18-CHAPTER 18. GLYCERIUS THE DEACON

CHAPTER 18.GLYCERIUS THE DEACON.

[Note: This chapter, published in great part in Expositor, 1891, was originally a lecture delivered in Cambridge at the invitation of Dr. Westcott in 1889. Traces of the original form remain on pp. 448, 450.]

WE have now treated in brief outline the position of the Church in the Empire during the period when its organization was in process of formation. By the time which we have reached (170-180 A.D.), all the elements of the consolidated Church had assumed the form and the mutual relations which on the whole characterize its subsequent development. From this date onwards the subject which has occupied our attention becomes more complicated, far more evidence bearing upon it is accessible, and it is hardly susceptible of treatment as a whole. The development of the Catholic Church was indeed an element of unity over the whole Empire; but in each province the situation of the unified and universal Church varied. The elements within the pale of Christianity which opposed the tendencies of the universal Church varied in each province; the character of the people, the type of their religious feeling and attitude, the relation in which they stood towards the Roman Government and society, differed widely in different lands. In the history of each province this subject should occupy some place--even a prominent place; [Note: In Mommsen Provinces of the Roman Empire it did not enter into his plan, and the social conditions of each province are described almost as if there had been no Christians in it, or, at least, as if they exerted no influence on it.] and until the local varieties are better understood and more clearly described than has hitherto been the case, it will be impossible to attain a trustworthy conception of the position of the Church within the Empire, between the point which we have reached and the final triumph of the new religion. To come to the particular case of the country with which I am most familiar, we want to catch the Cappadocian Christian of the fourth century, the Phrygian Christian of the second and third centuries, and to acquire some conception of his character, his ways, and his thoughts, and of how he got on with his non-Christian neighbours. In studying this subject, one is led to the opinion that a distinction in social type must be drawn among the Christians. In the period following A.D. 130 the history of Christianity in Asia Minor, when treated as a branch of the history of society, is a long conflict between two opposing tendencies, leading to the formation of sects or churches. From the theological point of view, these provincial churches belong to various classes, and are called by many names; but they have all certain common features,--they tended towards separatism and diversity, in opposition to the unity of the Catholic Church, and they arrived at this diversity through no intentional rejection of the unity of all Christians, but through the gradual and unmarked development of native characteristics in what they considered to be the true and original form of their common religion. The history of the Catholic Church varied greatly in different districts of Asia Minor. In some it never touched the popular heart, and was barely maintained by external influence; in others it achieved a complete victory over the forces that tended to cause disintegration; and in some cases only a faint echo of any conflict has reached us. My position is, that there was, in every case throughout Asia Minor where any evidence is known, such a conflict; that the first Christians of the country were not organized in a strict fashion, but were looser communities, in which personal influence counted for much and official station for little; and that the strict discipline of the Catholic Church was gradually framed to counteract the disintegrating tendency, in a political and a religious view alike, of the provincial character, organized the whole Church in a strict hierarchy of territorial character, parallel to the civil organization, and enabled the Church to hold together the Roman Empire more firmly than the worship of the Emperors could ever do. Politically the Church was originally a protest against over-centralization and against the usurpation by the Imperial Government of the rights of the individual citizen. It ended by being more centralized than the Empire itself; and the Christian Empire destroyed all the municipal freedom and self-government that had existed under the earlier Empire. We should be glad if we could answer the question why some districts of Asia Minor resisted the Catholic Church so persistently, and others followed it so readily; why, for example, if I may use the question-begging terms, Cappadocia was orthodox and Phrygia heretical? The answer seems obvious in the case of Cappadocia. The group of great Church leaders, Basil, Amphilochius, and the three Gregories (for I think Gregory, the Bishop of Nazianzos, may fairly be mentioned along with his far more famous son),--this group of leaders carried the country with them. But this answer only puts the difficulty one step back. Can any reason be suggested why the great Cappadocian leaders followed the Roman Church, whereas almost all the most striking figures in Phrygian ecclesiastical history opposed it?

Partly, no doubt, the reason was geographical or racial-- i.e., it depended on the character produced in the inhabitants by the situation, the atmosphere, the scenery, and the past history of the two districts respectively; but partly it was due to influences acting at the time on the general population and on the leaders of thought in each country. These influences are an interesting study. In Phrygia the evidence is almost entirely archæological, for no historian does more than make an occasional passing allusion to the country; but in Cappadocia much light is thrown on the subject by the biographies and writings of a series of great historical figures; and a study of these documents in their relations to the archeological evidence is the first preliminary in carrying out the purpose that has just been indicated. This book cannot be better concluded than by a few specimens of the work that remains to be done for the later history of Christianity in the country with which we have been chiefly concerned. The history of Basil of Cæsareia, Gregory of Nyssa, and the distinguished family to which they belonged, is closely connected with the city of Ibora in Pontus. A glance at the biography of the various members of the family shows that a number of questions with regard to the circumstances of their life, and the exact meaning to be placed on the language of many of their letters and the incidents they describe, depend on the locality and surroundings. But the name Ibora was long floating in air, and had not set foot on the ground; and for all reasoning that depends on local circumstances, on the relation of city with city, district with district, and civil governors or bishops with each other, it would have been as useful to say that Basil’s family owned an estate beside Cloud-Cuckoo-Town, as to say that they were landed proprietors near Ibora. But, if any one were to attempt the task of reconstructing a picture of the society in which Basil, the Gregories, and Amphilochius moved, and of their relations with it, the state of education in the country, and the attitude which young graduates of the University of Athens assumed to the home-trained Cappadocians or Pontians-an historian of that class, if such a one should arise, would find many investigations stopped, unless he could attain certainty as to the situations in which the events were transacted. The operations of the English Asia Minor Exploration Fund have now cleared away much of the uncertainty that hung over the localities in which the great events of Cappadocian religious history took place, and have made it possible to face fairly the problem of describing the circumstances of that critical period, 350-400, when the character of the Cappadocian Church was determined. Here is a period about which a great body of evidence remains, in the writings of the principal agents on the victorious side. The account of their opponents, of course, has to be accepted with caution; but in weighing it we can, at least, always have the certainty that they are not too lenient in their judgment, or flattering in their description, of the opposite party. In the year 370, Basil was appointed bishop of Cæsareia, metropolitan of Cappadocia, and exert or patriarch of the Pontiac dioceses. He was appointed in spite of the resistance of the majority of his bishops, in spite of the dislike and dread of many of the people, in spite of the open opposition of the Government. He was elected by the strenuous exertions of a few influential individuals; and the authority of the Church outside the province was needed in order to put down the disaffected within it. The cause of the Catholic Church was involved in his election: without the hand of a vigorous organizer there was extreme danger that “heresy” -- Eunomianism, Arianism, and so on--would triumph in Cappadocia. We want to learn what this means to the student of society. Did the Eunomian differ from the Catholic only in certain points of doctrine, being otherwise undistinguishable from him? or do these words indicate a difference in private life, in political feeling, and in Church organization? The question may be answered fully, when the historian is found who will face the problem as it has just been sketched. [Note: The following sentences are left in the same form as they had in the lecture addressed to a Cambridge society. So also on p. 450] I can only express the hope that in this university something may be done to solve it. The later Greek and Latin writers are full of material, uncollected and unvalued, for the history of society. Why should almost all the natural ability and admirable training of the classical scholars of Cambridge be directed towards such a narrow range of authors? Every one who has toiled through a Byzantine historian in the edition of the Berlin Academy--that dauernde Schande der deutschen Philologie --compelled, as he does so, slowly and without critical material, to remake his edition for his own use, and has then run joyously through De Boor’s admirable Theophanes--every one who has done that knows what need there is for the wider employment of learning and skill. Why should traditional belief--or, shall I say, traditional ignorance?--exclude all Christian Fathers or Byzantine historians from the classical scholar’s interests, and almost confine him to producing the 43rd edition of one out of about a score of writers? When he has something to say about Homer or Cicero that he must say, then let him say it; but might not some of the good scholarship of this aniversity be more profitably employed? I am not ungrateful for the large amount of help that I have had from Cambridge scholarship, but what I have had only makes me wish for more.

I shall try to give an example of the importance and the human interest of this subject, by examining one single episode in Cappadocian history, about A.D. 371-374, and showing what light is thrown by it on the character of the Cappadocian Christians at the time. The incident is related by Archdeacon Farrar in his Lives of the Fathers as follows. His account agrees in all essential points with that given by Canon Venables in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, with Tillemont, and with the Migne biography, and may fairly be taken as representing the usual interpretation. “The extraordinary story of the deacon Glycerius illustrates the aberrations due to the fermenting enthusiasm and speculative curiosity which marked the Eastern Church, and which were fostered by the dreamy idleness of innumerable monks. Glycerius was a young man whose early vigour Basil viewed with so much favour, that he had ordained him deacon of the church of Venesa(?) [Note: The interrogation is left as in the original.] about 372. Puffed up by his ordination, the young deacon proceeded to gather round him a band of devoted young ladies, whose admiration he won by sleek and soft religious arts, and who supported him by their offerings. Severely reproved by his presbyter, his chorepiscopus, and lastly by Basil, Glycerius left the town by night with a band of these girls and some youths, and scandalized the country by wandering about with them in a disorderly manner, dancing and singing hymns, amid the jeers of the coarse rustics. When their fathers came to rescue the girls Glycerius ignominiously drove them away. Finally, the whole band took refuge with a bishop named Gregory, whom even the Benedictine editor is inclined to think may have been Gregory of Nyssa. Basil treated the vain, mischievous, and deluded deacon with much fatherly forbearance, and promised to deal with him kindly if he would dismiss the votaries he was leading, not to God, but to the abyss. Strange to say, the bishop, whoever he was, either failed to second Basil’s efforts, or only did so in a lukewarm and inadequate way.”

Let me now read to you the letters from which all our knowledge has to be gathered. I hope that, through my bald translation something of the fire and vigour of the original may appear. Few writers can compare with Basil in directness; not a word can be spared without a distinct loss of effect. He does indeed use ίνα with conjunctive in a way to make a classical scholar’s hair stand on end; but, if the classical scholar disdains the usage, so much the worse for him. [Note: There is too great proneness to stamp one period of Latin, one period of one dialect of Greek, as correct, and everything that differs as wrong. But the real cause of the inferiority of style in later pagan writers lies, not in the words, but in the want of life and spirit in the men. The question has yet to be asked and answered, how far the language used by Basil is less fit to express clearly and vigorously his meaning than that used by Demosthenes, and, if so, what are the real reasons for the inferiority? Those who have read least of such authors as Basil are most ready to condemn their style.] It is true that the usage does not occur in Demosthenes, but it is stamped by a greater than that man of words, the man least capable of understanding his time of all that have ever figured in history as statesmen, unless Cicero be taken into account.

1. BASIL TO GREGORY (EP. CLXIX. [CCCCXII.]).

“THOU hast taken a reasonable and kindly and compassionate course in showing hospitality to the captives of the mutineer Glycerius (I assume the epithet for the moment) and in veiling our common disgrace so far as possible. But when, thy discretion has learned the facts with regard to him, it is becoming that thou shouldst put an end to the scandal. This Glycerius who now parades among you with such respectability was consecrated by ourselves as deacon of the Church of Venasa, to be a minister to the presbyter there and to attend to the work of the church; for though he is in other respects unmanageable, yet he is clever in doing whatever comes to his hand. But when he was appointed, he neglected the work as completely as if it had never existed. Gathering together a number of poor girls, on his own authority and responsibility, some of them flocking voluntarily round him (for you know the flightiness of young people in such matters), and some of them unwilling, he set about making himself the leader of a company; and taking to himself the name and the garb of a patriarch, he of a sudden paraded as a great power, not reaching this position by a course of obedience and piety, but making it a livelihood, as one might take up any trade; and he has almost upturned the whole Church, disregarding his own presbyter, and disregarding the village-bishop and ourselves too, as of no account, and ever filling the civil polity and the clerical estate with riot and disorder. And at last, when a slight reproof was given by ourselves and by the village-bishop, with the intent that he should cease his mutinous conduct (for he was exciting young men to the same courses), he conceives a thing very audacious and unnatural. Impiously carrying off as many young women as he could, he runs away under the cover of night. This must seem to thee quite horrible. “Think too what the occasion was. The festival of Venasa was being celebrated, and as usual a vast crowd was flocking thither from all quarters. He led forth his chorus, marshaled by young men and circling in the dance, making the pious cast down their eyes, and rousing the ridicule of the ribald and loose-tongued. Nor is this all, serious as it is; but further, as I am informed, when the parents could not endure to be orphaned of their children, and wished to bring them home from the dispersion, and came as weeping suppliants to their own daughters, he insults and scandalizes them, this admirable young fellow with his piratical discipline.

“This ought to appear intolerable to thy discretion, for it brings us all into ridicule. The best thing is that thou shouldest order him to return with the young women, for he would meet with allowance if he comes with letters from thee. If that be impossible, the young women, at any rate, thou shalt send back to their mother the Church. Or, in the third place, do not allow them that are willing to return to be kept under compulsion, but persuade them to come back to us. “Otherwise we testify to thee, as we do to God and men, that this is a wrong thing, and against the rules of the Church. If Glycerius return with a spirit of wisdom and orderliness, that were best; but if not, he must be removed
from the ministry.”

II. BASIL TO GLYCERIUS (EP. CLXX. [CCCCXIV.]).

“How far wilt thou carry thy madness, working evil for thyself and disturbance for us, and outraging the common order of monks? Return then, trusting in God and in us, who imitate the compassion of God. For, though like a father we have chidden thee, yet we will pardon thee like a father. Such are our words to thee, inasmuch as many supplicate for thee, and before all thy presbyter, whose gray hairs and kindly spirit we respect. But if thou continuest to absent thyself from us, thou art altogether cast out from thy station; and thou shalt be cast out from God with thy songs and thy raiment, by which thou leadest the young women, not towards God, but into the pit.” These two letters were obviously written at the same time, and sent by the same messenger; the third was written after an interval, and apparently after receipt of a letter from Gregory asking for assurance of full pardon for Glycerius.

III. BASIL TO GREGORY (EP. CLXXI. [CCCCXIII.]).

“I WROTE to thee already before this about Glycerius and the maidens. Yet they have never to this day returned, but are still delaying; nor do I know why and how, for I should not charge thee with doing this in order to cause slander against us, either being thyself annoyed with us or doing a favour to others. [Note: The reference is to Basil’s numerous enemies, who would be delighted that the Bishop of Nazianzos should refuse to comply with his wishes.] Let them come then without fear; be thou guarantee on this point. For we are afflicted when the members of the Church are cut off, even though they be deservedly cut off. But, if they should resist, the responsibility must rest on others, and we wash our hands of it.” For the right understanding of this incident the only evidence available is contained in (I) these three letters of Basil; (2) a sentence of Strabo (p. 537), describing the village and district of Venasa; (3) an inscription found in 1882 on a hill-top near the village; (4) the map of Cappadocia as now reconstructed. A first glance at the evidence is enough to reveal various details inconsistent with the accepted account; and we may be sure that Basil has not coloured in favour of Glycerius those details that give a different complexion to the incident. In the first place, the very evident sympathy of Gregory for Glycerius disquiets all the modern interpreters; his sympathy cannot be due to ignorance of the facts of the case, for he was far closer to the spot than Basil himself, and the acts were not hid under a bushel, but done openly, and no doubt widely talked about. The only explanation that can be devised by the interpreters is to deny part of the evidence. The MS. evidence, so far as quoted in the Migne edition, is that two of the letters are addressed to Gregory of Nazianzos. Most of the interpreters say that Gregory of Nyssa must be meant, and that Gregory of Nyssa was guilty of many weak and foolish acts. The answer lies in the map, which confirms the old authority, and disproves the modern suggestion. [Note: If any change is permitted in the MS. authority, I should understand the elder Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzos, and date the letters A.D. 373. The Gregory to whom these letters were addressed was obviously not under Basil’s authority, and was therefore under Tyana; but Nyssa was under Cæsareia, subject directly to Basil, as Venasa also was. The tone of the letters also is more respectful and less peremptory than Basil would probably have employed to his brother, or even to his friend Gregory. On the map, see Historical Geography of Asia Minor, p. 293.] In the next place, the presbyter, whom Basil represents as having been disregarded and set at nought, is in favour of the offender, and beseeches Basil to act kindly to him.

Canon Venables indeed says that the presbyter “gravely admonished” Glycerius; but this misrepresents the evidence. The “village-bishop” and Basil himself censured Glycerius; but though Basil says Glycerius showed disrespect to the presbyter, he drops no hint that the presbyter complained about this, but rather implies the opposite. Basil himself does not even hint at any darker crime than injudiciousness and ambition in the relations of Glycerius to the devotees; and there can be no doubt that the letters omit no charge that could be brought against the rebellious deacon. The evident purity of conduct in this strange band may fairly be taken as necessarily implying that the strictest religious obligations were observed by the devotees. In such a difficult situation there is no alternative but either strict asceticism, springing from fanatical or enthusiastic religious
feeling, or license and scandal.

Now the evident sympathy both of the immediate superior, the presbyter, whose influence had been apparently diminished by the popularity of the deacon, and of the Bishop of Nazianzos (whether the older Gregory or his son, who filled his place for a short time after his death in 374), is quite unintelligible if Glycerius had introduced some new and startling features into the religion of the province. It is, of course, certain that the principles of both the Gregories, father and son, were opposed to such manifestations, as being contrary to the whole spirit of the Catholic Church. The reason why Gregory sympathised must be that Glycerius was only keeping up the customary ceremonial of a great religious meeting. Canon Venables indeed says that the band “wandered about the country under the pretence of religion, singing hymns and leaping and dancing in a disorderly fashion,” and Archdeacon Farrar agrees with him. But there is no warrant in the letter of Basil for this account. The band is not said either to wander about the country or to dance in a dis- orderly way. Accurate geography is useful in studying these writers, but accurate translation is not without its advantages. Let us scrutinize the facts a little more closely, examining the situation and the probabilities of the case; and I think we shall have to admit that Basil is giving us a picture, coloured to his view, of a naïve and quaint ceremony of early Cappadocian Christianity, which he regarded with horror, and was resolved to stamp out. One of the most striking features in the whole incident is the important part played by women. Now this is the most striking feature also in the native religion and society of Asia Minor. (See pp. 161, 398.) The occasion when the most extreme features of this Cappadocian “heresy” were displayed was the great festival at Venasa, when a vast concourse was gathered there. This festival is called by Canon Venables a “fair”; but this is not an accurate translation. The synodos, which was held there, was certainly similar to the Armenian synodos, held at Phargamous. At Phargamous, in the month of June, a great festival was held in honour of certain martyrs; and such dignitaries as Basil himself, Eusebius of Samosata, and Theodotus of Nicopolis, might be expected at it. Moreover, the synodos of Venasa was one of the most ancient and famous religious meetings in Cappadocia. The priest of Zeus at Venasa was second in dignity and power only to the priest of Komana; he held office for life, and was practically a king. A village inhabited by 3,000 hierodouloi was attached to the temple, and round it lay a sacred domain that brought in an annual income of fifteen talents (nearly £4,000). Christianity directed the religious feeling of the country towards new objects, but preserved the old seasons and methods. A Christian festival was substituted for the old festival of Zeus, doubtless the occasion when the god made his annual ἔξοδýς, or procession round his country. Basil, unluckily, pitiless of the modern scholar, does not name the month when the festival took place, and the sole memorials of it that remain to complete the account of Strabo are, first, a brief invocation to the heavenly Zeus, found on a hill-top, to guide us (along with other evidence) to the situation (see p. 142); and, secondly, these letters of Basil, to show how the Cappadocian Christians developed the pagan festival. At this great religious ceremony of the whole country, Glycerius brought forth his followers, singing and dancing in chorus. Such ceremonies were necessarily a part of the old religious festival of Zeus, and their existence in it, though not attested, may be safely assumed; accordingly there is every probability that they were not novelties introduced by Glycerius, but were part of the regular Cappadocian custom. They are a natural and regular concomitant of the earlier and simpler forms of religion, whether Pagan or Jewish; and at Venasa they were retained, with some modifications in the words and the gestures. Hymns undoubtedly were substituted for the pagan formulæ, and not a hint is dropped by Basil that the dancing and singing were not of a quiet and modest character. The license of the old pagan ceremonies had been given up; but in many respects there was no doubt a striking resemblance between the old pagan and the new Christian festival. Probably the dancing of the great dervish establishments of Kara Hissar and Iconium at the present day would give the best idea of the festival at Venasa in the time of Basil, though the solemnity and iconoclastic spirit of Mohammedanism have still further toned down the ecstasy and enthusiastic abandon of the old ritual. But the strange, weird music of the flute and cymbals, and the excited yet always orderly dancing, make the ceremony even yet the most entrancing and intoxicating that I have ever witnessed. Through this analogy we can come to realize the power that might be acquired by a man of natural ability and religious fervour over numbers of young persons. This influence was increased by the character which Glycerius assumed and the robes which he wore. In the old pagan festival the leader of the festival wore the dress and bore the name of the deity whom he represented. The custom is well known both in Greece (where the Dionysos festival is the most familiar, but far from the sole, example) and in Asia Minor. [Note: E.g., at Pessinus the priest took ex officio the name Attis.] Glycerius, as Basil tells us, assumed the name and the dress of a “patriarch.” The meaning of this seems to be that the director of ceremonies (who, like the modern dervish sheikh, never danced himself) was equipped in a style corresponding to the pagan priest, and assumed the character of the highest religious official, the patriarch. But a new era began in Cappadocia when Basil became head of the Church. It is obvious that abuses might readily, almost necessarily, creep into such ceremonies; and clearly the edict went forth that they must cease. Basil does not say that any real abuses had occurred. He speaks only of the downcast looks of the pious spectators, and the jests of the ribald and loose-tongued; but he is clearly describing what he conceives to be the inevitable outcome of such ceremonies. The spirit of the Church, whose champion Basil was, was inexorably opposed to such exhibitions. For good or for evil, such prominence given to women in religious ceremonial was hateful to it. The influence acquired by a deacon, his assumption of the robes and name of a patriarch, were subversive of the strict discipline of the Roman Church. The open association of a monk with a band of young women was contrary to the rules of the monastic order. The village-bishop, acting doubtless on previous general orders of his superior, reprimanded Glycerius, and his action was confirmed and enforced by Basil. Glycerius, when thus treated, took advantage of the recent changes which had curtailed the power of Basil. He crossed the frontier into the adjoining bishopric of Nazianzos, which was now included in the province of Second Cappadocia, under the metropolitan of Tyana. The young women that followed his ministrations fled with him; and, as Gregory received and sheltered them all, we cannot doubt that the flight was made in an orderly way, without scandal, and with the air of pious but persecuted Christians. Basil then complained to Gregory in the letter quoted. The reply of Gregory unfortunately has not been preserved; but we can imagine that he gave a different version of the case, stated his views as to the character of Glycerius, and urged Basil to promise complete forgiveness on condition of the immediate return of all the fugitives.

We have the reply of Basil, giving the required assurance, though not with the best grace. One motive that evidently weighed with him was apprehension of the talk that he would give rise to, if he persisted in an intolerant policy. Now all this is inconceivable except on the supposition that, according to the above description, Glycerius was acting in accordance with established custom and the general feeling of the Cappadocian Church, while Basil was too hastily and sternly suppressing the custom of the country. The incipient schism, roused by the sternness of Basil, was healed by the mild mediation of Gregory. The fault in Glycerius which most offended Basil was evidently his transgression of the Church discipline. The full significance of this can be grasped only in its connection with the whole policy of Basil. The powerful personality, the intense, uncompromising zeal, and the great practical ability of Basil were of the first consequence in insuring the triumph of the Catholic Church in Cappadocia. But one man, however powerful, cannot do everything by his own immediate effort, especially when his personal influence is interrupted by a too early death, as Basil’s was. The organizing power which has always been so conspicuous a feature of the Church, exercised as powerful an influence in Cappadocia as elsewhere.
The organization which Basil left behind him completed his work. One great object of Basil’s administration was to establish large ecclesiastical centres of two kinds: first, orphanages, and, secondly, monasteries. An orphanage was built in every district of his immense diocese; the one at Cæsareia, with its church, bishop’s palace, and residences
for clergy, hospices for poor, sick, and travelers, hospitals for lepers, and workshops for teaching and practicing trades, was so large as to be called the “New City.” Such establishments constituted centres from which the irresistible influence of the Church permeated the whole district, as, centuries before, the cities founded by the Greek kings had been centres from which the Greek influence had slowly penetrated the country round. The monks and the monasteries, which Basil established widely over the country, were centres of the same influence; and though the monks occasionally caused some trouble by finding even Basil himself not sufficiently orthodox, they were effective agents of the Catholic Church, whereas the solitary hermits and anchorets, whom Basil rather discouraged, though he had been one himself, were perhaps more favourable to the provincial Church, and were certainly a far less powerful engine for affecting the country. That the monk Glycerius should break through the gradations of office and the spirit of the Church, should parade in the robes of the patriarch, and flee from his superior’s jurisdiction in the company of a band of women, was a thing intolerable to Basil.

One other point requires notice: is any external circumstance known that is likely to have directed such men as Basil and Gregory away from the line of native development in religion? A strong impulse probably was given them by their foreign education. They lost the narrow, provincial tone; they came to appreciate the unity and majesty of the Roman Empire; they realized the destiny of the Church to be the unifying religion of the Empire - i.e., of the civilized world. They also learned something about that organization by which Rome ruled the world, and they appreciated the fact that the Church could fulfill its destiny and rule the Roman Empire only by strict organization and rigid discipline. Men like Glycerius could not see beyond the bounds of their native district with its provincial peculiarities; men like Basil were perhaps intolerant of mere provincialism.

Perhaps a clearer idea of the causes which made Cappadocia orthodox may be gained by looking at Phrygia, which was mainly a heretical country. The cities of the Lycus valley, and of the country immediately east and north-east of it, which were most under the Roman influence, were of the dominant Christian Church; but the mass of the country adhered stubbornly to the native forms of Christianity. Probably this has something to do with the fact that in Phrygia so few Christian communities have maintained an unbroken existence through the Turkish domination, whereas in Cappadocia a fair proportion of the whole population has preserved its religion to the present day. Many of the Phrygians were always discontented with the Byzantine rule, except under the Inconoclast emperors. When John Comnenus was invading the Seljuk dominions, he found Christian communities, who so much preferred Turkish rule to Byzantine, that they fought against him, even without support from the Turks, and had to be reduced by force of arms. To a certain extent this was perhaps due to their preferring the easy Seljuk yoke to the heavy Byzantine taxation; but it is very probable that religious difference was the chief cause.

How far then can we trace in Phrygia the presence of absence of the causes that made Cappadocia orthodox? Little or no trace of such organization as Basil made in Cappadocia can be found in Phrygia. In the life of “Hypatius” written by his disciple Callinicus, and corrected by another hand in the time of his third successor, we read that he was born in Phrygia, but was obliged to emigrate to Thrace in order to gratify his wish to live in a church or monastery where he might associate with discreet men; “for there were then no such persons, except isolated individuals, in Phrygia, and if a church existed anywhere, the clergy were rustic and ignorant, though the country has since become almost entirely Christian” (i.e., orthodox). Hypatius flourished in the first half of the fifth century; so that the apparent reform here described belongs to the period 450-500. [Note: The revision of the biography as composed by Callinicus is said expressly to have extended only to a correction of the bad Greek of a Syrian dialect. The reviser neither added nor took away anything, though he knew various things that might be added (Acta Sanct., June 17th, p. 308).In writing to Gregory, Basil had to give details; and from these we learn the real character of Glycerius’s action. But, if we had only some brief reference to him, made by Basil in writing to a sympathetic foreign friend, we can imagine that it would have been prejudiced and unfair. The letter of Firmilian, Bishop of Caesareia, to Cyprian (Ep. 75) is a document of the latter class; and we cannot take his description of the unnamed Cappadocian prophetess as fully trustworthy. The general facts are true; but the colour is prejudiced. One detail has been recently confirmed by Mr. Hogarth: he has found an inscription stating that Serenianus (mentioned by Firmilian as prœses temporibus post Alexandrum) was governor of Cappadocia under Maximin, Alexander’s successor] he organization of Phrygia on the orthodox model therefore is much later than that of Cappadocia, and it was probably not so thorough. It seems to have been only superficial, caused by the Government imposing on the country the forms of the Catholic Church.

NOTE. 1 - The “New City” of Basil

NOTE. 1 - The “New City” of Basil, p. 461, seems to have caused the gradual concentration of the entire population of Caesareia round the ecclesiastical centre, and the abandonment of the old city. Modern Kaisari is situated between one and two miles from the site of the Græco-Roman city. Here we have a type of a series of cases, in which population moved from the older centre to cluster round an ecclesiastical foundation at a little distance; and this cause should be added to those which are enumerated in Hist. Geogr., ch. viii., “Change of Site”.