Monks and lay communities in late antique Gaul: the evidence of the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons

Journal of Medieval History 32 (2006) 315e332www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist

Monks and lay communities in late antique Gaul:the evidence of the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons

Lisa Bailey

Department of Classics and Ancient History, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

The Eusebius Gallicanus sermons reveal the congruity in late antique Gaul between the models of pas-toral care for monks and lay Christians. For these Gallic clergy, there was little antagonism between mon-astery and world. Preachers to both audiences share a common central concern with the defence ofcommunity and in this respect they differ from some of their contemporaries. The sermon collection dem-onstrates that the ascetic world in Gaul was far from monolithic and that pastoral care could be highlyindividualised and responsive to the demands of local communities.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Eusebius Gallicanus; Gaul; Monasticism; Sermons; Late antiquity; Laity

The connection between monastery and world was a source of anxiety to late antiquemonks and has continued to be so for modern scholars. The conflicts between withdrawaland responsibility, fear of contamination and desire for engagement suffuse monastic writ-ings and much academic energy has been devoted to examining how Gallic ascetics in par-ticular balanced these demands.1 The thoughts of the church fathers still dominatediscussion, but attention is also widening to include less famous authors and more obscure

E-mail address: [email protected] Among the classic studies are Friedrich Prinz, Fruhes Monchtum im Frankenreich. Kultur und Gesellschaft in Gal-

lien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung (4. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (Munich and

Vienna, 1965); Martin Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien. Zur Kontinuitat romischer Fuhrungsschichtenvom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert. Soziale, prosopographische und bildungsgeschichtliche Aspekte (Munich, 1976); Rose-

marie Nurnberg, Askese als sozialer Impuls. Monastisch-asketische Spiritualitat als Wurzel und Triebfeder sozialer Ideen

und Aktivitaten der Kirche in Sudgallien im 5. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1988); Ralph Mathisen, Ecclesiastical factionalism

and religious controversy in fifth-century Gaul (Washington, DC, 1989); William Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles. Themaking of a Christian community in late antique Gaul (Cambridge, 1994).

0304-4181/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jmedhist.2006.09.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist

316 L. Bailey / Journal of Medieval History 32 (2006) 315e332

works. One result has been a complication of the previous picture: different voices anddiverse practices suggest the plurality of late antique Gallic Christianity. These new per-spectives need now to be fed back into our understanding of how the church developedin Gaul. The sermons of the Eusebius Gallicanus collection offer such an opportunity. Theirauthors drew upon the ideas of predecessors and peers, most especially Augustine and JohnCassian, but did so in a selective and highly individualised manner. Both monasteries andlay communities were treated by the Eusebian preachers as forms of Christian communitywhich faced the same problems and could be approached with the same pastoral strategies.The resulting model of pastoral care, and its differences from those of contemporaries, dem-onstrates the flexibility of the Christian tradition, a flexibility which was to prove a strength.

The Eusebius Gallicanus sermons have been relatively neglected as sources because of thedissensus which has surrounded them. Scholars have disagreed on the authorship of the ser-mons, their dating, the circumstances of their collection and even the title under which theyshould stand.2 Understandably, therefore, historians have shied away from them, preferringthe evidence of known individuals with secure corpuses. This is unfortunate, since the EusebiusGallicanus sermons were popular and widely used preaching models which provide an interest-ing perspective on some of the central problems in the history of late antique Gaul. For thisreason, some scholars have begun to sidestep the stalemate and move forward on the basisof what we do know about the collection.3

There is now widespread agreement that the original sermons were composed and deliv-ered in the mid-late fifth century, in southeastern Gaul.4 Although they were denuded ofmuch specific detail in the collection process, sermons to local saints in Arles, Riez andLyon indicate their approximate geographical provenance.5 Sermon 35, on Maximus ofRiez, was written by Faustus, his successor both as abbot of Lerins (433-57) and as bishopof Riez (457-c.490).6 A number of other sermons in the collection are also by Faustus, al-though attempts to establish him as the author of all have been unconvincing.7 There are rea-sons to think that the sermons on Blandina, and on Epipodius and Alexander, were the work

2 For an account of the debates and disagreements over the Eusebius Gallicanus collection see Lisa Bailey, ‘Building

urban Christian communities. Sermons on local saints in the Eusebius Gallicanus sermon collection’, Early Medieval

Europe, 12 (2003), 3-5.3 See in particular the efforts of Nurnberg, Askese; Clemens M. Kasper, Theologie und Askese. Die Spiritualitat des

Inselmonchtums von Lerins im 5. Jahrhundert (Munster, 1991); Jean-Pierre Weiss, ‘Le statut du predicateur et les in-

struments de la predication dans la Provence du Ve siecle’, in: La parole du predicateur, Ve - Xe siecle, ed. Rosa Maria

Dessı and Michel Lauwers (Nice, 1997), 23-47.4 Germain Morin, ‘La collection gallicane dite d’Eusebe d’Emese et les problemes qui s’y rattachant’, Zeitschrift fur

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 34 (1935), 92; Alexander Souter, ‘Observations on the pseudo-Eusebian collection of

Gallican sermons’, Journal of Theological Studies, 41 (1940), 47; Clare Stancliffe, ‘The thirteen sermons attributed to

Columbanus and the question of their authorship’, in: Columbanus. Studies on the Latin writings, ed. Michael Lapidge

(Woodbridge and Rochester, NY, 1997), 118.5 Eusebius Gallicanus 11, 35, 55, 56, Fr. Glorie, ed., Eusebius ‘Gallicanus’. Collectio homiliarum (Corpus Christiano-

rum Series Latina 101, 101A and 101B, Turnhout, 1970).6 Weiss, ‘Statut’, 42; Morin, ‘Collection’, 106; Jean Leroy, ‘L’oeuvre oratoire de s. Fauste de Riez. La collection gal-

licane dite d’Eusebe d’Emese’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Strasbourg, 1954), 307.7 The most frequently mentioned candidates for Faustian authorship are sermons 12, 17, 28, 51, 72 and the ad mon-

achos series.

317L. Bailey / Journal of Medieval History 32 (2006) 315e332

of a bishop of Lyon, perhaps Eucherius (d. c.449/55) or Patiens (d. c.480).8 A strong case canalso be made that the sermon on Genesius of Arles should be attributed to a bishop of thatcity, perhaps Hilary (c.401-449).9 There are also doubts about whether Faustus could be theauthor of sermons five, 25 and 30, among others.10 As they stand, the sermons appear to bethe work of multiple authors, most of whom remain anonymous.

The compiler, who gathered the 76 sermons together in the early-mid-sixth century, mayhave been working from the archives of the church of Riez, where copies of the sermons ofFaustus’ friends, colleagues and predecessors could have been kept alongside examples of thebishop’s own preaching.11 It is clear that the compiler was not interested in producing a col-lection of the sermons of Faustus of Riez. He compiled a preaching guide, or resource book:a series of model sermons which covered the major feasts and central pastoral topics andeven provided ‘sample introductions’ to suit various situations and audiences.12 In the pro-cess, he edited and rewrote the texts to a degree which is not now recoverable.13 At aroundthe same time Caesarius of Arles was engaged in a very similar compilation process e gath-ering sermons into small collections and circulating them with the express purpose of en-abling preaching.14 He was kind enough to leave letters and sermons outlining his goals.15

No such letters survive for the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons, but the collection bespeaksa similar intent. It proved popular and copies of it were circulating widely by the seventhcentury at the latest.16 Sermons were also excerpted from it and incorporated into homiliaries,monastic resource books and collections of material on specific saints. It was quoted by

8 Harries and Weiss suspect Eucherius of Lyon. Jill Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and the fall of Rome, A.D. 407-485(Oxford, 1994), 44; Weiss, ‘Statut’, 43. Mathisen argues for his successor, Patiens, Ecclesiastical, 233.

9 Harries, Sidonius, 51 and Weiss, ‘Statut’, 43.10 Rivet doubts that the litany described in sermon 25 had been instituted in Riez by the time of Faustus’ episcopate,

Histoire litteraire de la France ou l’on traite de l’origine et du progres de la decadence (Paris, 1865), vol. 2, 606. For

Kasper’s doubts about sermons 5 and 30 see Theologie, 377-8.11 The use of the Riez archive is suggested by Morin, ‘Collection’, 107; Stancliffe, ‘Thirteen’, 118-24. The archives of

the church at Hippo operated in a similar fashion and contributed to the incorporation of inauthentic sermons into the

corpus of Augustine’s work at an early stage. See Adalbert. G. Hamman, ‘La transmission des sermons de saint Augus-

tin. Les authentiques et les apocryphes’, Augustinianum, 25 (1985), 312-3. The circulation of homiletic and other works

is well-established during this period. Hilary of Arles, Eucherius of Lyon and Faustus of Riez were sometime members

of the monastery at Lerins. On the ties within the Lerinian circle see Harries, Sidonius, 40-3. Patiens was also connected

to Faustus, Mathisen, Ecclesiastical, 246-51. On the practice of circulating works at the time see Ralph W. Mathisen,

‘The letters of Ruricius of Limoges and the passage from Roman to Frankish Gaul’, in: Society and culture in late an-

tique Gaul. Revisiting the sources, ed. Ralph W. Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer (Aldershot, 2001), 101-15 and Mark

Vessey, ‘The Epistula Rusticii ad Eucherium. From the library of imperial classics to the library of the Fathers’, in: So-ciety, 278-97.

12 Eusebius Gallicanus, 67-71. On these see Weiss, ‘Statut’, 44-5.13 Women copied texts in monastic scriptoria, but if these texts were compiled from an episcopal archive, the collector

was probably a cleric.14 Vita Caesarii 1.55, ed. Bruno Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici et antiquiorum aliquot,

(Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum 3, Hanover, 1977); Klingshirn, Caesarius,

10-11.15 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones 1.15, 2, ed. Germain Morin, Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis sermones (Corpus Christiano-

rum Series Latina 103 and 104, Turnhout, 1975).16 There are 447 surviving manuscripts which contain sermons from the collection. On their early circulation, see

Morin, ‘Collection’, 94, 107; Stancliffe, ‘Thirteen’, 118-9; Glorie, Eusebius, viii, ix, xiii, xix.


florilegists, drawn on by Carolingian homilists, and read by theologians. Sections of it wereeven absorbed into the liturgy.17

The Eusebius Gallicanus forms part of a wider movement in early medieval Gaul towardsthe codification and consolidation of the church’s intellectual heritage.18 This was an especiallypressing task in the fifth and sixth centuries, as the Gallic church was forced to fall back uponits own resources, absent the support of a stable central government. Bishops put homiliariestogether from their own and patristic sermons, or commissioned copies of pre-existing collec-tions and distributed them to clergy under their care.19 Preachers unsure of their compositionalabilities could simply read them out and the church hierarchy could be sure that what they saidwas ‘safe’.20 We cannot know if the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons were ever preached to con-gregations in southeastern Gaul in the form in which they now survive, but the collection wasdesigned for practical pastoral use.21

The majority of the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons were directed to a lay audience. The col-lection includes sermons for saints’ feast days, the instruction of catechumens and urban lit-anies. The preachers address the problems of worldly wealth, of barbarian invasion and ofproper Christian observance. The style and content of the sermons are consistent with an urbancontext.22 Sermons 36 through 45, however, are entitled ad monachos in the modern edition.From this group, sermon 45 should be excluded e it is a sermon to the laity which has beenincluded in the series by scribal error.23 The audience of sermon 36 is less clear. It is entitled

17 There are extensive excerpts from the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons in the seventh-century florilegia, the Liber scin-tillarum, sermons from the collection appear in the homiliaries of Paul the Deacon and Alain of Farfa and the eucharistic

theology of Eusebian sermon 17 and the rite of confirmation in sermon 29 were very influential. On these last two, see

Paul-Laurent Carle, ‘L’homelie de paques ‘‘magnitudo’’ de saint Fauste de Riez (ou de Lerins) (fin du Ve siecle)’, Di-

vinitas, 27 (1983), 123-54 and 28 (1984), 3-42 and 203-41; Paul-Laurent Carle, ‘Sermon de s. Fauste de Riez (ou de

Lerins) pour la fete de pentecote sur la confirmation’, Nova et vetera, 61 (1986), 90-104; L.A. van Buchem, L’homelie

pseudo-Eusebienne de Pentecote. L’origine de la confirmatio en Gaule Meridionale et l’interpretations de ce rite par

Fauste de Riez (Nimwegen, 1967). See also the summary of excerpts in Glorie, Eusebius, 192-3, 334-6. On the liturgical

contributions of the Eusebius Gallicanus, see Leroy, Oeuvre, 484-7.18 On this movement, see Ralph W. Mathisen, ‘The ‘‘second council of Arles’’ and the spirit of compilation and cod-

ification in late Roman Gaul’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 5 (1997), 511-54; Henri M. Rochais, ‘Contribution a

l’histoire des florileges ascetiques’, Revue benedictine, 63 (1953), 246-91; Germain Morin, ‘Le «Breviarium fidei»

contre les ariens. Produit de l’atelier de Cesaire d’Arles?’, Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, 35 (1939), 35-53; Reginald

Gregoire, Les homeliaires du Moyen Age. Inventaire et analyse des manuscrits (Rome, 1966), 2-6; Mark Stansbury,

‘Early medieval biblical commentaries, their writers and readers’, Fruhmittelalterliche Studien, 33 (1999), 49-82; Yitz-

hak Hen, The royal patronage of liturgy in Frankish Gaul to the death of Charles the Bald (877) (Woodbridge, 2001),

11-12.19 On this use of sermon collections, see Reginald Gregoire, Homeliaires liturgiques medievaux. Analyse des manu-

scrits (Spoleto, 1980), 21; Jean Longere, La predication medievale (Paris, 1983), 31, 35; Weiss, ‘Statut’, 31, 45-7.20 McKitterick has pointed out that the levels of ‘pragmatic literacy’ in Merovingian Gaul were higher than previously

thought, but this ability to read and write at a basic level did not often extend to the quality and quantity of composition

required for preaching. Rosamond McKitterick, The Carolingians and the written word (Cambridge, 1989), 213.21 The manuscript history of the sermons supports this view. See, briefly, Lisa Bailey, ‘Preaching and pastoral care in

late antique Gaul. The Eusebius Gallicanus sermon collection’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 2004),

48-53. I hope to expand upon this point in future publication. In a letter accompanying a collection of his sermons,

Caesarius urged the recipient not to lock it away, but to press it into use, Sermo 2.22 Scholars working on the Eusebius Gallicanus have taken such a context as ‘read’, without feeling the need to defend

it. Triacca stresses the liturgical nature of the sermons: Achille M. Triacca, ‘«Cultus» in Eusebio «Gallicano»’, Ephe-

merides liturgicae, 100 (1986), 110.23 This is also the conclusion of Glorie, Eusebius, 946; Adalbert de Vogue, ‘Sur une serie des emprunts de Saint Co-

lomban a Fauste de Riez’, Studia monastica, 10 (1968), 119-23; Kasper, Theologie, 11.


ad monachos in some but not all of the surviving manuscripts and both Kasper and Glorie haveexpressed doubts over whether its audience was originally ascetic.24 Professed monks are a pos-sibility, but the question is at best unsettled. Two other sermons from the collection, however,can be added to the monastic group. Sermon 72 is an encomium of Honoratus of Arles preachedto his former monastic community.25 Ascetics were also in the audience for sermon eight,which contains instructions for the ‘religious’ and emphasises that the professed must seta good example for the rest of the Christian community. Whether other members of that com-munity were present is not clear.

Sermons 37 through 44 share a common style and form a coherent group. They were prob-ably the work of a single preacher, and most scholars have assumed that it was Faustus ofRiez.26 This is plausible, but not provable.27 Reference to an ‘island’ suggests the monasteryof Lerins as the original locale of their composition.28 Sermon 72 was certainly delivered tothe monks of Lerins, and was probably also the work of Faustus.29 Sermons eight and 36, how-ever, are distinctive. Sermon eight is the work of a visiting preacher addressing a monastery ofwhich he is not and has never been a part. Faustus would not have preached in this way to themonks of Lerins. Sermon 36 is either addressed to a different community from the rest of theseries, or is the work of a different author. The tone of the piece diverges markedly from anyothers in the collection. The Eusebian sermons to monks, therefore, reflect a diversity of autho-rial voices and preaching contexts.

Other sources suggest the circumstances under which sermons were delivered to monks. Inthe collected works of Augustine of Hippo and Caesarius of Arles, for example, there are a num-ber of sermons preached to monks by those bishops, in their capacity as bishops e visiting themonasteries under their care. Despite their previous ascetic experiences, both preach as ‘out-siders’.30 They express admiration for a lifestyle of which they are no longer a part, even asthey critique and challenge the foibles of their monastic audiences. Eusebius Gallicanus ser-mons eight and 36 may have been preached under such circumstances. The others, however,were preached by insiders. The preacher focuses on internal problems faced by the community,treats tasks as a joint struggle and makes extensive use of first person plural pronouns and verbforms. These sermons may have been preached by the abbot (his absence as a referent point in

24 The sermon is very distinctive as it is written in a high style and contains an unusual number of references to pagan

Roman authors. Clearly the audience was an elite of some kind. Glorie, Eusebius, 946; Kasper, Theologie, 11. See the

manuscript incipits in Glorie, Eusebius, 419.25 See in particular Eusebius Gallicanus, 72.5, 72.8, 72.12.26 For example, Kasper, Theologie, 10-11; Mireille Labrousse, Saint Honorat, fondateur de Lerins et eveque d’Arles.

Etude et traduction de textes d’Hilaire d’Arles, Fauste de Riez et Cesaire d’Arles (Maine and Loire, 1995), 37-41; Nurn-

berg, Askese, 224; Adalbert de Vogue, ‘Les debuts de la vie monastique a Lerins. Remarques sur un ouvrage recent’,

Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, 58 (1993), 10; Rene Nouailhat, Saints et patrons. Les Premiers moines de Lerins (Paris,

1988), 16.27 Attempts to establish a ‘control’ of Faustian homiletic style have not succeeded. See the comments of Wilhelm

Bergmann, Studien zu einer kritischen Sichtung der sudgallischen Predigtliteratur des funften und sechsten Jahrhunderts(Leipzig, 1898), 7-8; Germain Morin, ‘Critique des sermons attribues a Fauste de Riez dans la recente edition de l’Aca-

demie de Vienne’, Revue benedictine, 9 (1892), 49-61.28 Eusebius Gallicanus, 40.3.29 Eusebius Gallicanus, 72.12.30 On Augustine’s ascetic withdrawal, see Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo. A Biography (London, 1967), 115-27.

Caesarius had been a member of the community at Lerins, but in Sermo 236.2 he describes himself as a failed drop-out

who resisted the efforts of this ‘uniquely special nurse of all good men’. ’ Trans., Mary Magdeleine Mueller, Saint Cae-sarius of Arles. Sermons (Fathers of the Church 66, Washington, DC, 1973), 210.


the sermons supports this view) or another senior member of the community. They were prob-ably delivered in much the same context as those to lay congregations e during the regularchurch service, or to mark particular occasions.31 They served the same functions as sermonsto the laity. They were instruments of pastoral care, of exhortation, of instruction and of exco-riation. They were intended to build community and to teach what it meant to be a monk.

Like many medieval scribes, modern scholars have been inclined to lift the sermons tomonks out of the Eusebius Gallicanus collection and treat them as a separate group.32 To doso, however, is to miss the connections between them. The authors of both sets of sermons iden-tified the same central pastoral problem and adopted similar strategic responses to it. A com-piler who favoured this pastoral approach then collected sermons in that style and perhapsedited them to suit. The collection reveals that for at least some late antique Christians the bor-ders between monastery and world were not strictly drawn.

The authors of the Eusebian sermons to both monks and laity were chiefly concerned withcommunity. The sermons are filled with anxiety over its vulnerability, emphasis upon its impor-tance and care to defend and maintain it. This focus upon community was not automatic e it isnot a central theme, for example, in the contemporary preaching of Caesarius of Arles. The Eu-sebius Gallicanus authors, and the compiler, however, place it at the centre of their pastoralagenda. This is equally true of both sermons to the monks and those to the laity.

Asceticism was not inherently a communal enterprise. Renunciation of the world began withan individual decision and might involve a rejection of all forms of social organisation and en-gagement. The first heroes of the ascetic movement had been ostentatiously solitary and theirstories were still read and studied for inspiration.33 In the west, the ascetic movement had beenchannelled, from an early stage, into communal expressions, but this was not always quies-cently accepted.34 The Eusebian preachers to monks found themselves having to justify themany restrictions which communal life placed upon an ascetic: obedience to an abbot, and per-haps to a rule, the renunciation of personal property, prescribed daily routines and an end tofreedom of movement.35 The author of sermon 38 suggests the tensions which these restrictionsmight have provoked among the aristocratic men who joined Lerins.36 Faced with the

31 Monastic sermons were preached at least every Sunday and fast-day, and may have been daily occurrences. See

Gustave Weigel, Faustus of Riez. An Historical Introduction (Philadelphia, 1938), 56; Michel Carrias, ‘Vie monastique

et regle a Lerins au temps d’Honorat’, Revue d’histoire de l’eglise de France, 74 (1988), 207.32 This is, for example, the approach taken in Kasper, Theologie; Nouailhat, Saints and Nurnberg, Askese. Leroy, Oeu-

vre, 57-8 and Buchem, Homelie, 47-8, have useful analyses of sermon groupings in the manuscripts.33 Augustine testifies to the power of the Vita of Antony, Confessiones 8.15 and 8.29, ed. James J. O’Donnell, Con-

fessions (Oxford, 1992), vol. 1.34 On this process, see Philip Rousseau, Ascetics, authority and the church in the age of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford,

1978), 177-235.35 On the structures and restrictions of life at Lerins, the most likely original context, see Kasper, Theologie, 21-113;

Nouailhat, Saints, 198-222; Klingshirn, Caesarius, 24-9; Carrias, ‘Vie’, 203-7. Scholars have disagreed on whether or

not Lerins had a written rule at this time e see discussion in Adalbert de Vogue, Les regles des saints Pere (Sources

chretiennes, 297, Paris, 1982), 21-39; Marilyn Dunn, The emergence of monasticism. From the Desert Fathers to the

early Middle Ages (Oxford, 2000), 85-90; Salvatore Pricoco, L’Isola dei santi. Il cenobio de Lerino e le origini del mon-

achesimo gallico (Rome, 1978), 77-111; Albrecht Diem, Keusch und rein. Eine Untersuchung zu den Ursprungen desfruhmittelalterlichen Klosterwesens und seinen Quellen (Utrecht, 2000), 126-31. The Regula Macharii and the Tertia

patrum regula provide further evidence that Gallic monks threatened to leave the communal context and set up by them-

selves e see in particular Regula Macharii 27 and Tertia patrum regula 10, ed. Adalbert de Vogue, Les regles des saints

Pere (Sources chretiennes 297, Paris, 1982).36 On the aristocratic origins of the known Lerinian monks see Pricoco, Isola, 59-73 and Nouailhat, Saints, 176-81.


restrictions of communal life they balk and call it slavery.37 ‘I give up and I depart, I will notsuffer to bear this; I am a free man!. I am a free man, I owe you nothing!’38 Monastic com-munities were vulnerable.39

In the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons, this pastoral anxiety for the coherence of commu-nity extends also to the lay context. The preachers were concerned about those who with-drew to chapels on private estates.40 Care of property should not rank higher than obligationto others, the preacher of sermon 48 warned. ‘But perhaps someone says to himself: ‘‘Ishould take care of my body, I should be concerned about the necessities of life.’’’ ‘Canit really be, dearly beloved, that man, made in the image of God, should think this his pri-mary care, rather than that which he sees he has in common with the flock?’41 Defence ofcommunity against such threatened disengagements dominated sermons to both sets ofaudiences.

This defence involved emphasising the bonds of affection and mutual advantage which helda community together. The preacher of sermon 38 reminded all those who wished to leave themonastery of the reasons why they joined. You are leaving a place to which your God has calledyou, he laments, in which you were first illuminated, in which you found shelter from the storm.Suddenly you have forgotten ‘fraternal fellowship and comfort’.42 Birds love their own nests,he exclaims, and wild beasts the place where they were raised, their beds and their pastures, andno matter what freedom is offered, they always return to the place that they love. Too late thesoul will realise the error of its ways, then it will repent of its ruin and weep.43 The communityis the monk’s home, his family, the place to which he belongs. Its restrictions are recast as com-forts. The ascetic’s natural place, the preacher maintains, is in a community. This community isdepicted, moreover, as the ideal environment in which to develop virtue. It is not only fruitful tolive with others, it is dangerous to lack distraction.44 Moreover, both virtue and sin have a col-lective effect in the model which the Eusebian preachers advance. ‘That soul is happy’, arguesthe preacher of sermon 42, ‘which, while living well in company, is the joy of many, and manyare either instructed or illuminated by it: for when its goods are shared with many, they are

37 Numquid serui uestri sumus?, Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.2, ed. Glorie, 436. Translations are my own except where

otherwise noted.38 Desero atque discedo; hoc ego ferre non patior; ingenuus homo sum!. Liber sum!, nihil tibi debeo! Eusebius Gal-

licanus, 38.2, ed. Glorie, 437. Compare these complaints with those attributed by Gregory of Tours to Clotild, the re-

bellious nun of Poitiers. ‘I am going to my royal relations’, she is supposed to have said, ‘to tell them about the insults

which we have to suffer, for we are humiliated here as if we were the offspring of low-born serving women, instead of

being the daughters of kings!’, Libri historiarum X 9.39, eds. Bruno Krusch and Wilhelm Levison, Gregorii episcopi

Turonensis libri historiarum X (Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum 1.1, Hanover,

1951): trans. Lewis Thorpe, The history of the Franks (Harmondsworth, 1974), 526.39 Many monastic communities did not long survive their establishment e see Pricoco, Isola, 93-127 and Conrad

Leyser, ‘‘‘This sainted isle’’. Panegyric, nostalgia and the invention of a ‘‘Lerinian monasticism’’ ’, in: The limits of

ancient Christianity. Essays on late antique thought and culture in honor of R.A. Markus, ed. William Klingshirn

and Mark Vessey (Ann Arbor, MI, 1999), 200 on the vulnerability of Lerins.40 On the construction of private chapels, see Kimberly D. Bowes, ‘Possessing the holy. Private churches and private

piety in late antiquity’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 2002).41 Sed forte aliquis sibi dicat: ‘Debeo curare de corpore meo; debeo sollicitus esse de uictu meo’. Numquid homo,

dilectissimi, ad imaginem dei factus, illam primam curam debet putare, quam sibi uidet communem esse cum pecude?

Eusebius Gallicanus, 48.3, ed. Glorie, 567. Gen. 1:27.42 obliuisci subito fraternae societatis et consolationis, Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.4, ed. Glorie, 441.43 Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.4.44 Eusebius Gallicanus, 39.2.


added to’.45 On the other hand, the soul which, through its disobedience or pride compels thosearound it to sin, ‘which is wont to happen easily’, incurs damnation for as many as it destroys.46

‘Therefore, dearly beloved, we should strive to do those things which pertain to edificationwhen we are in the midst of a community, lest our sins should do harm to the virtues ofothers’.47

The preacher of sermon 53, to the laity, assures his audience that the strength and progress ofall relies upon the recognition that each individual shares in the common debt owed to God.‘One does not therefore owe less, if another should owe the same.’48 The individual is obligedto contribute to the group since the group debt can only be paid if all take their part equally.This is even clearer in sermon 24, which describes a penitential litany.49 There are those, thepreacher claims, who are sceptical about the effectiveness of communal prayer, and who ques-tion what it has achieved in the past.50 According to the preacher, those who think this way, anddo not participate in the communal penance, are stealing from the community. ‘He who doesnot feel that he is obligated by these dangers, takes unto himself the property of another, outof the communal offering.’51 Their intransigence endangers the good of the community. It isonly due, he emphasises, to such communal offerings of prayer that the town has so farbeen spared from the ravages of danger and destruction. The salvation of the communityboth in this world and the next requires that each member should participate and consider theirown good as linked to that of their fellow congregants. Inappropriate individualism, thesepreachers maintain, threatens the hopes of all. In sermon 50, the point is made through a exam-ple plagiarised from Augustine’s plagiarism of a passage from Pliny’s Natural History. Whenbirds travel long distances, the preacher tells his audience, they arrange themselves such that‘the stronger ones successively support the weaker, and it is as if the journey itself teaches dil-igent mutual care to each of them’.52 Likewise, when deer swim, they support the weight of

45 felix est illa anima, quae, dum bene in congregatione uersatur, multorum gaudium est, et plurimi ex ea uel aedifi-

cantur uel illuminantur: bona enim eius, dum multi<s> communicantur, adduntur. Eusebius Gallicanus, 42.1, ed. Glo-

rie, 497.46 Si uero e contrario, per inoboedientiam uel superbiam suam, alios e quod facilius euenire solet e ad maculam com-

pulit: quantos destruxit, de tantis periculum damnationis incurrit. Eusebius Gallicanus, 42.2, ed. Glorie, 497-8. The

preacher adds: Quamobrem, sicut ille ualde admirandus atque laudandus est: cuius cursus, multorum profectus est;

ita ille merito lugendus est: cuius uita, multorum ruina est. ed. Glorie, 498. Lk. 2:34.47 Ideoque, carissimi: quae ad aedificationem pertinent, ea, in medio positi, agere studeamus, ne uitia nostra aliorum

uirtutibus noceant. Eusebius Gallicanus, 42.3, ed. Glorie, 498. See also 44.6.48 The passage as a whole reads: Sed forsitan dicas: ‘Quid me ita constringis, quasi solus acceperim? quid me, in pub-

lico munere, priuata lege obligas? In munere utique, quod omnibus deus in commune largitus est, unumquemque spe-

cialiter non constringet ad debitum generale beneficium!’ Non ita est; nec ideo unus minus debet: si et alius idem

debeat. Eusebius Gallicanus, 53.13, ed. Glorie, 622.49 This litany is similar to the communal processions and prayer offerings recounted in other late antique Gallic sour-

ces and often referred to as the rogations. On this, see Geoffrey Nathan, ‘The rogation ceremonies of late antique Gaul.

Creation, transmission and the role of the bishop’, Classica et mediaevalia, 49 (1998), 275-303.50 Quid nobis profuit ante laborasse et uires cordis nostri in gemitus et lacrimas profudisse?. Quid nobis profuit or-

asse et tota spiritus contritione laborasse? Eusebius Gallicanus, 25.2, ed. Glorie, 295.51 Inter haec autem ille se ab oblatione communi reddat alienum, qui se his periculis non sentit obnoxium. Eusebius

Gallicanus, 25.2, ed. Glorie, 295.52 continuo imbecillam suscipiunt fortiores et quasi sedulam ac mutuam ad inuicem curam etiam peregrinatio docet,

Eusebius Gallicanus, 50.3, ed. Glorie, 584. See Augustine of Hippo, Enarrationes in Psalmos 41.4, eds. Eligius Dekkers

and J. Fraipont, Sancti Aurelii Augustini enarrationes in Psalmos (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 38, Turnhout,

1954); Pliny, Naturalis historia 8.114, ed. H. Rackham, Pliny. Natural History (Loeb Classical Library, London and

Cambridge, MA, 1940), vol. 3.


their horns by resting their heads on each other’s backs, taking turns to be in the front of a line,and then going to the back, sharing the labour between them. ‘And thus brute animals, who donot know charity, assist one after another through their labours, and render a mutual service tothemselves. What should we do, to whom the author of reason has given understanding, towhom the redeemer has offered an example of love?’53

Dissension is repeatedly identified by preachers to both audiences as the greatest threat tocommunal harmony and considerable pastoral effort is devoted to suppressing it. The authorof sermon 40, for example, warns the monks that when ‘we are agitated by diverse wickedand unseemly thoughts of the heart or we are wounded by the poisoned sword of the tongue,tempted to evil on account of small and unimportant things, bursting forth in quarrels anddisputes. we violate our profession through the transgression of the rule’.54 The authorof sermon 43 castigates those monks who detract, speak-ill and allow themselves to be an-gered by their brothers.55 There is no point in abstaining from wine, according to thepreacher of sermon 44, if you are drunk with bitter discord.56 Such dissension, the preachersmaintain, is the work of the devil. He tries to destroy the monastery from within, instigating‘pretexts and causes’, making ‘those things which are small and light seem intolerable andimpossible’ and arousing ‘the passion of disobedience which always accompanies communalunhappiness’.57 He takes up arms against us with our own tongues, the author of sermon 42warns, making us speak with anger and passion, believing that others have done us harm.58

To maintain communal harmony is to fight the devil. Not to obey, and to desert as well, thisis doubly to do his will.59

Throughout the series of Eusebian sermons to monks, sin is cast as that which destroys com-munity. Virtue, conversely, is that which keeps it together. Harmony, good will, patience andforgiveness are all praised as key monastic attributes. ‘That soul is blessed by God, whose hu-mility confounds the pride of another, whose patience extinguishes the anger of a neighbour,whose obedience silently rebukes the sloth of another, whose fervour awakens the idlenessof another’s tepidity!’60 The most important ascetic virtues in the Eusebian sermons are humil-ity and obedience. Disobedience hardens the soul, the preacher of sermon 38 warns, ‘so that itis persuaded to accept rules neither by authority nor by reason, but, what is worst, believes onlyin itself and follows its own aims instead of all reason and thinks only that is right which it

53 Ac sic inuicem laboribus suis animalia bruta famulantur, et reddunt sibi mutuam seruitutem: quae nesciunt carita-

tem. Quid nos facere debemus: quibus auctor rationis contulit intellectum, quibus redemptor praebuit dilectionis exem-

plum? Eusebius Gallicanus, 50.3-4, ed. Glorie, 585. Jn 13:15.54 cordis cogitationibus uariis et improbis atque inhonestis agitamur aut uenenatis linguae gladiis uulneramur, pro min-

imis et paruissimis rebus scandalizantes. interdum professionem nostram regulae transgressione uiolamus, Eusebius

Gallicanus, 40.6, ed. Glorie, 480.55 Eusebius Gallicanus, 43.3.56 Eusebius Gallicanus, 44.3.57 The full quote reads: Ille enim, quia non potest aliquem absolute de loco salutis excludere: immittit primum occa-

siones et causas; immittit inoboedientiae passionem quam semper socia infelicitas comitatur, quae, cum captiuam ill-

aqueauerit mentem, statim intoleranda atque impossibilia facit etiam illa quae parua ac leuia sunt. Eusebius Gallicanus,

38.2, ed. Glorie, 439.58 Eusebius Gallicanus, 42.7.59 Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.2.60 Benedicta illa <a> deo anima, cuius humilitas alterius confundit superbiam, cuius patientia proximi exstinguit ira-

cundiam, cuius oboedientia pigritiam alterius tacite increpat, cuius feruor inertiam alieni teporis exsuscitat! EusebiusGallicanus, 42.5, ed. Glorie, 499.


conceives in its own hardened heart’.61 Humble and obedient souls, on the other hand, willovercome all tribulations and difficulties.62 True humility for the Eusebian preacher meansnever becoming an expert, never rising above others within the community. ‘For he advanceswell, he finishes well, who daily behaves as though he is always beginning.’63 This is the onlyway to ensure spiritual progress.64 The ultimate goal is renunciation of the individual will andreplacement with the will of the community, which itself represents the will of God. ‘I have notcome to do my own will’, the preacher of sermon 38 reminds the monks, ‘but the will of himwho sent me’.65

Similar arguments appear in the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons to the laity. We should be-ware, the preacher of sermon 50 tells his congregation, ‘lest, like the reeds which are tossedabout by every wind, and collide against each other with light blows, so we, by the inconstancyof our souls, are led to inflict injuries on our neighbours, and there should be in us an inabilityto help and an ability to hinder. But rather, considering our mutual advantage, we should attendto the good of others and take turns to carry our labours and burdens.’66 Communality, the au-thor of sermon 53 argues, means congregants should never claim religious or spiritual superi-ority over each other. His hero is the humble publican, contrasted with the Pharisee who smuglycondemns his companion.67 Even if your brother delights in sinning, you should turn yourminds’ eyes inward. You should ask if you are really any better. This tone is reflected in thecollection as a whole. Among the sins most frequently condemned by the Eusebian preachersare detraction, hypocrisy and the denigration of others.68 These are identified as dangerous be-cause they threaten the harmony of the community.

Community was also maintained through the particular understanding of authority which theEusebian preachers advance. In the Eusebian sermons to monks, the abbot does not play a cen-tral role. Obedience is demanded, but it is obedience to the community, to its customs and prac-tices, rather than discipleship to an individual. The one sermon which does describe a monastic

61 ut ad suscipienda praecepta nec auctoritate nec ratione flectatur, sed, quod pessimum est, sibi soli credat, et pro omni

ratione intentiones suas sequatur, et hoc solum rectum putet quod obdurato corde conceperit. Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.3,

ed. Glorie, 439.62 Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.5.63 ille enim bene proficit, ille bene consummat: qui quotidie sic agit, quasi semper incipiat. Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.5,

ed. Glorie, 445. See also 38.6: Verbi gratia: superbiae acquiescere coepi, regulam uiolaui, seniorem laesi, iuniorem des-

truxi. Si non statim me paenituit tamquam grauiter fuisse praeuentum, ita de die in diem libentissime me rapiet ipsa

uiolentia consuetudinis et impetus passionis: ut iam nec delinquere me intellegam, nec peccare me sentiam. Obscurat

enim atque obruit intellectum delicti, assiduitas delinquendi. ed. Glorie, 446. Compare this to Cassian’s account of ab-

bot Pinufius, who repeatedly left his monastery and joined another as a novice, Institutiones 4.30.2-6, ed. Michael Pet-

schenig, Iohannis Cassiani de institutis coenobiorum (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 17, Vienna,

1888), and Conlationes 20.1-2, ed. Michael Petschenig, Iohannis Cassiani conlationes XXIII (Corpus Scriptorum Eccle-

siasticorum Latinorum 13, Vienna, 1886).64 Quanto ergo plus proficiemus, tanto plus humiliemur, quia, quanto plus humiliati fuerimus, tanto plus proficiemus.

Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.5, ed. Glorie, 445.65 Ego non ueni facere uoluntatem meam, sed uoluntatem illius qui misit me, Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.5, ed. Glorie,

444. Jn 6:38.66 ne, sicut arundines quae omni uento circumferuntur et inuicem se leui implusione collidunt: ita nos animorum mo-

bilitate in proximorum feramur iniurias et sit in nobis infirmitas ad adiuuandum et facilitas ad laedendum. Sed magis,

utilitates mutuas cogitantes: alter alterius commodis studeamus et inuicem labores et onera nostra portemus. Eusebius

Gallicanus, 50.2, ed. Glorie, 583-4. Eph. 4:14, Gal. 6:2.67 Eusebius Gallicanus, 53.5-8. Lk. 18:10-14. On this, see also Eusebius Gallicanus, 64.10.68 See, for example, Eusebius Gallicanus, 2.2, 4.6, 60.7.


leader, that concerning Honoratus of Arles, tells the story of his ‘domestication’: from a wan-dering charismatic to a safe and stable coenobite.69 His greatest virtue, according to thepreacher, was that he never trusted in himself alone e that ‘whenever anything had to be eitherarranged or done by him, he considered the discussion and judgment of [his companion Cap-rasius], as the most just measure of examination’.70 Honoratus’ qualification as a leader residedin the fact that he perfectly fulfilled the same obligations of obedience and humility which heimposed upon others.71 He is styled as a paterfamilias, but of a family consisting of brothers.72

His leadership, for the author of this sermon, was all about pastoral care. It is the good of thecommunity and of the group as a whole which matters, not the charismatic action of theindividual.73

The sermons to laity in the collection reveal a similar attitude to religious authority. Salva-tion is depicted as a joint task. Pastor and congregation are in the struggle together, and eachcan gain from the efforts of the other. They have complementary and equally important roles inthe advancement of the Christian community.74 For the Eusebius Gallicanus preachers, theplace of the pastor within the Christian community is at its centre: providing an example, inservice to his flock and aiding them in their struggle for salvation, but also benefiting from theirefforts on his behalf. Indeed, he is not even strictly necessary for the salvation of his flock. Insermon 63, the congregation is urged to continue their spiritual progress even while their pastoris travelling. ‘Man, who stands alone before the tribunal of God with his deeds, should urgehimself on.’75 Authority is presented in these sermons as a quality which aids the growthand progress of the community and the individuals within it. In sermon 54, the preacher explic-itly extends the monastic model of brotherhood to the lay community which he addresses. ‘Forwe are all brothers, begot from the one creator, and descended from the same flesh, from thefirst man, tied together by the double binds of Christ and the church, joined by nature andthe power of grace, called into one faith, restored by one price. We are brothers, born ofthe same mother through the bath of one font, we are blood-brothers through the one salvifictransaction.’76 This does not apply, the preacher emphasises, only to blood brothers, or tomonks, sed generaliter de nobis omnibus loquitur.77 To both monks and laity, the Eusebius Gal-licanus pastors preached an ideal of Christian equality as the basis for community and declinedto place themselves in distinct authority over it.

69 For this interpretation, see also Nouailhat, Saints, 312.70 quaecumque ei uel ordinanda uel gerenda era<n>t, illius tractatu atque iudicio uelut aequissimi examinis libra, pen-

sauit. Eusebius Gallicanus, 72.5, ed. Glorie, 776.71 Eusebius Gallicanus, 72.10. Compare Cassian, Institutiones, 2.3.3.72 On the patriarchal terminology and models employed in this sermon, see Kasper, Theologie, 21-8 and Nouailhat,

Saints, 104. I disagree, however, with their view that this model of leadership meant complete power over the commu-

nity e Honoratus’ position is depicted in this sermon primarily in a ‘service’ mode.73 See also Nurnberg, Askese, 225.74 See, for example, the ideally reciprocal nature of the pastoral relationship described in Eusebius Gallicanus, 61 and

65.75 perurgeat se homo ipse qui solus stabit ante tribunal dei cum actibus suis. Eusebius Gallicanus, 63.6, ed. Glorie, 718.

Rom. 14:10, Col. 3:9.76 Omnes enim nos fratres sumus, ex uno auctore progeniti, et ex eadem massa generati ex primo homine. Fratres

uterini sumus per unius fontis lauacrum, consanguinei sumus per unum salutare commercium. Eusebius Gallicanus,

54.1-2. ed. Glorie, 629-30. Acts. 7:26.77 This is in contrast to Cassian’s reading of this passage, which takes it as referring to the harmony of body and soul

rather than between individuals. Conrad Leyser, Authority and asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford,

2000), 47, note 53.


There are points of divergence. The Eusebius Gallicanus preachers to monks worried aboutascetic superiority and sought to ensure their monastic audiences did not fall into fatal confi-dence. They depicted the monastery not as a haven from the battle with sin, but the centreof it. ‘Here we are, and we are not safe.’ 78 Sermon after sermon informs the monks that farfrom being superior to lay Christians, they are simply more exposed. ‘Indeed, to come to thedesert is the greatest perfection’, the author of sermon 44 notes, but ‘to live imperfectly inthe desert is the greatest damnation.’79 Far better to stay in the secular world than to relax ina monastery.80 The world outside the monastery was not so much a maelstrom of iniquity asa place where the light of the devil’s lantern was less likely to fall upon you, and whereyour sins did not count so heavily against you. You have not come here to relax, but to fight,the preachers tell their monks, and they emphasise the consequences of failure by dwelling onthe pain and misery of infernal punishment.81

Sermons to the laity, by contrast, are far more concerned with encouraging congregantsthan filling them with fear. These sermons are more optimistic about the human capacity forachieving salvation. ‘We can all have within ourselves the keys to the kingdom ofheaven.’82 They do not share the atmosphere of vulnerability and danger which pervadesthose to the monks. A Eusebian sermon to monks describes the path of virtue as narrowand difficult.83 The laity, however, are assured of its ease. ‘I do not know, dearly beloved,why the rough and uneven ways of sins and pride are more pleasing to us, when the roadof humility is more pleasant, level and direct’.84 ‘If you find the yoke of Christ a heavyburden’, the preacher goes on to claim, ‘you have made it so yourself and need onlyturn from your previous ways to make it light and pleasant’.85 When addressing the laitythe preachers are tolerant of doubt, uncertainty and failure. ‘Charity should be inclinedto compassion, not insulting sinners but consoling them, for it is easy to lapse into sinand the human condition is fragile’.86 To the confident monks the Eusebian preachers offerdiscomfiture, but to the nervous laity they offer reassurance. The dangers facing each groupare different in this respect and receive different treatment.

78 Hic sumus, et tuti non sumus. Eusebius Gallicanus, 40.6, ed. Glorie, 480. The preacher repeats the point again in

40.7. This is in contrast to other Lerinian writers, who describe the monastery as a place of peace and respite. Caesarius

of Arles, for example, repeatedly refers to the monastery as a ‘haven’ and a ‘safe port’, Sermones, 233.1, 234.1, 235.1-2,

236.2, 237.4. See discussion of this point in Robert Markus, The end of ancient Christianity (Cambridge, 1990),

162.79 uenire quidem ad eremum summa perfectio est, non perfecte in eremo uiuere summa damnatio est. Eusebius Galli-

canus, 44.1, ed. Glorie, 522. See also Eusebius Gallicanus, 39.3: Venire quidem ad eremum summa perfectio est, sed

non perfecte in eremo uiuere summa damnatio est. ed. Glorie, 458. See also 39.2, 40.2-3, 42.8 and 42.10 and the same

idea in Cassian, Institutiones, 4.33-8.80 Certum est, carissimi: nisi hic nostras quotidie resecemus et circumcidamus passiones, deteriores multo nos effici

quam fuimus dum in saeculo uiueremus, Eusebius Gallicanus, 42.6, ed. Glorie, 500. See also 40.5, 42.7.81 See for example Eusebius Gallicanus, 8.3, 36.2-6, 39.5, 40.2, 43.5, 44.8.82 omnes in nobis habere possumus claues regni caelorum. Eusebius Gallicanus, 33.4, ed. Glorie, 379. Mt. 16:19.83 Eusebius Gallicanus, 40.3.84 Nescio autem, carissimi, cur nobis uitiorum ac superbiae itinera aspera et confragosa magis placeant, cum magis

humilium uiae molles, planae atque directae sint. Eusebius Gallicanus, 4.5, ed. Glorie, 49. Isa. 40:4, Lk. 3:5.85 Eusebius Gallicanus, 4.5.86 caritas prona sit ad misericordiam, non insultans peccantibus sed condolens e facilis enim est lapsus ad uitia; et

fragilitas conditionis humanae. Eusebius Gallicanus, 21.5, ed. Glorie, 251.


Ultimately, however, both audiences are assured that salvation is possible. In place ofAugustine’s ‘active passivity’ in the face of the unchangeable divine dispensation, these ser-mons urge effort.87 ‘And when God has seen more ardent devotion of the soul, he will in-sinuate the right disposition of mind, and as much as we have added to our zeal, so muchhe adds to our support; as much as we have increased our diligence, so much he augmentsour glory: ‘‘He who has will be given more and he will abound’’’.88 What results from thisis a ‘snowball’ understanding of the operation of grace. ‘Therefore grace springs forth fromgrace and successes assist in further successes. Profit makes a place for profit and merit formerit: so that, the more one begins to acquire, so much more one should try to seek’.89

Sermon 38 is an extensive invocation of the importance of effort. ‘‘‘Ask’’, [God] says,‘‘and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you’’,that is, we ask by praying, we seek by striving, we knock by longing, we knock by accom-plishing, we knock by persevering’.90 God does not want us to come by his benefaction tooeasily, ‘for to seek the grace of the divine gift slowly and with little gratitude is the greatestinjustice to the rewarder.’91 Therefore, the preacher continues, we should strive as much aswe are capable, with all of our strength, so that we might be worthy of the reward. Weknock as hard as we can, because we cannot knock as much as we should.92 Other Euse-bian sermons to monks are likewise saturated with the language of effort.93 The directionsto the laity are less strident, but spring from the same pastoral view. God banishes theblemishes on our hearts through baptism, the preacher of sermon 20 notes, ‘but it is nec-essary that we exert ourselves, lest we should pollute again that which he purified, lest weshould tear open the wounds which he healed, lest he should have to boil out of us again inthe fires of hell that which he once washed away in the waters of baptism.’ The laity areurged in the same terms as monks to pray, labour and persevere.94

This means that despite the emphasis on community, the Eusebian sermons also placeweight upon the burden of the individual. The struggle, the Eusebian preachers repeatedly

87 On the idea of ‘active passivity’ in Augustine’s works see Carole Straw, ‘Augustine as pastoral theologian. The ex-

egesis of the parables of the field and threshing floor’, Augustinian Studies, 14 (1983), 145-7. On the controversy over

grace in Gaul and the central role of ascetics in it, see Rebecca Harden Weaver, Divine grace and human agency. A study

of the semi-Pelagian controversy (Macon, GA, 1996); Thomas A. Smith, De gratia. Faustus of Riez’ treatise on grace

and its place in the history of theology (Notre Dame, IN, 1990), 21-60; Carlo Tibiletti, ‘Rassegna di studi e testi sui

«semipelagiani», Augustinianum, 25 (1985), 507-22.88 Et ubi uiderit deus deuotionem animi ardentiorem, insinuabit affectum; et quanto nos addiderimus ad studium, tanto

ille apponet ad adiutorium; quanto nos apposuerimus ad diligentiam, tanto ille addet ad gloriam: Qui habet dabitur ei, et

abundabit. Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.7, ed. Glorie, 448. Mt. 13:12.89 Gratia ergo de gratia nascitur, et profectus profectibus seruiunt. Lucra lucris, et merita meritis locum faciunt: ut,

quanto quis plus acquirere coeperit, tanto plus conetur et delectetur inquirere. Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.7, ed. Glorie,

448.90 Petite, inquit, et accipietis, quaerite et inuenietis, pulsate et aperietur uobis; id est: ut petamus orando; quaeramus

laborando; pulsemus desiderando, pulsemus proficiendo, pulsemus perseuerando, Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.1, ed. Glorie,

435. Mt. 7:7, Lk. 11:9.91 lentum enim et parum gratum quaerere gratiam diuini muneris, maxima est iniuria remuneratoris. Eusebius Galli-

canus, 38.1, ed. Glorie, 435.92 Eusebius Gallicanus, 38.1 and 38.8.93 See for example Eusebius Gallicanus, 8.2, 37.2, 39.3, 40.2-4.94 Eusebius Gallicanus, 64.1.


tell the monks, is not against others, but against ourselves.95 Ultimately the individual willstand before the tribunal of God with only his sins for company.96 Each should account to him-self for his own works and thoughts.97 The preacher of sermon 63 warns his lay congregation totake a similar responsibility. Salvation cannot be forced upon another, and we will have no-oneto blame but ourselves in the end. We should not expect to be urged to perfection by someoneelse, since we will not be content to be crowned by anyone else on judgment day. Consequently,lay Christians are urged to be their own judges, their own doctors, their own executioners.98

The Eusebian preachers were not trying to make the whole world into a monastery, as Au-gustine feared the Pelagians would do. However, many of them came to their role as pastorswith a monastic background and they extended into their new roles the patterns of associationand pastoral styles which they had already absorbed. They did so because for them, the mon-astery was another form of the Christian community, not a locale utterly divorced from and an-tagonistic towards the world. For them, asceticism naturally translated, as Rosemarie Nurnbergputs it, into a ‘social impulse’.99

This is particularly clear in sermon eight, which may have been preached by a visitingbishop, and perhaps to a ‘mixed’ audience of lay and religious. According to the author ofthis sermon, the ascetic’s chief role is to be a good example for the rest of the church. Some-times, he notes, even those who have been consecrated since adolescence seek out publicpenance.

We should know that God inspires this for the sake of the progress of our church. whenthat person, who perhaps hardly needs penance, faithfully does something worthy and re-morseful before the eyes of the church, his reward multiplies due to the edification ofothers and his merit piles up due to the gain achieved, so that when the life of anotheris amended through the perfection of that man, the profit of the good works returns tohim as spiritual interest.100

95 Ideoque, carissimi, militia nostra hoc a nobis requirit: ut non contra alios, sed contra nosmetipsos quotidie dimice-

mus; et, uniuersos hostes nostros in nobismetipsis iugiter persequentes, palmam spiritalis triumphi a domino consequa-

mur. Eusebius Gallicanus, 43.5, ed. Glorie, 516. See also Eusebius Gallicanus, 39.1, 42.8-9.96 On this see also Nurnberg, Askese, 238.97 Eusebius Gallicanu,s 44.8. See also 44.7.98 Eusebius Gallicanus, 4.6, 14.7, 26.5, 45.2-3, 60.8, 64.11 and .13. In the sermons of Augustine of Hippo, the image of

the doctor is only used of the pastor or of God, never of the sinner e see for example Sermones 2.3, 15A.8, 16B.1, 20.1,

87.13, 97A.1, 113A.13, 126.4, 174.6, 175.2, 176.4, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi opera omnia (Patro-

logia Latina 38 and 39, Turnhout, 1845-6).99 Nurnberg, Askese, 230. I find Nurnberg’s characterisation of the Lerinian social impulse very persuasive but her

work should be used with caution. Not only does she assume that the Eusebian sermons are entirely the work of Faustus

of Riez (an issue which is unsettled at best), but she also treats the sermons edited by Engelbrecht as Faustus’ work,

despite the fact that Faustus’ authorship of them has been persuasively disproved. See Germain Morin, ‘Critique’,

49-61; Bergmann, Studien, 3-8; Leroy, ‘Oeuvre’, 4-5. For the edition of the disputed sermons, see Fausti Reiensis pra-eter sermones pseudoeusebianoa opera, ed. Augustus Engelbrecht (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 21,

Prague, 1891).100 The passage as a whole reads: uidemus aliquotiens etiam illas animas paenitentiam petere quae ab ineunte adoles-

centia consecratae pretiosum deo thesaurum deuouerunt, inspirare hoc deum pro ecclesiae nostrae profectibus noueri-

mus: ut medicinam quam inuadunt sani, discant quaerere uulnerati; ut bonis etiam parua deflentibus, ingentia ipsi mala

lugere consuescant. Ac sic, quando iam illa persona, quae forte minus indiget paenitentia, aliquid fide dignum atque

compunctum sub oculis ecclesiae gerit, fructum suum etiam de aliena aedificatione multiplicat et meritum suum de

lucro proficientis accumulat, ut, dum perfectione illius emendatur alterius uita, spiritali fenore ad ipsum boni operis

recurrat usura. Eusebius Gallicanus, 8.5, ed. Glorie, 87.


Those who provide such an example, the preacher argues, will redound in merit. ‘He is a for-tunate man, whose merits overflow into the salvation of others! He is a fortunate man intowhose mind the salvation of others pours back!’101 Sin can creep through the members ofthe church like a contagion, but whenever a son of the church freely offers some good in public,‘the devotion of good works increases in the crowd of marvellers’.102 The communicable effectof virtue extends beyond the monastery’s walls.

The potential for this ‘outreach’ is latent in the other Eusebian sermons ‘to the monks’ andrealised in those ‘to the people’. When Faustus preaches on Maximus, who had been both abbotof Lerins and bishop of Riez before him, he presents the former phase of Maximus’ life as es-sential preparation for the latter. For you’, he tells the congregation of Riez, ‘this athlete of Christsweated in his struggle. sowing for himself there, he gathered for you; searching for himselfthere, he unknowingly acquired for you; preparing wealth for himself, he released you fromusury’.103 All of Maximus’ ascetic achievements are recast as pastoral training. ‘That distin-guished man was taught there, so that he might teach here; was enriched there, so that he mightlend here; was illuminated there, so that he might shine here; was purified there so that he mightsanctify here; and, so that he could work here at the making of cures, he sought there the spicesand pigments of virtue.’104 Thanks to the example of Maximus, ‘those who want to come to theroad of health can, and those who neglect it cannot find an excuse.’105 It is a common motif, andone found in a number of other hagiographical works, but it is surrounded in the Eusebius Gal-licanus sermon collection by examples of how this would work in practice e how models of mo-nastic pastoral care and community could extend to the world outside its walls.106

Gallic monasticism has often been depicted as torn between two ascetic models: that of Au-gustine of Hippo and that of John Cassian, both of whom were concerned with the implicationsof monastic morality for the entire church.107 The preachers whose work survives in the Euse-bius Gallicanus collection show that the models of Augustine and John Cassian were not con-sidered by pastors of the time to be mutually exclusive. They drew from both to create pastoralcare specific to their own needs and those of their congregants. The centrality of community, forexample, which defines the collection, echoes the approach of Augustine, as does the anxietyover ascetic elitism and the model of communal equality.108 The influence of Cassian, on the

101 Felix per quem etiam in aliena salute exundant merita propria! felix in cuius mentem redundat salus aliena! EusebiusGallicanus, 8.5, ed. Glorie, 87.102 crescit deuotio meritorum turba mirantium. Eusebius Gallicanus, 8.5, ed. Glorie, 88.103 Vobis enim, iste athleta Christi, in illo agone sudauit. sibi illic serens, uobis colligebat; sibi quaerens, uobis nescius

acquirebat: sibi paraturus pecuniam, uobis soluturus usuram. Eusebius Gallicanus, 35.4, ed. Glorie, 403. Ps 14:5.104 Vir ille praecipuus illic doctus, ut hic doceret; illic ditatus, ut hic feneraret; illic illuminatus, ut hic refulgeret; illic

purificatus, ut hic sanctificaret; et, ut hic exercere posset confectionem curationum, illuc quaesiuit aromata et pigmenta

uirtutum. Eusebius Gallicanus, 35.5, ed. Glorie, 404. 1 Cor. 12:9-10.105 per quae et ad uiam salutis possint uenire qui cupiunt, et excusationem non possint inuenire qui neglegunt. Eusebius

Gallicanus, 35.5, ed. Glorie, 404. This sermon was Faustus’ reply to critiques of the ‘monk-bishop’ model, including

those which he had himself earlier expressed e see Leyser, ‘Sainted’, 201. Leyser describes this sermon, and the other

panegyrical sermons in the Lerins tradition, as ‘weightless confections’, but it could have carried significant force for

the Christian community in Riez and it fits well with the ideals outlined in other Eusebius Gallicanus sermons.106 On the prevalence of this theme in Lerinian hagiography in particular, see Markus, End, 194.107 See for example Philip Rousseau, ‘Cassian. Monastery and world’, in: The certainty of doubt. Tributes to Peter

Munz, ed. Miles Fairburn and W. H. Oliver (Wellington, 1997), 68-89; Markus, End, 199-213; Leyser, Authority,

65-161; Leyser, ‘Sainted’, 202-6.108 On the prominence of these themes in Augustine’s writings, see Leyser, Authority, 11-13 and Markus, End, 77-8,

158. On the extensive direct borrowings from Augustine in the Eusebian sermons, see Glorie, Eusebius, 1048-52.


other hand, is discernable in the emphasis on the achievability of salvation through effort, thestyle of community leadership, and the responsibility of an ascetic expert to the broader Chris-tian community.109 The Eusebius Gallicanus preachers treated the works of their predecessorsas a thesaurus rather than a roadmap.110 They drew on patristic tradition but forged their ownpastoral approach.

This is characteristic of Gallic preaching in the fifth and sixth centuries. Like the EusebiusGallicanus preachers, for example, Valerian of Cimiez (c.439-c.462) places the maintenance ofcommunity at the heart of his pastoral care. He lauds unity to his lay congregants as the highestand most difficult Christian goal, while his sermons suggest a community riven by rivalries,lawsuits and social inequalities.111 However Valerian took a more practical approach than isevident in the idealised moralising of the Eusebian preachers. His remedies were specific: anend to quarrels, gossip and deceit; practical advice on how to keep your temper when provoked;attacks on drunkenness and covetousness as causes of trouble; advocacy of almsgiving as thebalm for communal discord.112 Valerian’s corpus is small, but the individuality of his pastoralcare is nonetheless striking.113

The pastoral care of Caesarius of Arles (c.502-542), however, provides an even greater con-trast. Caesarius was composing and circulating his sermons in the same region and around thesame time as the Eusebius Gallicanus compiler, and relied on many of the same source texts.Caesarius draws on both Augustine and John Cassian and extends monastic models learnt atLerins to his lay congregation in Arles.114 His focus, however, is not on community, but onthe behaviour of individuals. He seeks to impose monastic practices upon his lay congregants:urging biblical reading, participation in the offices of the monastic liturgy and fasting.115 Hisemphasis on moral discipline, strict regulation of sexuality, condemnation of drunkennessand attacks on ‘pagan’ practices have all also been attributed to his ‘ascetic mentality’.116 Be-cause unity and harmony are less important to him than combat with sin, he is prepared to di-vide the community into good and bad Christians, enlist the former against the latter and urgethe pious to rebuke the reprobate and refuse to associate with them.117 Caesarius’ view of pas-toral authority also diverges from that of the Eusebius Gallicanus preachers. He represents his

109 On Cassian’s view of authority, see discussions in Rousseau, Ascetics, 188 and George Demacopoulos, ‘John Cas-

sian and the spiritual direction of the ascetic community’, forthcoming. I am grateful to George Demacopoulos for al-

lowing me to read his work prior to its publication. For Cassian’s views on effort: Owen Chadwick, John Cassian

(Cambridge, 1968), 94; Rousseau, ‘Cassian’, 82-3. On the role of the ascetic expert in Cassian’s writings, see Leyser,

Authority, 55. Despite this thematic connection, direct borrowings from Cassian in the Eusebian sermons are rare, per-

haps reflecting caution towards his works. See Glorie, Eusebius, 1054-5.110 In relation to hagiography, Heffernan writes of a ‘veritable thesaurus’ of motifs and phrases available to the author.

The image works equally well for homiletics. Thomas J. Heffernan, Sacred biography. Saints and their biographers in

the middle ages (New York, NY, 1988), 6.111 Valerian of Cimiez, Homiliae 10.1-2, 12.2, 20.1-5, S. Valerianus Cemeliensis episcopus (Patrologia Latina 52,

Turnhout, 1973).112 Valerian of Cimiez, Homiliae, 2.4, 5, 6, 8.2, 12.4-7.113 Unfortunately it is not known whether Valerian was an ascetic before becoming bishop of Cimiez. The notion that he

was a monk at Lerins relies, as Weiss points out, on a probably mistaken identification with another Lerinian ‘monk-

bishop’, Valerius of Nice. Jean-Pierre Weiss, ‘Valerien de Cimiez et Valere de Nice’, Sacris erudiri, 21 (1972-3),

109-46.114 On the influence of Augustine and Cassian on Caesarius’ pastoral work, see Leyser, Authority, 82-100.115 See, for example, Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 6, 196.116 Markus, End, 205; Klingshirn, Caesarius, 182; Diem, Keusch, 171.117 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 53.2. For an example of how to reprimand your ‘brother or neighbour’ see 42.2.


own authority and leadership with paternal rather than fraternal imagery.118 For him, the priestsare ‘a chosen race’, set apart from other Christians.119 They are the ones who must standbefore God on judgment day and account for the souls of their flock.120 They are the oneswho bear the burden of salvation e they are the ones who will have ‘blood on their hands’if their flock is damned.121 There is no mutual support here, no joint task, no responsibilityon the part of the laity. What matters to Caesarius is not that the community assist each other,but that they obey him. Caesarius uses his monastic background and draws from patristictradition to create a model of lay pastoral care which is starkly different from that of theEusebian preachers.

Interestingly, in his surviving sermons to monks Caesarius comes closer to the Eusebian pas-toral approach.122 He too makes humility and obedience the cardinal monastic virtues.123 Healso urges the monks whom he addresses to persevere in their profession.124 However, thereare differences as well. Although he instructs monks to remain humble not only towards theirsuperiors, but also their equals and inferiors, Caesarius is more likely than the Eusebianpreachers to observe and comment upon social differences within the monastic community.125

He is more likely than the Eusebian preachers to urge the castigation of others, even though herecognises that this process must begin with oneself.126 Caesarius has a different interpretationthan the Eusebian preachers of the monastic responsibility to the ‘outside world’. It is incum-bent upon ascetics to set a good example and to live up to the world’s expectations. ‘Now sincethe whole world both admires and loves your deeds because of your holy and spotless obedi-ence’, he tells the monks of Lerins, ‘.it is necessary that you repay the honour and love whichyou receive from everyone by your continuous prayers and spotless life.’127 Even more impor-tant than this, however, is the role of monks as intercessors. They must pray, Caesarius repeat-edly insists, for those who have not had their opportunities, and earn pardon for sinners as well

118 See, for example, Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 1.4-5, 1.16, 1.19, 4.4, 5.5, 8.5, 13.5, 19.5, 78.5, 231.2.119 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 1.19.120 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 1.3 and .15, 4.2, 5.1 and. 5, 43.9, 44.8, 46.8, 183.1.121 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 1.3, 5.1, 225.4.122 This is also the case in his Regula for monks, see in particular Caesarius of Arles, Regula monachorum 2, 3, 6, 12,

13, 19, eds. Joel Courreau and Adalbert de Vogue, Cesaire d’Arles. Oeuvres monastiques (Sources chretiennes 398,

Paris, 1994) vol. 2, Oeuvres pour les moines. His prior and expanded Regula for nuns contains significantly more em-

phasis on the role of the superior, mutual correction and social divisions within the nunnery. Caesarius of Arles, Regulavirginum 21, 24, 30, 35, 42, eds. Joel Courreau and Adalbert de Vogue, Cesaire d’Arles. Oeuvres monastiques (Sources

chretiennes 345, Paris, 1994) vol. 1, Oeuvres pour les moniales. On the ‘vertical’ rather than ‘horizontal’ structure of

relationships in the Regula virginum see Lazare de Seilhac, L’Utilisation par s. Cesaire d’Arles de la regle de s. Augus-tin. Etude de termenologie et de doctrine monastiques (Rome, 1974), 289-90.123 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 233.2-7, 234.2, 235.5, 236.3, 237.4.124 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 233.2, 234.2, 238.5.125 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 233.6.126 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 233.3, 235.3.127 Et quia pro sancta oboedientia et inmaculata opera vestra universus mundus vos et admiratur et diligit. oportet, ut

honorem et amorem, quem ab omnibus excipitis, assiduis orationibus et inmaculatis actibus repensetis. Caesarius of

Arles, Sermones 236.3, ed. Morin, 942: trans. Mueller, 212.


as themselves.128 Caesarius was not interested in fostering the ‘monk-bishop’.129 His monksremained within their community.

Caesarius has dominated accounts of preaching and pastoral care in late antique Gauland he stands at the culmination of what Robert Markus has described as an ‘ascetic inva-sion.’130 This process, however, may have been more contested than the ascetic sources ad-mit.131 The ‘monk-bishops’ had to tread carefully so as not to offend, as the oppositionwhich Caesarius faced testifies.132 The Eusebius Gallicanus sermons illustrate that the con-nections between monastery and world did not have to be as antagonistic or coercive innature as the ‘invasion’ of Caesarius. They also provide further evidence of the complexityand variety of the ascetic world in fifth- and sixth-century Gaul.133 Many different modelsof ascetic practice led to many different styles of pastoral care, both within the monasteryand beyond it. The Eusebius Gallicanus collection itself facilitated this multiplicity. It inturn became a resource on which future generations of pastors selectively drew to createtheir own models of congregational care.

What the sermon collection demonstrates most clearly, however, is that for at least somepreachers in late antique Gaul monks and laity were ‘brothers’. That is to say, they were Chris-tians who chose to express their faith in different ways and in different contexts, but who werenonetheless to be treated as rough equals. There is little qualitative difference in the pastoralcare which each group was offered, or in the problems which the leaders of each expectedto face. For the Eusebius Gallicanus preachers, the connection between monastery and worldwas not a source of anxiety, but a natural extension of community.134

Lisa Bailey took her MA in History at the University of Auckland and her doctorate at Princeton. Since 2004 she has

been Lecturer in Greek and Roman Studies at the University of Auckland. She is the author of several articles on

sermons in the early medieval church.

128 Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 234.1. For other examples of this idea see Sermones, 233.7, 235.6, 236.5, 237.5.129 In a sermon directed to the monks of Lerins, Caesarius seeks to dissuade them from following the clerical path. True

humility, he insists, would mean turning down the opportunity of office. Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 236.4. On the

concept of the ‘monk-bishop’, see Philip Rousseau, ‘The spiritual authority of the ‘monk-bishop’. Eastern elements in

some western hagiography of the fourth and fifth centuries’, Journal of Theological Studies, new series 22 (1971),

380-419.130 ‘The ascetic invasion’ is the title of chapter 13 of The end of ancient Christianity and similar language of ‘invasion’

and ‘take-over’, recurs through the book. Militaristic imagery is also found in Leyser, who refers to an ascetic ‘occu-

pation’, ‘Sainted’, 206.131 For scepticism as to the extent and impact of the ascetic invasion, see Bernhard Jussen, ‘Uber ‘Bischofsherrschaften’

und die Prozeduren politisch-sozialer Umordnung in Gallien zwischen ‘Antike’ und ‘Mittelalter’, Historische Zeits-

chrift, 260 (1995), esp. 682-4 and Philip Rousseau, review of Robert Markus, The end of ancient Christianity (Cam-

bridge, 1990), Prudentia 23.2 (1991), 62-6.132 On the opposition to Caesarius, see Vita Caesarii, 1.21, 1.27, 1.29, 1.36, 1.60.133 This complexity and variety has been explored by several other authors, though different patterns of division emerge

from their work. See in particular Christian Courtois, ‘L’evolution du monachisme en Gaule de St Martin a St Colum-

ban’, Il monachesimo nell’alto medioevo e la formazione della civilta occidentale (Spoleto, 1957), 48, 52; Leyser, Au-thority, 42-3; Leyser, ‘Sainted’, 192, Pricoco, Isola, 14, Dunn, Emergence, 83-4; Prinz, Fruhes, 19-117.134 An earlier version of this article was presented at the University of Auckland. Thank you to the participants in that

session for their comments and questions. I am grateful to Peter Brown, Scott Bruce, William Jordan, Robert Kaster,

William Klingshirn, Kevin Uhalde and the anonymous readers for the Journal of Medieval History, all of whose sug-

gestions immeasurably improved this piece at various stages in its gestation.

Documents

Monks and lay communities in late antique Gaul: the evidence of the Eusebius Gallicanus sermons