Upstanding Donatists - Symbolic Communication at the Conference of Carthage (411)

Upstanding Donatists: Symbolic communication at the Conference of Carthage (411)

Thomas Graumann

University of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity, West Road, UK-Cambridge CB 3 9 BS, Email: [email protected]

The Conference of Carthage in 411 CE played a decisive role in the his-tory of the long-running controversy and schism between Catholics and Donatists in Roman North Africa, helping signifi cantly to end the schism after more than a century. The imperial Edict of Unity (Codex Theodo-sianus 16,6,3 [Theodor Mommsen, ed., Codex Theodosianus: Theodosiani libri XVI 1,2: Textus cum apparatu (Berlin, 1904) 881]) of 405 CE had already made the legal standing of the Donatist church virtually untenable; it used the category of heresy against Donatists, forbade their conventions and threatened severe penalties in what amounted in effect to a prohibition of their cult. Donatist support and communities were slowly being eroded thereafter. As a consequence of the ensuing pressure on the Donatists and the repeated lobbying of the imperial authorities by the Catholic bishops, the imperially mandated conference fi nally brought about the debate which Catholics had demanded for some time, and which Augustine in particular hoped would confute the Donatist case and discredit them publicly.1

1 Literature in the history of the Donatist controversy is abundant; for a survey of schol-arship see S. Lancel and J. S. Alexander, “Donatistae,” Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (Basel, 1996-2002): 606-638; A. Schindler, “Afrika I,” TRE 1 (Berlin, 1977): 648-700, esp. 654-668. A recent useful survey of scholarship is provided by Arne Hogrefe, Umstrit-tene Vergangenheit: Historische Argumente in der Auseinandersetzung Augustins mit den Donatisten (Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends 24; Berlin, 2009), 8-16. Of the many studies cf., for example, Serge Lancel, St. Augustine (trans. A. Nevill; London, 2002 [French original: Paris, 1999]), 275-305, for the events leading up to and including the conference esp. 287-300; William H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1952), on the conference 275-289; Bernhard Kriegbaum, Kirche der Traditoren oder Kirche der Märtyrer: Die Vorgeschichte des Donatismus (Innsbrucker theologische Studien 16; Inns-bruck, 1986); Ernst Ludwig Grasmück, Coercitio: Staat und Kirche im Donatistenstreit (Bonner historische Forschungen 22; Bonn, 1964). See also the account by Charles Piétri, “Die Schwierigkeiten des neuen Systems im Westen: Der Donatistenstreit (363-420),” in Die Geschichte des Christentums 2: Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (250-430) (eds. idem and L. Piétri; Freiburg, 1996), 506-524, with a very unfavourable assessment of the Donatist actores at the conference and their abilities at 519. Cf. further the studies mentioned below, notes 2 and 4. Plans for public general debates were already proposed

ZAC, vol. 15, pp. 329-355 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2011.17© Walter de Gruyter 2011

330 Thomas Graumann

Over the course of two days, the proceedings of the conference are documented in extraordinary detail; on the third day the extant gesta break off just as the debate fi nally turns to the disputed theological topics. Since historians of theology and Augustinian scholars have mostly been interested in these critical theological questions, their research has not usually placed the acts of the conference at the centre of attention. This is to a lesser extent also true for some more recent scholarly explorations of the Donatist conceptions and self-image, especially of their exegesis and use of the Bible.2 Research into the political and socio-historical as-pects of Donatism, on the other hand, has traditionally drawn on the rich documentation of earlier events included in the acts and investigated the legal problems posed by the meeting, but given comparatively lesser prominence to the analysis of the proceedings. This paper will focus on a dimension of the events that has not yet attracted detailed analysis: the Donatist behaviour in the early, well documented stages of the meeting. Along with their arguments and verbal interventions, their dramatic activi-ties during these days have largely been dismissed – ultimately following what was already Augustine’s assessment – as simply another attempt to derail or at least delay the meeting and part of their futile efforts to avoid an inevitable defeat.3 Only recently has more particular attention to the legal position and argumentation of the Donatists nuanced such judgements of their case in general, without however observing specifi -cally the importance of their behaviour in expressing their position.4 Yet it is precisely Donatist behaviour, this paper argues, that can be identifi ed as the self-conscious representation of group identity and as a dramatic enactment of the group’s main purposes for the occasion. Their activities can be described as embodied, symbolic communication. In this perspec-tive the analysis hopes to contribute to the understanding of the event,

by the Catholic general councils of North Africa in 401 and 403; cf. Gesta conlatio-nis Carthaginiensis 3,174,1-35 (CChr.SL 149A, 221-222 Lancel); Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis 3,6 (CChr.SL 149A, 275,51-276,35 Lancel). For the Edict of Unity’s origin in the legal altercations between Catholics and Donastist before the conference and its effects on the controversy, see now Erika T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama: A Study in the North African Episcopate at the Time of Augustine (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford, 2008), 150-153, 117-119 and passim.

2 See Maureen A. Tilley, The Bible in Christian North Africa: The Donatist World (Min-neapolis, 1997); and more specifi cally for the conference, James S. Alexander, “A Note on the Interpretation of the Parable of the Threshing Floor at the Conference of Carthage of A.D. 411,” JThS 24 (1973): 512-519; idem, “Aspects of the Donatist Scriptural In-terpretation at the Conference of Carthage,” Studia Patristica 15 (1984): 125-130.

3 Typically, Lancel, St. Augustine (see note 1), 298, mentions the scene only briefl y and as part of the “procedural wiliness” of Petilianus and his colleagues. Frend, Donatist Church (see note 1), 284, detects the determination to obstruct.

4 Maureen A. Tilley, “Dilatory Donatists or Procrastinating Catholics: The Trial at the Conference of Carthage,” Church History 60/1 (1991): 7-19. Following on from this revision, two recent studies include signifi cant chapters on the conference with which our analysis will be in constant conversation: Hermanowicz, Possidius (see note 1), especially 188-220; Hogrefe, Umstrittene Vergangenheit (see note 1), especially 153-208.

Upstanding Donatists 331

and more generally to draw attention to behaviour and physical expres-sion as signifi cant dimensions of the meetings of churchmen, which are, unfortunately, only sparingly documented in the acts of most synods and councils and have gone mostly unnoticed in scholarship.

In the wake of social and cultural anthropologist, historians and clas-sicists have recently paid more attention again to behaviour and nonverbal communication. For medievalists, the study of symbolic interaction and political ritual has long been a major focus of research. From scholars of antiquity, attempts at analysing such elements range from the study of non-verbal interaction in Homeric Epos, to political symbolism and ritual in the Roman Republic, to gestures accompanying oratorical performance, to the interactions between actors and audiences in the courts of the early empire, and – not least – to the ceremonial of the late Roman imperial court.5 It seems evident that attention to behaviour and symbolic communication can add an important dimension to the description and interpretation of social relations, especially as they come to shape various kinds of public gatherings, and the roles and activities of, and the dynamics between dif-ferent participants therein. Of the examples just mentioned, the institutions of the Roman Republic, such as the senate and the contio, and the law courts of the empire are particularly illuminating when such a perspective is employed for the interpretation of gatherings of churchmen.

Yet apart from the occasional passing observation that adds enlivening detail to historical accounts, no systematic attempts have been made as yet to examine specifi cally behaviour and non-verbal communication in the context of church councils or synods. That certain ceremonial requirements and expectations associated with court ritual would arise when an emperor chose to visit or participate in conciliar gatherings will be apparent.6 That in less exceptional circumstances, without imperial presence, the activi-

5 Scholarship of non-verbal communication, and of gesture in particular forms a major fi eld of research across several disciplines, which cannot be surveyed here. For an introductory sample of attendant research interests, see: Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg, eds., A Cultural History of Gesture: From Antiquity to the Present Day (Cambridge, 1991); Michael J. Braddick, ed., The Politics of Gesture: Historical Perspectives (Past and Pres-ent, Supplement, N.S. 4, Oxford, 2009). The wide range of questions addressed from this perspective in Classical Studies alone is evidenced by the articles in: Geoffrey W. Bakewell, ed., Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy presented to Alan L. Boegehold on the Occasion of his Retirement and his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Oxford, 2003); see also Alan L. Boegehold, When a Gesture was Expected: A Selection of Examples from Archaic and Classical Greek Literature (Princeton, 1999). Cf. the classic study Carl Sittl, Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig, 1890); Andreas Alföldi, Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (2nd ed.; Darmstadt, 1977). More recent studies relevant to our question are Gregory S. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome (Ancient Society and History; Baltimore, 1999); Leanne Bablitz, Actors and Audience in the Roman Courtroom (Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies; London, 2007); Fred S. Naiden, Ancient Supplication (Oxford, 2006); Anthony Corbeill, Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome (Princeton, 2004).

6 Cf., for example, Eusebius’s description of the entrance of Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3,10 (GCS 7, 81,12-17 Heikel).

332 Thomas Graumann

ties of bishops gathering in formal council session – or less formal meet-ing – might entail elements of ritualised behaviour and even of theatrical display, is equally likely but more diffi cult to observe and, where discernable in the sources, to interpret. There is an obvious diffi culty for such a task in that the relevant sources mention the behaviour of participants only comparatively infrequently. Not surprisingly verbal protocols are for the most part just that, records of the verbal exchanges rather than wholesome descriptions of all dimensions of conciliar interaction. The protocols of the Conference of Carthage, therefore, offer the rare opportunity to observe the participants acting out as well as arguing their position.

The Conference of Carthage followed years of Catholic lobbying of the court and of submerging the Donatists ever deeper in the mire or adminis-trative regulation and legal altercation.7 Finally, in response to yet another Catholic petition (preces) presented by an embassy of bishops in Ravenna, the Emperor Honorius ordered a debate (disputatio) to settle the matter once and for all, and summoned specifi cally the Donatist bishops to attend.8 His rescript and subsequent offi cial mandates by his representative left little doubt that he wanted to see the matter resolved by the refutation of Donatist claims. The planned meeting was to identify them as a superstitio so that heresy law could be applied and their churches could be handed over to the Catholics.9 The Donatist case was in effect prejudged and the outcome of the meeting predetermined by Honorius’s rescript.

It is apparent from the Donatist interventions and behaviour on the oc-casion that they were fully aware of their precarious position and realised that they had no real prospect of emerging from the event anything other than loser. Repeatedly they appear to be making statements for the record, envisaging the publication of the gesta and addressing through them a wider North-African audience – and potentially a future more benevolent administration – rather than expecting much immediate effect with their opponents or the chairman of the meeting.10 There is a discernable inten-

7 For the legal and judicial activities of the Catholic episcopate in this period, see Her-manowicz, Possidius (see note 1), esp. 97-131, 156-168.

8 See, esp. Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,4. The text of the Gesta will be quoted in this paper from the edition by Serge Lancel, Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis anno 411 accedit Sancti Augustini breviculus conlationis cum Donatistis (CChr.SL 149A; Turnhout, 1974); line numbers from this edition are used, where necessary, to identify part quota-tions from longer documents or interventions. The edition, with French translation, by Serge Lancel, Actes de la Conférence de Carthage en 411 (4 vols.; SC 194 [Introduction générale], 195 [Texte et traduction de la capitulation générale et des actes de la première séance], 224 [Texte et traduction des actes de la deuxième et de la troisième séance], 373 [Additamentum criticum, notices sur les sièges et les toponymes, notes complémentaires et index]; Paris, 1972-1991) will be compared where necessary, cf. especially vol. 1, Lancel’s Introduction générale (SC 194; Paris, 1972).

9 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,4 (54-56 L.); esp. 55,30-31: [ut] habitis disputationi-bus, superstitionem ratio manifesta confutet.

10 A particularly poignant statement of this kind is Petilianus’s claim to have the name “Cath-olics” ascribed to them in the acts; Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,91 (202 L.).


tion to have certain documents, facts and points of view recorded in the acts with a view to their later use and re-examination. From a fairly early stage in the acts we also fi nd Donatist interlocutors authenticating their statements with a stereotypical formula that reserves the right of appeal11; it reveals the same thinking. Even though Donatists verifi ed their statements recorded in the minutes only after proceedings came to a close – so that these reservations are made in the light of the unfavourable outcome of the debates and with the benefi t of hindsight – their appeals nevertheless refl ect very well the tenor of their statements and their apparent frustra-tion over the course of events, which are already tangible at a very early stage of proceedings. It is important to realise that the Donatists had few illusions about the true character and the expected outcome of the meet-ing or their chances of a fair hearing. It is only against this background that the wilfulness, determination and full symbolic resonance of their behaviour can be appreciated.

In this atmosphere, a remarkable scene is played out on the fi rst day. A close reading of it will illuminate the signifi cance of deliberate acting and symbolic communication in such meetings.

The fi rst day of the conference was entirely taken up by discussions of a preliminary character about the suitable format, the issues under consid-eration and the rules of examination and argument. Much of it resembles preliminary court hearings, where clarifi cation about similar questions is sought. The particular Donatist strategy in this part of the discussion was to forestall any substantive enquiry and discussion, again similar to the way in which preliminary court hearings would decide whether the case was admissible at all and defi ne the remit and legal framework of any subsequent substantive inquiry and adjudication.12

11 The appeals-formula occurs from the very beginning of the debates of the third day of the meeting; see Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,8 (182 L.): Adeodatus epicopus salua apellatione recognoui. All others follow his example with occasional minor variation, such as Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,89,31-32 (202 L.): . . . sine praeiudicio ap-pellationis nostrae recognoui.

12 The main questions to be addressed in preliminary discussion are listed by Bishop Emeritus, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,20,1-21 (71-72 L.) and subsequently discussed from different angles for the remainder of the day. To him, answering these questions consti-tutes reasons to dismiss any further negotiation of the case (praescriptio; cf., e.g., Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,31 [74 L.]). For preliminary negotiations in court cases and the potential reasons for a praescriptio, see Max Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (part 3, vol. 4 of Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums; 2nd ed., revised by K. Hackl; Hand-buch der Altertumswissenschaft 10,3,4; München, 1996), 582-586 and index s.v.; for the conference, see Artur Steinwenter, “Eine kirchliche Quelle des nachklassischen Zivilpro-zesses,” Acta Congressus Iuridici Internationalis: VII saeculo a decretalibus Gregorii IX et XIV a codico Iustiniano promulgatis 2 (1935): (125-144) 136-141; and discussion of individual praescriptiones in Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 73-74, 74-78, 79-82. For the importance of legal expertise and practical courtroom experience of both the Donatist and the Catholic spokesmen on the occasion and in general, see Caroline Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2007), 187-189.

334 Thomas Graumann

Both sides had been requested by imperial mandate to nominate seven representatives to argue their respective cases, with a further group of assistants allowed.13 The Catholics presented themselves accordingly in the designated venue on June 1, 411. The Donatists, however, entered the chamber in full numbers, bringing 285 bishops. Clearly, they demonstrated strength in numbers. Their intentions were further emphasised by their demand that the Catholic delegates should also bring in all those they claimed to represent, that is the signatories of their written mandate.14 They wanted to examine whether all signatories were present in Carthage and were legitimate bishops, but most probably the demand also aimed at visibly demonstrating the at least equal strength of the Donatists in North Africa. As a result of their request, soon the two groups of bishops faced each other, and a lengthy process ensued in which – starting with the Catholics – the names of signatories were called out one by one. Those called identifi ed themselves, and their opposite number from the same town or area con-fi rmed the identity of the one coming forward and often made a statement as to whether there really existed a community of the competing Christian group signifi cant enough to merit a bishop. There were occasional jibes and some ill-tempered remarks, but ultimately, in this drawn-out procedure, the Catholic bishops fi led out past the chairman,15 while the Donatists, it seems, stayed behind for the time being.16 After this role call and parade past the chairman, in itself remarkable and worthy of further examination, the scene occurs to which our examination now turns.

Marcellinus,17 the appointed chairman of the conference, invited the re-maining representatives to take a seat.18 However, the Donatists refused.

13 Details of the arrangements and organisation are stipulated in the chairman’s edict, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,10,1-126 (58-62 L.); for the important question of delegates, see esp. 1,10,14-15 (59 L.). Cf. the brief sketch of the circumstances and organisation in Hogrefe, Umstrittene Vergangenheit (see note 1), 154-161, 164-166; Lancel, St. Augustine (see note 1), 296-298.

14 Cf. the tortuous discussion of this point, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,59,1-89,13 (88-95 L.). The role call of signatories identifi es 285 Donatists and 286 Catholics; both sides dispute some signatures and claim to represent signifi cant numbers of additional bishops, absent for various reasons; cf. Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 110-118.

15 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,88,1-7 (94 L.). Bishop Adeodatus suggests that Catholics and Donatists fi le out two by two, but there is no evidence that this proposal was acted upon. Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 81-82 (note 5), plausibly argues that despite of the demand that bishops should leave, the Donatists remained and an uncertain number of Catholics returned – a fact the protocol does not mention and a reminder that our chances to observe behaviour from the written record are very limited.

16 The equivalent role call of Donatist bishops happens after the interval in which Marcel-linus invites the bishops to sit down.

17 For the chairman of the conference, the tribune and notary Flavius Marcellinus, see John R. Martindale, ed., Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 2: A.D. 395-527 (Cambridge, 1980), 711-712, s.v. “Fl. Marcellinus”; André Mandouze, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 1: Prosopographie de l’Afrique chrétienne (303-533) (Paris, 1982), 671-688, s.v. “Flavius Marcellinus 2”; cf. Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 61-65.

18 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,144, see following note.


By remaining standing – I want to argue – they draw attention to at least three important contexts, bringing them in to play for any further proceedings. They manage to enact physically elements of their legal posi-tion, express their self-identity, and to demonstrate visibly their assessment of the true nature of the event. This dense layering of signifi cance in a simple act may be surprising and could potentially seem an implausible over-reading of the sources. Yet, the programmatic importance of the scene is confi rmed by its almost exact repetition at the beginning of the second meeting, two days later, on June 3, 411. Some variation on that second occasion even expands on the meaning of the Donatist activity. They are then able to draw attention to central concepts of their theology and exegesis, too; standing becomes an appropriation of scripture. An entire week after the fi rst confrontation, during the third session on June 8, the Catholics still felt the need to come back to the instance and its implications when making their case. No doubt, all parties took note of the Donatists’ behaviour as highly evocative and signifi cant; the Catholics evidently understood the message conveyed, and so did the chairman. Signifi cantly, it is this particular scene that Augustine also remembered in a number of texts after the conference, sketching it out for his audiences as a moment in which the Donatists’ acting revealed the essence of the confl ict. The entire controversy – as he understood it – was compressed into and represented by this dramatic episode.

When Marcellinus invited the bishops to sit down he claimed that this invitation had been open all along19; presumably it was made at the very start, but the protocol does not mention anything then. The matter was only recorded at this juncture since an interesting verbal altercation subsequently unfolded. Marcellinus justifi ed his offer with due reverence (reverentia) for the bishops. He further mentioned his discomfort with being seated in the presence of many venerable men standing (mihi onero-sum esse). He thus presented the matter chiefl y as one of courtesy and acknowledgment of social position.

The Donatist bishop Petilianus20 responded extremely courteously him-self, thanking Marcellinus for this honourable offer, praising him as just, respectful and benign and wishing him to be recompensed for his favours by the Lord Jesus Christ.21 Yet couched in courtesy and formality, Petil-

19 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,44 (126 L.): Marcellinus, uir clarissimus, tribunus et notarius, dixit: “Iamdudum me obtulisse sanctitati uestrae sat certum est ut, conpetenti reuerentia, sedentes omnia tractaretis. Siquidem mihi onerosum esse non nescio tot uenerabilibus uiris stantibus residere. Vnde, uel nunc multitudine sequestrata, sedere dignamini.”

20 Petilianus, Donatist bishop of Constantina. His activities on behalf of the Donatists during the conference are summed up in Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 221-238; he is very much the main actor for their party on the fi rst day and plays a major part on the following two days.

21 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,145,2-8 (126 L.): Agimus gratias honorifi centiae tuae, uir nobilis, quod talis ac tanta est tua praestantia ut benemeritis uiris antiquissimisque

336 Thomas Graumann

ianus not only declined the invitation but in reality also offered a stinging rebuke of the whole enterprise with potentially wide-ranging consequences for the chairman’s position.

To this end, Petilianus fi rst took up the chairman’s remarks about the reverence due to the Donatists. He elaborated on it and, importantly, subtly re-defi ned the notion with Donatist concepts. Indeed, he confi rmed, the Donatists were due the reverence afforded to them by the chairman. It was justifi ed fi rst of all by the old age of Donatist bishops, on which, he understood, the chairman didn’t want to place an additional burden – Mar-cellinus had not mentioned such a reason for his offer. Petilianus further claimed high merits for his group (benemeritis), which he described as adorned with the “palms” gained under persecution. While age and merits are conventional markers of social standing, the mentioning of persecution puts a distinctive emphasis on what might otherwise seem a substantially empty expression of politeness. His subsequent words allude ever more frequently and openly to the idea and imagined situation of persecution. Standing might indeed, he went on, test their physical strength, yet true strength was not a matter of age or physical condition but was provided by the Lord.22 The claim is reminiscent of a stereotypical trait in martyro-logical accounts: the strength demonstrated by the martyrs over and above their physical conditions and resulting from divine assistance.

The repeated and increasingly open allusions to the context of mar-tyrdom look back at the history of the Donatist church, which had been subjected to repeated bursts of imperial repression and even military ac-tion throughout the fourth century. In this, it conveys a central feature in Donatist self-image as a church of the martyrs,23 suffering persecution, not persecuting – as they claimed the Catholics did in collusion with imperial authorities.24 The basic constellation of facing persecution had not changed for the Donatists and was expressed afresh in their standing before an imperial magistrate just as the martyrs conventionally stood

sacerdotibus, et tot persecutionum palmis fl orentibus, hanc benignitatem praestare dign-eris, ut grauissima senectus, quae ornata est annis et meritis suis, sedendo sese refi ciat, ne stando diutius laborare uideatur, ne hic quoque labor oneret uires modicas senectutis. Cf. Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,145,13-16 (126 L.): . . . tu honorifi cus, tu iustus, tu reuerens, tu benignus hanc offeras gratiam quae tibi a domino remuneratore dignissimis praemiis frequentissime referatur. . . . Frend, Donatist Church (see note 1), 283, attests Petilianus “more grace than usual.”

22 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,145,8-10 (126 L.): Sed quoniam uires dominus sub-ministrat, ipsamque reuerendam senectutem facit esse fortiorem. . . .

23 Cf. Maureen A. Tilley, ed., Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Confl ict in Roman North Africa (Translated Texts for Historians 24; Liverpool, 1996); Kriegbaum, Kirche der Traditoren (see note 1), passim.

24 For this repeated claim, see only the opening sentence of the Donatist mandatum, presented to Marcellinus on the third day of the conference, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,258 (243 L.): Flauio Marcellino, uiro clarissimo et spectabili tribuno et notario, Ianuarianus et ceteri episcopi ueritatis catholicae, quae persecutionem patitur, non quae facit [my emphasis].


before their judges. Claiming strength from the Lord as demonstrated in their standing despite of old age and physical fragility conveyed the same message of steadfastness that the Donatists had demonstrated in the face of persecution for a century and was the mark of the martyrs; this time they would not yield either.

Petilianus had one further trump card: the line of thought evoking the scene of a martyr trial culminates in an open claim that Donatist behav-iour imitates Christ’s during his trial: “For in the same way Christ did not refuse this [sc. to allow the sitting of the magistrate] when he considered it appropriate to stand before the praeses.”25 The comparison is particularly poignant. While the name of Pontius Pilate is not mentioned, the reference to Christ’s trial was clear enough for all to understand and suggested in Pilate a very uncomfortable role model for Marcellinus.

In the phrase just quoted, there is an interesting turn of focus towards Marcellinus’s position. After politely rejecting the need to sit down for his own group, Petilianus here concerned himself with Marcellinus’s expressed discomfort to sit while they stood. This, he affi rmed, the chairman could legitimately and appropriately do.26 It is in this context that he alludes to Christ’s example. Calling Christ’s judge praeses in the process may be signifi cant; it could simply be a general way of referring to Pilate as the governor of a province, who, at the end of the fourth century, was fre-quently and often irrespective of the precise constitutional status of the province or the title and rank of its governor called praeses.27 However, of the available titulature of provincial governors only praeses was a term equally used for public offi ce-holders more widely and, importantly, also in judicial contexts.28 Petilianus’s choice of words left enough room for

25 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,145,11-16 (12 L.): Siquidem hoc nec dominus nos-ter Christus uitauerit cum ante praesidem stetisse dignatus est, quanto magis nos non recusamus, cum tu honorifi cus, tu iustus, tu reuerens, tu benignus hanc offeras gratiam quae tibi a domino remuneratore dignissimis praemiis frequentissime referatur?

26 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,145,10-12 (126 L.): . . . non erubescimus, non uer-emur, non euitamus te residente, uir nobilis, libenter adsistere. Siquidem hoc nec dominus noster Christus uitauerit cum ante praesidem stetisse dignatus est.

27 See J. Blundell, “praeses,” Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 10,2,1 (Berlin, 1980-1995): 869-876 for the usage of the term, cf. for the praeses pronvinciae in particular s.v. B2 (871,59-875,27); and for the various offi ces, W. Enßlin, “praeses,” PRE Supplement 8 (Stuttgart, 1956): 598-614. In his time, Pontius Pilate would have been called procurator (see E. Fascher, “Pilatus, Pontius,” PRE 20,2 [Stuttgart, 1950]: 1322-1323), but the Notitia Dignitatum or. 1, 86-94 (Otto Seeck, ed., Notitia Dignitatum [Berlin, 1876], 4) notes for the year 400 CE that the governors of both Palaestina salutaris and Palaestina secunda occupied the lowest rank of provincial governor with the title of praeses. Petilianus’s choice of words could simply refl ect contemporary usage, but it allows for a translucency that lets the model of Pilate shine through in Marcelinus’s role.

28 Blundell, “praeses” (see note 27), s.v. B.1.a and B.1.a.e (870,45-46; 871,17-26). The term can furthermore be encountered in a number of martyrological texts, designating the offi cial who presided over the martyr trial. Next to Christ’s trial before Pilate, these instances provide the pertinent analogy for the occasion in Donatist eyes. In the Passio Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Sirmiensis (OECT, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, 294-301

338 Thomas Graumann

different associations and thus for Marcellinus to identify himself with the role designated in this way. A more precise legal or administrative terminology, such as judge or governor, would have negated this effect.

Since Christ did not refuse Pilate to sit while considering it appropriate for himself to stand, Petilianus affi rmed, how could the Donatist refuse him, an honourable, just, respectful and benign man to sit even though they remained standing29? His exact choice of words is again revealing: Christ is described as taking up a standing posture deliberately and of his own volition (stetisse dignatus est), rather than simply in enforced obedience to court authorities – just as Donatist bishops were doing now, we may reasonably extend the implied message. In this way, while purportedly al-laying any fear of impropriety in Marcellinus’s sitting, Petilianus conveyed a much more critical message. For him the meeting resembled a martyr trial and ultimately its very archetype, the trial of Christ. Choosing to remain standing at the same time as inviting Marcellinus to sit emphasised this parallel; it called for its visualisation and even its re-enactment.

The kind of scene Petilianus may have had in mind and wanted Marcel-linus to imagine is depicted on a number of Christian late antique artefacts, for example on an illustration of the early-sixth-century Rossano Gospel.30 The illustrator imagines Christ’s trial in accordance with long established Roman models, which he would still have been able to witness even in his own time, about a century after the Conference of Carthage. For our purposes we only need to identify the contrasting postures of the seated fi gure of Pilate and the standing fi gure of Christ before him. As in this instance, contemporary artistic impressions of the trial of Christ generally

Musurillo), set during the Diocletian persecution, praeses designates the prefect of the province (see, e.g., Passio Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Sirmiensis 2,1 [294,10 M.]: praeses Pannoniae; cf. further instances using the title with the name in Passio Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Sirmiensis 2,3 [294,17 M.]; 2,4 [294,20 M.]; 4,1 [296,18 M.]).

29 See notes 25 and 26.30 Codex Purpures, fol. 8r (cf. plate I). The so-called Codex Purpureus Rossanensis is a

sixth-century codex, written in Byzantine style probably after the Justinian reconquest of Italy. It is currently kept at the Diocesan Museum of Rossano Cathedral in Italy. For a description of the codex, see Arthur Haseloff, ed., Codex Purpureus Rossanensis: Die Miniaturen der griechischen Evangelien-Handschrift in Rossano (Berlin, 1898), with de-piction of the scene on plate XI, description of the miniature and iconographic parallels pages 31-32, 112-115. Reproductions of the illuminations may also be found in William C. Loerke, “The Miniatures of the Trial in the Rossano Gospel,” Art bulletin 43 (1961): 171-195, esp. fi g. 1 and fi g. 9 on plates between pages 182-183. If the miniatures go back to an earlier, mid-fi fth-century prototype (Loerke), the depictions would relate even more closely to the time of the conference. For the interpretation of Donatist behaviour attention needs to be drawn specifi cally to the striking features of the spacial arrangement with a seated judge, Pilate, and a standing defendant, Jesus Christ, which bear witness to a longer standing iconographic tradition (see following note) and, crucially, also refl ect standard courtroom convention of the time. For sitting as the normal posture of imperial offi ce holders when conducting business and the sella curulis as attribute of their authority, see Thomas Schäfer, Imperii insignia. Sella curulis und fasces: Zur Repräsentation römischer Magistrate (Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung/Ergänzungsheft 29; Mainz, 1989), in the context of trials in particular 63-64.


Plat

e I:

Sce

ne f

rom

The

Pur

ple

Cod

ex R

ossa

nens

is:

The

tri

al b

efor

e Pi

late

as

illus

trat

ion

for

Mat

t 27

:11-

14

(6th

cen

t. C

E),

Arc

hivi

o A

rcie

pisc

opal

e, f

ol.

15,

Ros

sano

/Ita

ly ©

akg-

imag

es/E

rich

Les

sing

.

340 Thomas Graumann

show Pilate seated in a chair, a sella curulis, which is often positioned on a raised platform or dais, and sometimes furnished with a footstool, whereas Christ stands before him.31 In fact, such a composition recreates the normal arrangement in a Roman trial,32 and this model, according to Petilianus’s suggestion, should be followed on the occasion. The particular poignancy of this suggestion arises of course from the intimation that not just any trial, but this particular trial was the appropriate model for the conference.

Petilianus’s statement makes the additional claim that to remain standing was not only fi tting but also expedient, even necessary, for them.33 Two elements of the claim may be distinguished. Standing is expedient and nec-essary, Petilianus explained, when arguing a case, and particularly fi tting for those that “undergo the examination of a [judicial] dispute” (subire

31 Another depiction of the same principal arrangement of a seated judge and the stand-ing accused – with some variation on other details – can be seen on the Brescia Casket (Museo Civico dell’Età Christiana, Brescia), a wooden box with ivory carvings of the late fourth century (ca. 370), originating probably in Northern Italy and most likely used as a reliquary. For a depiction see Johannes Kollwitz, Die Lipsanothek von Brescia (Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte 7; Berlin, 1933), plate 1; and now Catherine Brown Tkacz, The Key to the Brescia Casket: Typology and the Early Christian Imagination (Collection des études augustiniennes/Série Antiquité 165; Paris, 2002). On the casket, ‘Christ before Pilate’ is depicted on the lower register of the lid, showing Pilate on his chair placed on a platform (Kollwitz, Lipsanothek [see note 31], plate 1; Tkacz, Key [see note 31], 200). Similarly in the scene of ‘Jesus before the Sanhedrin’ (Tkacz, Key [see note 31], 199), two fi gures are seated on folding chairs with footstools, and Christ is presented standing before them. The two scenes on the lid of the casket form a continu-ous sequence, starting with the presentation of Christ to Pilate on the right, moving on to the hand-washing, and to Christ before the Sanhedrin on the left. Iconographically related judgement-scenarios on the casket are, moreover, the depiction of the ‘judgement of Ananias and Sapphira’ (see Tkacz, Key [see note 31], 223), and of ‘Susanna brought before Daniel’ (Tkacz, Key [see note 31], 207), both of which also show the ‘judge’ seated on a chair, in one instance with a footstool and in the other on a dais. The iconographic programme of a standing Christ before the seated Pilate can still be seen on the mosa-ics of the Basilica from Theoderic’s time in Ravenna that is now called Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, see Joseph Wilpert, ed., Die römischen Mosaiken und Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten vom IV. bis XIII. Jahrhundert (4 vols.; 2nd ed.; Freiburg, 1917), reproduction of the mosaic: vol. 3, plate 99,1; commentary on this motif, with further examples, vol. 2, 866-871; cf. Loerke, “Miniatures” (see note 30).

32 Conventional Roman court arrangements can also be identifi ed in some Christian martyr texts, even though martyr acts that recreate a trial-scene before an imperial magistrate or judge generally focus on the verbal exchanges and only occasionally refer to the setting of the scene. In a small number of instances, however, where such elements are mentioned – mostly in passing and without special emphasis – the presiding judge is portrayed as seated. See, for example Martyrium Pionii 19,1 (160,19 M.); Passio Sancto-rum Mariani et Iacobi 6,11 (202,12 M.); Martyrium Agape 3 (282,21 M.); Passio Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Sirmiensis 4,1 (296,17-18 M.); Passio Sanctae Crispinae 1,1 (302,3 M.). Acta Eupli 2,1 (312,8 M.), correspondingly, portray the martyr as standing before the tribunal. Whether authentic records or imaginative reinvention, these acts thus testify to the same conventional arrangement.

33 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,145,17-20 (126 L.): Id autem nobis expedit, id necesse est ut, cum causa peroratur, cum prius incipitur et etiam personae constant, stare singulos deceat quibus subire contingit disceptationis examen.


disceptationis examen), in other words, for the defendants in a case. The suggested parallel of the Donatist self-presentation with martyr trials and Christ’s trial before Pilate here fi nds further confi rmation and reveals an additional signifi cance for the Donatists’ legal position. They see themselves as the accused or defendants in a trial and express this position – amongst other ways – by their posture: standing. It is in this sense, not primarily as a matter of social decorum that the Donatists claim the propriety (deceat) of an arrangement that sees them standing while Marcellinus is without embarrassment at liberty to sit. It is the convention of any trial.

There is an unspoken, yet important premise to Petilianus’s argumenta-tion and insinuations. In that the Donatists consciously enacted a visual parallelism with Christ’s and martyr trials to mark and display their self-image, their remaining standing most basically also identifi ed what they considered to be the real character of the event, namely a trial. Therefore they both employed behaviour proper to such an occasion themselves, and suggested it as appropriate to the chairman. This effort to make the format of the meeting clearly and visibly recognisable is an important dimension of their demonstrative acting; it is as much symbolically com-municated in their posture as it sounds between the lines of Petilianus’s intervention. For whatever the designation of the meeting by the imperial authorities, who usually call it a disputatio or a collatio respectively,34 according to Donatist perception the occasion remains in reality a legal altercation. Their behaviour makes it abundantly clear: sitting would not be appropriate when defendants always stand before their judges. Their standing thus identifi es the event as a trial, and by extension, as a case of imperial persecution in collusion with the Catholics, not an engagement of equals in an open debate. The Donatist posture thus provides strong

34 Disputatio is used three times in Honorius’s rescript alone, Gesta conlationis Carthaginien-sis 1,4 (55,30.43; 56,61 L.); it occurs twice in Marcellinus’s fi rst edict, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,5 (56,25; 57,53 L.), four times in his second edict, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,10 (60,48.52.61; 62,105 L.) and is echoed throughout offi cial pro-nunciations. The second edict, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,10, also speaks of the offi cium disputandi (59,15-16 L.; cf. further use of the verb disputare and deriva-tives 59,21; 59,32.77; 60,73 L.; cf. veritate discussa, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,5 [56,14-15 L.]). Conlatio is used twice in Marcellinus’s fi rst edict, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,5 (56,20.22 L.) and four times in his second edict, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,10 (59,27.42; 61,92.94 L.). He also calls the convention a concilium . . . intra Africam universale (Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,5 [56,23-24 L.]; and again concilium [57,31 L.]); cf. in the second edict, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,10 (60,45; 61,104.117 L.). – Other terms such as conloquium (Gesta conlationis Carthag-iniensis 1,10 [59,15.19-20 L.]), disceptatio (Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,5 [56,12 L.]; 1,10 [59,2.15; 61,88 L.]) and cognitio (Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,10 [59,7 L.]) are also used in these offi cial documents; the variation in language refl ects the occa-sion’s potential ambiguity in format and legal character. For the terminological variations in offi cial documents, see most recently Ivonne Tholen, Die Donatisten in den Predigten Augustins: Kommunikationslinien des Bischofs von Hippo mit seinen Predigthörern (Arbeiten zur Historischen und Systematischen Theologie 16; Berlin, 2010), 273-277. Cf. also below, note 40.

342 Thomas Graumann

evidence for the assessment of their understanding and perception of the unfolding events.35

Still in the same statement and therefore closely related to his consider-ation about the visual and physical representation of the actual format of the event, Petilianus further demanded the clarifi cation of legal personae36; by this he meant the offi cial role as either plaintiff or defendant. The ques-tion occupies much of the debate of the fi rst day, and lingers subsequently. The legal diffi culties related to this point and the wider complexities of the legal format and procedure need not concern us here in any detail.37 We only need to consider briefl y how the Donatists might have regarded it as advantageous to be cast as defendants, since bringing a case not only handed the initiative to a plaintiff, but the plaint also helped at least broadly to defi ne the issues at hand and consequently the remit of the judicial inquiry. Ultimately, this advantage in taking the initiative of petitioning or plead-ing a case is also confi rmed for the Conference of Carthage. The remit and direction of the inquiry were determined by imperial rescript – as the chairman repeatedly pointed out38 – which in turn responded to a Catholic petition brought before him. We may reasonably surmise that the impe-rial wish was decisively informed by the assertions and demands made by the Catholic embassy and articulated in the petition they carried. It is

35 My interpretation will for this reason diverge from the recently proposed analysis by Hogrefe, Umstrittene Vergangenheit (see note 1), see below. Hogrefe’s fi ne analysis of the role of historical argument in the course of debate is not affected by my criticism of this particular detail.

36 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,145,17-18 (126 L.): . . . cum prius incipitur et etiam personae constant. . . . The question of personae and the efforts to identify the Catholic side as plaintiffs is evident already much earlier in one of Petilianus’s fi rst statements, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,12,1-9 (62 L.), cf. 1,20,1-21 (72 L.).

37 Despite some problematic judgements at the expense to the Donatists, the legal questions relating to the conference are already identifi ed in the classical account of Steinwenter, “Kirchliche Quelle” (see note 12), 125-144. Subsequent scholarly discussion is sum-marised in Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 66-82, for the question of legal personae in particular 84-88; cf. the relevant entries for specifi c points in Kaser and Hacker, Zivilprozessrecht (see note 12), 487-493, 582-586, 587-595, and index, s.v. praescriptio and litis contestatio; and recently Hermanowicz, Possidius (see note 1), 192-196, 196-200; Hogrefe, Umstrittene Vergangenheit (see note 1), 161-164, 167-168, 180-187. My interpretation of the Donatist’s standing as an attempt to express physically and with elements of theatrical performance their position, and in particular to assign to themselves the role of defendant by re-enacting the trials of Christ and the martyrs, converges – in this respect – with the results of the legal analysis in Steinwenter and, more recently, in both Hermanowicz’s and Hogrefe’s interpretation; the latter authors identify the same general aim and strategy of the Donatists in this part of the debate. However, neither author considers the scene before us as a physical expression of the Donatists’ strategy.

38 Of the many instances, see only Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,51,4-5 (77 L.): . . . ut utraque pars agnoscat me imperialis praecepti formam custodire debere. The exchanges between Marcellinus and the Donatists also reveal a different assessment of the legal basis of the event. Most Donatist demands insist on the conventions and rules of a civil procedure; arguably the chairman was right to rule that these did not wholly apply in so far as proceedings had been set in motion by imperial command.


because of this initiative that the Donatists wanted to bring the content of the original Catholic petition into the open. However, they failed in their repeated attempts to have this document read out39 – and so we also do not know what it actually contained. The Donatists somewhat surprising attempt then, surprising when judged in purely juridical terms, to cast themselves in the role of defendants, fi nds its justifi cation here. They sim-ply wanted to see publicly and openly expressed what they understood to be the concealed reality of a Catholic plaint initiating proceedings and shaping the emperor’s instructions for the conference. As a result, they refused to plead or, perhaps more pertinent still, to accept any fuzzy sug-gestion of an equal role with the Catholics in a legally unspecifi c attempt to clarify a particular problem, such as the terms disputatio and collatio used in some documents might suggest.40 In a trial, there was no such parity but clearly circumscribed roles of defendants and accusers. The concern for a precise defi nition of their role as defendants ties in with the general interest to identify the event visibly, in their posture and by acting out courtroom conventions, as a trial. Standing, and more particularly, standing as defendants was to them the only apposite depiction of their situation. The Donatist standing, therefore, can be interpreted not only as the wilful imitation of the posture of Christ and the martyrs, highly charged as these notions are, but also as the expression of a practical legal and procedural concern.

Much of what the Donatist behaviour conveyed remains just below the surface of Petilianus’s statement. It required the ability and willingness of other participants to decode his oblique references to historical precedent and biblical prescript and to understand and interpret their actions in the

39 Cf. Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,46,1-8 (190 L.); 3,89,1-32 (201-202 L.); 3,125,1-12 (210 L.); 3,127,1-6 (210 L.); 3,131,1-6 (211 L.); 3,135,1-6 (212 L.); 3,138,1-21 (212 L.); 3,140,1-65 (213-214 L.) and frequently.

40 Collatio can denote any kind of congregation or gathering without suggesting a specifi c framework or setting; see E. Lommatzsch, “collatio,” Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 3 (Leipzig, 1906-1912): 1577-1580. The term disputatio, in turn, covers a wide range of intellectual or verbal forms of engagement with a substantive issue in need of clarifi ca-tion, interpretation, or solution. The word does not necessarily envisage a particular format in which such an engagement might be conducted, and certainly not in itself a judicial setting. Its meaning consequently ranges from colloquium, exposition, argu-ment, question(ing) to controversy and discussion of opposing parties or views. See H. Lackenbacher, “disputatio,” Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 5,1 (Leipzig, 1909-1934): 1437-1441. In any one instance, and clearly in describing the Conference of Carthage, a number of overlapping denotations and related associations can be dominant. Cf. Tholen, Donatisten (see note 34), 259-260, 260-264, for a discussion of the designation of the conference and similar occasions. She (Tholen, Donatisten [see note 34], 264) proposes a translation of collatio with the neologism “Religionsprozess.” The coining of a neologism refl ects the intrinsic ambiguity of the term collatio and, by extension, of the divergent and potentially confl icting interests and purposes for the occasion. For the Donatist argument, these shifting notions, indicated by constantly changing vocabulary, of what kind of meeting the ‘conference’ represented were a central concern. They insisted on a much more precise characterisation of the unfolding events and acted accordingly.

344 Thomas Graumann

context of conventional courtroom behaviour. It would not be surpris-ing, therefore, if a rather more sceptical reader of the sources found their adopted posture rather less evocative and resonant with meaning than the interpretation advanced here. Yet any such doubts may be allayed because a similar scene is repeated at the beginning of the second session. The very fact of its near identical repetition emphasises the purposeful and, to an extent, theatrical and demonstrative qualities of the Donatist behaviour.

At the opening of the second session, the chairman again invited all parties to sit, and reminded them of his offer during the fi rst meeting. The Catholics complied, while Petilianus again declined on behalf of the Donatists.41 Marcellinus tried to build bridges; he stated that on the fi rst day practical diffi culties to provide seating for so many bishops might have plausibly prevented them from sitting down. But now with only a limited number of spokesmen present, nothing should prevent them from conducting business seated.42

Petilianus replied once more: In the absence of their fathers, that is the Donatist bishops, they would not sit down43 – a peculiar justifi cation that needs further scrutiny. Furthermore, he went on, it would be against the divine law that forbids to “sit together” (consessus, considere) in this way with their adversaries44 – a cryptic allusion to a biblical passage that needs decoding. The very pointed, much-later responses from the Catholics to this point suggest that they understood Petilianus’s message, even though they did not react to it immediately.

In direct response, however, the chairman declared that since the Do-natists refused to sit, he saw no possibility for himself to conduct business (cognosci) seated. He had his chair carried out, and the protocol notes that he made his next statement standing.45 There is no attempt in his terse statement to uphold any pretence that considerations of courtesy or social propriety informed his decision; would his tone have suggested resignation or suppressed anger? Perhaps sensing irritation and fearing to be accused of

41 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,3-4 (162 L.). Lancel, Texte et traduction de la capitu-lation générale (see note 8), 226, takes this repeated refusal as indication of Petilianus’s “mauvaise humeur” and a lack of recognition of the chairman’s polite expression of social deference. He fails to detect any strategy in his actions or to recognise at least the purposeful expression of a point of principle – legal and theological – in it. He only sees Petilianus trying to fi nd reasons to obstruct the procedure at any cost.

42 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,3,7-10 (162 L.): Licet et superiore iudicio me obtulisse meminerim, tamen illa arbitror tunc minime factum esse ratione, quia multis sacerdoti-bus conuenientibus locus considendi esse non poterat. Vnde, quia nunc defi nitas uideo conuenisse personas, deprecor ut uel nunc sedere dignemini.

43 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,4,2 (162 L.): Patribus nostris absentibus non sede-mus. . . .

44 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,4,2-4 (162 L.): . . . maxime cum lege diuina consessus prohibeatur, ne cum huiusmodi aduersariis nostris considere uelimus.

45 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,5,5-8 (162 L.): Cumque episcopi catholici surrexissent atque sessus iudicis auferretur eiusdem iudicis iussione, et dominus noster uir clarissimus et spectabilis Marcellinus, tribunus et notarius, stetisset . . .


a transgression of social propriety, Petilianus is anxious that the protocol should note that having the chair removed was the chairman’s decision, not a demand made by the Donatists.46 Marcellinus dutifully remarked that he felt obliged to remain standing as a mark of respect for such eminent priest – are we allowed to hear an irony in his voice here? – since they chose to do so.47 It seems he controlled any potential irritation quickly and tried hard to diffuse a tense situation. While ultimately a veneer of courtesy was also re-established in this way, Marcellinus’s decision to have his chair removed is best interpreted in the light of Petilianus’s remarks on the fi rst day. Petilianus had pointed out the similarity of such a set up with that of Christ’s trial before Pilate. Marcellinus appears unwilling to have his own role as chairman defi ned through Donatist behaviour as one resembling that of Pontius Pilate. By removing his chair any chance of such a perception prevailing was also removed.

The Catholics who had been seated rose again and we may imagine their sour expressions.48 They did not respond immediately to the challenge and insult hidden in the Donatists’s reference to divine law. The affront may have literally left them speechless. But they must have understood the message, because in the third session, a whole week later (June 8, 411), they came back to what can only be described as the deliberate, if oblique, offensiveness of the remark.

For the particular part of debates of the third day, the verbal protocol is no longer extant. We have to rely here entirely on the account given in Augustine’s so-called Breviculus,49 a condensed report summarising the events from Augustine’s perspective, and the chapter headings of a near-contemporary edition of the acts that is otherwise lost, the so-called Capitula.50 We cannot extract from Augustine’s reporting any true sense of the atmosphere during this part of the debate. Did he dispassionately deliver an exegetical argument or did his likely anger with the offensive

46 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,6 (162 L.): Petilianus episcopus dixit: “Scriptum sit hoc [sc. the carrying-out of the sella curulis] tuae uoluntatis esse, non nostrae.”

47 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,7,1-5 (162 L.).48 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 2,5 (162,6 L.); see note 45. 49 Serge Lancel, ed., “Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis,” in Gesta conlationis Carthag-

iniensis anno 411 (see note 8), 261-306. See for an introduction to the work, S. Lancel, “Breuiculus conlationis cum Donatistis,” Augustinus-Lexikon 1 (Basel, 1986-1994): 681-684; Martine Dulaey, ed., Oeuvres de Saint Augustin 32: 4. Série, Traités anti-donatistes 5: Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, Ad Donatistas post collationem, Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem, Gesta cum Emerito Donatistarum episcopo, Contra Gaudentium Donatistarum episcopum libro duo (trans G. Finaert, introd. and notes E. Lamirande; Paris, 1965), 60-77.

50 Serge Lancel, ed., “Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis, Capitula gestorum,” in Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis anno 411 (see note 8), 6-52; cf. Lancel, Texte et traduction de la capitulation générale (see note 8), 421-557, with the introductory remarks Lancel, “Introduction,” in Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis anno 411 (see note 8), (VII-XXXVI) XVII-XVIII.

346 Thomas Graumann

Donatist remark show? After all, the insult must have rankled with the Catholics to merit specifi c refutation even after an entire week’s interval.

Augustine identifi es for us the passage to which Petilianus had obliquely referred: Psalm 25,4: Non sedi in concilio impiorum.51 In the context of the meeting, the phrase requires a literal translation with a gnomic perfect that suits Petilianus’s usage best: “I don’t sit in a council of sinners.” The statement identifi es the Catholics as sinners; a blatant offence as well as a theological statement of principle – to which our analysis will turn pres-ently. However, the verse may also reveal a further layer of the Donatists’ deliberate choice to remain standing. It has been suggested above that both courtroom convention and the evocation of Christ’s and the martyrs’ trials allowed the Donatists to present and identify visibly a judicial inquiry and altercation as the most pertinent model for the kind of standing before a magistrate which they enacted at the time. With the help of the Psalm, the Donatists, it seems, also evoked the prevailing image associated with the alternative positioning and poise of sitting down: in the Donatist reading, the Psalm verse envisages sitting specifi cally in a council. Indeed all documentation of conciliar meetings describes participating bishops as taking their seats and conducting business seated.

The visual contrast of standing in a trial and sitting in a council requires examination whether the idea of participating and deliberating jointly in a council meeting was even a consideration for the various parties at the time. Neither the Catholic nor the Donatist party calls the meeting a council, but the term occurs interchangeably with others on several occa-

51 Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis 3,18,13-14 (285 L.). Of the relevant quotations of the verse in Augustine’s work that either the Vetus Latina collects (“Vetus Latina Data Base” [last access 19 October 2010. Online: http://apps.brepolis.net/vld]) or that may be identifi ed from a search of the Corpus Augustinianum Gissense 2 (Cornelius Mayer, ed., Corpus Augustinianum Gissense: CAG 2 [CD-ROM; Basel, 2004]), this is the only instance where the text of the Psalm-verse is given in the wording quoted above; Augustine’s usual reading is non sedi in [var.: cum] concilio [var.: conventicolo] vanitatis (see Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 25,1,4 [CChr.SL 38, 141 Deckers/Fraipont]; 25,2,9 [126 D./F.]; idem, Serm. 99,8 [PL 38:599 Migne]; conventiculum vanitatis: Augus-tine, Contra epistulam Parmeniani 3,24 [CSEL 51, 132,10-11 Petschenig]). The reading vanitatis is also supported by the vast majority of other Latin authors (cf. e.g. Jerome, Comm. Jer. 3,58,3 [CChr.SL 74, 152,7-8 Reiter]; Tertullian, Pud. 18,5: non sedi cum consensu [var. mss. consessu] vanitatis [CChr.SL 2, 1318 Dekkers]) and is also that of the Vulgata. Cf., however, Ambrose, Explanatio psalmorum XII 1,29,3 (CSEL 64, 24,16 Petschenig): non sedi in concilio malignantium, and Arnobius iunior, Commentarii in Psalmos 25 (PL 53:358a Migne), who paraphrases non sedeat in concilio haereticorum. The exceptional form of wording in the Psalm’s quotation is noteworthy; Augustine may be making use, here, of a distinct Donatist version of the text that had come to his knowledge only on the occasion. Petilianus had not provided a quotation in his justifi ca-tion to remain standing at the beginning of the second meeting. Since the reporting in the Breviculus of the exegetical exchanges over this and other biblical passages conducted on the third day of the meetings is very condensed, there is a strong possibility that the full text was quoted by the Donatists in discussion then. When Augustine recalls the scene after the conference, he gives the text of the Psalm-verse in his own usual reading again; see below, notes 65-66.


sions in offi cial documents, which were read out aloud near the beginning of proceedings. The usage of the term in these documents was probably not narrowly technical because of the virtually synonymous use in its stead of other terms such as disceptatio and collatio.52 Still, accepting the invitation to sit down could, against this background, not only seem to indicate general acquiescence to the meeting and its procedure as well as compliance with imperial orders53; in Donatist eyes, it might have also conveyed more particularly the impression of participation in a conciliar-type ecclesiastical gathering. There are no Donatist references to a council in the context of the event, but Aurelius of Carthage calls the assembly of Catholic bishops in Carthage the “universal council of the Catholic Church constituted in Carthage,” and Augustine and his colleague Alyp-ius mirror this usage in several interventions during the conference.54 For the Catholics, therefore, not a meeting of delegates, but the full assembly of their bishops in Carthage constituted a council, and there is no sense that Donatists might in any way be included in this. By way of analogy, the other cryptic remark by Petilianus about the absence of “the fathers,” which prevented him from sitting down, can also be decoded. It is not implausible to suggest a sentiment on the Donatist side similar to that of the Catholics who had called their full convention of bishops a council, in particular since the term council fathers was at the time already conven-tional.55 A council worthy of the name would require, in this perspective and among other preconditions, the presence of all “the fathers,” that is the full assembly of all the bishops of their side. Certainly a meeting of delegates with representatives of an opposing group and instructed by an imperial offi cer would not qualify.

Moreover, sitting down together in itself suggested some friendly com-munal rapport; the association with a council further conjured up an ideal of participation on equal terms. And sitting in council changed the ascription of roles fundamentally. The seated bishops in a council acted, in so far as decision-making was concerned, as judges, not as pleading or

52 For the designation of the event in offi cial documents cf. above, note 34.53 Hermanowicz, Possidius (see note 1), 201.54 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,46,5-6 (76 L.): . . . uniuersalis concilii ecclesiae

catholicae hic apud Carthaginem constituti. . . . Cf. the mandate issued by the council, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,55,11-13 (78 L.): mandatum factum . . . ab uniuerso concilio episcoporum catholicorum. In the same way, Augustine speaks of the uniuersum catholicum praesens in hac urbe concilium, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,62,30-31 (194 L.), and Alypius names the uniuersale concilium, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,68,6 (195 L.); cf. similarly Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,174,24-25 (222 L.): data [sc. littera] ab uniuersis episcopis catholicis ex concilio Carthaginiensi. The catholic mandate also speaks of a particular Donatist assembly as of “their council”: Ibi potu-erunt etiam causam Felicis Aptugnensis ordinatoris Caeciliani, quem malorum omnium fontem in concilio suo dixerant, cognoscente Aeliano proconsule ex praecepto eiusdem imperatoris inuenire purgatam (Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,18,86-89 [69 L.]).

55 See only Aurelius of Carthage, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,46,5 (76 L.): patres uel fratres nostri uniuersalis concilii ecclesiae catholicae.

348 Thomas Graumann

defending representatives of a particular party interest. In refusing to give the impression of conciliar interaction by refusing to sit down together, the Donatists attempted to unmask any pretence of a meeting of equals where all bishops acted out of a shared responsibility for the governance of the church and took authoritative decisions accordingly, or sat in judge-ment of their peers – not imperial offi cials. In contrast to such a division of roles, they understood their position to be in effect that of defendants dragged before a hostile tribunal, and they were unwilling to cooperate in any pretence that suggested otherwise. Standing, they took a stand in the face of imperial orders as well as openly defying in their very posture any suggestions of an open ended and fair hearing, which the invitation to sit might insinuate with its seemingly polite recognition of their social status. Standing was the order of the day and the immediate physical enactment of their position. In remaining standing, they constantly and visibly reminded everyone of the true nature, as they saw it, of the meet-ing. – If this message had been in any way uncertain on the fi rst day, its re-enactment on the second made the point unmistakably clear.

The clear rejection of “sitting in council with sinners,” in both their posture and in their allusion to Ps 25, controverts a recently advanced interpretation, according to which the Donatists argued for the replacement of judicial proceedings by a church-council instead.56 Hogrefe admits, in a footnote, that conciliar procedure was at the time anything but fi xed,57 but nevertheless goes on to contrast the procedure employed in the conference with the one purportedly implied in the Donatist protests and demands as a confl ict of judicial versus conciliar habits and interprets their strategy as the demand for a council.58 The strong rejection of any notion of a council

56 Hogrefe, Umstrittene Vergangenheit (see note 1), 177-179, 187-188. Tilley, “Dilatory Donatists” (see note 4), 9-10, already claimed that the Donatists had expected a conciliar procedure.

57 Hogrefe, Umstrittene Vergangenheit (see note 1), 177 (note 128); he refers to reigning conventions of conciliar activity (“gewohnheitsrechtliche Regeln”).

58 The juxtaposition underlies Hogrefe’s analysis of the strategy (Umstrittene Vergangenheit [see note 1], 176-195), with repeated claims about their efforts to bring about a conciliar procedure as one main plank of their argument (e.g., 187: “ . . . sie stritten . . . um die Durchsetzung eines Konzilsverfahrens. . . .”). The analysis wrongly equates decision-making based on Scripture with a distinct conciliar procedure. There were, at councils throughout the fourth and early fi fth centuries, a considerable variety of procedural modes depending on individual circumstances and the questions considered. Already the Donatist councils referred to at the conference demonstrate this fl exibility of the conciliar format. Conversely, the ultimate normativity of the Holy Scriptures for any Christian decision was unquestioned and needed not imply any particular kind of proceeding or legal framework in which to apply it. In one instance Hogrefe introduces a further, more puzzling, distinction of possible formats for the occasion (Umstrittene Vergangenheit [see note 1], 188): “Für die Donatisten sollte es keine Konferenz als ‘Religionsgespräch’ geben, sondern entweder eine Konzilsentscheidung oder eine richterliche Entscheidung zu ihren Gunsten.” It is unclear what kind of debate Hogrefe considers, or the Donatists might have identifi ed in their time, as a religious colloquy. The terminology is conventionally used for meetings and negotiations between representatives of the emergent denomina-


by the Donatists contradicts such an analysis. The wider historical context and prevalent theological assumptions about the preconditions of joint par-ticipation in a council also render such an interpretation highly implausible. Rather, the controversy over which kinds of arguments could legitimately be employed and what might be considered valid evidence to adjudicate the case in hand introduces a related, but not identical, juxtaposition of ecclesiastical versus imperial law. The former does not simply equate to conciliar procedure, and the latter is not straightforwardly identical with judicial process.59 Rather, the participants disputed whether there should be conducted a debate about ecclesiology based on the Scriptures (as di-vine law), or a process revisiting the history of legal altercations between both parts before various provincial and imperial authorities over the past century, based on the documentary record of these events. The importance of scripture as the only appropriate norm of judgement in church affairs in principle and the consequent appeal to an exegetical dispute occupies the Donatist interventions almost from the outset,60 and is not as such

tions in sixteenth-century-Reformation Europe (cf. I. Dingel, “Religionsgespräche IV. Altgläubig-protestantisch und innerprotestantisch,” TRE 28 [Berlin, 1997]: 654-681). The implied categories of ecclesiological group formation and identities are not helpful in late antique North-Africa. There is no evidence for any concept of, even less for any distinct procedure pertaining to, such a colloquy in late antiquity. Cf. for a further dis-cussion of the problem in the case of the so-called Religionsgespräch in Constantinople, AD 383, Thomas Graumann, “The Synod of Constantinople, AD 383: History and Historiography,” Millenium-Jahrbuch 7 (2010): 133-168.

59 Juxtapositions are frequent between the conventions, procedures and norms prevalent in a civil trial and those in “Christian business” (negotio christiano; Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,20,7 [71 L.]). Emeritus emphasises that he considers a forensis alter-catio and a spiritalis altercatio as an alternative that requires a defi nitive choice; Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,47,12-27 (76 L.); cf. 1,53,1-14 (78 L.). The matter is raised repeatedly by the Donatists on the third day of the conference, see Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,185,1-5 (224 L.), and the entire discussion 3,181,1-193,23 (223-227 L.). It harks back to a longstanding argument, which, for example, Crispinus had already employed when judged a ‘heretic’ by the proconsul of Africa (in 404); Augustine, serm. Denis 19 [=162A],8 (Germain Morin, ed., Miscellanea Agostiniana 1: Sancti Augustini Sermones post Maurinos reperti [Rom, 1930], 105): Sed quid ait [sc. Crispinus]? Numquid evangelica sententia superatus sum? Inde asserens uictum non esse, quia proconsul contra illum iudicauit, non Christus. . . . Sed iudicauit proconsul, inquit, secundum leges im-peratorum, non secundum leges euangelii. The sermon was held in Carthage, before the month of June, in 404 CE (see Morin, Miscellanea Agostiniana 1 [see note 59], 98).

60 The use of scripture as a determining element in negotiations between bishops is empha-sised as early as Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,31,11-14 (74 L.): . . . episcopalis nos moris regula sanctitati adesse debere, ut non praestigiis iuris neque ligaminibus cuiusque facundiae, sed testamento nouo ac ueteri quod instituit Deus, quod sacrauit dominus Christus, causa possit audiri. It is decisive for this distinction that the debate is concerned, for Emeritus, with “the faith” (agitur . . . <de> fi de; Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,35 [75 L.]; cf. 1,47,1-25 [76-77 L.]). The chairman Marcellinus offers that both sides may freely opt for a discussion reliant exclusively on scriptural testimony: ut nihil de iure publico, sed omnia ecclesiasticis regulis, id est noui et ueteri testamenti testimoniis peragatur (Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,36,5-7 [75 L.]). To him, however, this decision would not affect the format of discussion as it had been defi ned by imperial rescript and his own edicts (cf. Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,36,5-7 [75 L.]); cf.

350 Thomas Graumann

contradicted by the Catholics, who do not, however, appear to detect any intrinsic contradiction between the principal validity of this norm and its application in a judicial context.

The deeper theological reason for their rejection of any notion of a conciliar type of gathering with the Catholics is connected, in essence, to the other element of Petilianus’s appropriation of the Psalm-verse, namely the qualifi cation of the Catholics as sinners. After all, sitting together in council also had a minimum of communality as a necessary precondition, if perhaps not necessarily full ecclesiastical communion.61 In identifying the Catholics as sinners, the Donatists emphasised the absence of this ba-sic requirement, as well as making a wider theological point about their ecclesiology and understanding of the effects of sin.

The Catholic response to Petilianus’s allusion to Ps 25 reported in Au-gustine’s Breviculus merits further attention since it answers specifi cally this point and expands on the theological notions behind it. Augustine thus makes the usage of the Psalm a matter of theology and exegesis even more than one of potentially offensive behaviour let alone sheer procedural obstruction. Its usage is challenged as exegetically fl awed in more than one respect and interpreted as indicative of the main problem underlying the North-African schism. In this way the verse, and the action it was used to justify, are placed in the wider context and at the centre of the debates addressed by the conference. In so doing, Augustine decodes the Donatist behaviour as resonant of an exegetical and theological message.

Marcellinus’s repeated efforts to discern agreement between the parties about the norma-tive, and exclusive, use of Scripture, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 1,40,1-4.42,1-3 (75 L.). The point is rightly emphasised by Hogrefe, Umstrittene Vergangenheit (see note 1), 177, 185, 190 and frequently. For the exegetical dimension of the debates, and a particular instance of contested scriptural usage, see below.

61 The point is raised by the Catholics in the context of the challenge to the Donatist usage of Ps 25. After all, the Catholics claim, the Donatists had been willing to “sit together” with the schismatic Maximianists; see Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis 3,18,19-23 (285 L.). Examples where broken ecclesiastical communion is raised as an obstacle to joint participation in a council meeting are frequent and are voiced even in the face of imperial invitation. The failed Council of Serdica (343) is a prime example, and the protests of Pope Leo’s representatives, at the beginning of the Councils of Chalcedon, that Dioscuros of Alexandria, who had excommunicated Leo on the eve of the council, could not take a seat with them also exemplify the principle. The Roman delegate Paschasinus implies a similar opposition between the seated judges and the role of the defendant when he opposes that Dioscurus ‘takes his seat’ when in fact he ought to be summoned (sc. as the accused); see Concilium Chalcedonense anno 451, oecumenicum quartum, actiones 1,5 (ACO 2,1,2, 65,20-21 Schwartz; cf. English translation by Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon [3 vols.; Translated Texts for Historians 45; Liverpool, 2005], here: vol. 1 General In-troduction, Documents before the Council, Session I, 129, 130). There was, of course, precedent for the Donatist refusal to convene with the Catholics. In the autumn of 403 CE, Bishop Primian of Carthage informed the authorities that it was “unworthy that the sons of the martyrs and the offspring of traitors come together” (indignum est quidem ut in unum conveniant fi lii martyrum et progenies traditorum); Augustine, Contra partem Donati post gesta 1,1 (CSEL 53, 97,14-15 Petschenig).


The fi rst rebuke challenges the logic of the Donatist reading by draw-ing attention to the immediate context of the verse. The Psalm goes on to affi rm et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo (“I shall not go in with the evildoers”).62 According to the logic of the Donatist reading, this should have prevented them from entering the venue with the Catholics in the fi rst place. The incongruity exposed by this reductio ad absurdum only serves to illustrate the deeper fl aw of their understanding, for both words are not about sitting or entering in a corporal, physical sense, but must be taken spiritually.63

Placed by the Catholics in this way in the wider conceptual context of the exegetical debate between both sides, the Donatist misreading of the Psalm, and by inference the action it was made to support, are interpreted as indicative of their defective ecclesiology, which was for the Catholics at the heart of the schism. Rather than undertaking dubious efforts to distinguish the just from sinners empirically and in the present realm, one must differentiate between the transcendent perfect church and its existence under the constraints and conditions of the present, where she is a corpus permixtum in which saints and sinners coexist.64

How important it was for Augustine to detect in the standing of his Donatist opponents, and in the encrypted biblical justifi cation Petilianus had given for it, a point of exegetical and theological principle that he wanted to refute at the conference by exegetical arguments, is confi rmed by a number of texts close in time to the conference in which he remembered vividly the scene and repeated his exegetical rebuttal. In a sermon held not too long after the conference (nuper), Augustine highlighted once again the Donatists’ refusal to sit down with their opponents as the activity that most perspicuously represented their principal theological defi ciencies, and specifi cally betrayed their defective exegetical practice and hermeneutic.65

62 Psalm 25,4b (Vetus Latina), quoted Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis 3,18,16 (285 L.).

63 Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis 3,18 (284 L.).64 For Augustine’s ecclesiology, as it is developed in polemical antithesis to the Donatist

position, see E. Lamirande, “Ecclesia,” Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (see note 1): 687-720, (with lit.); Stanislaus J. Grabowski, The Church: An Introduction to the Theology of St. Augustine (London, 1957); cf. also Jörg Trelenberg, Das Prinzip “Einheit” beim frühen Augustinus (BHTh 125; Tübingen, 2004), 136-166.

65 Augustine, serm. 99,8 (PL 38:595-602 Migne, here: 599): . . . ut nuper in collatione nostra quod etiam in Gestis ipsis legere potestis, cum eis a Cognitore esset consessus oblatus, ut sederent nobiscum, respondendum putarent, Scriptum est nobis, cum talibus non sedere, scilicet ne per contactum subselliorum ad eos velut nostra contagio perveniret (a mali-cious interpretation of their motives, making it more absurd than Augustine would have considered it on theological grounds alone anyway). . . . Alio autem die, ubi opportunius erat, commemoravimus eos huius miserrimae vanitatis, cum ageretur de Ecclesia, quia mali in ea non contaminant bonos; respondimus eis, quia ideo sedere nobiscum noluerunt, et dixerunt, se Scriptura Dei fuisse commonitos, quia videlicet scriptum est, ‘Non sedi in concilio vanitatis’: diximus, Si ideo nobiscum sedere noluistis, quia scriptum est ‘Non sedi in concilio vanitatis’: quare nobiscum ingressi estis, cum consequenter scriptum sit, ‘Et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo’ (Ps 25,4a-b)? A date close to the conference may

352 Thomas Graumann

The scene and the faulty exegesis enacted by the Donatists’ standing are similarly targeted in another work written in the aftermath of the confer-ence, the Contra Donatistas. In this instance Augustine offers an even more direct and piercing criticism of the underlying theological-hermeneutical misconception that led to their deeply fl awed scriptural appropriation.66 All these texts confi rm and demonstrate the resonance of the behaviour displayed by the Donatists at the conference, both on the occasion and beyond. Their decision to remain standing proved to be the most effective and best-remembered expression of their use of the Bible, their theological thinking and their overall intensions and designs for the conference.

In taking up deliberately a standing posture, Augustine understood com-pletely appropriately, the Donatists had made their ecclesiology visible67; they had embodied and communicated it symbolically in this seemingly plain gesture. At the particular point in time of proceedings – early in the fi rst and second meetings –, this was of eminent signifi cance for the Donatist purposes. Not only did they manage to express and enact their self-image as the church of the martyrs and in their posture demonstrate physically their ecclesiology of separation built on purity, as previously suggested. When matters of procedure and legal framework were still largely undecided, there was also not yet clarity or agreement whether in essence a theologi-cal debate about ecclesiology based on scriptural interpretation was to be held or an inquiry into the history of legal altercations between both sides based on public documents. When early in the fi rst and second meetings the Donatists remained standing no substantial exegetical discussion had yet been entered into. The physical enactment of a specifi c understand-ing of Ps 25 gave them their fi rst opportunity to advance an exegetical concept, too; their standing also embodied their exegesis. The insistence on an exegetical debate over ecclesiology and the determination to have their role acknowledged as that of defendants here come together in the

be inferred from the phrase nuper in collatione nostra. For the sermon, and Augustine’s preaching against the Donatists in general, see now Tholen, Donatisten (see note 34), 24 (date), 282-383, 352-354.

66 Augustine, Contra partem Donati post gesta 9,5,7 (104,24-105,8 P.): hoc episcopi uestri faciendum putauerunt, quando utrisque nostrum a iudice oblato consessu nobis cum sedere noluerunt, dicentes scriptum sibi esse ne cum talibus sedeant, illud utique non spiritaliter, sed carnaliter intellegentes, quod in psalmo positum est: et cum impiis non sedebo, et tamen fecerunt, quod in eodem ipso loco psalmi pariter prohibetur. nam ibi dicit propheta: et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo. si ergo, quia nos iniquos uel nouerant uel putabant, ideo nobis cum sedere noluerunt, quare, quod similiter prohibetur, nobis cum introierunt ex parte sancti et ex parte polluti, nisi quia scripturas sanctas non intel-legendo et carnaliter sapiendo etiam ipsam unitatem dissipauerunt? For the work, see S. Lancel, “Donatistas (Contra-),” Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (see note 1): 639-644.

67 For a short expression of Donatist ecclesiology, in a statement by Petilianus, see Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,75,1-23 (197-198 L.); cf. further Gesta conlationis Cartha-giniensis 3,258,1-283 (243-251 L.). The obverse denunciation of the Catholic “heretical paternity” and its polluting consequences can be seen in his attack on Augustine, Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis 3,227,1-229,5 (235-236 L.).


Donatist strategy. According to their logic it would fall upon the Catholics, as plaintiffs, to make a convincing exegetical case. For the Donatists, as defendants, it would suffi ce to appear uncontroverted by their opponents and thus to fend off a catholic plaint. They seemed confi dent to achieve this in an exegetical debate. Augustine, of course, dismisses the Donatist exegesis as hermeneutically naïve,68 but whatever the truth in the matter, other councils show that it was diffi cult to convict any one individual or group of heresy with exegetical arguments alone. Pelagius, for example, put up a successful defence at the Council of Diospolis (415), and the Council of Aquileia (381) found it necessary to confront the Homoean Bishop Palladius with readings from Arius to determine his “heresy,” rather than discussing the Scriptures alone. Any exegetical debate over ecclesiology would inevitably fall back on contested biblical readings and interpreta-tions that remained diffi cult to resolve with suffi ciently unequivocal proof texts and arguments to identify and convict the Donatists as a superstitio. Crucially by their behaviour alone the Donatists had already managed to make their exegetical stand-point clear before any detailed discussion had even begun: simply by standing.

The dense and multilayered symbolism of the Donatists’ simple gesture, or posture, spoke loudly to the other parties in the case. The various layers of meaning are elucidated by the allusions to biblical and historical models in the Donatists’ interventions. They are confi rmed by the understanding of their coded message that is made apparent in the reactions of the chair-man and the Catholic responses on the occasion. Against the conventions of cultural practice, the Donatists’ transgression of customary courtesy and their conscious enactment of courtroom roles are opened up for a reading as the embodiment not only of their legal objections but also of their theology and exegesis; this certainly was how Augustine understood it. As such, their standing is of a programmatic signifi cance and can be read as a condensed physical representation of almost their entire strategy and argument.

As much as the symbolic qualities of the Donatist demeanour must be emphasised, one must at least consider whether their decision to stand also had practical consequences. Augustine reports the spectacular collapse of the Donatist case on the third day of discussions. He describes it as the inevitable consequence of the fact that they did not have a convincing case, neither theologically nor historically, from the start. Modern scholars have for the most part agreed; some have suggested, in addition, negligence in the Donatists’ preparation of their case.69 Both elements will have played

68 Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis 3,18 (299,27-300,18 L.) on the specifi c passage, and passim.

69 Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 50. Traditional scholarship almost universally dismisses the theological and legal substance of the Donatist case and considers their conduct in the meeting as a matter of obstinacy and futile legal wrangling in trying to cover up for this defi cit. For Frend, Donatist Church (see note 1), 279, “the Donatists

354 Thomas Graumann

their part. But we may at least ask whether physical exhaustion, exacer-bated by long hours of standing, may also have contributed. On the fi rst day, Petilianus had pointed out the old age of many Donatist bishops.70 Whether this applied to any of their active spokespersons is diffi cult to establish. Petilianus was probably slightly younger than Augustine.71 The age of the other principal combatant on their side, Bishop Emeritus of Caesarea (in Mauretania) is impossible to discern.72 In any case, physical exhaustion was a real concern for public speakers. Quintilian already alerted orators of the physical demands of their task and warned of pos-sible exhaustion.73 The sheer strain of oratorical performance must not be underestimated. Similar demands can be expected in a drawn out debate where the combatants were kept constantly on their feet – in our case both literally and metaphorically. The Capitula mention that Petilianus withdrew from the debate near the end of the third day because his voice began to fail him.74 Physical exhaustion, aggravated by hours of standing, may at least have added to the Donatists’ ultimate resignation before Augustine’s two-pronged strategy, which left them no way out. Realising the futility of their efforts, it may have helped to end their resistance. Perhaps their reliance on the martyr-like strength provided by divine assistance was too optimistic after all. Standing, therefore, may have been symbolically apposite but perhaps not a good choice in practical terms.

In conclusion, the Donatists’ highly expressive behaviour has been analysed as an act of multilayered, densly symbolic communication. It provides the rare opportunity to recognize the potential of non-verbal communication and the signifi cance of physical enactment and somatic expression by participants in public gatherings and specifi cally in church councils and similar conventions of churchmen. In this way the analysis hopes not just to provide a different point of entry into the complex issues raised by the Conference of Carthage. It also wants to make a case more generally for an interpretation of church councils and similar gatherings

prepared their case indifferently.” Cf. Lancel, St. Augustine (see note 1), 299-300. A very unfavourable assessment of the Donatist actores and their abilities also prevails in Pietri, “Schwierigkeiten” (see note 1), 519.

70 See note 21.71 Mandouze, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 1 (see note 17), s.v. “Petilianus

1,” (855-868) 856.72 S. Lancel, “Emeritus,” Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (see note 1): 802-804; idem, Introduction

générale (see note 8), 208-221; cf. Mandouze, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 1 (see note 17), s.v. “Emeritus 2,” 340-349.

73 M. Fabius Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria 11,3,144-147 (BSGRT 2, 356,16-357,3 Ra-dermacher); cf. also Juvenal, Saturae 7,111-120 (SCBO, 100-101 Clausen) for a satirical contrast between the lawyer’s exhaustion and his poor remuneration.

74 Gesta conlationis Carthaginiensis, Capitula gestorum 3,540 (50 L.). Lancel, Introduction générale (see note 8), 237-238, asks whether this could have been another ruse to derail the conference near its end. Petilianus might have tried to create grounds for an appeal on the basis of an incomplete Donatist representation. The question cannot be answered from the sources.


of churchmen that uses information about behaviour and non-verbal com-munication not just as colourful embellishment but also as a hermeneuti-cally and conceptually important tool. The sporadic remarks about such elements of interaction found in conciliar acts or historical narrative give an indication of an important dimension of conciliar activity, which is often missing in our sources and hence unfortunately mostly absent from scholarly historical and theological accounts. More research in this area may yet permit a better understanding of church councils as both highly ceremonial and highly dramatic events.

ABSTRACT

Bei der Konferenz von Karthago (411) schlagen die Donatisten bei zwei Gelegenheiten die Einladung des Vorsitzenden aus, sich zu setzen. Ihr Verhalten wird hier als ein demonstrativer Akt interpretiert, mit dessen Hilfe sie visuell und dramatisch ihr Selbst- und Rollenverständnis ausdrücken und dabei zugleich den – in ihren Augen – wahren Charakter des Zusammenkommens agierend entlarven. Dies wird möglich nicht zuletzt durch die Wiederaufnahme bekannter ikonographischer Muster. Unter Anspielung auf biblische Texte vermögen sie ferner in der Pose des Stehens ihr Schriftverständnis und ihre Ekklesiologie mindestens anzudeuten. Die Reaktionen des Vorsitzenden und Augustins zeigen, dass die so symbolisch kommunizierten donatistischen Standpunkte verstanden wurden. Mit der Beobachtung der kommunikativen Bedeutung von Verhalten und körperhaftem Ausdruck im konkreten Fall lädt der Aufsatz zugleich ein, die heuristische Bedeutung derartiger Elemente für die Interpretation synodaler Vorgänge insgesamt ernster zu nehmen.