving. 113 PG 63, 93, l. 49-94, l. 5. 114 PG 63, 94, ll. 6-23. 115 PG 63, 94, ll. 24-27. 116 PG 63, 94, ll. 31-62. 117 PG 63, 95, l. 1-96, l. 15. In his concluding remarks he qualifies this in regard to voluntary poverty, as discussed in section 4.2, below. 118 PG 51, 261, ll. 48-54. 119 PG 51, 262, ll. 17-45. 88 John Chrysostom on poverty within the historical context and to explain why in 1 Corinthians 16:2 the Sabbath was nominated as the day for the collection for them.120 It was on that day that humankind was lost and found, dead and brought to life, enemies and reconciled, making it appropriate to celebrate that spiritual honour (the Sabbath being the birthday of human nature) through setting up the poorer Christians in abundance.121 This apostolic practice John hopes his audience will copy. Poverty is no barrier to such giving, since no one is as poor as the widow who gave everything (Luke 21:2-4) or as the Sidonian widow who used the last of her flour to feed Elijah (3 Kgs 17:10-17).122 He shows how it is the intent of the giver that is important and that God instituted almsgiving not just so that those in need (ęŮ ĎďƲĖďėęē) might be fed, but also so that those who provide might be the object of caritative acts (ďƉďěčďĞȥėĞċē).123 This leads him to combat the belief that giving without explicit return diminishes one’s own limited goods.124 Here he hints that one gives in expectation of future return by entrusting one’s silver coin to Christ, just as an agricultural worker does not complain when he exhausts his resources to sow a crop, through expectation of return.125 At the same time, one reason that God allows so many to live in poverty (ĚĞģġďưǪ) in the here-and-now is that poverty is more convenient for the development of virtue than wealth.126 In the end John returns to the same point that he makes in In Hebraeos homilia 11, namely that one should not scrutinise the character and circumstances of those who beg, but give generously to all.127 The direction the discourse concerning poverty and almsgiving takes in these two homilies has been discussed at length to demonstrate the diversity of John’s arguments as well as to raise awareness of themes that permeate his homilies – it is the disposition of the giver, not the character of the recipient that matters; the rich are clients of the poor; giving to the economic poor should be indiscriminate; poverty is no barrier to almsgiving; the poor exist by divine purpose; and the links between poverty, virtue, and almsgiving. Widows In addition to the rich who have fallen on hard times, those who exist at subsistence level (such as agricultural workers and artisans) and beggars, two other groups that can be associated with economic poverty emerge – widows and the relative poor. Widows 120 PG 51, 263-265. PG 51, 265, ll. 21-35. 122 PG 51, 265, ll. 47-61. 123 PG 51, 266, ll. 38-56. 124 PG 51, 268, ll. 44-47. On this belief see Mayer, “Poverty and generosity”, 153-154. 125 PG 51, 268, ll. 47-54. 126 PG 51, 268, ll. 56-62. 127 PG 51, 269-270. 121 89 Wendy Mayer are evoked as a discrete category within John’s discourse.128 This is in part because of their special status, with orphans, as recipients of Christian charity extending back to NT times, and in part because of their continuing vulnerability within late-antique society.129 The status of widow did not automatically equate with economic poverty,130 although it is the case that some wealthy widows adopted a life of voluntary poverty,131 while a percentage were reduced to either begging or reliance on charity. Thus in De mutatione nominum homilia 4 John expects that one could go outside the church and easily find a crippled, widowed beggar to cross-examine on topics like the resurrection of the body and immortality of the soul,132 while in In 1 Corinthios homilia 30 he talks of widows who, in contrast to the rest of the audience who come as they please, spend a large proportion of their time in church chanting psalms. This he attributes to their piety rather than a ploy to receive alms, since, as he says, if they wanted to, they could walk through the agora and beg in the streets.133 Even though he does not explicitly make the comparison, like Lazarus of the parable (Luke 16:19-31) they are held up as a model of those who bear abject poverty nobly, never cursing God and even blessing those who fail to give.134 In contrast to other women of their age group they choose to starve and avoid shaming themselves rather than seeking to improve their lifestyle by running brothels or acting as pimps.135 Instead, they sit in church all day long, providing for those who enter the medicine of salvation.136 The lesson they teach leads John to reflect on the mutability of human affairs, with the warning that one should not disbelieve that some few artisans and military personnel have ended up flourishing with abundant cash, since many emperors have risen from humble beginnings, but should rather pity them and fear the same change in fortune happening to oneself.137 This leads him to the imagined complaint on the part of his audience that he is always introducing the poor and beggars (ĚƬėđĞċĜ ŁďƯ ĔċƯ ĚĞģġęƳĜ) in his sermons, prophesying disaster and foretelling poverty for the audience, and trying to turn them into beggars. He refutes this, claiming that he is instead trying to open for them the treasure in heaven. It is not the person who has nothing who is poor, but rather the person who fears poverty. Fear stems from lack of experience and in this instance 128 For a now dated analysis of John’s discourse on widows see E. Makris Walsh, “Overcoming Gender”, reprised in ead., “Wealthy and impoverished widows”. 129 For a comprehensive overview see J.-U. Krause, Witwen und Waisen im Römischen Reich, 4 vols (Stuttgart 1994-1995), esp. vol. 4. 130 For examples of wealthy and powerful widows in John’s circle at Constantinople, as well as relatively impoverished but powerfully connected widows, see W. Mayer, “Constantinopolitan women in Chrysostom’s circle”, VC 53 (1999) 265-288, at 269-272 and 274-276. 131 So Olympias at Constantinople. See Mayer, “Poverty and generosity”, 143-146. 132 PG 51, 152, ll. 52-63. Whether she would be able to answer in detail and at length as he claims, however, is another matter. 133 PG 61, 254, l. 57-255, l. 2. 134 PG 61, 255, ll. 2-12. For John’s characterisation of Lazarus as a model see Mayer, “The parable of Lazarus”, 50-57. 135 PG 61, 255, ll. 12-23. 136 PG 61, 255, ll. 23-25. 137 PG 61, 255, ll. 44-62. 90 John Chrysostom on poverty opens the way for the Devil to attack. If those who fear poverty learn instead to ridicule money, the Devil loses his advantage. The motivation for such advice is the day of judgement that looms ahead, where it will become obvious whose lamp has oil (that is, almsgiving) and whose does not.138 Widows are as often referred to in a more anonymous way as a special category for whom the church provides welfare.139 We see this at Constantinople in the letter written by John to Valentinus, an elite lay patron of the poor in the city.140 John, who has been made aware by a presbyter of the plight of the widows and virgins on the church’s rolls in the aftermath of his exile, urges Valentinus to rescue them from starvation.141 At Antioch he lists the care of widows, along with virgins, prisoners, travellers, and the sick as an expenditure of the church that could be reduced, if only the laity would rise to the challenge as private benefactors.142 A similar list, augmented by individuals who serve the altar in return for clothing and food, is offered in In Matthaeum homilia 66/67, with the detail that a roll of 3,000 widows and virgins is fed daily by the church.143 In both of the latter instances, it is not widows per se who provide the impetus for John’s discourse, but the collective financial burden these individuals place upon the resources of the church. The church rolls are used by him in the last instance to support his argument for the ease with which the rich and moderately wealthy in the city could together subsidise their care, if the burden was equally distributed.144 What is important in this case is not the burden on the church, but the inhumanity of the rich, who do nothing about the situation. In response to the imagined question as to what their children would inherit, he argues that the capital 138 PG 61, 256-258. On the frequent connection in John’s writings between the parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25:1-13) and almsgiving see C. Broc-Schmezer, Les Figures féminines du Nouveau Testament dans l’oeuvre de Jean Chrysostome, Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 185 (Turnhout 2009) ch. 13. Cf. In illud: ne timueris hom. 2; PG 55, 518, ll. 7-14, where the day of judgement is likewise evoked and almsgiving is said to be “the queen of virtues”, who guarantees entry into heaven, who speaks directly to God on the defendant’s behalf, and takes away punishment. 139 Although see In illud: ne timueris hom. 2; PG 55, 515, ll. 14-15 and ll. 61-64, and 517, ll. 2-3, where orphans and widows, as well as the crippled and prisoners, are used generically to indicate categories disadvantaged when the rich spend their money instead on lavish houses and other frivolous expenditures. In this case it is unclear whether the money would have reached them directly or via the church. 140 Ep. 217; PG 52, 731. On Valentinus’ identity and status see R. Delmaire, “Les ‘lettres d’exil’ de Jean Chrysostome. Études de chronologie et de prosopographie”, Recherches Augustiniennes 25 (1991) 71-180, at 169-170. 141 Similarly in Ep. 122; PG 52, 676, John commends Marcian, a tribune at Constantinople, for taking care of the widows, orphans, and other Nicene Christians who are starving, providing for them grain, wine, oil, and other essentials. For his status see R. Delmaire, “Les ‘Lettres d’exil’ de Jean Chrysostome. Études de chronologie et de prosopographie”, Recherches Augustiniennes 25 (1991) 71-180, at 140-141 s.v. Marcianus 2. 142 In 1 Cor. hom. 21; PG 61, 180, ll. 4-17. The provenance of the homily is explicit: see Mayer, Homilies, 367-368. 143 PG 58, 630, ll. 24-35. The provenance of this homily is less certain. It is probable, however, that the list of welfare recipients of the church at both locations was similar and somewhat generic. 144 PG 58, 630, ll. 19-22. 91 Wendy Mayer would stay intact, but the income would multiply, storing up treasure for them in heaven.145 In civic liturgies, he argues, often, despite a single household bearing the expense, it scarcely notices it. If each rich person were willing to direct a liturgy towards the poor, in no time at all they would attain heaven. Letting the poor share in one’s abundant income is to become a good steward of that which God has given. Almsgiving is likened to the paying of taxes, which are compulsory, and for which failure to pay attracts a severe penalty. The penalty for the failure to share one’s income with the poor, he argues, is far worse, namely the eternal fire. The response that one’s taxes go to pay for the army who protects one from barbarians, he claims, can be transformed to argue that the taxes of alms support an army of the poor, who go to battle on one’s behalf. When they receive, through prayer they make God gracious, and when God becomes gracious he diminishes the strength of the army of demons that constantly attacks.146 Here we see developed to a greater degree the argument that failure to give alms has consequences in the afterlife, and that the economic poor have a role to play in mitigating them. The idea that wealth is not our own, but a gift from God that requires good stewardship (almsgiving) is one that appears in the discourse John develops from exegesis of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.147 The relative poor The relative poor, whom John addresses within his audience, are more difficult to define in objective economic terms. They are clearly neither indigent nor part of the upper end of the top economic level and most probably belonged to the second level or to the lower end of the first.148 These are the people who consider themselves poor by comparison with the top economic echelon of society. In In illud: ne timueritis homilia 1 John raises the probable excuse of the men in his audience in regard to their poor attendance: “I have children, I run a household, I have the worry of a wife, I’m 145 PG 58, 630, ll. 37-40. PG 58, 630-631. 147 See De Lazaro conc. 2; PG 48, 988, ll. 6-32, where he argues that money is the Lord’s regardless of its source. The rich person’s role is as executor of money that belongs to one’s fellow servants of God and which ought therefore to be distributed to the poor. 148 Three basic economic levels are to be distinguished in both Antioch and Constantinople: landowners of high to relatively high social standing; individuals with an independent means of support but no land; and those in possession of less than 50 nomismata or unable to guarantee their subsistence from day to day. See L.A. Schachner, “Social life in late antiquity: a bibliographic essay”, in W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge, and C. Machado (eds), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, Late Antique Archaeology 3.1 (Leiden 2006) 41-93, at 41-55. The first level typically comprised civic and imperial officials, members of the resident senate/council, military aristocracy, bishops and wealthier clergy, lawyers, and the more prominent doctors and teachers (on Antioch see Liebeschuetz, Antioch, 41-51). John and Libanius both belonged to this level. In both cities the second level will have comprised artisans, shopkeepers, soldiers without land, poorer clergy, and minor professionals. 92 146 John Chrysostom on poverty constrained by poverty, I’m focused on getting enough to eat”149 . While he accepts as valid this self-categorisation, but not the excuse, he shows later that among these same people who consider themselves poor the women wear gold jewellery around their necks and on their hands.150 The lessons to be learnt in church (the ephemeral character of wealth;151 that wealth lies not in being wealthy, but in not wanting to be wealthy;152 that the wealthy are not to be feared, but to be pitied, while poverty is rich in philosophy and patience),153 John argues, are a protection against the envy of the poor person for the ultra-wealthy and medication for the soul. This leads him to posit, as elsewhere, that wealth and poverty are indifferents, and that virtue resides in the proper use of wealth (almsgiving), that stores up reward in heaven.154 In In Philippenses homilia 2 John addresses his audience’s envy of the “rich”, but indicates that their own “poverty” does not extend to not having enough to eat, nor are they without servants, but rather have furniture, beds, and utensils, even if the latter are not made of silver.155 Again, in combating this attitude he resorts to demonstration that it is not the poor who are to be pitied, but the wealthy, who are beset by anxieties day and night, while the poor person remains untroubled.156 At the same time it is not wealth that caused the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 to be punished after death, but the fact that he was without charity, while Lazarus’ poverty did not bar him from ending up in heaven. True wealth and poverty stem from disposition. The poor person is not the one who possesses nothing, but the person who craves many things, while the rich person is not the one who has many possessions, but the person who needs nothing.157 You who are poor, he argues, can become rich by despising money. The rich person is the one who has no 149 PG 55, 501, ll. 45-48. On the other hand, that part of his audience has to work for their living is acknowledged as a valid reason for non-attendance at Antioch in In princ. Act. hom. 1; PG 51, 69, ll. 54-59. 150 PG 55, 507, ll. 32-47. 151 PG 55, 502, ll. 18-57. 152 PG 55, 503, ll. 10-14. 153 PG 55, 503, ll. 18-45. John concludes this passage by arguing that wealth is a mask that, when whisked away, reveals the true character inside. For the same argument see De Lazaro conc. 2; PG 48, 986, ll. 18-57. In De Lazaro conc. 1 and 3-4 Lazarus is presented as the ultimate exemplum of patience and philosophy. See Mayer, “The parable of Lazarus”, 50-55. 154 PG 55, 503, l. 47-504, l. 31. At this rhetorical point in his homily poverty undergoes a shift from the “poor” in his audience who envy the rich, to the generic poor who are the idealised recipients of almsgiving. Attention shifts at the same time to “the rich” and the imagined complaint that he is always attacking them in his preaching. This, as he goes on to argue, is not because he is against the rich, but for the poor, since it is the rich who are in reality against them (PG 55, 504, ll. 32-49). 155 PG 62, 195, ll. 5-18 and 197, ll. 12-20. Cf. Libanius’ orations, which persistently exaggerate the “poverty” of those whose case he pleads, but at the same time suggest that the complainants genuinely viewed themselves in this light (e.g. Or. 20.36-37, 31.11-12; ed. Foerster, vol. 2, 437-438, and vol. 3, 129-130; and Or. 33 and 45 in general). 156 PG 62, 195-196. 157 PG 62, 196, ll. 30-50. That he does not advocate radical economic poverty is made explicit in De capto Eutropio, delivered in Constantinople, where he says that the audience should do just one thing – hate money and love their life. He tells them to throw away their possessions, but not everything; rather, they should cut out what is non-essential (PG 52, 401, ll. 35-43). 93 Wendy Mayer desire to be rich, while poverty lies in not being able to endure economic poverty.158 What is there to be feared in poverty – starvation, thirst, hypothermia? There is no one, he emphasises, who has ever been reduced to such a level, nor could anyone adduce a case where someone has died rapidly of either starvation or hypothermia.159 Instead, God tells us (Eccl 2:1; Matt 6:26) that he will provide. After making it clear that his audience is at least self-sufficient, he closes by adducing a common argument – that neither wealth nor poverty is good or evil in itself; it is our choice (ĚěęċưěďĝēĜ) that makes them so, and which we need to educate in true philosophy.160 4.2. Spiritual poverty For John the concepts of spiritual poverty and spiritual wealth are rarely explicitly outlined, but go hand in hand with his discourse on poverty.161 John levels the criticism of “spiritual poverty” at those who do not have the right attitude towards wealth, just as spiritual wealth, it is implied, is exhibited by those with the right attitude towards both wealth and poverty. In this respect his teaching differs little from that of traditional Greek philosophical teaching regarding the nature of virtue and the philosophical life,162 and is closely related to the Stoic principle that is the subject of his treatise Quod nemo laeditur nisi a seipso. The one respect in which his characterisation of spiritual wealth differs is in regard to the Christian ethic that what is surplus to one’s own simple needs is to be spent on others, that is, almsgiving. Despite the impression of spiritual poverty as a failing exclusive to the wealthy that might be derived from the volume of John’s homilies in which the vanities of the wealthy are pilloried, throughout his writings both spiritual states are consistently presented as independent of economic status. People of all economic levels can fall into either category. In In Philippenses homilia 2 it is a person from the second economic level who is targeted as spiritually poor.163 In In illud: ne timueris homilia 1 it is individuals from the top end of the first economic level who are said to have clean floors, but an unclean conscience, and to wear silk clothes, but have a soul full of 158 PG 62, 196, ll. 50-59. Rather than undermining his frequent depiction of beggars as virtually dead from starvation and the cold, this should be seen as part of the inconsistency in supporting arguments that occurs in homilies, where a different point is being made on each occasion. 160 PG 62, 197-198. On the set of ideas that underlies this faculty in John’s thought see Laird, St John Chrysostom and the čėƶĖđ. 161 For a rare explicit statement see In Matt. hom. 80/81; PG 58, 729, ll. 27-29: “one cannot be wealthy, unless one is spiritually wealthy, just as one cannot be a beggar, unless one has poverty in mind” (úƉĔ ŕĝĞē Ěĕęƴĝēęė ďųėċē ĞƱė Ėƭ ĢğġǼ ĚĕęğĞęȘėĞċä ƞĝĚďě ęƉĔ ŕėē ĚĞģġƱė ďųėċē ĞƱė Ėƭ őė ĎēċėęưǪ ŕġęėĞċ Ěďėưċė). More typical is his argument at In 1 Cor. hom. 13; PG 61, 113, ll. 9-12, that the person who seeks to take from others is no longer rich, but is him-/herself poor (i.e., displays their inner poverty). 162 See G. Clark, “Philosophic lives and the philosophic life: Porphyry and Iamblichus”, in T. Hägg and P. Rousseau (eds), Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA 2000) 29-51. 163 See above. 94 159 John Chrysostom on poverty rags.164 While he rarely directly associates spiritual poverty with members of the third economic class, his definition attaches to them, too, by implication, if they have the wrong disposition towards their fate, that is, fail to thank God or to endure their lot patiently.165 For the most part biblical exempla, on the other hand, are adduced to demonstrate spiritual wealth exhibited at each extreme of the economic scale – the Lazarus of Luke 16, the widow of Sarephtha, and the widow of Luke 21:2-4, at the one end, and Abraham and Job, at the other, being the more common.166 As an example, in De sanctis martyribus he exhorts both rich and poor to stop wasting their money on decorating their houses and to decorate instead their soul (ĢğġƮ) and intent (Ďēƪėęēċ). The poor person is to look to the widow of Luke 21 and not to think that their poverty is an impediment to almsgiving and philanthropy, while the rich person is to reflect on Job and, like him, to possess everything not for their own sake, but for that of the poor. Job nobly endured the loss of his wealth at the Devil’s hands because he had already practised alienating himself from it. In a slightly different twist, in In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam homilia 1 he exhorts governors and the governed, priests and laity to learn from Paul’s praise of Priscilla so that the one (governors and priests) will not marvel at the wealthy and pursue illustrious houses, but seek virtue accompanied by poverty, while the other (laity and the governed) are exhorted to practise hospitality to strangers and those in need, and to not consider their situation an impediment,167 but to think of the widow who welcomed Elijah, and those who looked after Paul himself for two years168 5. JOHN’S ATTITUDE TO VOLUNTARY POVERTY The voluntary poor, those who have adopted a life of “philosophy”, are prominent in John’s writings, both as an ideal to be emulated and as individuals or communities physically present within local society. In his discourse both on the ideal and on the real, however, there can be considerable variation. As Illert details, in his treatise on those who oppose the monastic life John argues that the “monks” embody the ideal of the philosophical life, they are Socrates’ true children, they practise the highest form of contemplation, they live the life of the angels, and through renouncing all wealth and adopting a simple lifestyle they become more powerful than any emperor, being 164 PG 55, 511, ll. 2-4. The same sickness of the soul is exposed at this same economic level in In illud: ne timueris hom. 2; PG 55, 514-517. 165 This gap in the discourse may be an artefact of the structure of John’s audience, since if those who existed below subsistence were rarely present, the focus of his preaching would naturally rest on those members of the economic scale who were, that is, on a scale from those just above subsistence to those of extreme wealth. 166 See, e.g., De sanctis martyribus; PG 50, 652, l. 27-653, l. 3 (the poor person is to look to the widow of Luke 21, the rich person to Job); and In 1 Cor. hom. 34; PG 61, 294-295 (Abraham, Job, Jacob). In the first example the poor person is from the second economic level, since they have the capacity to spend money on more than survival. 167 He imagines the objection that they have no domestic slaves (PG 51, 193, ll. 4-6). 168 PG 51, 192, l. 49-193, l. 18. 95 Wendy Mayer mediators between heaven and earth.169 A similar discourse is engaged when John describes the monks from the mountains around Antioch who entered the city to mediate with imperial officials at the time of the riots. They have descended from the mountains like angels; in their role as mediators they have proven more powerful than the earthly authorities, namely the magistrates sent from Constantinople; they are the true philosophers as opposed to the Cynic philosophers who have fled.170 References to the angelic life, ascetics as angels in human form, and the quiet life of prayer on the mountain tops, which is the closest one can physically come to heaven, thread their way through John’s homilies to the extent that reference to “those on the mountain tops” becomes for him a convenient shorthand for the ascetic life.171 The shorthand “those who inhabit the wilderness” constitutes an alternative variation,172 which he exploits at times in the course of the same homily.173 Another idealised image that occurs occasionally is of the ascetic as the soldier of Christ.174 This cluster of images is evoked to present an unremittingly positive picture of the ascetic life. On occasion in the writings of John those same aspects that attract praise in one location are inverted and interpreted negatively by him in another. So, as Illert demonstrates in detail, in De sacerdotio, produced with the intent of justifying the choice of ordination to the priesthood over the ascetic life (in contrast to the treatise Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae, where the object is the defence of that life as the highest ideal), the priesthood now becomes the highest calling and the ascetic life is characterised as fraudulent and second-rate.175 The suspicion that this is an artefact of the rhetorical requirements of the genre, rather than necessarily indicative of John’s private opinion on the subject at the time that this treatise was composed is raised by knowledge of his two episcopal models and mentors at Antioch – Meletius and Flavian. Both successfully combined their devotion to the ascetic life with their engagement in the secular world as bishops and were admired by John for it. John elsewhere views the episcopal office as little more than an extension of the priesthood.176 He was thus well aware that adoption of the ascetic life and ordination to the priesthood were not an either/or, and it is not improbable that individuals who 169 Illert, Mönchtum, 39. De statuis hom. 17; PG 49, 172-175. 171 For examples of this idealised description of ascetics see De Lazaro con. 3; PG 48, 992, ll. 4-22, In Matt. hom. 1; PG 57, 20, ll. 15-20, Hom. 68/69; PG 58, 647, ll. 4-8, Hom. 69/70; PG 58, 654, ll. 1519, In Phil. hom. 1; PG 62, 184, l. 53-185, l. 21, In illud: filius ex se nihil facit; PG 56, 252, ll. 51-55. For examples where the phrase is used as shorthand, see In illud: vidua eligatur; PG 51, 331, ll. 1821, In Ps. 145; PG 55, 526, ll. 36-37, In Matt. hom. 7; PG 57, 81, ll. 26-44, Hom. 21/22; PG 57, 287, ll. 36-38, Hom. 61/62; PG 58, 591, ll. 14-15, In Acta apost. hom. 7; PG 60, 68, ll. 54-61, Hom. 13; PG 60, 110, ll. 56-59, Hom. 15; PG 60, 124, ll. 22-27, In Rom. hom. 25; PG 60, 635, ll. 60-61, In Heb. hom. 10; PG 63, 87, ll. 53-88 14, In martyres omnes (CPG 4441.15, Stav. 6, folio 145r b 19-29). 172 See, e.g., In Heb. hom. 17; PG 63, 131, ll. 57-61, and Hom. 34; PG 63, 236, ll. 33-37. 173 In Matt. hom. 55/56; PG 58, 545, l. 29-546, l. 12; 547, ll. 1-4, and In Rom. hom. 26; PG 60, 643, l. 5-644, l. 5. 174 In Matt. hom. 69/70; PG 58, 652, l. 42-653, l. 1, Hom. 70/71; PG 58, 658, l. 53-662, l. 12, and In Phil. hom. 9; PG 62, 250, ll. 33-50. 175 Illert, Mönchtum, 39-43. 176 See Mayer, Homilies, 327. 96 170 John Chrysostom on poverty combined the two were to be found among the clergy of both Antioch and Constantinople in significant numbers.177 The opposition set up in the De sacerdotio between priesthood as desirable and asceticism as undesirable is therefore likely to have served a particular rhetorical agendum. In the remainder of his works voluntary poverty is for the most part consistently presented as an ideal. Where occasional criticism appears in his homilies it is usually not of the ideal itself but of those who fail to live up to it.178 A possible exception occurs in In 1 Corinthios homilia 6, where John questions the motives for seeking out the “quiet” life – that is, withdrawing from engagement in the city. There, for a rare moment, as he harks back to the mutual poverty of the early church, when everything was held in common (Acts 4:32-35), as he seeks to explain why the whole world has not been converted today, the desire of the voluntary poor to avoid factors that might compromise their personal virtue is held to be of less importance than the need of others in the city for conversion. In this latter instance, having a less well-honed personal virtue as a result of bringing reward to the city-dwellers is held preferable to staying removed on a mountain top and watching those in need of salvation perish.179 How voluntary poverty was expressed in daily life in both cities, that is, in both appearance and behaviour, presented a broad spectrum of possibilities. At the one end John describes men and women who live together in the same household in virtual marriage, whose lifestyle visually differs little from that of any married couple.180 Some of these women still wear makeup, and of those who do adopt a standard form of ascetic dress some do everything possible to make the outfit individualised and fashionable.181 At the other end of the female spectrum he describes women who outstrip men in the extremity of their askesis.182 Among these is the widow and deacon Olympias in Constantinople, who, among other practices, observes an extremely restricted diet, wears simple clothing, and scarcely bathes.183 Men who observe strict 177 See In Phil. hom. 1; PG 62, 188, ll. 28-33, where he advises the audience against giving to clergy who live above the level of subsistence, even if they are also ascetics. 178 For the two best-known examples see his criticism of the practice of syneisaktism in the treatises Contra eos qui subintroductas habent virgines (CPG 4311), Quod regulares feminae viris cohabitare non debeant (CPG 4312), and the analysis of his rhetorical strategy by B. Leyerle, Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives. John Chrysostom’s Attack on Spiritual Marriage (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London 2001). Ascetic women receive similar criticism in In 1 Tim. hom. 8; PG 62, 541-544. See also In Heb. hom. 4; PG 63, 43, ll. 21-29: public mourning is so opposed to what is required of ascetic men and women that they should be banned from church, and Hom. 15; PG 63, 122, ll. 5-7: ascetics are criticised for laughing with the rest of his audience. 179 In 1 Cor. hom. 6; PG 61, 53, l. 30-54, l. 4. 180 See Quod regulares and Contra eos qui sub., passim, and E.A. Clark, “John Chrysostom and the subintroductae”, Church History 46 (1977) 171-185. 181 See In 1 Tim. hom. 8; PG 62, 541-544. 182 See De studio praesentium; PG 63, 488, l. 62-489, l. 17, where he describes elite women who observe sleepless vigils, extreme fasting, sleep on the ground, and wear collars, sackcloth, and ash. For men who affect the same practices see In Eph. hom. 13; PG 62, 97, ll. 42-49, and for both genders De Macabeis hom. 2; PG 50, 626, ll. 24-36. 183 See Mayer, “Poverty and generosity”, 147-149. 97 Wendy Mayer enkrateia choose clothing of goat- or camel-hair, or animal skins.184 That the Christian population expected an adherent of voluntary poverty in general to wear clothing that was simple and to observe a restricted diet is indicated by In Matthaeum homilia 23/24, where John accuses his audience of being harsh critics of behaviour in monks that deviates from this and yet that they themselves affect.185 At the same time these visible indications of suppression of wealth match John’s own definition of the ascetic life in which virtue resides partly by in adopting precisely the attitude towards wealth and poverty that he preaches to his lay audience. Voluntary poverty for John does not require that one dispose of wealth, but that one use that wealth not for oneself, because one lives in simple poverty, but for the benefit of others. This characteristic is highlighted and praised by John in his description at Antioch of the bishop Flavian’s ascetic virtues, and at Constantinople in his letters to Olympias.186 In the catalogue of virtues associated with asceticism in John’s writings, caritative activities directed towards the economic poor (almsgiving) are for the most part a central element.187 In In Hebraeos homilia 11 John moves from exegesis of Hebrews 6:20 to discuss the type of sacrifice that God now requires in place of the animal sacrifices of the OT. This is a spiritual sacrifice, a servitude of the soul, that includes the exercise of such virtues as modesty, moderation, almsgiving, tolerance, forebearance, and humility.188 This spiritual sacrifice is exemplified in martyrdom, but can also be achieved by anyone through voluntary poverty, in which the flesh is deadened and love of money is quenched by the fire of the spirit.189 Likewise in a letter to Olympias in summarising her virtues, John refers not only to her perpetual contests of endurance, her patience, her fasting, her prayers, her holy vigils, and her enkrateia, but rounds off the list with her generosity and hospitality. In this she follows the injunction in Matthew 25:34-37 (to feed Christ when she saw him hungry, thirsty, sick, naked, and in prison).190 What John praises in Olympias is what Augustine expected of the comparably wealthy ascetic women Juliana and Proba, namely that what truly exemplified ascetical widowhood was a life of prayer and fasting, accompanied by almsgiving.191 184 In Matt. hom. 68/69; PG 58, 644, ll. 27-34. PG 57, 309, ll. 35-40. 186 So in In Gen. serm. 1; SC 433, 170, ll. 272-275, on Flavian, we see the same argument that what we own is ours most of all when we consistently use it not for ourselves, but for the poor. See further Mayer, “Poverty and generosity”, 142-147. 187 For an exception see De virginitate 1; SC 125, 326, ll. 6-11. There, in the list provided of the true ornaments of virginity (fasting, holy vigils, mildness, moderation, poverty, courage, humility, and endurance), generosity, hospitality, and almsgiving are noticeably absent. 188 PG 63, 92, ll. 38-52. 189 PG 63, 93, ll. 11-27. For a similar list of virtues enjoined upon lay Christians see In illud: ne timueris hom. 1; PG 55, 510, ll. 49-53 (ďƉĕƪČďēċ, őĚēďưĔďēċ, őĕďđĖęĝħėđ, ĚěċƲĞđĜ, ĞċĚďēėęĠěęĝƴėđ, ďŭěƮėđ, ĎēĔċēęĝƴėđ, ŁčƪĚđ ŁėğĚƲĔěēĞęĜ ĚěƱĜ ĚƪėĞċĜ: reverence, clemency, almsgiving, gentleness, humility, peace, justice, genuine love towards everyone). 190 Ep. 8 ad Olymp.; SC 13bis, 198, ll. 9-17. 191 On Juliana and Proba see G.D. Dunn, “The elements of ascetical widowhood. Augustine’s De bono viduitatis and Epistula 130”, in W. Mayer, P. Allen, and L. Cross (eds), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 4. The Spiritual Life (Strathfield 2006) 247-256. 98 185 John Chrysostom on poverty While living a life of voluntary poverty usually equates for John with selfsufficiency,192 for others in the two cities in which he lived it did not preclude the idea that God provides all needs and that he supplies these, as for the economic poor, through the mechanism of almsgiving. John himself was familiar with this approach at Antioch through his ascetic mentor, Diodore, where he described it as an apostolic life (owning nothing in private, but being fed by others).193 Approaching this practice from the perspective not of voluntary poverty but of caritative activity, elsewhere he draws a clear distinction between voluntary poverty per se and economic poverty. It is only if the ascetics are also economically poor that a person should give them alms. There is no benefit, he is at pains to point out, in giving to the voluntary poor per se, some of whom are clergy and in receipt of a stipend.194 Inversely, the same aversion to giving to the economic poor clearly involved the voluntary poor who were in this same situation, so that in In Hebraeos homilia 11 John is obliged to refute the belief that monks who beg are, like all other beggars, fraudulent, and therefore not deserving of almsgiving.195 From John’s own discourse on these points it is clear that he believed that alms should be reserved for the economic poor who were not self-sufficient, whether from voluntary or involuntary causes. 6. JOHN’S SOCIAL VISION John’s moral discourse, in both his presbyterate and episcopate, repeatedly centres on personal virtue in which voluntary poverty, that is, attitudinal poverty or detachment from wealth, plays a central role.196 Voluntary poverty is moreover not the sole preserve of those who adopt an ascetic life, but can and should be adopted by everyone.197 However, as John attempts to persuade, the impediments to the economic poor achieving this are far fewer than for the rich person. This ideal is made explicit in In Acta apostolorum homilia 13. If one were to drag a crippled beggar from the agora and a good-looking, fit person with abundant cash into the school-house of philosophy, one would soon see who was more suited to virtue, since the first lesson is: be humble and moderate.198 Personal virtue is not an end in itself, however, as it is for the Greek 192 See, in particular, his description of rural Syrian ascetic-priests in Cat. 8; SC 50bis, 249, ll. 9-17, and De statuis hom. 19; PG 49, 189, ll. 9-18. 193 Laus Diodori; PG 52, 764, ll. 21-28. 194 In Phil. hom. 1; PG 62, 188, ll. 29-48. 195 PG 63, 96. 196 This reading of his discourse differs from the theological analysis offered by Klasvogt, Leben zur Verherrlichung Gottes, esp. 127-216, in which love of the poor and almsgiving are tied inextricably to love of neighbour and of God. The same conclusion is adopted by Tloka, Griechische Christen, 176204. 197 This point is explored at length by Hartney, Transformation of the City. 198 PG 60, 110, l. 43-111, l. 18. The latter injunction is derived from Plato, Republic 1.6. John proceeds selectively to adduce beatitudes from Matt 5:5-10 to support his claim that this is in fact 99 Wendy Mayer philosophers. Rather, for John there is a higher purpose in voluntary poverty – the correction of the soul, leading to the attainment of salvation.199 This central thesis in John’s moral discourse is remarkably consistent, when we consider that it is found distributed for the most part throughout a body of homilies preached to different audiences in different cities over an eighteen-year period. In order to promote his discourse concerning virtue and salvation John inverts traditional social values regarding poverty and wealth. In doing so, he constructs a view of society in which, while everything remains structurally the same, the economic poor now play a central role.200 In this view poverty is an essential part of God’s divine plan (ĚěƲėęēċ) to which the elimination of poverty is antithetical.201 As he states in In Matthaeum homilia 78/79, if you took the poor away, you would take away most of our hope of salvation.202 In In Acta apostolorum homilia 11 – a homily that on first view might be thought to advocate a return to apostolic principles – John instead makes it clear that achieving an apostolic distribution of wealth here on earth in his own contemporary society is a fantasy and he adduces the possibility purely for the pleasure of his audience.203 what Christ commands. For the same idea that poverty is more suited to virtue than wealth, see De eleemosyna; PG 51, 268, ll. 61-62. 199 This is made explicit at the close of In Matt. hom. 90/91; PG 58, 792, ll. 40-55, where he cites Luke 18:22 and Matt 19:27-29. The same argument put forward in In Acta apost. hom. 13 leads to this conclusion; PG 58, 791-792. There is also a secondary purpose – the conversion of Hellenes through the observation of the specifically Christian behaviour (almsgiving) that results from the attainment of virtue. On this point see Mayer, “The audience(s) for Patristic social teaching”. 200 This conclusion contradicts prior views of John’s approach to poverty, in which he is seen as promoting a utopian social agenda. See most recently O. Pasquato, I laici in Giovanni Crisostomo. Tra Chiesa, famiglia e città, Biblioteca di scienze religiose 144, 3rd rev. edn (Rome 2006) 175-185; and Brändle, “This sweetest passage”, 129, who argues that John was not prepared to accept structural poverty, did not consider poverty and riches ordained at creation, and in his fight for more humane and just relations was carried away by a utopian vision. For the argument that John had no interest in changing society, but rather the individual, and that his discourse argues for the church as a “new society” in which tension between rich and poor is eliminated see Stötzel, Kirche als “neue Gesellschaft”. In his review of Stötzel, however, F. van de Paverd, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 51 (1985) 472-473, at 473, argues that even if John’s solution was not utopian it was just as illusory and likely to have been unpersuasive, as well as being unachievable outside of a monastic community. A similarly pessimistic conclusion is reached by Sifoniou, “Les Fondements juridiques”, who likewise argues (at 268-269) that John has no interest in reforming the established social order and aims his discourse towards amending the individual rather than the institution. She sees his initiative as tending towards a moderation of the legal code in regard to a moral obligation to give alms to the less fortunate, of which there is little trace in the Justianianic and later Byzantine codes. 201 Even the secular economy would collapse without it. For the adduction of this argument in regard to the working poor (artisans) see De Anna hom. 5, discussed above, and In 1 Cor. hom. 34; PG 61, 292. In the latter homily John argues that while the poor need the rich, the rich have greater need of the poor. 202 PG 58, 712, ll. 38-40: ƄěǭĜ žĚƲĝđ čưėďĞċē ŁĚƱ Ğȥė ĚďėƮĞģė ŞĖȉė Ş ĚěċčĖċĞďưċà ĔŃė ĞęƴĞęğĜ ŁėƬĕǹĜ, Ğƭė Ěęĕĕƭė ĞǻĜ ĝģĞđěưċĜ ŞĖȉė ŁėďȉĕďĜ őĕĚưĎċ. 203 The scenario, described at length at PG 60, 97, l. 11-98, l. 6, is introduced by the statement (PG 60, 97, ll. 5-7): “If you like, in the meantime let’s picture this in theory and in this enjoy the fruits of 100 John Chrysostom on poverty In order to counteract the prevalent social values attached to poverty and wealth, which becomes essential since he is not arguing for the elimination of either within society, John turns in service of his soteriological agenda to the counter-intuitive or Cynic concept of praiseworthy poverty,204 which he allies to the Christian idea of heavenly wealth.205 Praiseworthy poverty is, as we have repeatedly seen within his discourse, the voluntary or attitudinal poverty that leads to virtue, as a natural consequence of which one gives from the model of self-subsistence what is surplus to one’s own simple needs to those who live below the level of subsistence (“the poor”).206 This act of almsgiving, which John’s conception of voluntary poverty demands be direct,207 undiscriminating, and unstinting,208 is not without reciprocal pleasure, since you don’t want to in reality.” (õċƯ ďŭ Čęƴĕďē, ĞƬģĜ ƊĚęčěƪĢģĖďė ċƉĞƱ ĞȦ ĕƲčȣ, ĔċƯ ĞċƴĞǹ ĔċěĚģĝƶĖďĒċ Ğƭė ŞĎęėƭė, őĚďēĎƭ őė ŕěčęēĜ ęƉ ČęƴĕďĝĒď). The exemplum of the apostolic community functions in this homily in the same way as standard reflections in Greek and Latin rhetoric on the past as a golden age. Gordon, “The problem of scarcity”, 118-119, who acknowledges the presence in John’s discourse of the concept of poverty as providential, nonetheless sees the utopian vision of In Acta apost. hom. 11 as John’s preferred option, and dismisses the former idea as an artefact of the bulk of his output, which did not induce consistency. Ritter, “Between ‘theocracy’ and ‘simple life’”, 176-177 and 180, likewise privileges what is seen as John’s promotion of a community of goods, even though he spends much of the first part of the article insisting on the primacy for John of a monastic ideal. 204 For the role of this concept in Cynic philosophy see Desmond, Greek Praise of Poverty. 205 See In 1 Cor. hom. 34; PG 61, 296, ll. 21-23: ŢėĞēėċ Žěčƭė Ųėċ ĠƴčģĖďė, ĚĕęğĞȥĖďė ĞƱė ĞęȘ ęƉěċėęȘ ĚĕęȘĞęė, ĔċƯ Ğƭė őĚċėďĞƭė ĎēƶĔģĖďė Ěďėưċė (so that we might escape [the] wrath [of God], let us be rich in heavenly wealth and pursue poverty which is praiseworthy). 206 That the third economic level in society is excluded from almsgiving, but not attitudinal poverty, is made clear in In Ps. 127; PG 55, 637, l. 40-368, l. 22, where there is discussion of the many paths that lead to heaven. In contrast to the widow of Luke 21 (the ultimate example of almsgiving), if one has no money at all but is completely destitute, without almsgiving available as an option, one can nonetheless take the path of Lazarus (Luke 16) and Job and simply be thankful to God and practise patience. 207 See In 1 Tim. hom. 14; PG 62, 574, ll. 30-33, addressed to women in the audience: ÷ƭ ĎȦĜ ĞęȉĜ ĚěęďĝĞȥĝē ĞǻĜ ŗĔĔĕđĝưċĜ ĎēċėďȉĖċēä ĝƳ ĎēċĔƲėđĝęė ċƊĞƭ, Ųėċ Ėƭ ĞęȘ ŁėċĕưĝĔďēė, ŁĕĕƩ ĔċƯ ĞęȘ ƊĚđěďĞǻĝċē ŕġǹĜ ĞƱė ĖēĝĒƲėä ęŭĔďưċēĜ ġďěĝƯ ĎƲĜä (Don’t give to the church’s leaders to distribute; serve them yourself, so that you’ll have the reward not just of disposing of it, but also of being a servant. Give with your own hands!). A similar argument is offered at length in In 1 Cor. hom. 21; PG 61, 186-191, where he concludes by arguing that we each will have to give an account of our actions to God on the day of judgement and that our only defence is to show that we have observed the commandments (that is, by composing our own lives and stretching out a generous hand to those in need). 208 See In Heb. hom. 11; PG 63, 96, ll. 13-15: Ńė Ėƫė ĚǬĝēė ŁĎēċĠƲěģĜ ĎēĎȥĖďė, ŁďƯ őĕďƮĝęĖďėä őƩė Ďƫ ŁěĘƶĖďĒċ ĚďěēďěčƪĐďĝĒċē, ęƉĎƬĚęĞď őĕďƮĝęĖďė (if we give indiscriminately to all, we will always practise almsgiving, whereas if we start to scrutinise, we will never practise it); De eleemosyna; PG 51, 270, ll. 55-60 (when the opportunity for charity and philanthropy arises, just relieve poverty and starvation and scrutinise no further; if we were to dig into their lives, we would never give alms to anyone); and De Lazaro conc. 2; PG 48, 989, l. 61-990, l. 17 (one should not scrutinise but give alms even to the undeserving, because one will otherwise miss out on giving to the deserving poor, of which open-handed generosity Abraham and Job are examples). In this latter case 101 Wendy Mayer benefit, even if that benefit is not immediate.209 Thus in In Matthaeum homilia 66/67 the benefit is spiritual – the beggar asks God in prayer to be merciful towards the person who gives them food, and battles on that person’s behalf against demons.210 In In 1 Thessalonicenses homilia 11 the beggar benefits the rich simply by existing – they educate the rich morally.211 In In Johannem homilia 25/24 the person who gives to the poor is said to lend to Christ and to earn interest in heaven.212 In In Hebraeos homilia 11 it is the beggar who stands beside you on the day of judgement and is responsible for your being snatched from the eternal flame.213 Concomitantly, in this same world view a failure to exercise almsgiving attracts proportional repayment, framed as punishment, if not here on earth, then in terms of God’s inescapable wrath in the life to come.214 The concept of positive reciprocity that John introduces into his discourse goes hand in hand with a more broadly reconstructed role for the economic poor, in which the encounter between the giver and the poor takes on a sacramental, in addition to eschatological, dimension. A large portion of that construction centres on the identification of the poor with the person of Christ (one encounters Christ in the recipient of almsgiving, just as one encounters him in the eucharist), a connection which John builds in large part on the basis of Matthew 25:31-46.215 This is not the (PG 48, 990, ll. 19-32) the deserving aspect of the poor is said to lie solely in their need, while scrutiny of the poor leads to scrutiny of our own lives by God, with the attendant risk of losing his philanthropy. 209 This claim is not unique to John Chrysostom. For the same argument expressed variously by other bishops see DeVinne, “Advocacy”, 84-114. For the argument that John appeals to the self-interest of the wealthy by describing the results of almsgiving as philotimia and return on investment see Leyerle, “John Chrysostom on almsgiving”. 210 PG 58, 631, ll. 20-30. 211 PG 62, 466, ll. 17-60. 212 PG 59, 152, ll. 15-39; and In Rom. hom. 7; PG 60, 450, l. 56-451, l. 1. For a development of the idea that the reward of almsgiving is to have God as debtor see In Gen. hom. 31; PG 53, 283, ll. 6062, and In Col. hom. 1; PG 62, 304, ll. 20-24; although it is to be noted that in In Rom. hom. 7; PG 60, 450, ll. 10-50, he argues that in fact we are in debt to Christ for his sacrifice for us and that the money that we fail to give is not even our own. John also adduces the argument that the poor to whom one gives exercise parrhesia on the giver’s behalf with God. See In Rom. hom. 21; PG 60, 606, ll. 27-29. In In Heb. hom. 18; PG 63, 222, l. 54-223, l. 11, almsgiving acts as patroness and for those who practise it the hands of the poor build dwellings in heaven. 213 PG 63, 93, l. 49-94, l. 5. For further examples of John’s exploitation of reciprocity, inheritence, and investment terminology in this context see Sifoniou, “Les Fondaments juridiques”, 250-260. 214 See In Gen. hom. 31; PG 53, 284, ll. 13-29, where this point is made explicit; and De Lazaro conc. 3; PG 48, 996-1004, and conc. 6; PG 48, 1040-1044, where the ideas of wealth, poverty, God’s providence, theodicy, sin, virtue, and punishment in this life and the next are all treated at length. On this aspect of John’s discourse as a partial inversion of the traditional patron-client system, see Leyerle, “John Chrysostom on almsgiving”, 42-43, who concurs that his aim is to work within existing social and economic structures. 215 Discussed at length by Brändle in his two works cited in n. 4. See also C. Broc-Schmezer, “De l’Aumône faite au pauvre à l’aumône du pauvre: pauvreté et spiritualité chez Jean Chrysostome”, in 102 John Chrysostom on poverty only way in which the role of the poor is reconstructed, however. The rhetorical and exegetical strategies that John utilises to persuade his audience of the status of the poor within his transformed world view are multiple.216 In In Acta apostolorum homilia 45, for instance, in addition to identification between the destitute poor and Christ, the notion of the presence of the poor in one’s house as a protective barrier against the Devil is introduced,217 an argument that is likely to be far more appealing to his audience.218 This recalls an idea introduced in his homilies on the saints to the effect that martyrdom, both through voluntary poverty and in the physical sense, bestows upon the martyred body apotropaic powers.219 It is by extension of this idea that he is able to argue in De eleemosyna that even money which has been collected in a box in one’s house for the purpose of almsgiving can make the house impervious to demons.220 7. RHETORIC VERSUS REALITY As we have seen in sections 4 and 5, John on occasion exploits an underlying reality as a jumping-off point or illustration for his arguments concerning the proper approach to poverty. At other times rich and poor are reduced in each instance to a homogeneous group adduced in service of his argument. The extent to which a quantifiable economic reality lay behind John’s rhetoric in general has been documented at length by González Blanco and will therefore not be addressed again here.221 Of interest is rather P.-G. Delage (ed.), Les Pères de l’Église et la voix des pauvres. Actes du IIe colloque de la Rochelle, 2-4 septembre 2005 (La Rochelle 2006) 131-148. 216 For the use of theatrical and marketplace imagery see Cardman, “Poverty and wealth as theater”. For the manipulation of ideas of inclusion and exclusion see S. Sitzler, “Identity: the indigent and the wealthy in the homilies of John Chrysostom”, VC, forthcoming; and on his reconstruction of envy in relation to wealth, poverty, virtue and the notion of God as patron see C.L. de Wet, “Chrysostom on envy”, StP, forthcoming. On his exploitation of gender see Hartney, Transformation of the City, 85149. Note also John’s inversion of traditional values in regard to honour and shame in In Col. hom. 7, as discussed in section 4.1. 217 PG 60, 320, ll. 1-6. 218 On the importance of the supernatural world in everyday life in Syria and for John’s audience specifically, see S. Trzcionka, Magic and the Supernatural in Fourth Century Syria (London 2006), and B. Leyerle, “Appealing to children”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997) 243-270. 219 See W. Mayer, with B. Neil, St John Chrysostom. The Cult of the Saints (New York 2006) 16 and 32-33. 220 PG 51, 266, ll. 16-38. By collecting money for the poor every Sunday and accumulating it at home, each house will become a church, because the collection-boxes in church are a symbol of those at home. This strategy has the added advantage of providing security for private money, since wherever money for the poor lies, the place is impervious to demons. Money collected for almsgiving protects a house more efficiently, he argues, than a shield, spear, weapons, physical strength, or platoon of soldiers. 221 A. González Blanco, Economia y sociedad en el bajo imperio segun San Juan Crisostomo, Publicaciones de la Fundacíon Universitaria Española 17 (Madrid 1980). 103 Wendy Mayer the precise role that reality plays in his rhetorical restructuring of the roles of poverty and wealth in Christian society and in Christianised private benefaction. This is of particular interest in light of DeVinne’s thesis that, along with the Cappadocians, John’s intent in his preaching was to make the socially invisible poor, that is, the beggar, highly visible. What is curious when we examine the full extent of John’s corpus impartially is that for the most part the closest connection between rhetoric and reality lies not in his images of beggars, but rather in his adduction of the voluntary poor (ascetics).222 In In Eutropium, Cum Saturninus et Aurelianus (CPG 4393), and De capto Eutropio (CPG 4528) current events, well known to the inhabitants of Constantinople,223 are springboards for reflections on not just the mutability, but the cruelty of wealth and the security of poverty. To John these very real exempla are both compelling and irresistible and inspire some of his most powerful rhetoric on the topic. Poverty is idealised as the precise opposite of wealth with its attendant risks and dangers. It is a place of asylum, a peaceful harbour, perpetual security, luxury free of risk, pure pleasure, a life without waves or disturbance, impregnable abundance, mother of philosophy, a bridle to arrogance, removal of punishment, root of humility.224 The homily continues with the usual advice concerning the proper attitude towards wealth and poverty and the pursuit of true philosophy.225 In this homily – and similarly in the other three – spectacular examples of slippage that impact on the broadest possible spectrum of Constantinopolitan society become the illustration for John’s familiar discourse, embroidered rhetorically for the greatest possible effect. The rhetorical embellishment includes his own claim that his words/sermons have the power to convert/tame wealth, while the caveat that accompanies them – “if you are willing” – hints at an opposing reality that lurks within the souls of his audience. The topics of poverty and almsgiving are so frequently 222 For detailed, vivid images of ascetics of various descriptions see the analysis by Leyerle, Theatrical Shows, of the two treatises on the subintroductae, and In Matt. hom. 55/56; PG 58, 545548; Hom. 67/68; PG 58, 636-637; Hom. 68/69; PG 58, 643-647; Hom. 69/70; PG 58, 651-654; In Eph. hom. 13; PG 62, 97-98; and In 1 Tim. hom. 14; PG 62, 574-578. Like the depictions of the poor from both the first and third socio-economic categories, those of the voluntary poor vary widely from concrete detail to generic labels. See section 5, above. 223 On the authenticity of De capto Eutropio and for the argument that it refers not to the deposition of Eutropius but vulnerable situation of the comes John in 400 after the Gothic general Gainas had staged a coup against Arcadius, see Al. Cameron, “A misidentified homily of Chrysostom”, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 32 (1988) 34-48. In the same article Cameron shows that the chronology in the title to Cum Saturninus et Aurelianus is inaccurate but that the homily does describe events at this same period. Note, however, that S.J. Voicu, “La volontà e il caso. La tipologia dei primi spuri di Crisostomo”, in Giovanni Crisostomo. Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 93 (Rome 2005) 101-118, at 111-112, considers De capto Eutropio inauthentic, although he admits that the first part of the homily conforms stylistically. Even if it is inauthentic, it nonetheless refers to real events and is consistent with John’s discourse. 224 PG 52, 416, ll. 23-28: āģěưęė čƪě őĝĞēė Ņĝğĕęė, ĕēĖƭė čċĕđėƱĜ, ŁĝĠƪĕďēċ ĎēđėďĔƭĜ, ĞěğĠƭ ĔēėĎƴėģė ŁĚđĕĕċčĖƬėđ, ŞĎęėƭ ďŮĕēĔěēėƭĜ, ČưęĜ ŁĞƪěċġęĜ, Đģƭ ŁĔƴĖċėĞęĜ, ďƉĚęěưċ ŁĔċĞċĖƪġđĞęĜ, ĠēĕęĝęĠưċĜ ĖƮĞđě, ġċĕēėƱĜ ŁĚęėęưċĜ, ŁėċưěďĝēĜ ĔęĕƪĝďģĜ, ȗưĐċ ĞċĚďēėęĠěęĝƴėđĜ. 225 PG 52, 417-420. John adduces both Jonah and Job in support of his argument. 104 John Chrysostom on poverty addressed in his homilies and the full range of rhetorical techniques available to him are drawn upon in an attempt to persuade the audience of the truth of his discourse precisely because the traditional social values attached to wealth, poverty, evergetism, and the patron-client relationship are so firmly entrenched.226 While there are clearly some members belonging to the highest socio-economic level within his Constantinopolitan Christian community who practise direct benefaction, as witnessed by John’s letters from exile to Marcianus, Valentinus, and Olympias, it is evident that there were others within his audiences in that city who resisted his arguments and also criticised him for harping endlessly on the topic.227 In fact, when we examine the direct giving of members of the first socio-economic level at both Antioch and Constantinople, we find that in some instances it conformed less to John’s ideal than he might have hoped for. Flavian’s generosity at Antioch in using his inherited property to house strangers does not match John’s advice in In Acta apostolorum homilia 45 regarding undiscriminating hospitality.228 If we read through the rhetoric in praise of Flavian’s generosity in In Genesim sermo 1, it becomes clear that his generosity is conditional, directed towards those driven to seek refuge in Antioch from elsewhere on account of their faith.229 The recipients of Flavian’s generosity are thus Nicene Christians, most probably to the exclusion of persons aligned with the opposing Nicene 1 faction, and most likely included people who, though “strangers” to Antioch, were not in economic need. Likewise in Constantinople, according to Palladius and the Vita Olympiadis, although Olympias practised charity towards the economic poor as a requirement of her personal voluntary poverty, she also directed her largesse indiscriminately towards bishops of all factions (including John and his predecessor, Nectarius), clergy, and a varied spectrum of the voluntary poor who visited Constantinople.230 In this instance not all of her recipients were personally 226 The persistence of traditional evergetism, leading to the adoption of its vocabulary and a need to prove the superiority of the Christian evergetical model by the church at this period, is argued for by Natali, “Christianisme et cité”, and id., “Église et évérgetisme”. DeVinne, “Advocacy”, also makes this point to some extent in ch. 3, 84-114. 227 Cum Saturninus; PG 52, 415, ll. 53-59: ïēƩ Ďƭ ĞęȘĞę ĔċƯ ŞĖďȉĜ ń ĚěƲĞďěęė őĕƬčęĖďė, ĔċƯ ėȘė ĕƬčęėĞďĜ ęƉ ĚċğĝƲĖďĒċ, ĔċưĞęē ĚęĕĕęƯ Ěěƶđė ŞĖȉė őėďĔƪĕęğė, ĔċƯ ĞċȘĞċ ŕĕďčęėä úƉ Ěċƴǹ ĔċĞƩ Ğȥė ĚĕęğĞęƴėĞģė žĚĕēĐƲĖďėęĜ ĞǼ čĕƶĞĞǹà ęƉ Ěċƴǹ ĝğėďġȥĜ ĞęēęƴĞęēĜ ĚęĕďĖȥėà It is for precisely this reason that we won’t stop saying now too what we said previously, even though many recently criticised us and said the following: “Won’t you stop arming your tongue against the rich? Won’t you stop constantly engaging in war against such people?”.) Cf. De capto Eutropio; PG 52, 399, ll. 28-30, and In Eutropium; PG 52, 392, ll. 1-10. 228 See PG 60, 319, ll. 36-53, where John enjoins upon his audience setting aside a room and servant in their houses for those unable to achieve subsistence. 229 SC 433, 170, ll. 267-268. 230 Palladius, Dial. 16-17; SC 341, l. 324 and l. 348. Cf. Vita Olymp. 13-14; SC 13bis, 434-438, which repeats much of the material from Dial. 17. Sozomen, HE 8.9.1-3; Fontes Christiani 73/4, 982-984, who claims that John redirected her almsgiving towards more discriminate channels, is unreliable in two respects. The account is inserted into Socrates’ as one of a number of hagiographical elements to suit Sozomen’s own rhetorical agenda, and it in any case contradicts John’s preference for indiscriminate almsgiving in his writings and homilies. It is, however, possible that, as in the case of 105 Wendy Mayer in economic need, and in giving to bishops and clergy, John included, a substantial percentage of her almsgiving was indirect and mediated via church administration. According to Palladius, moreover, she contributed personally to John’s daily expenses as bishop.231 John’s acceptance of this practice contravened his own preaching on the topic,232 since, although he was himself inclined towards voluntary poverty, he drew a stipend from the church’s offerings and had all of his needs, including housing, provided for. Another point to be made is that while John’s rhetorical presentation of his arguments concerning virtue, poverty, and salvation can be forceful and vivid, concrete detail concerning the exempla that illustrate or inspire that discourse is often absent. That is, an image that can seem vivid by virtue of the techniques brought to bear in its creation not infrequently turns out to be blurred or partial when one attempts to reconstruct it as an objective social or historical reality. Thus in the case of the four Constantinopolitan homilies inspired by spectacular cases of slippage from the top economic level, in only In Eutropium is concrete detail concerning the victim supplied (the victim was a consul, a major patron of spectacles, hostile towards the church, the subject of numerous acclamations, and wore makeup).233 In De capto Eutropio the audience is told in highly rhetorical terms that three days earlier the church was surrounded by soldiers in pursuit of an individual who had sought asylum there.234 He was “betrayed” and John himself was dragged off to the imperial palace.235 At one stage the city was alight.236 Yet of the victim himself we learn very little, except that those who kissed his hands became his judge and executioner and by their own hands dragged him from the church, while only days before these same people labelled him “protector, friend (of the city), and benefactor”.237 In Quod frequenter conveniendum sit the individual is not explicitly identified and the detail is sufficient only for the audience to make the connection,238 while in Cum Saturninus the real events that have inspired the discourse are left largely to the knowledge of the audience, and the fate of the individuals is described only in the most general of terms.239 In all of these instances either the audience are eye-witnesses, or news of events has flooded the city Flavian, giving towards members of approved Christian factions was considered by him to be preferable. 231 Dial. 17; SC 341, 348, ll. 185-189. 232 See In Phil. hom. 1; PG 62, 188, ll. 29-48. 233 PG 52, 391-392 and 394, ll. 50-58. 234 PG 52, 397, ll. 16-36. 235 PG 52, 398, ll. 4-7. 236 PG 52, 399, ll. 9-10. 237 PG 52, 400, ll. 28-38 (…ĝģĞǻěċ ƙėƲĖċĐďĜ, ĔċƯ ĔđĎďĖƲėċ, ĔċƯ ďƉďěčƬĞđė). 238 PG 63, 461, ll. 25-44, and see section 4.1, above. 239 In Cum Saturninus; PG 52, 413, l. 2 up-415, l. 50, while John says that he has been absent dealing with political turmoil involving covert civil war and alludes to wolves in sheep’s clothing (Goths) and his own part in negotiations, he tells us almost nothing about the victims (it is his duty to look after the fallen). 106 John Chrysostom on poverty and consequently John is not obliged to supply detail except in so far as it serves his discourse. Similarly, at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, John’s depictions of beggars vary widely in their verisimilitude. The point that needs to be made here is that the famous image of beggars soliciting alms by eating old shoes and driving nails into their scalps that he serves up for his audience in In 1 Corinthios homilia 21 is relatively rare and represents the pinnacle of this kind of detail.240 He refers briefly in In 1 Thessalonicenses homilia 11 to beggars who put various kinds of drinking vessels on their fingers, playing them like cymbals, and use a pipe to accompany bawdy songs.241 More commonly, however, beggars are anonymous figures, exhibiting a standard range of behaviours, whose plight is described by John in exaggeratedly pitiful terms in the hope of exciting a reaction from his less than receptive audience. Thus in In 1 Corinthios homilia 11, for instance, the beggar, constantly driven throughout the agora by cold and starvation, is depicted moving around bent over with his hands stretched out.242 This image is contrasted with that of the rich person who returns home clean from the baths, warmed by soft clothes, hurrying off on his way to a lavish dinner.243 John tells his audience, when they get home and are reclining on their couch, in a welllit house, awaiting a generous repast, to think of the wretched and pitiful beggar, wandering around in the alleys like the dogs in the dark and the muck, who, when he departs, leaves for neither a house, nor a wife, nor a bed, but a pallet of straw.244 “And, whereas you”, he accuses, “when you see a tiny drip coming from the ceiling, turn the house upside down by calling your servants and doing everything possible, he, lying in rags and straw and muck, endures the cold in full.”245 The generalised beggar here is only a partial focus of the discourse and operates as a foil for the inhuman behaviour of those who refuse to be moved by his plight, as the rhetoric builds towards refuting the belief of those who claim that beggars deserve what they experience.246 On the basis of depictions like these, John is able elsewhere in his discourse to evoke beggars simply by referring to a person wearing rags, almost dead with cold and with chattering teeth.247 As in the case of the voluntary poor and the periphrasis “those on the mountaintops” or “those who inhabit the wilderness”,248 this and variations on this description, for example, “the maimed, the blind, the crippled”, “those dressed in rags”, 240 PG 61, 177, ll. 40-53. He precedes this defining image with reference to beggars who deliberately maim their children and others who strip their wives to evoke pity (PG 61, 177, ll. 26-36). 241 PG 62, 465, ll. 30-37. 242 PG 61, 94, ll. 54-59. Not only is his supplication unsuccessful, but he is abused, before being turned away without sustenance. 243 PG 61, 94, ll. 51-54. 244 PG 61, 94, l. 59-95, l. 4. 245 PG 61, 95 4-8: õċƯ ĝƳ Ėƫė, ĔŃė ĖēĔěƪė Ğēėċ ĝĞċčƲėċ ĔċĞďėďġĒďȉĝċė ŁĚƱ ĞǻĜ ĝĞƬčđĜ űĎǹĜ, ĚƪėĞċ ŁėďĞěƬĚďēĜ ĞƱė ęųĔęė, ęŭĔƬĞċĜ Ĕċĕȥė, ĚƪėĞċ Ĕưėȥėä őĔďȉėęĜ Ďƫ őė ȗċĔưęēĜ ĔċƯ ġƲěĞȣ ĔċƯ ĚđĕȦ ĔďưĖďėęĜ, ņĚċėĞċ ƊĚęĖƬėďē ĞƱė ĔěğĖƲė. 246 PG 61, 95, ll. 10-17. 247 In Heb. hom. 11; PG 63, 94, ll. 6-9. 248 See section 4.2, above. 107 Wendy Mayer not infrequently operate as a shorthand for the person of the beggar throughout his homilies.249 While DeVinne is thus correct in arguing that John is one of a number of homilists in the late-antique East who make the (economic) poor visible and shift the Christian gaze towards them, exploiting in the process imagery taken from the military, theatre, and arena,250 John’s depiction of the poor body is only rarely vivid or expansive. More commonly he exploits a standardised set of images, applying occasional individual detail to the behaviour rather than the sight of the beggar in order to condemn and attempt to invert the negative response that that behaviour elicits.251 The medium through which the bulk of his discourse on poverty is delivered – the homily – is in any case one in which the aspect of reality that is highlighted or glossed over is adjusted to suit the message of the moment. Consequently in his discourse we find the occasional apparent inconsistency, which enables us to observe the relationship between reality and rhetoric from another angle. Thus in De eleemosyna, he contrasts in vivid detail the relative ease of summer for the homeless of Antioch with the extremity of their sufferings in winter, when their flesh is pierced with cold and rendered numb.252 In this instance, his intent is to shame his audience into providing them with alms in the form of shoes, housing, mattresses, and food. Yet elsewhere, when his emphasis is on the argument that poverty is nothing to be feared, he is able to claim with equal facility and no sense of inconsistency that none among the poor have ever died directly of starvation or hypothermia.253 Let us measure both of these claims against the encomiastic remarks of Libanius regarding the relative mildness of Antioch’s climate,254 which are largely supported by climatic conditions today.255 In the one instance, the burden placed upon the homeless/beggars by the cold, while to some extent real, can be seen to be also exaggerated, while in the other instance the claim regarding no direct fatalities from hypothermia, if made in the context of Antioch, would probably have elicited little surprise on the part of the audience. In John’s discourse on poverty, unlike his approach to slavery and other 249 E.g., In Matt. hom. 12; PG 57, 206, ll. 50-51: “the beggars and those who solicit”; In Acta apost. hom. 13; PG 60, 111, ll. 10-12: “a beggar from the agora, blind, crippled, or lame”; Hom. 45; PG 60, 319, l. 50: “the crippled, the beggars, the homeless”; In 1 Thess. hom. 9; PG 62, 454, ll. 38-40: “naked, crippled”; Hom. 11; PG 62, 465, ll. 48-49: “those who go begging through the alleys”; and 466, ll. 28-39: “demon-possessed, crippled, poor, old, blind, with spastic limbs”. Generic labels of this kind far outnumber more specific descriptions of beggars across the full spectrum of the homilies. 250 DeVinne, “Advocacy”, ch. 1-2, 5-83. 251 E.g., In 1 Thess. hom. 11; PG 62, 465, ll. 5-14, where the different kinds of curses with which beggars threaten passers-by are listed, but the beggars themselves are simply described as “the poor sitting with amputated feet”. 252 PG 51, 261, ll. 20-45. 253 In Phil. hom. 2; PG 62, 197, ll. 12-13. Regarding the provenance of this homily, which is uncertain, see Allen and Mayer, “A re-examination of the fifteen homilies In epistulam ad Philippenses”. 254 Or. 11.29-33; ed. Foerster, vol. 1, 446-448. 255 See www.antakya.tv/en/climateDescriptionAntakya.php for markedly similar remarks (accessed 24 April 2009), where the median temperature in Antakya for each month of the year is provided. Note, however, that the minimum in winter can drop below freezing (as low as -7o C), and this would be sufficient to cause death from hypothermia. 108 John Chrysostom on poverty topics, seeming inconsistencies of this kind are rare, however, which may be indicative of how early in his ecclesiastical career his ideas on the intimate connection between virtue, poverty, almsgiving, and salvation reached maturity in his thought. Perhaps it was not long after and under the direct influence of his personal formation within traditional Greek paideia and the peculiarly Syrian understanding of voluntary poverty and the ascetical life. To sum up, John’s discourse in respect to economic and voluntary poverty cannot be used as a mirror of socio-economic realities. In some instances an explicit event, individual, or set of individuals sparks off his discourse or is employed to illustrate it. The degree to which reality of this kind is embellished rhetorically varies widely. At the other end of the spectrum, generic labels are used to evoke different categories of the poor within his discourse.256 These bear some relationship to an underlying reality, but it is usually distant. In cases where he refers to the poor of the third socio-economic level, while the focus of his rhetoric may occasionally rest directly on this category, the rich in general, and the audience more specifically, are as often as not the prime focus, and the vividness of his rhetoric is lavished on them. While the poor are made visible in his rhetoric on poverty, thus so too are the rich, and he employs every technique and angle of focus available in the service of his primary message. 8. CONCLUSION As this analysis of his discourse shows, John’s repositioning of the poor within a transformed Christian society in which traditional social values concerning wealth and poverty are turned upside down is secondary to his main purpose. This is not to argue that John does not personally feel for the plight of the economic poor or that he is disinterested in their care. It is rather to acknowledge that, while the poor are given visibility in his preaching, his spotlight is not confined to them, but shines equally on the rich, just as his vivid and often startling rhetoric ranges even-handedly across all sectors of society. To characterise John Chrysostom as a “lover of the poor” is thus to misunderstand his central thesis. If we are obliged to label him at all, it is more accurate to call him not a champion of the poor, but of poverty – not economic poverty, but voluntary poverty. It is this concern that drives his emphasis on almsgiving, and it is because of the desired aim of this, namely the salvation of every member of his Christian community, that the spiritually poor and the economic poor are so often treated as subjects in his preaching. It is important also to take a step back from the forcefulness of his rhetoric and to place his discourse on wealth and poverty in perspective. Very little, if anything, that he has to say is new. As Gotsis and Merianos have recently shown, John’s arguments, along with those of his Antiochene contemporary, Theodoret, are part of the Christian 256 This includes those who have slipped from the first socio-economic level. See In Col. hom. 7; PG 62, 347, ll. 5-13. Generic exempla of this kind refer to the person who yesterday held a position of power and authority and today is lowly and humbled. 109 Wendy Mayer discourse on these subjects in the Greek-speaking world from the time of Clement of Alexandria’s Quis dives salvetur? and the Shepherd of Hermas.257 For the most part any deviations from this tradition result from differences in audience, and reside in degree of emphasis or in small details.258 The centrality of voluntary poverty to John’s presentation of this discourse and the specific nature of the relationship he draws between virtue and almsgiving reflect his own formation within an urban Syrian ascetical environment and the probable influence of his personal caritative models. His strong emphasis on almsgiving likewise can be seen to reflect the prevalence of the destitute poor in the vicinity of the churches in which he preached, just as their relative absence in his arguments concerning spiritual poverty may be an indication of their absence among his audience. John’s discourse on wealth and poverty, if not in itself novel, is thus customised to his context: the general audiences of homilies delivered in churches of Antioch and Constantinople, and the educated Syrian ascetics who read his treatises on voluntary poverty. With the exception of the specifically Christian elements of John’s teachings on social values, in reality there is little difference between John’s approach to the problems of wealth and poverty and that of his pagan contemporary Libanius.259 It is also clear from John’s constant attempts to reframe the beggar as someone who does not merely take but also gives back to society that, due to an underlying cultural belief in the concept of limited good, hostility towards and suspicion of members of the lowest socio-economic level were endemic at both Antioch and Constantinople and stubbornly resistant to any attempt to combat them.260 In such a climate direct and indiscriminate giving towards the “needy” poor is unlikely to have been widely practised, despite John’s constant attempts to persuade people to do so. 257 G.N. Gotsis and G.A. Merianos, “Wealth and poverty in Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ On providence”, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 59 (2007) 11-48. On the question of where the Shepherd of Hermas itself is situated within the earliest Christian discussions of poverty and inequality see S. Friesen, “Injustice or God’s will? Early Christian explanations of poverty”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 17-36, who indicates that the approach taken in that text was only one of a number of options, even though the majority of subsequent Greek Patristic discourse did not deviate from it. 258 See Gotsis and Merianos, “Wealth and poverty”, 23-29 and 46-48, who argue that Theodoret’s audience did not include the bottom economic level, but constituted rather two competing groups of working poor, leading to a minimal interest on his part in almsgiving. 259 Both orators are products of the lower end of the first economic level within Antiochene society and of the same Greek secular paideia. As a result, within his treatises on voluntary poverty, if not also within his homilies, John cannot help but unconsciously favour the educated over the uneducated, despite adducing at times the lack of education of the first disciples as an exemplum, as Maxwell, “Shifting attitudes”, persuasively argues. 260 For this argument see Mayer, “Poverty and generosity”, 149-154. 110 John Chrysostom on poverty BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary works Brottier, L. (ed.), Jean Chrysostome. Sermons sur la Genèse, SC 433 (Paris 1998). Canivet, P. and Leroy-Molinghen, A., Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire des moines de Syrie, 2 vols, SC 234 and 237 (Paris 1977 and 1979). Downey, G. and Norman, A.F. (eds), Themistii orationes quae supersunt, vol. 2 (Leipzig 1971). Foerster, R. (ed.), Libanii opera, 8 vols (Leipzig 1903-1915). Halkin, F. (ed.), Douze récits byzantines sur Saint Jean Chrysostome, Subsidia hagiographica 60 (Brussels 1977). Hansen, G.C. (ed.), Sokrates. Kirchengeschichte, GCS NF, Bd. 1 (Berlin 1995). – Sozomenos. Historia ecclesiastica. Kirchengeschichte, Fontes Christiani 73-74, 4 vols (Turnhout 2004). Malingrey, A.-M. (ed.), Jean Chrysostome. Lettre d’exil. A Olympias et à tous les fidèles (Quod nemo laeditur), SC 103 (Paris 1964). – Jean Chrysostome. Lettres à Olympias. Seconde édition augmentée de la Vie anonyme d’Olympias, SC 13bis (Paris 1968). – Jean Chrysostome. Sur le sacerdoce (Dialogue et Homélie), SC 272 (Paris 1980). – Jean Chrysostome. Sur l’égalité du père et du fils. Contre les Anoméens homélies VII-XII, SC 396 (Paris 1994). Malingrey, A.-M. and Leclercq, P., Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome 2 vols, SC 341-342 (Paris 1988). Hansen, G.C. and Parmentier, L. (eds), Theodoret. Kirchengeschichte, GCS NF, Bd. 5 (Berlin 1998). Penella, R.J., The Private Orations of Themistius (Berkeley, CA 2000). Riese, A. (ed.), Geographi latini minores (Hildesheim 1964). Wallraff, M. (ed.) and Ricci C. (trans.), Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi (Ps.-Martyrius Antiochenus, BHG 871, CPG 6517), Quaderni della Rivista di Bizantinistica (Spoleto 2007). Wenger, A. (ed.), Jean Chrysostome. Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites, SC 50bis, 2nd edn (Paris 1970). Secondary works Albornoz, A. Carrillo de, “Aspectos sociales del s. IV a través de las obras de Juan Crisóstomo”, Razón y Fé 100 (1932) 455-476; 101 (1933) 204-217, 507-525. – San Juan Crisóstomo y su influencia social en el imperio bizantino del siglo IV (Madrid 1934). – “Mas sobre el comunismo de san Juan Crisóstomo”, Razón y Fé 110 (1936) 80-98. 111 Wendy Mayer Allen, P., “The homilist and the congregation: a case study of John Chrysostom’s homilies on Hebrews”, Augustinianum 36 (1996) 397-421. – “John Chrysostom’s homilies on I and II Thessalonians: the preacher and his audience”, StP 31 (1997) 3-21. Allen, P. and Mayer, W., “Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: a new approach to the twelve homilies In epistulam ad Colossenses (CPG 4433)”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 60 (1994) 21-39. – “Chrysostom and the preaching of homilies in series: a re-examination of the fifteen homilies In epistulam ad Philippenses (CPG 4432)”, VC 49 (1995) 270-289. – “The thirty-four homilies on Hebrews: the last series delivered by Chrysostom in Constantinople?”, Byzantion 65 (1995) 309-348. Amirav, H., Rhetoric and Tradition. Chrysostom on Noah and the Flood, Traditio exegetica Graeca 12 (Leuven 2003). Asgari, N., “The Proconnesian production of architectural elements in late antiquity, based on evidence from the marble quarries”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 263-288. Bosinis, K., “Two platonic images in the rhetoric of John Chrysostom: ‘the wings of love’ and ‘the charioteer of the soul’”, StP 41 (2006) 433-438. – Johannes Chrysostomus über das Imperium Romanum. Studie zum politischen Denken der Alten Kirche (Birmingham 2006). Bouton-Touboulic, A.-I., “Présence des ‘Moralia’ de Plutarque chez les auteurs chrétiens des IVe et Ve siècles”, Pallas 67 (2005) 95-113. Bowersock, G.W., “Social and economic history of Syria under the Roman empire”, in J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthmann (eds), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie, vol. 2 (Saarbrücken 1989) 163-180. Brändle, R., “Jean Chrysostome. L’importance de Matth. 25,31-46 pour son éthique”, VC 31 (1977) 47-52 (repr. in id., Studien zur Alten Kirche [Stuttgart, Berlin, and Cologne 1999] 16-20). – Matthäus 25,31-46 im Werk des Johannes Chrysostomus. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegungsgeschichte und zur Erforschung der Ethik der griechischen Kirche um die Wende vom 4. zum 5. Jahrhundert, Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 22 (Tübingen 1979). – “This sweetest passage: Matthew 25:31-46 and assistance to the poor in the homilies of John Chrysostom”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 127-139. Broc-Schmezer, C., “De l’Aumône faite au pauvre à l’aumône du pauvre. Pauvreté et spiritualité chez Jean Chrysostome”, in P.-G. Delage (ed.), Les Pères de l’Église et la voix des pauvres, Actes du IIe Colloque de la Rochelle, 2-4 septembre 2005 (La Rochelle 2006) 131-148. – Les Figures féminines du Nouveau Testament dans l’oeuvre de Jean Chrysostome, Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 185 (Turnhout 2009). Brown, P., The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, Lectures on the History of Religions NS 13 (New York 1988). 112 John Chrysostom on poverty Bruck, E.F., “Die Gesinnung des Schenkers bei Johannes Chrysostomus. Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis zwischen theologischer und juristischer Willenslehre”, Mnemosyna Pappoulia (Athens 1934) 65-83. – “Kirchlich-soziales Erbrecht in Byzanz. Johannes Chrysostomus und die mazedonischen Kaiser”, in Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono nel XL anno del suo insegnamento, vol. 3 (Palermo 1936) 377-423. – “Ethics versus law. St. Paul, the Fathers of the church and the ‘cheerful giver’ in Roman law”, Traditio 2 (1944) 97-121. Butcher, K., Roman Syria and the Near East (Los Angeles, CA 2003). Cameron, Al., “A misidentified homily of Chrysostom”, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 32 (1988) 34-48. Campbell, S., The Mosaics of Antioch, Subsidia Mediaevalia 15 (Toronto 1988). Cardman, F., “Poverty and wealth as theater: John Chrysostom’s homilies on Lazarus and the rich man”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 159-175. Casana, J., “The archaeological landscape of late Roman Antioch”, in I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson (eds), Culture and Society in Later Roman Antioch (Oxford 2004) 102-125. Cioffi, A., “L’eredità filosofica e retorica (diatriba e sentenza) nel ‘Quod nemo laeditur nisi a seipso’ di Giovanni Crisostomo”, Nicolaus 6 (1978) 3-45. – “Giovanni Crisostomo e il ‘vero’ filosofo”, in Giovanni Crisostomo. Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 93 (Rome 2005) 513-520. Clark, E.A., “John Chrysostom and the subintroductae”, Church History 46 (1977) 171-185. – Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, NJ 1999). Clark, G., “Philosophic lives and the philosophic life: Porphyry and Iamblichus”, in T. Hägg and P. Rousseau (eds), Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA 2000) 29-51. Crow, J., “The infrastructure of a great city: earth, walls and water in late antique Constantinople”, in L. Lavan, E. Zanini, and A. Sarantis (eds), Technology in Transition A.D. 300-650 (Leiden 2007) 251-285. Crow, J., Bardill, J., and Bayliss, R., The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople, Journal of Roman Studies Monograph No. 11 (London 2008). Dalgiç, Ö., “Late Antique Floor Mosaics of Constantinople prior to the Great Palace”, unpub. PhD diss. (New York 2008). Delmaire, R., “Les ‘Lettres d’exil’ de Jean Chrysostome. Études de chronologie et de prosopographie”, Recherches Augustiniennes 25 (1991) 71-180. Desmond, W.D., The Greek Praise of Poverty. Origins of Ancient Cynicism (Notre Dame, IN 2006). Dorival, G., “Cyniques et chrétiens au temps des pères grecs”, in M. Soetard (ed.), Valeurs dans le stoïcisme. Du portique à nos jours. Textes rassemblés en hommage à Michel Spanneut (Lille 1993) 57-88. 113 Wendy Mayer Dunn, G.D., “The elements of ascetical widowhood. Augustine’s De bono viduitatis and Epistula 130”, in W. Mayer, P. Allen, and L. Cross (eds), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 4. The Spiritual Life (Strathfield 2006) 247-256. Dupleix, A., “Jean Chrysostome. Un évêque social face à l’empire”, in Recherches et traditions. Mélanges pastristiques offerts à Henri Crouzel, S.J., Théologie historique 88 (Paris 1992) 119-139. Durliat, J., “L’Approvisionnement de Constantinople”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 19-33. Esen, Ö., “The Antakya sarcophagus: aspects of decoration, transportation and dating”, Bilkent University, The Department of Archaeology & History of Art, Newsletter No. 3 (2004) 28-32. Ferrari, A., “Las dos ciudades cristianas de san Juan Crisostomo. Antioquia (Matt. hom. 66) y Constantinopla (Act. Ap. hom. 11)”, Boletin de la real academia de la historia 158 (1966) 25-105. Friesen, S., “Injustice or God’s will? Early Christian explanations of poverty”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 17-36. González Blanco, A., Economia y sociedad en el bajo imperio segun San Juan Crisostomo, Publicaciones de la Fundacíon Universitaria Española 17 (Madrid 1980). Gordon, B., “The problem of scarcity and the Christian Fathers: John Chrysostom and some contemporaries”, StP 22 (1989) 108-120. Gotsis, G.N. and Merianos, G.A., “Wealth and poverty in Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ On providence”, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 59 (2007) 11-48. Grierson, P. and Mayes, M., Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection. From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius (Washington, DC 1992). Hartney, A., John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City (London 2004). Henderson, J. and Mundell Mango, M., “Glass at medieval Constantinople: preliminary scientific evidence”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 333-356. Hendy, M.F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450 (Cambridge 1985). Holman, S.R. (ed.), Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society, Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History (Grand Rapids, MI 2008). Hunter, D., “Borrowings from Libanius in the Comparatio Regis et Monachi of St. John Chrysostom”, Journal of Theological Studies NS 39 (1988) 525-531. Illert, M., Johannes Chrysostomus und das antiochenisch-syrische Mönchtum. Studien zu Theologie, Rhetorik und Kirchenpolitik im antiochenischen Schrifttum des Johannes Chrysostomus (Zürich and Freiburg i. Br. 2000). Kelly, J.N.D., Golden Mouth. The Story of John Chrysostom – Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London 1995). Klasvogt, P., Leben zur Verherrlichung Gottes. Botschaft des Johannes Chrysostomos. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pastoral, Hereditas. Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 7 (Bonn 1992). Koder, J., “Fresh vegetables for the capital”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 49-56. 114 John Chrysostom on poverty Krause, J.-U., Witwen und Waisen im Römischen Reich, 4 vols (Stuttgart 1994-1995). Labaree, B., “How the Greeks sailed into the Black Sea”, American Journal of Archaeology 61 (1957) 29-33. Laird, R., St John Chrysostom and the čėƶĖđ: The Critical Faculty Accountable for Sin in His Anthropology, Early Christian Studies (Strathfield, forthcoming). Leblanc, J. and Poccardi, G., “L’Eau domestiquée et l’eau sauvage à Antioche-surl’Oronte. Problèmes de gestion”, in B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, and C. Saliou (eds), Antioch de Syrie. Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique. Colloque organisé par B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier et C. Saliou, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 4-6 octobre 2001, Topoi supplément 5 (Lyon 2004) 239-256. Leemans, J., Mayer, W., Allen, P., and Dehandschutter, B., “Let Us Die that We May Live”. Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria (c. 350-c. 450 AD) (London and New York 2003). Levi, D., Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 2 vols (Princeton 1947). Leyerle, B., “John Chrysostom on almsgiving and the use of money”, Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) 29-47. – “Appealing to children”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997) 243-270. – Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives. John Chrysostom’s Attack on Spiritual Marriage (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London 2001). Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., Antioch. City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford 1972). Malingrey, A.-M., “Résonances stoïciennes dans l’oeuvre de Jean Chrysostome”, Diotima. Revue de recherche philosophique 7 (1979) 116-121. Mango, C., “The water supply of Constantinople”, in Mango and Dagron, Hinterland, 9-18. Mango, C. and Dagron, G., Constantinople and Its Hinterland, Papers from the Twenty-seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993 (Aldershot 1995). Maxwell, J., Christianization and Communication. John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge 2006). – “Shifting attitudes toward education and social class in John Chrysostom and Libanius”, paper delivered at Antioch Day, Seminar of the Center for the Study of Early Christianity, Catholic University of America, 20 March, Washington, DC 2009. Mayer, W., “Constantinopolitan women in Chrysostom’s circle”, VC 53 (1999) 265288. – The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance. Reshaping the Foundations, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 273 (Rome 2005). – “What does it mean to say that John Chrysostom was a monk?”, StP 41 (2006) 451455. – “Poverty and generosity towards the poor in the time of John Chrysostom”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 140-158. 115 Wendy Mayer – “John Chrysostom’s use of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:1931)”, Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique 4 (2008) 45-59. – “The audience(s) for Patristic social teaching: a case study”, in J. Leemans, B. Matz, and J. Verstraeten (eds), Patristic Social Ethics Issues and Challenges, CUA Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, DC forthcoming). Mayer, W., with Neil, B., St John Chrysostom. The Cult of the Saints (New York 2006). Mitchell, M., “Silver chamber pots and other goods which are not good: John Chrysostom’s discourse against wealth and possessions”, in W. Schweiker and C. Mathewes (eds), Having. Property and Possession in Religions and Social Life (Grand Rapids, MI 2004) 88-121. Natali, A., “Christianisme et cité à Antioche à la fin du IVe siècle d’après Jean Chrysostome”, in C. Kannengiesser (ed.), Jean Chrysostome et Augustin. Actes du colloque de Chantilly 22-24 Septembre 1974, Théologie historique 35 (Paris 1975) 41-59. – “Église et évergétisme à Antioche à la fin du IVe siècle d’après Jean Chrysostome”, StP 17 (1982) 1176-1184. Nikolaou, T., Der Neid bei Johannes Chrysostomus, unter Berücksichtigung der griechischen Philosophie, Abhandlungen zu Philosophie, Psychologie und Pädagogik 56 (Bonn 1969). Pasquato, O., I laici in Giovanni Crisostomo. Tra Chiesa, famiglia e città, Biblioteca di scienze religiose 144, 3rd rev. edn (Rome 2006). Paverd, F. van de, review of A. Stötzel, Kirche als “neue Gesellschaft”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 51 (1985) 472-473. Plassmann, O., Das Almosen bei Johannes Chysostomus (Münster 1961). Ritter, A.M., “Between ‘theocracy’ and ‘simple life’: Dio Chrysostom, John Chrysostom and the problem of humanizing society”, StP 22 (1989) 170-180. Rousseau, P., Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley, CA 1994). Schachner, L.A., “Social life in late antiquity: a bibliographic essay”, in W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge, and C. Machado (eds), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, Late Antique Archaeology 3.1 (Leiden 2006) 41-93. Sifoniou, A., “Les Fondements juridiques de l’aumône et de la charité chez Jean Chrysostome”, Revue de Droit Canonique 14 (1964) 241-269. Sitzler, S., “Identity: the indigent and the wealthy in the homilies of John Chrysostom”, VC, forthcoming. Stötzel, A., Kirche als “neue Gesellschaft”. Die humanisierende Wirkung des Christentums nach Johannes Chrysostomus, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 51 (Münster 1984). Tloka, J., Griechische Christen – christliche Griechen. Plausibilierungsstrategien des antiken Christentums bei Origenes und Johannes Chrysostomos, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 30 (Tübingen 2005). Trzcionka, S., Magic and the Supernatural in Fourth Century Syria (London 2006). 116 John Chrysostom on poverty Viansino, G., “Aspetti dell’opera di Giovanni Crisostomo”, Koinonia 25 (2001) 137205. Voicu, S.J., “La voluntà e il caso. La tipologia dei primi spuri di Cristostomo”, in Giovanni Cristostomo: Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 93 (Rome 2005) 101-118. – “L’immagine di Crisostomo negli spuri”, in M. Wallraff and R. Brändle (eds), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren. Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105 (Berlin and New York 2008) 61-96. Walsh, E. Makris, “Overcoming Gender: Virgins, Widows and Barren Women in the Writings of St John Chrysostom, 386-397”, unpub. PhD diss., The Catholic University of America (Washington, DC 1994). – “Wealthy and impoverished widows in the writings of St. John Chrysostom”, in Holman, Wealth and Poverty, 176-186. Wet, C.L. de, “Chrysostom on envy”, StP, forthcoming. 117