082 - valentinian i, christianissimus imperator - notes on a passage of the passio pllionis bhl...

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi �0.��63/�57007�0-��34��60

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (�0�4) 8�-97

brill.com/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

Valentinian I, christianissimus imperator? Notes on a passage of the Passio Pollionis (BHL 6869)

Hajnalka TamasSint-Michielsstraat 4, bus 3101, B-3000 Leuven

[email protected]

Abstract

The present article aims to draw attention to a neglected source attesting the epithet christianissimus imperator as a late antique imperial title. The source in question, the Passio Pollionis (BHL 6869), is one of the earliest testimonies, alongside Ambrose’s and Jerome’s works. It is also peculiar in that, as a hagiographic work, it addresses the emperor Valentinian I with this title. A brief comparison with the use of christianissi-mus in Ambrose, as well as the analysis of its literary—propagandistic function in the Passio Pollionis is meant to shed light on the documentary potential of the Passio.

Keywords

Valentinian I – Ambrose – Passio Pollionis – christianissimus – Sextus Claudius Petro-nius Probus

…(. . .) Probus praeses imperatae sibi persecutionis a clericis sumpsit exor-dium (. . .). Et cum sub specie publicae necessitatis ad urbem Cibalitanam peruenisset, de qua Valentinianus, christianissimus imperator, oriundus esse cognoscitur et in qua superiori persecutione Eusebius, eiusdem eccle-siae uenerandus antistes, moriendo pro Christi nomine de morte et de

83Valentinian I, christianissimus imperator?

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 82-97

diabolo noscitur triumphasse, contigit Domini misericordia prouidente ut eodem die comprehensus Pullio (. . .)1

∵Judging by this passage of the Passio Pollionis (BHL 6869), the answer to the question implied in the title is a definite ‘yes’. Judging by what we know of Valentinian I from contemporary and later sources, the answer becomes much more complicated. That Valentinian I was a Christian who favoured Christians can hardly be denied.2 The literary sources at our disposal (written roughly in the first decades after his death) are divided in evaluating him in this respect. Some (notably pagan) authors celebrate him for his religious tolerance and equity towards polytheistic cults, while Christian ones praise him as an ardent defender of Christianity and episcopal authority.3 Yet none of the latter group ventured so far as to actually name Valentinian I christianissimus imperator. Although his two sons and successors, Gratian and Valentinian II, were both addressed with the epithet christianissimus,4 Valentinian I was never distin-guished thus,5 not even posthumously. The Passio Pollionis stands as the only known instance when the epithet was used to honour Valentinian I.

The present article focuses on the hagiographic legitimacy of this singular characterization of Valentinian I. It argues that such a distinction of the emperor stems from a local, Pannonian, dynamics of collective resentment

1 Passio Pollionis I, 2-II, 3, in H. Tamas, “Passio Pollionis (BHL 6869): Introduction, Critical Text, and Notes,” Sacris Erudiri 51 (2012): 27, 3-4 and 27, 13-28, 16.

2 D. Hunt, “Valentinian and the Bishops: Ammianus 30.9.5 in Context,” in Ammianus after Julian: The Reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26-31 of the Res Gestae, ed. J. den Boeft, J.W. Drijvers, D. den Hengst and H.C. Teitler, Mnemosyne: Bibliotheca Classica Batava. Monographs on Greek and Roman Language and Literature 289 (Leiden/Boston, 2007), 75-77.

3 On the religious policy of Valentinian I and its pagan and Christian receptions, see Hunt, “Valentinian,” 71-93—citing Ambrose, Ausonius, Augustine, Symmachus, and Libanius. Cf. also M. Humphries, “Nec metu nec adulandi foeditate constricta: The Image of Valentinian I from Symmachus to Ammianus,” in The Late Roman World and Its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, ed. J.W. Drijvers and D. Hunt (London and New York, 1999), 118-124.

4 See Ambrosius, Ep. 72 and Ep. extra coll. 12, in Sancti Ambrosii opera. Pars X. Epistulae et acta, recensuit Michaela Zelzer, vol. III, CSEL 82.3 (Vindobonae, 1982), 11-20 and 219-221. Further discussion of Ambrose’ use of christianissimus imperator/princeps will follow on the pages below.

5 For the titulatura of Valentinian I, as transmitted by written sources, see G. Rösch, ΟΝΟΜΑ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ: Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spätantiker und frühbyzantini-scher Zeit (Wien, 1978), 162.

84 tamas


and appraisal. In other words, the partial feelings that the Christian commu-nity in Pannonia II (especially in the capital and the neighbouring cities)6 nourished towards Valentinian I might explain why the redactor of the Passio Pollionis, who belonged to this community, conferred this title to the emperor. By observing how Valentinian’s image was created/transformed in the local collective memory—as reflected in the Passio Pollionis—the present article aims to highlight also the documentary potential of this hagiographic text, hoping to integrate it into the corpus of sources attesting the development of a formula that became, in the Byzantine and Frankish world, a widely-used title of the emperor, respectively the king: christianissimus imperator/rex.7

1. The Passio Pollionis was written during the last two decades of the 4th century, in Pannonia II, in order to serve the cult of the martyr Pollio.8 It remembers in writing the exemplary story of Pollio, primicerius lectorum in the church of Cibalae,9 who was martyred during the Great Persecution. It nar-rates that the praeses, Probus,10 began to implement the edicts of persecution starting with the clergy in Sirmium, his city of residence (I). Not being satisfied with Sirmium, he personally supervised the persecution in the neighbouring cities too, including Cibalae. There, Pollio was presented to him for trial (II). After a vivid interview, during which the lector had the chance to summarize the basic tenets of the Christian doctrine and ethos (III-IV), the unconvinced Probus sentenced him to be burnt at the stake (IV). The Passio ends with the execution of the sentence, indicating the time and place of Pollio’s martyrdom, and a reference to the liturgical celebration of his dies natalis (V).11

6 This community forms the target-audience for whom the Passio Pollionis was written in the first place.

7 H. Bellen, “Christianissimus imperator: Zur Christianisierung der römischen Kaiserideologie von Constantin bis Theodosius,” in Politik—Recht—Gesellschaft: Studien zu alten Geschichte, Historia. Einzelschriften 115 (Stuttgart, 1997), 152.

8 For a detailed analysis of the Passio’s date and redactional homogeneity, see Tamas, “Passio Pollionis,” 12-18 and H. Tamas, “Eloquia divina populis legere: Bible, Apologetics and Asceticism in the Passio Pollionis,” in Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity (300-450 AD): History and Discourse, Tradition and Religious Identity, ed. P. Gemeinhardt and J. Leemans, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 116 (Berlin and Boston, 2012), 183-189.

9 Nowadays Vinkovci, Croatia.10 The province whose praeses Probus was remains unspecified throughout the Passio. See

below, p. 11 with n. 45. 11 In late antique and medieval martyrologies Pollio’s feast-day is the 28th of April.

However, the most important manuscripts of the Passio Pollionis set the date of his mar-tyrdom on the 27th of April. For references see Tamas, “Passio Pollionis,” 10 n. 5, as well as Pass. Poll. V, 3 (Tamas, 31, 82, with the afferent apparatus criticus).



The passage that interests us is part of the redactor’s introduction to Pollio’s trial (I-II). He chose to describe the city where Pollio served as a lector by high-lighting two personalities who distinguished Cibalae as a prestigious Christian milieu: a lay person and a clergyman. The latter is a fellow martyr, bishop Eusebius of Cibalae, who had fallen victim to a previous persecution—his name is recalled again at the end of the Passio, where we learn that his martyr-dom had taken place on the same day as Pollio’s.12 The lay person is the emperor Valentinian, who had been born in Cibalae;13 he is distinguished as christianis-simus imperator.

This passage has often been invoked to date the Passio Pollionis to the sec-ond half of the 4th century. However, the emphasis has been always laid on the name “Valentinianus”, regarded as a chronological indicator for the terminus post quem.14 The epithet, christianissimus, did not excite scientific curiosity, although, as Mirja Jarak remarked in passing, Valentinian I could hardly have deserved it.15 In the following, I shall pursue a twofold inquiry: first, I shall con-nect the passage with the earliest written testimonies of the title christianissi-mus in late 4th century authors, with a brief analysis of its occurrences in Ambrose and Jerome. As I hope to prove, the Passio’s redactor eagerly embraced the formula in its earliest stages of written documentation and applied it retro-spectively to Valentinian I. Next, I shall analyze the function of the passage in the overall mind-set conveyed by the Passio Pollionis; by applying an audience-

12 In all likelihood, Eusebius of Cibalae never existed, but was created by the redactor in an effort to place Pollio in the footsteps of illustrious predecessors. Cf. M. Simonetti, “Sugli atti di due martiri della Pannonia,” in Studi Agiografici (Rome, 1955), 73.

13 The reference unquestionably concerns Valentinian I, since, of the two Valentiniani con-nected to Pannonia, he was the one who had been born in Cibalae. Cf. Libanius, Or. 20, 25, in Libanii Opera, rec. R. Foerster, BSGRT (Leipzig, 1904), 433, 1-5, and Zosimus, Hist. Nova, III, 36, 2, in Zosimus, ed. I. Bekker, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae 2 (Bonn, 1837), 173, 17-18. See also PLRE I, 933, Flavius Valentinianus 7.

14 A. Amore, “Pollio,” LTK 8 (21963), 592; H.R. Seeliger, “Pollio(n),” LTK 8 (31999), 397; I. Daniele, “Pollione,” BiblSS 10 (1982): 1002-1003; D. Ruiz-Bueno, Actas de los mártires, Biblioteca de los auctores cristianos 75 (Madrid, 1951, reprint 1962), 1045; G. Caldarelli, Atti dei martiri (Milan, 1985), 675, 676 n. 2; M. Jarak, “Martyres Pannoniae—the Chronological Position of the Pannonian Martyrs in the Course of Diocletian’s Persecution,” in Westillyricum und Nordostitalien in der spätrömischen Zeit, ed. R. Bratož (Ljubljana, 1996), 277-278. P. Kovács, Fontes Pannoniae Antiquae in aetate Tetrarcharum I (A.D. 285-305), Fontes Pannoniae Antiquae VI (Budapest, 2011), 78, does not enter into a detailed discussion, but observes that, since the Passio Pollionis demonstrably draws its sources from the very early Passio Irenaei and (the now lost) Passio Montani, and since it mentions Valentinian, it should be dated most probably to the years 360-370.

15 Jarak, “Martyres,” 277.

86 tamas


oriented analysis, I shall oppose the image of Valentinian I to the image of the persecutor, Probus, in whom we might glimpse the collective fictionalization of the historical person Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus. In my analysis I shall attempt to observe which goal the redactor had in mind when he charac-terized Valentinian as christianissimus imperator.

2. While Valentinian’s name is not entirely absent from hagiographic texts, it generally denotes a chronological indicator.16 Likewise, while many medi-eval texts do mention christianissimus rex,17 up to my knowledge no hagio-graphic work written in Late Antiquity described thus a ruler.18 For all intents and purposes, the Passio Pollionis is a singular occurrence, both in mentioning Valentinian and in considering him christianissimus. In this sense, it is signifi-cant that the earliest written testimonies of the formula date from the last two decades of the 4th century,19 corresponding to the period set forth for the com-position of the Passio Pollionis. Let us examine them closer.

The first documented occurrences of the epithet christianissimus used as an imperial title of address can be found in Ambrose’s letters. It is not unlikely

16 E.g., the Passio Sabae 7, in H. Delehaye, “Saints de Thrace et de Mésie,” AnBoll 31 (1912): 221, 6-9.

17 The term christianissimus conferred to an emperor occurs but a few times: see, e.g., the Passio Ioannis et Pauli (BHL 3242), 2, in: D. Papebrochius, “De sanctis fratribus martyribus Joanne et Paulo Romae in propria domo nunc ecclesia, item Terentiano et filio ejus ibi-dem,” ActaSS Iunii V (Antwerp, 1709), 160, with reference to Iovian; or the Vita Innocentii episcopi Dertonensis (BHL 4281), II, 4, in: G. Henschenius, “De sancto Innocentio, episcopo Dertonensi in Liguria,” ActaSS Aprilis II (Antwerp, 1675), 483, with reference to Constantine the Great. However, these texts are the result of medieval hagiographic imagination; they indicate the medieval reception of Iovian and Constantine; they cannot, therefore, be counted as sources for the present research.

18 The only other late antique Passio to make use of the term christianissimus is the Passio Donati, Venusti et Hermogenis (BHL 2309), II, 3: “Sed, cum in eis eius satiata crudelitas non fuisset, uicinas ciuitates peragrandas decreuit et cum sub specie publicae necessitatis in ciuitatem Ciualitanam deuenisset, de qua Pullio uir christianissimus esse cognoscitur (. . .)”. Edition by M. Cerno, “Passio Donati, Venusti et Hermogenis,” in Le passioni dei mar-tiri aquileiesi e istriani, vol. I, ed. E. Colombi, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli. Serie Medievale 7 (Roma, 2008), 363. Needless to say, the passage bears remarkable resem-blance to the fragment of the Passio Pollionis quoted at the beginning of the present arti-cle. It is, in fact, taken over from the latter, with slight modifications. Hence, this occurrence cannot be considered an autonomous attestation of the epithet.

19 For the textual corpus of christianissimus as a conventional title in late antique corre-spondence, see M.B. O’Brien, Titles of Address in Christian Latin Epistolography to 543 A.D., The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 21 (Washington D.C., 1930), 129; as imperial title, see Rösch, ΟΝΟΜΑ, 144-145 and 148-152 (for the Byzantine emperors).



that he invented it or he adapted it as a neologism, as H. Bellen suggested.20 Since he is the pioneer in flattering the emperors in this way, the passages in Ambrose’s works deserve a closer analysis.

Ambrose uses christianissimus for the first time in Ep. extra coll. 12, dating from 380. The Milanese bishop sent this letter to Gratian as a reply to the emperor’s invitation. Gratian had requested that Ambrose visit the court and write a sequel to the first two books of De fide, whereby he should express his views on the Holy Spirit. The address and the first chapter both name Gratian christianissimus princeps, and Ambrose immediately observes that this title is the most true and most glorious of all:

Beatissimo augusto Gratiano et christianissimo principi Ambrosius episcopusNon mihi affectus defuit, christianissime principum—nihil enim habeo quod hoc verius et gloriosius dicam—non, inquam, mihi affectus defuit, sed affectum verecundia retardavit, quominus clementiae tuae occurrerem.21

In 384 Ambrose resorts again to the epithet in a letter addressed to Valentinian II, namely Ep. 72. This time we encounter the entire formula, both in the address and in the third chapter:

Ambrosius episcopus beatissimo principi et christianissimo imperatori Valentiniano(. . .) Ergo cum a te, imperator christianissime, fides Deo vero sit exhi-benda, cum ipsius fidei studium, cautio atque devotio, miror quomodo aliquibus in spem venerit, quod debeas aras diis gentium tuo instaurare praecepto . . .22

Both occurrences appear in the context of delicate relationships between the bishop and the respective emperor. Prior to the writing of Ep. extra coll. 12, Ambrose avoided twice a meeting with Gratian, moreover, he did so when the emperor was in Milan.23 The probable reason behind Ambrose’s ‘boycott’ was that the emperor granted a church in Milan to the use of the Arian

20 Bellen, “Christianissimus imperator,” 150 n. 1.21 Ambrosius, Ep. extra coll. 12 (CSEL 82.3, 219, 2-8).22 Ambrosius, Ep. 72, title (CSEL 82.3, 11, 2-3); Ep. 72, 3 (CSEL 82.3, 12, 18-21).23 T.D. Barnes, “Ambrose and Gratian,” AnTard 7 (1999): 172.

88 tamas


congregation.24 Likewise, Ep. 72, written in the context of the scandal issued around the Victoria altar in the Roman Senate, admonishes Valentinian II to rise to this title and withdraw his decision to restore the altar.25 The christianis-simus apostrophe thus has, in Ambrose’s view, binding consequences for the emperor’s conduct. In both cases, by christianissimus Ambrose means fidelissimus,26 most religious.27 He aims to elicit thus from his imperial corre-spondents utmost rallying to his own theological position—and ultimately, expects them to enact his own view of the Christian emperor.28 For him, the emperor possesses, on one hand, all the Christian virtues and should be a model of Christian life and rule. On the other hand, this very fact submits the emperor to the bishop, who, in matters of faith, has the higher authority.29 The emperor may be sanctioned by God, but he is still a mere member of the Church. He has no authority to interfere in ecclesiastical politics unless it is for

24 Barnes, “Ambrose,” 173-174. For further details on the relationship between Ambrose and Gratian, see G. Gottlieb, Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian, Hypomnemata: Untersuchungen zur antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 40 (Göttingen, 1973); D.H. Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 1995), 154-169.

25 On the issue of the restoration of the Victoria altar and the debate between Ambrose and Symmachus with regard to this subject, see R. Klein, Der Streit um den Victoriaaltar (Darmstadt, 1972), who also edited the relevant corpus of sources; K. Groß-Albenhausen, Imperator christianissimus: Der christliche Kaiser bei Ambrosius und Johannes Chrysostomus, Frankfurter althistorische Beiträge 3 (Frankfurt am Main, 1999), 65-78; R. Lizzi Testa, “Christian Emperor, Vestal Virgins and Priestly Colleges: Reconsidering the End of Roman Paganism,” AnTard 15 (2007): 251-262; E. Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand: Leben und Werk (Stuttgart, 2004), 84-91.

26 Bellen, “Christianissimus imperator,” 162.27 Provided that we understand by ‘religious’ a person who observes to the highest degree

the Christian virtues, who professes the Nicene theology and who acts at all times to the benefit of the Nicene party, both against the heretics and against the pagans. The theme is recurrent in Ambrose’s funeral sermons for Valentinian II and Theodosius (De obitu Valentiniani; De obitu Theodosii), whereby the emperors are presented as the perfect Christians. Cf. S. Lunn-Rockliffe, “Ambrose’s Imperial Funeral Sermons,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 59/2 (April 2008): 197-207.

28 Significant is Ep. 72, 12 (CSEL 82.3, 17, 109-116): “Et ideo memor legationis proxime manda-tae mihi convenio iterum fidem tuam, convenio mentem tuam, ne vel respondendum secundum huiusmodi petitionem gentilium censeas vel in eiusmodi responsa sacrile-gium subscriptionis adiungas. Certe refer ad parentem pietatis tuae, principem Theodosium, quem super omnibus fere maioribus causis consulere consuesti. Nihil maius est religione, nihil sublimius fide.”

29 E.g., Ambrosius, Ep. 75, 4 (CSEL 82.3, 75, 26-76, 35, addressed to Valentinian II); 76, 19 (CSEL 82.3, 118, 161-119, 174).



the protection and propagation of the (Nicene) Church, by which actions he complements the efforts of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (and especially the bishop). The christianissimus imperator thus acts for the welfare of the Church, protects its faith, but does not shape it.30

The next author to employ the term is Jerome, twice in his letters (Ep. 57 and Ep. 129), and once in the treatise Contra Ioannem. Two of these occurrences belong to the Origenist controversy,31 and exceed the time-span concerning us. The third occurrence dates from ca. 395, in a letter written to Pammachius:

Sed ut infinita praeteream, et ostendam tibi, vir omnium nobilium Christianissime, et Christianorum nobilissime, cuiusmodi falsitatis me in epistolae translatione reprehendant, (. . .)32

It is immediately manifest that Jerome does not refer to emperors in any of these writings. He represents a later, more common usage of the word, now applied to high officials as well (e.g. Archelaus, comes Orientis33 in Contra Ioannem). Starting with the end of the 4th century, the term christianissimus slowly penetrates the common conscience, and evolves from an exclusively imperial title to a favoured epithet.

As we have seen, late 4th century sources attest the use of christianissimus as a title attributed to the highest class of imperial administration, the emperor (Ambrose) and his high functionaries (Jerome). None of them refer to Valentinian I, though. But considering that Ambrose referred to members of the Valentinian dynasty, notably the two sons of Valentinian I, as christianis-simi, it is not very surprising that a cherishing local memory would extend the appellative to Valentinian I as well. The bishop of Milan was in Sirmium in 378-9, when Gratian’s court also resided there.34 Given Ambrose’s use of the epi-thet to achieve ends for himself, it is not very unlikely that he used it prior to its written record, viva voce during the interviews he had with the emperor. If so,

30 Cf. K.M. Setton, Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century (New York, 1967), 109-152; Groß-Albenhausen, Imperator christianissimus, 29-143.

31 Hieronymus, Ep. 129, 1 (PL 22, col. 1099-1100): “Quaeris Dardane, Christianorum nobilis-sime, et nobilium christianissime, quae sit terra repromissionis (. . .)”; and Hieronymus, Contra Ioannem 39 (PL 23, col. 391C-D): “Quando per virum disertissimum et christianis-simum Archelaum comitem, qui sequester pacis erat, condictus locus foederis fuit (. . .)”.

32 Hieronymus, Ep. 57, 12 (PL 22, col. 578).33 See PLRE II, 132-3, Archelaus 1.34 Barnes, “Ambrose,” 168-170; R. Gryson, Scholies Ariennes sur le concile d’Aquilée (Paris,

1980), 107-121.

90 tamas


the title could have taken firm roots in the milieu of the Sirmian court, from where the redactor of the Passio Pollionis might have borrowed it.35 Ambrose himself was prone to approve, even encourage such application to Valentinian I. He certainly did not hesitate to use the memory of Valentinian I against his own son. Ambrose’s description of Valentinian I coincides with his ideal of a christianissimus imperator: he is taking steps to protect and ensure the triumph of Christianity over paganism, as shown above. Moreover, he is an advocate of ecclesiastical autonomy: in a letter addressed to Valentinian II in 386, Ambrose recalls to the young emperor a law issued by Valentinian I concerning ecclesi-astical affairs:

Nec quisquam contumacem iudicare me debet, cum hoc asseram, quod augustae memoriae pater tuus [= Valentinianus I] non solum sermone respondit sed etiam legibus suis sanxit: “In causa fidei vel ecclesiastici alicuius ordinis eum iudicare debere qui nec munere impar sit nec iure dissimilis.” Haec enim verba rescripti sunt hoc est sacerdotes de sacerdo-tibus voluit iudicare.36

Then Ambrose immediately adds:

Quis igitur contumaciter respondit clementiae tuae, ille qui te patris sim-ilem esse desiderat an qui vult esse dissimilem? Nisi forte vilis quibus-dam tanti imperatoris aestimatur sententia, cuius et fides confessionis constantia comprobata est et sapientia melioratae rei publicae profecti-bus praedicatur.37

However, Valentinian I was far from being treated with such indulgence by other authors, and, in spite of the Passio Pollionis boasting about his Christian conduct, he did not become a celebrated figure in hagiography either. It is time

35 It is also possible that Ambrose encountered it at the court and chose to make the best of it in his dealings with the imperial heads. It is however curious that no other written source emerging from the environment of the court mentions it (in particular, the pane-gyrics). It is safer, thus, to presume that Ambrose really adopted the formula as a neologism.

36 Ambrosius, Ep. 75, 2 (CSEL 82.3, 74, 10-75, 17), with reference to the rescript promulgated in 375, shortly before the death of Valentinian I. See T.D. Barnes, “Valentinian, Auxentius and Ambrose,” Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 51/2 (2002): 237. To set father against son seems to have been a favoured strategy of Ambrose. We encounter it also in the Victoria altar affair, e.g., in Ep. 72, 16 (CSEL 82.3, 19, 157-20, 170).

37 Ambrosius, Ep. 75, 3 (CSEL 82.3, 75, 20-25).



now to examine how the Passio Pollionis uses this image of a most Christian Valentinian I: since by now it is clear that its redactor did not take over a con-secrated formula (merely for the sake of a customary description of the emperor), one must inquire how this epithet and the evocation of this emperor contributed to the message conveyed by the Passio Pollionis. In my analysis, I will pay attention to two complementary aspects: on one hand, the socio-historical factors which affected Pannonia II during the last decades of the 4th century; and, on the other hand, the function of Valentinian I and of the epithet in the narrative line of the Passio itself.

3. One of the peculiarities of the Passio Pollionis is that it allows on stage very few lay actors: the introductory catalogue of Pannonian martyrs consists exclusively of clergy;38 the only lay persons mentioned are the perse-cutor, Probus, and Valentinian himself. I suggest there is an inherent antithesis between the two personae, opposing the savage anti-Christian high function-ary to the emperor who protects the Christians.

Probus in fact is a recurrent persecuting figure in Pannonia-related hagiog-raphy.39 Based exclusively on hagiographic sources, modern scholars allowed for the existence of an early 4th century governor of Pannonia (Inferior) named Probus.40 Although it must be granted that the name itself was quite popular

38 Respecting the liturgical order of the martyrs’ celebration, the Passio mentiones first Montanus, priest from Singidunum; next, Irenaeus, bishop of Sirmium; and finally Demetrius, deacon in the same city. See Passio Pollionis I, 2-4 (Tamas, 27, 2-12). Lay mar-tyrs, such as Maxima, the wife of Montanus, the 7 virgins martyred with Demetrius, whom we know of from late antique martyrological sources, or the gardener Serenus, whose cult is attested by a variety of ancient sources and whose Passio is still extant, are absent from this enumeration. Cf. Mart. Hier. ad 26 Mart., in Hippolyte Delehaye, Commentarius perpetuus in martyrologium Hieronymianum, Acta Sanctorum Novembris II/2 (Bruxelles, 1931), 162—Montanus and Maxima; Mart. Hier. ad 9 Apr. (ActaSS Nov. II/2, 180)—VII virgines; Passio Sereni Sirmiensis (BHL 7595-6) in Acta martyrum sincera et selecta, ed. T. Ruinart (Ratisbonae, 1859), 517-518. The insistence on the clergy is not inci-dental: the catalogue aims to emphasize Pollio’s ecclesiastical predecessors in martyrdom as keepers of the true faith. Pollio himself declares his adherence to the teachings and to the conduct of these predecessors (Passio Pollionis, IV, 4, Tamas, 31, 71-73).

39 Apart from Pollio’s account, R. Bratož, “Die diokletianische Christenverfolgung in den Donau- und Balkanprovinzen,” in Diokletian und die Tetrarchie: Aspekte einer Zeitenwende, eds. A. Demandt, A. Goltz and H. Schlange-Schöningen (Berlin, 2004), 134, lists the Passio Irenaei Sirmiensis, Passio Anastasiae, and the Passio Ursicini.

40 The weight of the argument is carried by the Passio Pollionis and the Passio Irenaei (BHL 4466), as 4th century sources. The editors of PLRE I maintain reserves with regard to the reliability of these hagiographic texts: PLRE I, 736, Probus 2 (praeses of Pannonia Inferior for 303/305, based on ‘sources of doubtful reliability’). Cf. also H. Musurillo, ed., The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 21979), XLIII. These precautions did not keep J. Fitz from

92 tamas


in Illyricum during the entire 4th century, the lack of solid evidence to verify the hypothesis impedes any certainty. A Probus, praeses of Pannonia during the first Tetrarchy is not attested by any other source;41 nor can the hagio-graphic works invoked to substantiate the hypothesis be considered indepen-dent witnesses,42 let alone reliable ones. Moreover, the passiones themselves are inconsistent, at least with regard to the province allegedly governed by Probus. From the catalogue of the martyred Christians in the Passio Pollionis, it seems that Probus’ jurisdiction extended over a territory that roughly corre-sponds to Pannonia II.43 That Probus’ residence was Sirmium (implicitly the capital of the province) suggests that (at least) the redactor of the Passio Pollionis had in view a period after the administrative reorganization operated by Diocletian, whereby he had split Pannonia Inferior into two units, Valeria and Pannonia II.44 This reorganization dates from the second decade of the 4th century.45 It seems that the redactor projected realities of his time into the martyrial past—an observation which seriously undermines the historicity of

beginning his Fasti of praesides Pannoniae Secundae with the Probus of the two passiones (note that Fitz believes at least the Passio Irenaei to be reliable and consequently, estab-lishes the Diocletianic reorganization of the Pannonian provinces as early as ca. 296). See Fitz, L’administration des provinces pannoniennes sous le Bas-Empire romain, Latomus 181 (Bruxelles, 1983), 49 and 93 (with commentary on the years of office forwarded by PLRE I). Cf. also, more recently, J. Fitz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Römerzeit, vol. III (Budapest, 1994), 1253; R. Bratož, “Die diokletianische Christenverfolgung,” 134 (only for 304).

41 L. Nagy, Pannóniai városok, mártírok, ereklyék: Négy szenvedéstörténet helyszínei nyomában, Thesaurus Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Universitate Quinqueecclesiensi 1 (Pécs, 2012), 40-41, mentions as a possible candidate Pompeius Probus, a member of Galerius’ entou-rage and praefectus praetorio Orientis between 310-314, but, as he himself recognizes, Pompeius Probus is not attested as a praeses. See PLRE I, 740, Probus 6.

42 The Passio Pollionis and the Passio Irenaei are textually connected to one another: that the persecutor is named Probus in both texts, is probably due to a thematic contamination rather than a reference to the same historical figure. On the strong thematical and textual links between the two Pannonian passiones, see Tamas, “Passio Pollionis,” 16-18.

43 Montanus was presbyter in Singidunum; Irenaeus and Demetrius are from Sirmium; and Pollio himself served in the Church of Cibalae.

44 The capital of Pannonia Inferior was Aquincum. In the Passio Pollionis however, the pro-vincial administrative centre is clearly Sirmium.

45 Fitz, L’administration, 14-15 and A. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia: A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire (London and Boston, 1974), 273 and 396 n. 33, are right to remark that a praeses established in Sirmium suggests that the administra-tive division of Pannonia Inferior in Valeria and Pannonia II had already taken place, since the capital of Pannonia Inferior had been Aquincum, and not Sirmium, as in the two passiones. Their use of this evidence for an early reorganization of Pannonia Inferior



the praeses Probus. Once we accept that this persecutor is a hagiographic creation, we might search for its historical model. A first person proposed by scholarship is the emperor Marcus Aurelius Probus (Augustus between 276-282).46 A Pannonian native, he ended up being murdered by his own sol-diers near Sirmium.47 Certainly, he did not enjoy a good reputation among Pannonian provincials at the time. Nonetheless, it would be too far-fetched to consider that his ill fame was so strong after almost a century, that the redactor of a hagiographic text would choose him as the name-giver of the persecutor.

When we look at the compositional context of the Passio Pollionis, another interesting conjecture emerges. To the scholar studying the history of Pannonia during the reign of the Valentinian dynasty, the personality of the Roman mag-nate Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus48 and his partial, if not downright nega-tive depiction in Ammianus Marcellinus is very familiar.49 One of the most powerful aristocrats in the 360’s and 370’s, Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus was repeatedly praetorian prefect of Illyricum under the Valentinians.50 Member of the Christianizing gens Anicia, he has divided the opinion of his contemporaries, but also the opinion of modern scholars, as to his administra-tive achievements.51 Contemporary sources such as Hieronymus and Ammianus

(296) is, however, imprudent. The administrative landscape glimpsed in the two passio-nes corresponds rather to the period of their composition than to the Great Persecution.

46 PLRE I, 736, Probus 3. The allusion to the emperor Probus was first suspected by T.D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, 1982), 189. Bratož, “Die diokletianische Christenverfolgung,” 134 n. 71, mentions Barnes’ hypothesis, albeit reserving some doubts. Two notes further (134 n. 73), he comments that the perse-cutor of the Passio Anastasiae, this time a praefectus Illyrici Probus, recalls the figure of Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus—thereby concurring with the remarks following in the present article.

47 PLRE I, 736, Probus 3, with further references.48 PLRE I, 736-740, Probus 5. 49 Ammianus, Hist., 27, 11, in Ammien Marcellin, Histoire, vol. V: Livres XXVI-XXVIII, ed. M.-A.

Marié CUF.SL (Paris, 1984), 137-139; 28, 1, 32-3 (CUF.SL, 155); 29, 6, 8-11, in Ammien Marcellin, Histoire, vol. VI: Livres XXIX-XXXI, ed. G. Sabbath, CUF.SL 354 (Paris, 1999), 48-49; 30, 5, 4-11 (CUF.SL 74-76).

50 PPO Illyrici, 364 and 366; PPO Illyrici, Italiae et Africae 368-375, 383. PLRE I, 736-740, Probus 5; for a detailed analysis of the evidence on Probus’ four mandates as prefect and their respective date, see D.M. Novak, “Anicianae domus culmen, nobilitatis culmen,” Klio 62 (1980): 474-480, arguing against, i.a., W. Seyfarth, “Sextus Petronius Probus: Legende und Wirklichkeit,” Klio 52 (1970): 413.

51 The rehabilitation of Probus in light of a comprehensive view on the sources at our dis-posal was undertaken by both Seyfarth, “Sextus Petronius Probus,” 411-425 (who main-tained that Ammianus is dependent in his negative view on Probus’ political opponents in the Roman Senate) and Novak, “Anicianae domus culmen,” 481-493. More recently,

94 tamas


were ready to attribute the troubles of those times, the general imperial lack of interest in Pannonia, the events of 374, when the Barbarian incursions reached as far as Sirmium, to the deficient administration of Probus. Ammianus tells us that, while residing in Sirmium, he neglected the defensive systems and, in 374, when faced with Barbarian invasions, firstly thought about escaping rather than facing the enemy.52 Hieronymus concurs with Ammianus in accusing Probus that he implemented with savagery the taxation policy of Valentinian I.53 If these sources, located in parts of the empire other than Illyricum, could make Probus responsible, it is easily imagined how much more he was blamed by the locals, even unto portraying him as a persecutor of Christians.54

If the prefect55 was seen as a scapegoat, the expectations of locals vis-à-vis Valentinian I as a true protector of Pannonia were safeguarded from any

J.W. Drijvers, “Decline of Political Culture: Ammianus Marcellinus’ Characterization of the Reigns of Valentinian and Valens,” in Shifting Cultural Frontiers in Late Antiquity, ed. D. Brakke, D. Deliyannis and E. Watts (Farnham, 2012) has showed that Ammianus’ portrayal of Probus is an integral part of his overall criticism of Valentinian’s and Valens’ reign.

52 Ammianus, Hist., 29, 6, 9-11 (CUF.SL 354, 48). See Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, 294 and 310, and Fitz, L’administration, 41. PLRE I, 737, adducing as supporting evidence Libanius, Or., 24, 12, considers that Ammianus’ account refers to events taking place in 372.

53 Hieronymus, Chron., ad annum 372, in Die Chronik des Hieronymus, ed. R. Helm, GCS Eusebius 7 (Berlin, 1984), 264, 18-21: “Probus praefectus Illyrici iniquissimus tributorum exactionibus ante provincias quas regebat, quam a barbaris vastarentur, erasit”; Ammianus, Hist., 30, 5, 4-10 (CUF.SL 354, 74-76).

54 The possibility that behind the character of the persecuting Probus one might envisage Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus has already been stated by F. Dolbeau, at the suggestion of A. Chastagnol. See Dolbeau, “Le dossier hagiographique d’Irénée, évêque de Sirmium,” AnTard 7 (1999): 207 n. 17. Nagy, Pannoniai városok, 40, dismisses the conjecture. He argues that Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus could have hardly provided material for a cruel persecutor on account of his Christianity and his good relations with Ambrose and the emperor Theodosius. Nonetheless, we have seen that Jerome himself, who main-tained close contacts with the gens Anicia, did not hesitate to highlight the iniquitas of the prefect. Of Probus’ ‘good relations’ with Ambrose we are informed only by Paulinus of Milan. See Paulinus Mediolanensis, Vita Ambr., 5 and 8 (PL 14, col. 28C and 29C-D). Interestingly enough, Ambrose himself never mentions his high patron.

55 It is worthy to mention that at least one branch of textual transmission of all the three texts concerned (Passio Irenaei, Passio Pollionis, and Passio Anastasiae) refers to Probus as praefectus. The Bollandist edition of the Passio Irenaei, based on a 15th century manu-script, reads in the concluding paragraph “agente Praefecturam Probo Praeside”: Pass. Iren. 5, in Acta Sanctorum Martii III (Antwerp, 1668), 557. For the Passio Pollionis, an entire family, the Magnum Legendarium Austriacum contains a passage where Probus is intro-duced as “praefectus” (Pass. Poll. III, 2, consult the apparatus criticus ad l. 29 in Tamas,



disillusions. Overall, there was not much reason why the Pannonians should be fond of the emperor born in their province. Valentinian seldom sojourned there, and seemed blissfully unaware of the fiscal burden he was setting on the province with the new taxation policy.56 Over against the Christians he pur-sued a policy of ‘concord’,57 refusing to take sides with any doctrinal party.58 This policy had manifest consequences also in the Pannonian provinces, which remained during his reign the cauldron of Arianism in the West: the episcopal see of Sirmium remained at the time in the possession of an Arian bishop.59 Yet, we already noticed how easy it was for Ambrose to do away with Valentinian’s religious policy when the situation demanded.

The collective memory is all the more prone to reflect on the past from the perspective of a person’s recent actions, and Valentinian did rush to defend Pannonia when Barbarians breached the limes. This enterprise, which ulti-mately cost him his life, stands in contrast with the attitude of the local admin-istration, highly neglecting the Barbarian threat and the defence system. The Pannonian population would, thus, still consider Valentinian as ‘their’ emperor; all their complaints would be directed against the local officials, especially the head of the administration, Probus. This situation is well reflected in the Passio Pollionis too. The invocation of Valentinian as christianissimus imperator con-trasts with Probus’ savagery in carrying out the persecution. Relevant here is the byplay of “cognitor”. The term is used twice to characterize Probus. Firstly, in the description of Irenaeus’ martyrdom, the persecutor is “cognitor . . .

“Passio Pollionis”, 28). As for the Passio Anastasiae, in one version of the Latin recension, Probus is named “praefectus Illyrici”: Pass. Anast. 20-25, in Hippolyte Delehaye, Les origi-nes du culte des martyrs, SubsHag (Bruxelles, 21933), 237-240. It must be mentioned, though, that at least in the case of the Passio Irenaei and the Passio Pollionis, the manu-scripts featuring an allusion to Probus’ prefecture belong to secondary branches—it is not excluded that the allusion was introduced later, by a scribe who recognized the name Probus from the Passio Anastasiae.

56 Ammianus, Hist., 30, 5, 7 (CUF.SL 354, 75).57 Noel Lenski, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D.

(Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA and London, 2002), 238-241; R. Malcolm Errington, Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius, Studies in the History of Greece and Rome (Chapel Hill, NC, 2006), 188-192.

58 Probably one of the reasons why a decade after his death Valentinian I could so conve-niently be portrayed as a Christian who acknowledged and respected episcopal authority. See Hunt, 71-72.

59 A Nicene bishop could be ordained only in 378, and even then with the contest of Ambrose, who already then entered in conflict with the empress Iustina. Cf. Paulinus Mediolanensis, Vita Ambr., 11 (PL 14, col. 30C).

96 tamas


inmitis”.60 Secondly, at the end of his long exposition of the Christian ortho-praxis, Pollio addresses Probus as “optime cognitor”.61 Two meanings are com-bined here, both usual in Late Antiquity;62 the Passio proceeds from the more general sense, that of ‘knower’—Probus is an exercised master of cruelties—to the more technical sense, that of a juridical person, judge. Hence, Pollio treated his persecutor as a person who should have been an informed and skilled judge, implying that nothing could have been at fault with his words.

At the other end, Valentinian is Probus’ opposing figure on equal grounds (both belong to the laity). In the introductory chapter (II) he appears, on a chronological axis, to be the representative of future generations with respect to Pollio: whereas bishop Eusebius (mentioned above, on p. 3) was his illustri-ous ecclesiastical predecessor, Valentinian is his equally illustrious lay succes-sor. The latter is all the more to be appreciated, as, although being a lay person, he nevertheless is capable to embody the Christian modus vivendi proclaimed by Pollio. In him culminates the example of both Eusebius and Pollio. The mentioning of Valentinian must be connected to another passage from the martyr’s confession. When prompted by Probus’ mockery to expose in greater detail the Christian doctrines, Pollio chooses to focus on the socio-ethical dimension. As part of this, he states that Christ commands also:

regibus justa praecipientibus obedire (. . .)63

In this statement, too, the Passio Pollionis denotes a peculiar view. Against the general (apologetic) claim that Christians obeyed the secular authorities in all respects, save those which belonged to religion,64 this passage of the Passio Pollionis calls for discrimination in obedience: only the rulers who issue just commandments should be obeyed. That Valentinian should be held in such high regards as to attribute him the title christianissimus imperator only serves to highlight that he was perceived by the redactor and probably by his target-audience too as a just ruler indeed.

60 Pass. Poll. I, 3 (Tamas, 27, 8-9).61 Pass. Poll. III, 12 (Tamas, 30, 58-59).62 For the two meanings and further references, see TLL III/7, 1487-8 (cognitor, I and II).63 Pass. Poll. III, 9 (Tamas, 29, 51).64 Pollio’s claim is firmly rooted both in Scripture (cf. Rom. 13,1-7; Tit. 3,1; 1 Tim. 2,1-2;

1 Pet. 2,13-17), and in apologetic tradition (cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. I, 17, 1-3; Theophilus, Ad Autolycum I, 11; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V, 24, 1). Yet, contrary to its scriptural and patristic parallels, which do not condition the obedience to one’s secular superiors, the Passio Pollionis confines it to a very specific set of circumstances, related to the righteousness of the rule and the ruler. Cf. Tamas, “Eloquia divina,” 192-193.



4. As I hope to have proven, the christianissimus imperator formula is deeply embedded in the Passio Pollionis. It does not stem from a mere desire to increase the prestige of the Cibalitan city, nor does it present an overly indul-gent view on Valentinian I. It functions as part of the same oppositional frame-work used by Ambrose when confronting the deeds and attitudes of Valentinian II with those of his illustrious father. In the hagiographic universe of the Passio Pollionis, the evocation of Valentinian I is organically related to that of Eusebius on one hand and is a counterpoint to Probus on the other. Moreover, Valentinian also represents the posterity walking in the tradition of Eusebius and Pollio. In this sense, he cannot be but christianissimus.

Written in the period of emergence of christianissimus imperator as impe-rial title, the Passio Pollionis, therefore, is worthy of being included in the cor-pus of sources documenting this peculiar formula.

082 - valentinian i, christianissimus imperator - notes on a passage of the passio pllionis bhl...

Documents