of Nicaea had already insisted that, despite 'ancient tradition', Jerusalem was to be subordinate to Caesarea. By trying to maintain a correspondence with the secular administration the ecclesiastical hierarchy was out of synch with the new geography of sacred pilgrimage. The Council of Chalcedon finally associated the bishop of Jerusalem with the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria by classifying him too as a patriarch.10

The bishops of some cities were so consistently at odds that their rivalry had clearly generated its own momentum. Basil of Caesarea was upset that the bishop of Tyana had acquired the rank of a metropolitan when his city became a new provincial capital upon the division of Cappadocia. This new metropolitan bishop retaliated by holding up Basil on the road with his 'gang of bandits'. Their successors continued the feud by bickering over prerogatives so minor that observers dismissed them as 'some contemptible claim of right'. Not surprisingly, on every important issue these bishops were on opposite sides. During the dispute over the suitability of John Chrysostom as bishop of Constantinople, the bishop of Tyana supported John, while the bishop of Caesarea corresponded with John's opponents. At the Council of Ephesus in 431 the bishop of Caesarea supported Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, while the bishop of Tyana supported Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. After the council the triumphant bishop of Caesarea tried to oust his rival from Tyana. Once cities and their leading notables had competed over rank and status in a Roman context; now they competed just as fiercely in an ecclesiastical context. Rather than resolving differences, this hierarchy of cities and their bishops often reinforced old rivalries and created new feuds.11

The ecclesiastical organisation may have imitated the imperial administration, but it also differed in several important respects. Most noticeably, it was even larger. Since the reign of Diocletian emperors had considerably expanded the size of the imperial administration by creating more provinces and governors, by adding more layers of high-level officials such as vicars and prefects, and by increasing the size of the staffs supporting those officials and the imperial courts. Up to one hundred lesser bureaucrats served on the staff of each provincial governor, and up to 1,000 onthe staff of each prefect. By the endofthe fourth century there were about 125 high-level prefects, vicars and governors,

10 Claim of Nicaea: ACO 11.1.3: 57-62 (416-21). Jerusalem and Caesarea: Council of Nicaea, canon 7. Jerusalem as patriarchate: ACO 11.1.3: 5-7 (364-6).

11 Bandits: Gregory ofNazianzus, Orationes 43.58. Contemptible claim: Severus of Antioch, Epistulae 2.2. Dispute over John Chrysostom: Palladius, Dialogus devitalohannis Chrysos-tomi 9. Ouster of rival: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commonitorium adAlexandrum Hierapoli-tanum (ACO 1.4.2: 87; SC 429:157-8).

0 0

Post a comment