Chapter 6

Buying Imperial Favour:

Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings

Maurits Sterk de Leeuw

Abstract

To gain and hold imperial favour for his theological party in the aftermath of the
Council of Ephesus in 431, Cyril of Alexandria bestowed blessings on high-ranking
courtiers in Constantinople. His theological adversaries aimed to reveal that these
blessings were nothing less than ordinary bribes and that, consequently, Cyril’s victory
in the Christological controversy was won through corruption. This paper analyses
Cyril’s use of a terminology of “blessings” to show that it legitimized and enhanced his
gifts as a resource to exercise influence on the imperial court. The late-antique world,
where gifts and fees were becoming increasingly important as (institutionalized) in-
struments to gain access to power, posed a problem to clerics who wanted to partake
in these political transactions. Their authority was based on their independence from
worldly rulers, which the exchanging of gifts would compromise; nor was the Bible
(or the exegetic tradition) particular approving of gifts as a means to further even the
good of the Church. Yet, the Gospels also provided a solution, which allowed Cyril
to redefine his material means to secure imperial favour into “blessings”. The paper
concludes by considering a parallel case around the inauguration of Flavian as bishop
of Constantinople that shows how the openness of the term “blessing” could also be
exploited to disqualify the legitimacy of the opposing party.

In the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus in 431, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria
and the leader of the theological party whose doctrine the Council had con-
firmed, employed “blessings” to secure his victory. He wanted to be assured of
imperial favour in the heated competition with his doctrinal enemy, Nestorius,
who had been removed from his see in Constantinople and whose teach-
ings had been denounced. In his apologetic work The Bazaar of Heracleides
(originally in Greek, but transmitted only in a Syriac version), Nestorius him-
self accused Cyril of having used such blessings to gain support for his cause
among the clergy of Constantinople: “… thou [addressing Cyril] was paying
for them with the things which are called benedictiones [i.e., “blessings”, Syriac

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004411791_008

152 de Leeuw

bûrkthâ].”1 Cyril’s use of blessings at a higher level of the capital’s society is also
attested in two letters sent from Alexandria to Constantinople, containing in-
structions on which courtier should receive what blessings.2 The blessings are
detailed as stacks of costly furniture and sums of money, which had to ensure
that the influential figures at the receiving end kept supporting Cyril’s party
and would not change their or the emperor’s mind.
Cyril’s peculiar use of the word “blessing” here, to denote a gift from a bishop
to a worldly official, will be the focus of this paper. It propounds that Cyril em-
ployed the word to (re)define the political influence he attempted to exercise
to his own advantage. The sociological models of Bertram Raven and Georg
Simmel, which play a central role throughout this volume, allow us to better
understand how Cyril’s blessings worked. With Simmel’s theories, we can de-
scribe the conflict between Nestorius and Cyril as a competition for imperial
favour, in which the ways to gain favour were restricted by certain rules. Cyril
redefined those rules when he sent his gifts as blessings to Constantinople: the
terminology legitimized a dubious means to (indirectly) guarantee imperial
favour. By examining Cyril’s blessings with Raven’s model of interpersonal in-
fluence, we can see how exactly the term enhanced the value of Cyril’s gifts as
a resource of influence.
But these analyses cannot do without a contextualisation of Cyril’s use of
gifts and his use of the term “blessing” itself. Traditionally, scholars have con-
sidered Cyril’s use of “blessing” as a mere euphemism for the word “bribe”.3
However, as Christopher Kelly shows in his Ruling the Later Roman Empire,
Cyril’s use of gifts to increase his (political) influence was not at all unique: in
the later Roman Empire, gifts were a widespread and, in many cases, accepted
currency for political power.4 Still, for (prominent) clerics such as Cyril, this

1  Translation by Driver/Hodgson, pp. 288–9. Further accusations of bribery by Cyril on

pp. 279–82 and 349–51. This paper was not presented at the conference in Tübingen; it is an
expanded and adapted version of a paper presented at the workshop of the Postgraduate and
Early Career Late Antiquity Network in London on 15 September 2017. I thank its organizers
for giving me the opportunity to present this paper and to receive valuable feedback on it.
2  Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, in the edition by Schwartz, (henceforth ACO) I.4,
pp. 222–4 and ACO I.4, 224–5; trans. McEnerney, pp. 151–3 and 188–92.
3  Driver/Hodgson (on the cited passage) n. 142 in the online edition; MacMullen, Voting About
God, p. 66; id., Corruption and the Decline of Rome, pp. 165–6; McEnerney, p. 152 n.4 and p. 190
n.16 (notes to the translation); Stuiber, ‘Eulogia’, RAC 6, pp. 900–28, there 924–5.
4  Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire. On Cyril’s gifts: pp. 171–2. Watson, The Rhetoric of
Corruption, propounds a new interpretation of the worries about and rejection of wide-
spread corruption in contemporary politics that elite pagan and Christian figures expressed.
He argues that this rhetoric formed a “tool of fashioning self and group identity” (p. v) for
the traditional upper classes. Unfortunately, I have not been able to consult Watson’s Greed,
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 153

paper argues, the use of gifts as an instrument to gain influence in matters of

religious politics was not an easily available option.5 Negative connotations
of material gifts in the Bible and the perceived independence from worldly
authorities that guaranteed the influence of a cleric made the straightforward
use of gifts problematic. As a means to gain political favour, gifts were outside
the range of what was considered to be legitimate. However, the alternative
theological frame of the blessing allowed Cyril to turn them into an acceptable
and even effective means to exercise influence.6 As a point of comparison to
illustrate just how flexibly the term “blessing” could be used in 5th-century
religious politics, we will end by considering a parallel case of conflict that also
involved the use of blessings by a bishop. But let us start by considering what
the sources tell us about Cyril’s blessings.

1 Cyril’s Blessings

Cyril’s use of blessings is attested in two rather tendentious sources, for his
doctrinal enemies had a hand in the creation of both. As we have seen, one was
written by his enemy Nestorius; the other, which contains the two letters, con-
sists of a collection of documents, assembled by an ally of Nestorius. However,
due to the letters’ special status as quoted originals from Cyril’s circle, the let-
ters very likely form an independent confirmation of Nestorius’ complaint that
his rival in Alexandria had used gifts that he called blessings to gain political
influence.
These letters are preserved at the end of a text known as the Tragedy, a
document composed by a certain Irenaeus who held the rank of comes from
431 to 435.7 As an influential friend of Nestorius, Irenaeus supported his cause
against Cyril even before emperor Theodosius II himself.8 Simultaneously
with Nestorius, he was stripped of his office and possessions and sent into exile

Luxury and Imperial Degeneracy: The Rhetoric of Vice and Virtue in Late Antiquity, which was
still to be published during the final stages of the preparation of this paper.
5  Huebner, “Currencies of Power”, pp. 175–7, makes a similar point for the unease that was
felt during the 4th century regarding the sale of church offices. Over the course of the 5th
and 6th centuries, however, this venality became “widespread and accepted”. Differently Rist,
“Kirchenpolitik und/oder Bestechung”, who ascribes the problematic nature of Cyril’s gifts as
a means to gain influence to the “Vehemenz ihres Einsatzes”, p. 59.
6  We do not know whether Cyril was the first to use this terminology in a religious-political
context of giving; ultimately, as we will see below, he would have pointed out that he used the
term in the same way as in the Gospel.
7  P LRE 2, Irenaeus 2, pp. 624–5.
8  ACO I.1.5, pp. 135–6 contains a letter by Irenaeus himself on his mission to Constantinople.
154 de Leeuw

when their doctrine was finally denounced in 435. His Tragedy, which he wrote
during his exile in Petra, was a history in Greek of the Nestorian controversy.9
In the Eusebian tradition of ecclesiastical history, it contained many exten-
sive quotations of documents to illustrate the times that the work describes.
Unfortunately, Irenaeus’ original text has not been transmitted: the only ver-
sion that is known to us is an abbreviated Latin translation that a deacon
named Rusticus made in Constantinople in 565.10 This drastically abbreviated
account of Irenaeus’ own narrative and comments, known as the Synodicum,
consists almost exclusively of the (translated) documents that Irenaeus quot-
ed. We do not know to what extent the parts that Rusticus did include in his
translation form a faithful rendering of the words of Irenaeus or the quoted
documents. Still, it is assumed that the letters discussed here, by breaking with
the chronological order of the other documents quoted, formed the climac-
tic end to Irenaeus’ Tragedy. With the final revelation of the base strategies—
bribing prominent courtiers with rich and exotic gifts—through which Cyril
prevailed in the doctrinal dispute, Irenaeus would have tried to scandalize the
Alexandrian.11
The two letters are closely related, as they complement each other: the
second letter functions as an attachment or appendix to the first. In the first
letter, Cyril’s acolyte Epiphanius, who presents himself as his archidiaco­
nus and syncellus, writes in the name of the bishop himself, who has fallen
ill after news of the addressee’s lack of support for Cyril’s cause had reached
the Egyptian metropolis. The addressee is none other than the new bishop of
Constantinople, Maximian, whom Epiphanius urges: “[d]irect all your zeal to
this [i.e., Cyril’s] cause.”12 He then reveals to Maximian what (considerable)
measures the Alexandrian patriarch has already taken to persuade several
courtiers of his cause. Maximian is asked to appeal to the emperor’s sister,
Pulcheria Augusta,13 who does not (yet) seem to receive a blessing from Cyril
personally.14 She, at least, is not named as a recipient of blessings in the sec-
ond letter, which might reflect a concern that the imperial family themselves
should remain independent—or, in this case, incorruptible. Otherwise, the
second letter lists specifically which blessings were destined for which people.

9  Krismanek, Das Briefkorpus Kyrills, p. 18 n. 42.

10  Rist, “Kirchenpolitik und/oder Bestechung”, pp. 54–5.
11  Millar, A Greek Roman Empire, pp. 170–1 on the Tragedy as a source, pp. 219–21 on Cyril’s
letters.
12  impone tibi omne in hac causa studium. ACO I.4, p. 223 l. 5, trans. McEnerney.
13   P LRE 2, Aelia Pulcheria, pp. 929–30.
14  Cyril did send letters to Pulcheria and to another Augusta, Eudocia (Theodosius’ wife):
see ACO I.1.1, pp. 42–72.
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 155

We will look at the part of the first letter that deals with the addressees and
aims of the blessings and at an example from the second letter that illustrates
what the blessings looked like:

For a letter has been written by my lord [Cyril], your brother, both to the
most reverend servant of God, the lady Pulcheria, to Paul the praeposi­
tus, to Romanus the cubicularius, to lady Marcella the cubicularia, and to
lady Droseria, and worthy blessings have been dispatched to them. And
to him who is against the Church, to Chryseros, the praepositus, the most
magnificent Aristolaus has been prepared to write about some things
which your messenger ought to obtain; and to him himself worthy bless-
ings indeed have been sent. Moreover, my lord, your most holy broth-
er, also wrote to lord Scholasticius and to the most magnificent Artabas,
so that they should meet with and persuade Chryseros to desist at last
from his assault on the Church; and to them worthy blessings have been
dispatched.
Hasten, therefore, you also, most holy one, to beg the servant of God,
lady Pulcheria Augusta, so that she pay heed to Christ our Lord (for I
think that now there is not sufficient care of your most holy brother Cyril)
and so that you ask all who are in the palace and <furnish> whatever is
lacking to their avarice,15 although there are not lacking different bless-
ings for them also (…)16

And to the other cubicularii customary suppliant blessings have been

dispatched.

15  This mention of the recipients’ avarice either reflects Cyril’s pragmatic, if not cynical atti-
tude in this matter, or it could be an addition or adaptation of Epiphanius’ original words
by Irenaeus to emphasize how Cyril looked down upon the courtiers.
16  scriptum enim est a domino meo fratre uestro et dominae ancillae dei reuerentissimae
Pulcheriae et praeposito Paulo et Romano cubiculario et domnae Marcellae cubiculariae
et domnae Droseriae, et directae sunt benedictiones dignae eis. et ei qui contra ecclesiam
est, Chryseroti praeposito magnificentissimus Aristolaus paratus est scribere de nonnullis
quae angelus tuus debeat impetrare; et ipsi uero dignae transmissae sunt eulogiae. scripsit
autem dominus meus sanctissimus frater uester et domno Scholasticio et magnificentissi­
mo Artabae, ut ipsi conueniant et persuadant Chrysoreti [sic Schwartz] tandem desistere
ab oppugnatione ecclesiae; et ipsis uero benedictiones dignae directae sunt. festina igitur et
tu ipse, sanctissime, supplicare dominae ancillae dei Pulcheriae Augustae ut iterum ponat
animam suam pro domino Christo (puto enim quod nunc non satis curet pro sanctissimo
uestro fratre Cyrillo), et ut omnes qui sunt in palatio, roges et quicquid auaritiae eorum deest,
<praestes>, quamquam non desint et ipsis diuersae benedictiones, (…). ACO I.4, p. 223,
ll. 5–17, trans. McEnerney with adaptations by Millar, A Greek Roman Empire, p. 220.
156 de Leeuw

To Romanus the cubicularius: four larger wool rugs, four place covers,
four bila, four stool covers, six covers for chairs, two caldrons, two ivory
chairs; and so that he would aid in our cause: thirty pounds of gold.17

If we accept these documents as trustworthy translations of original letters

by Cyril’s agents—which no scholar has doubted they are18—they present a
unique view of religious politics behind the scenes. Aside from the puzzling
use of the term blessing (both the Latin benedictio and the transcribed Greek
eulogia are used in the Latin translation), the nature of the blessings them-
selves also requires our attention. Romanus is but one example of a courti-
er who receives substantial units of furniture, which, among the various
recipients, differ more in quantity than in quality.19 Thus, most blessings are
bestowed on the recalcitrant Chryseros,20 who, as praepositus sacri cubiculi,
was a high-ranking figure at the imperial court with easy access to the emper-
or. Cyril goes to large expenses to curb his resistance, “that he would cease to
oppose us [Cyril and his allies].”21

17  e t aliis uero cubiculariis eulogiae consuetudinariae supplices destinatae sunt. Romano cu­
biculario tapetes maiores IIII, accubitalia IIII, bila IIII, scamnalia IIII, in cathedris VI, cor­
tinae II, cathedrae eburneae duo, et ut nos adiuuet in causa, auri libras XXX. ACO I.4, p. 224,
ll. 28–31, trans. McEnerney with adaptations by the author.
18  Mostly without argumentation, but Rist, “Kirchenpolitik und/oder Bestechung”, p. 58 of-
fers a recent (though very brief) evaluation in favour of authenticity.
19  Batiffol, “Les présents de Saint Cyrille”, pp. 253–61 discusses the addressees and every
single type of object given; a more recent identification of the addressees is available
in the prosopographic appendix in Krismanek, Das Briefkorpus Kyrills, pp. 223–66. The
exact nature of some of the sent objects remains unclear, which accounts for differences
between translations and treatments of the passage. Brown, Power and Persuasion, p. 16
makes the total sum of the blessings: “[o]ne thousand eighty pounds of gold (…), 24 car-
pets, 25 woolen tapestries, 14 hanging carpets, 24 silken veils, 18 curtains, 28 cushions, 60
stools (8 of ivory), 14 ivory high-backed thrones, 36 throne covers, 12 door hangings, and
22 tablecloths”.
20   P LRE 2, Chryseros 1, p. 297.
21  ut nos impugnare desinat, ACO I.4, p. 224, l. 14. Bold statements in the other letter equal
Cyril’s party with the Church itself, which Chryseros is said to oppose: qui contra ecclesi­
am est and desistere ab expugnatione ecclesiae. It is somewhat surprising that no mention
is made of Chryseros being a eunuch, for eunuchs topically acted out of avarice and exer-
cised bad influence on the emperor: on the stereotypical (negative) role eunuchs played
in (late-)antiquity, see Guyot, Eunuchen; Scholten, Der Eunuch in Kaisernähe; Stevenson,
“The Rise of Eunuchs”. Perhaps this negative stereotype was implied by the mere identifi-
cation of Chryseros as praepositus, a function that was always held by eunuchs; perhaps
extended invective was simply out of place in this letter—particularly considering the
fact that Cyril was exploiting the eunuch’s (and others’) avarice (see above, n. 15).
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 157

The sheer volume and mass of the objects that were sent to Constantinople
makes it hard to imagine that they were part of a clandestine exchange, se-
cretly smuggled to each of the addressees. In fact, the objects that constitute
the blessings seem to be things meant to be displayed rather than kept hid-
den. The cited example from the list of blessings also illustrates a difference
in function between money and objects as part of the blessings. Whereas the
objects appear ready to be presented unconditionally, the gifting of gold each
time has a particular aim—often circumscribed, as in Romanus’ case, with the
rather vague final clause “that he may help us”. Possibly, this indicates that
the objects on the one hand and the money on the other were not given under
the same condition: the gold was given as a reward for the recipient’s service,
but the objects were given (also) for the sake of display. By putting these ob-
jects on show, they testify not only to the owner’s riches, but also to his connec-
tion to the prominent and revered bishop that Cyril was (in the eyes of many).22
Moreover, they are the actual evidence of the blessing that their owner has re-
ceived, which, as we will see, is no less than a sign of divine favour towards the
recipient. Nevertheless, their qualitative and quantitative value was definitely
important as well, as the repeated use of the adjective dignae, “worthy”, ap-
pears to indicate. Apart from being ineffective, it would have been inappropri-
ate or even offensive to send these rich courtiers such humble items as bread
or fruit, although they might have better corresponded to the original concept
of the blessing.23
When the objects that constituted the blessings were meant to be seen, the
scandal that these letters reveal can hardly concern the giving itself. Daniel
Caner argues that the use of so many and costly blessings for such clear aims
“represented the abuse of [the] ideal [of the late-antique blessing]” to Nestorius
and his allies,24 which is probably the point Irenaeus tries to make by ending
his Tragedy with these letters. Obviously, Irenaeus did not succeed in incrim-
inating Cyril to such an extent that it threatened his victory, for Cyril’s use
of blessings was not unanimously regarded as clandestine corruption. From

22  For the importance of display (of wealth) in the late-antique world, see Brown, Through
the Eye of a Needle, pp. 28–9. The objects of which the blessings consisted, particularly the
woven ones (tapestries and furniture cloths) with an iconographic program, could thus
emphasize the relationship between the donor and the recipient in ways similar to gifted
clothing: see Rollason, Gifts of Clothing, passim. The absence of clothing among Cyril’s
blessings is noteworthy in as far as Rollason shows that it was often used for diplomatic
interactions (pp. 55–88).
23  Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, pp. 345 and 358; see also pp. 165–7 below on the
case of Flavian’s humble blessings.
24  Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, pp. 357–8.
158 de Leeuw

responses to Cyril’s victory, Kelly rightly concludes that “opinion was divided
on the use of money to purchase advantage.”25
In this affair, I argue, Cyril’s use of the term “blessing” actually formed a
strategy to counter accusations of bribery and corruption that could have seri-
ously endangered his position as one of the empire’s most prominent clerics.
Surely, a hypothetical hagiography of Cyril’s life would have presented his ac-
tions to persuade the imperial court in a somewhat more flattering way than
these letters26—if only to counter the Nestorian accusations of bribery. But the
terminology of the blessing formed a first line of defence against those who
took offence against the use of material gifts by clerics. The part of this paper
that follows shows what risks had to be confronted and how Cyril’s terminolo-
gy dealt with these dangers.

2 The Problem of Clerical Presents

Roman society in the first two centuries of our era has been described as a
“genial, oily, present-giving world”.27 In Late Antiquity, it changed into a less
genial world, where practices of giving material or monetary presents became
an institutionalized part of the political system. That, at least, is the general
argument of Kelly’s Ruling the Later Roman Empire, across which we have
come a couple of times already. Especially in the second part of his book, Kelly
discusses how bureaucrats could buy offices for fixed prices, and how “charge
sheets”, put up on public display, listed the costs for specific bureaucratic
actions.28 Money and gifts29 became accepted currencies for exercising influ-
ence: to emphasize this point, Kelly names them “fees”. This does not mean,
however, that all such practices of what we would call “corruption” were always
cast in an entirely positive light. In fact, late-antique juridical corpora abound
in laws formulated in a highly rhetorical manner that aimed to counter prac-
tices of corruption.30 In political invective, too, accusations of bribery and ve-
nality were (still) effective as rhetorical topoi. Many accepted the risk of being

25  Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, pp. 174–5.

26  McEnerney’s comment is telling (p. 188 n. 1): “the letter is quite blunt, even too frank, in a
situation where Cyril might have been more diplomatic.”
27  MacMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome, p. 126.
28  Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, pp. 107–246.
29  Kelly does not make a clear distinction between these two. The differences between
money and material objects as institutionalized gifts, touched upon in this paper, deserve
more extensive treatment. For now, it suffices to observe that gifts in both monetary and
material form became a (more) accepted currency for power in late-antique politics.
30  Bond, “The Corrupting Sea”.
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 159

subjected to such accusations as a consequence of using money and gifts for

political aims; others, such as church and monastic leaders, would have been
more concerned about keeping a clean record.31
Simultaneously, over the course of the 4th century, Christianity consolidat-
ed its position as the dominant religion of the empire, and, as a consequence,
the power of clerics rapidly increased. As peoples, cities, and single rulers fa-
voured one type of Christianity over the other, matters of doctrine could have
far-reaching worldly implications, and doctrinal differences continuously di-
vided late-antique society. Clerics involved in the disputes tried to gain the
support of prominent political actors, if not directly the support of the emper-
or himself.32
Simmel’s sociology of competition provides a useful model to describe
this competition among clerics: two opposing parties (the differing doctrinal
groups) compete for the favour of the third party (the ones in power), where-
by the opposing groups try to outdo each other in winning over the powerful
rather than to annihilate the other. Simmel’s model is particularly instructive
here as it postulates that the means by which competition occurs is subject
to certain rules.33 Applying this model to our late-antique competition be-
tween clerics, we see that such rules could be defined through canon law: at
the council of Serdica, for example, restrictions were imposed on bishops vis-
iting the imperial court in order to check undue influence on the emperor.34
But, in most cases, the restrictions—less absolutely defined than Simmel
proposes—were the subject of discussion among the rivalling doctrinal par-
ties themselves. As the position of the Church vis-à-vis imperial politics was
still to be defined in the 4th and 5th centuries, differing doctrinal parties could
exploit the flexibility of the norms by defining them to their advantage. One
party could claim that the opposing party had intruded upon certain moral
standards, thus showing that the other’s means—as well as their cause, which,
as a mistaken doctrine, lacked legitimacy per definition—to exercise influence
was illegitimate.35

31  Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, pp. 165–81.

32  Hess, The Early Development, pp. 201–2.
33  In his original 1903 paper, Simmel talks about the “interindividuelle und die überindivi-
duelle Beschränkung der Konkurrenzmittel”; the latter consists of law and morals (“Recht
und Moral”).
34  Hess, The Early Development, pp. 201–9 (discussion) and pp. 216–21 (relevant Latin can-
ons, accompanied by an English translation).
35  Along these lines, Schulz’ contribution on the Petitiones Arianorum in this volume exam-
ines this document as an attempt by Athanasius of Alexandria to disqualify the opposing
party’s influence on the emperor.
160 de Leeuw

Accusations of corruption or bribery were a potent way to frame the other’s

means of influence as illegitimate.36 Much as clerics might have wanted (or
perhaps even needed) to exercise political influence through the exchange of
fees,37 they had to be very careful in doing so. Lay persons could participate in
the political world through material exchanges without serious consequences:
accusations of corruption, although unwelcome, did not fundamentally affect
their basis of power. This was different, however, for clerics: we can point out
two specific reasons why a reputation of corruption formed an essential threat
to the cleric’s position.
First, negative examples from the Gospels provided a basis on which to
build accusations of corruption targeted at doctrinal enemies. The Holy
Scripture generally denounces the use of money or gifts for religious purposes,
let alone practicing clandestine business,38 but two famous figures stand out.
Judas Iscariot’s betrayal (Matt. 26:15) was the negative example par excellence
for those corrupted by greed. Gregory of Nazianzus used this passage to con-
trast his moral superiority in rejecting the importance of worldly possessions
to the corrupted ways of his enemy Maximus the Cynic, whom he compared
to Judas.39 But even the use of money for those who spread the word of God
could be dangerous. In this respect, the most infamous biblical figure was
Simon Magus, who offered Peter money in exchange for receiving the power
to give people the Holy Ghost through the laying of hands (Acts 8:9–24). After
his example, the practice of selling church offices was named simony, a prac-
tice that church councils from the 4th century onwards severely denounced.40
Moreover, the late-antique orthodox tradition branded Simon as the origin of
many, if not all heresies.41 In terms of competition, this invention of Simon as
a biblical “founder” of illegitimate influence per se was an attempt to outlaw

36  See Schulz, “Beyond the veil”, on accusations of bribery against Athanasius of Alexandria
to disclaim his influence.
37  Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, p. 180 on Cyril’s use of blessings: “As Cyril of
Alexandria appreciated, not everyone always recognized that holiness was more persua-
sive than money. Promises of rewards in the world to come often needed to be buttressed
by immediate and more-tangible [sic] blessings.”
38  An example of another interesting passage adduced in an atmosphere of competition
would be Micah 3:11, to which Palladius’ Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom (15.39–41)
refers.
39  Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 26.16; see Watson, The Rhetoric of Corruption, pp. 192–3 for a
discussion of this comparison.
40  Ferreiro, Simon Magus, p. 45.
41  Huebner, “Currencies of Power”, p. 175.
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 161

any means or strategy heretics might employ in pursuing their cause.42 Thus,
although perhaps not every single material gift would immediately make a
saint a heretic, clerics definitely had to think twice before participating in the
institutionalized “fee-market” that had become so important to late-antique
politics.43 Any gift could and would be used against them.
A second problem was the fact that late-antique clerics derived their (reli-
gious) authority from their perceived independence from worldly authorities.
The key word here is parrhesia, literally meaning “the ability to say everything”,
but perhaps best translated as “unobstructed access”. Traditionally held by
pagan philosophers, bishops and holy men appropriated this special status,
which allowed them to speak freely and give independent counsel to those
in power.44 Their parrhesia worked in two ways: parrhesia with God—which
holy men, due to their observed closeness to heaven, in particular were per-
ceived to have—granted them authority in worldly affairs, so that they had
parrhesia even in the face of the emperor. Within this system, clerics became
“mediators for the dispensation of divine favours for the emperor through
[their] parrhesia with God”.45
However, this independent position of a cleric could come under threat
through accusations of being involved in worldly affairs with money or goods.46
We find this idea expressed, for example, in the works of Gregory of Nazianzus.
He describes (himself as) an ideal “philosopher-bishop” as a man who should
remain “free of the compromising ties of court patronage”, thus renouncing the

42  Of course, heretics would typically be accused of corruption: Kelly, Ruling the Later
Roman Empire, p. 169 n. 106. Influence by pagans and Jews could also be negatively stere-
otyped as bribery: see e.g. the Life of Saint Porphyry of Gaza 27 for bribes used by pagans
and the Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom 15.35–7 on (institutionalized) corruption
among the Jews.
43  The Life of Melania 11–13 provides an interesting parallel case of a delicate donation of
blessings by a holy saint at around the same time Cyril was active. To gain the empress
Serena’s favour, Melania and her husband Pinianus bring along rich blessings for the em-
press and her attendants in Rome—crystal vases, ornaments, rings, silver, and silks. The
hagiographer seems to anticipate any suggestion that this might not be a proper way for
a holy woman to exercise influence by a) drawing a parallel between Melania’s blessings
and the Widow’s Mite in the New Testament (Mk 12:41–44, Lk 21:1–4); b) having the em-
press reject the blessings in recognition of Melania’s sainthood; c) using the term eulogiai
for the gifts in a similar way as Cyril (see my conclusion below). See Kelly, Ruling the Later
Roman Empire, pp. 179–80 and Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, p. 358 on this
passage.
44  Brown, Power and Persuasion, pp. 61–8; 107.
45  Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, pp. 267–9.
46  Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, pp. 355–6.
162 de Leeuw

personal influence those might bring.47 Palladius’ Dialogue on the Life of John
Chrysostom also thematizes this tension in a context of competition for im-
perial favour by opposing the political parrhesia of its hero, John Chrysostom,
to the too worldly engagement of his doctrinal antagonist, Theophilus of
Alexandria.48 Palladius’ point is that a corrupt cleric of the likes of Theophilus
lacks a legitimate base for exercising influence, which parrhesia does bring.
Within this context, then, should we place the accusations of corruption
that Nestorius and Irenaeus raised against Cyril. However, as will be shown
in the following section, Cyril’s naming of gifts as “blessings” allowed him to
preserve his parrhesia by framing their gifts in such a way that those, like the
words they transferred to the rulers, also appeared to be passed on from God
through the cleric as an intermediary. The basis for Cyril’s reframing can also
be found in the Gospel: another biblical passage formed the foundation for a
terminology that upgraded gifts to a legitimate resource of influence.

3 The Blessing as an Upgraded Gift

Before we examine how exactly the terminology of the blessing changed the
nature of gifts as a resource of influence, a brief introduction of Raven’s Power/
Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence49 is in place, as it provides a
useful model to understand how the giving of gifts could be upgraded in such
a way that it became an acceptable means to exercise influence for politically
active clerics like Cyril. The Power/Interaction Model describes different as-
pects of an interaction between two people in which one makes an attempt
to influence the other. It allows for the systematic analysis of five aspects of
an attempt to exercise influence, on the part of both the agent as well as the
target of the attempt. The relevant part for the purposes of this paper is what
Raven calls “resources of influence” from the perspective of the agent. In this
category, Raven distinguishes nine different resources of influence: of interest
to us here are “reward resources” and “legitimacy”. Rewards are a straightfor-
ward means in an attempt to exercise influence: the agent can offer the target a
reward, material or immaterial, in exchange for the behavior that he expects of
his target. For legitimacy as a resource of influence, Raven makes a further dif-
ferentiation, distinguishing four types of legitimate power. Of relevance to us

47  Watson, The Rhetoric of Corruption, p. 213; see e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus, Autobiographical
Poems 1876–78.
48  Elm, “The Dog that Did Not Bark”, p. 73.
49  The most recent publication is Raven, “The Bases of Power”, which contains references
to earlier literature. The following discussion is based on this and older publications by
Raven.
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 163

are the first two: “position” and “reciprocity”. Raven defines “legitimate position
power” as the power that someone of a higher rank has over his subordinates,
while “[l]egitimate power of reciprocity (…) is based on an often powerful
social norm that says that when someone does something for us, we should
feel obliged to do something for them in return.”50 The late-antique practice
of giving gifts to exercise influence would typically be an example of a material
reward resource. In as much as a gift obliges the receiver to return the favour,51
it also appeals to the legitimate power of reciprocity.
Closely related to the resources of influence in Raven’s model is the assess-
ment that the agent makes of the resources available to him to exercise influ-
ence and of his preferences and inhibitions in doing so. This part of the model
covers the clerics’ dilemma with the giving of gifts. As we have seen, gifts were
an effective and more or less accepted resource of influence in late-antique pol-
itics. But the harm that the giving of gifts could do to a cleric’s reputation, cred-
ibility, and position, restricted their use for clerics in particular—for laymen,
the potential loss of reputation was less imminent and definitive. Therefore, a
politically involved cleric such as Cyril sought to frame his gifts differently by
changing the way in which gifts worked as a tool to exercise influence.
Cyril could present his gifts in a favourable light by appropriating a particu-
lar terminology. The basis for this terminology is a passage from Paul’s second
epistle to the Corinthians, where he admonishes fellow Christians to give gen-
erously in support of the community of apostles in Jerusalem.52 For these gifts,
he uses the word eulogia, which, from its original meaning of “fine language”
or “praise” in classical literature, came to acquire a different meaning in the
Bible:53

The point is this: he who sows sparingly sparingly will reap, and he who
sows in blessings/gifts in blessings/gifts will reap (ὁ σπείρων ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις
ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις καὶ θερίσει). [Let] everyone [do this] as he has decided in his
heart, not with grief or under compulsion: for God loves a cheerful giver.
(…) In every way [you are] enriched [by God] for every generosity, which
through us produces thanksgiving to God.54

50  Raven, “Power/Interaction and Interpersonal Influence”, p. 220.

51  Seminally formulated in this way by Mauss, Essai sur le don, for pre-modern societies in
general; recently confirmed in Osteen, The Question of the Gift, also specifically for classi-
cal Antiquity.
52  Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, p. 337.
53  Liddell, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. εὐλογία.
54  τοῦτο δέ, ὁ σπείρων φειδομένως φειδομένως καὶ θερίσει, καὶ ὁ σπείρων ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις
καὶ θερίσει. ἕκαστος καθὼς προῄρηται τῇ καρδίᾳ, μὴ ἐκ λύπης ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης· ἱλαρὸν γὰρ δότην ἀγαπᾷ
164 de Leeuw

Through this passage, Paul coined eulogia, along with its Latin (benedictio)
and Syriac (bûrkthâ) pendants as Christian words for a “blessing”, or a “(divine)
gift”, with a “rich semantic field for further development”.55
In the context of late-antique religious politics, the terminology of “bless-
ings” enabled clerics to represent their gifts as a legitimate tool to exercise in-
fluence. This blend of the sphere of “commerce and treasure with the sphere of
religion [which] now strikes us as a joining of incompatibles so inappropriate
as to seem almost an off-color joke” was not at all felt to be inappropriate to
the late-antique observer, as Peter Brown shows.56 In this case, naming mate-
rial gifts blessings emphasized and enhanced the appeal to reciprocity while
it downplayed the function as a reward resource of an ordinary gift. The ter-
minology also denies the self-interest of the donor: as a blessing could only
originate from the Almighty, the cleric who presented the blessing to a recipi-
ent became an intermediary agent—just as he mediated between the heaven-
ly ruler and the rulers on earth when he gave his advice from his position of
parrhesia.
This has two consequences for the nature of the resource of influence that
a cleric employs by “blessing” someone with material gifts. First, he enhances
the quality of a gift, as a blessing fundamentally differs from the material items
that are normally exchanged in political transactions. By presenting an item as
a blessing, it gains an immaterial quality through its divine origin in addition to
or even altogether replacing its material value. This could turn even an object
of little material value such as a loaf of bread into an object of great (spiritual)
worth.57 The second and probably even more important change is the transfer
of the status of donor from the cleric, who now acts as an intermediary with
divine approval, to God. This shift not only diminishes the cleric’s personal role
and involvement in the attempt to exercise influence, which, as we have seen,
could be considered problematic. It also enforces the power of reciprocity and
adds position power to the interaction. The recipient of a blessing can hardly
refuse to return the favour: that would be to refuse fulfilling an obligation due
to God himself. In fact, the blessing serves as an appeal to the recipient to be
generous in return for his having received a blessing, in accordance with Paul’s
words. And what better way to return the favour than to do what the cleric, the

ὁ θεός. (…) ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόμενοι εἰς πᾶσαν ἁπλότητα, ἥτις κατεργάζεται δι’ ἡμῶν εὐχαριστίαν τῷ
θεῷ· 2 Cor 9:6–7, 11, trans. Caner with adaptations by the author.
55  Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, p. 338.
56  Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, pp. 84–5.
57  Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, pp. 340–52.
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 165

intermediary and executor of the divine will, expects the recipient to do? Thus,
the cleric’s (societal) position becomes irrelevant to the recipient, as God him-
self calls upon him by granting him a blessing. Finally, this also implies that
the cleric who passes on the blessing enjoys divine support: God would not
distribute his blessings through those who are unworthy.
Of course, both the Alexandrian and the Nestorian parties were certain they
had God on their side as they competed for imperial power to support their
doctrinal cause. But in addition to this prerequisite, Cyril employed the riches
of the Alexandrian patriarchal see to give substance to the divine favour he
enjoyed. The gifts he richly bestowed on the Constantinopolitan courtiers in
exchange for their support were tailored to their wishes and expectations. The
furniture that was shipped to the capital as a blessing from Alexandria was
meant to be displayed, as it attested to the fact that the recipient had been
blessed. Nestorius and his ally Irenaeus complained about Cyril’s unorthodox—
from their perspective in the literal sense of the word—approach, but Cyril’s
blessings proved to be effective, perhaps even decisive, in guaranteeing his
doctrinal victory. His blessings allowed Cyril to participate in the world of
late-antique politics in which the exchange of money and gifts played such an
important role. By naming his bribes blessings, Cyril circumvented objections
that the use of gifts in the political sphere had for late-antique clerics, while
he simultaneously upgraded his resources and legitimized his actions. Thus,
despite Nestorius’ complaints, Cyril’s terminology successfully redefined the
rules for what was allowed in the theological-ecclesiastical competition for
Theodosius’ favour.

4 Further Blessings: Flavian and Chrysaphius

Cyril exploited the openness of the term “blessing” to his advantage to redefine
the norms of what was considered legitimate influence on the emperor by a
cleric. A counterpart to Cyril’s use of blessings can show that this semantic
flexibility could also be put to use in the other direction for religious-political
ends, that is by narrowing down the definition of a blessing. The case in point
concerns a conflict in Constantinople some fifteen years after the Council of
Ephesus—admittedly not (directly) over imperial favour—that is of interest
because it also involved the use of blessings. In this case, a bishop disclaimed
his participation in the (common) exchange of material gifts, thereby placing
the opposing party’s request for costly gifts in an illegitimate light. As we have
already seen in passing, a blessing from the Church could be anything, from
166 de Leeuw

as simple a thing as a loaf of bread to a pound of gold. It was exactly this flex-
ibility of the term that Flavian, bishop of Constantinople in the later years of
Theodosius’ reign (446–449), exploited.
When Flavian was appointed bishop in the capital, he received a re-
quest from Theodosius’ most influential minister in those years, the eunuch
Chrysaphius who served as praepositus sacri cubiculi from 443,58 to send bless-
ings, eulogiai, to the emperor. That is, at least, what the 9th-century Chronicle
of Theophanes Confessor tells us:

In this year [i.e., 447/8] Chrysaphius, a eunuch who exercised power

over the palace and the emperor Theodosios and who was jealous of
Flavian for his ordination, suggested to the emperor, who was quite in-
nocent and staying in Chalcedon, that he should instruct the patriarch
[of Constantinople] to send him eulogiai on the occasion of his appoint-
ment. So Flavian sent him pure loaves by way of eulogiai. But Chrysaphius
sent these back, declaring [falsely] that the emperor wanted eulogiai of
gold. The bishop stated in reply that he did not have any money to send
‘unless I use some of the sacred vessels’.59

The use of the term eulogiai in Theophanes’ Chronicle here likely reflects the
original use of the term in his 5th- or 6th-century sources.60 These (orthodox)
sources were strongly biased against Chrysaphius (as was Theophanes him-
self), who was claimed to have supported Eutyches’ monophysite heresy and
to have ruined the Roman state out of self-interest when he controlled the
spineless Theodosius and governed in his name. His continuing feud against
Flavian, which began with this incident, resulted in the bishop’s deposition
and replacement by Eutyches in 449. Apart from associating him with heretics,

58  P LRE 2, Chrysaphius qui et Ztummas, pp. 295–7.

59  Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει Χρυσάφιος εὐνοῦχος τοῦ τε παλατίου καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως Θεοδοσίου κρατῶν, τῇ
Φλαβιανοῦ χειροτονίᾳ φθονήσας, ὑπέθετο τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀκάκῳ ὄντι καὶ εἰς Χαλκηδόνα διάγοντι
δηλῶσαι τῷ πατριάρχῃ ἀποστεῖλαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς χειροτονίας εὐλογίας. ὁ δὲ Φλαβιανὸς καθαροὺς
ἄρτους ἀπέστειλεν εὐλογίας. ὁ δὲ Χρυσάφιος ἀποστρέψας ταύτας ἐδήλωσε χρυσᾶς εὐλογίας ζητεῖν
τὸν βασιλέα. ὁ δὲ ἐπίσκοπος ἀντεδήλου μὴ ἔχειν χρήματα ἀποστεῖλαι, εἰ μή τισι χρήσομαι τῶν ἱερῶν
σκευῶν. Theophanes, Chronographia AM 5940, trans. Mango/Scott. Evagrius, Historia
ecclesiastica II.2 recounts the same story, but in less detail, and without using the term
eulogiai. If indeed the exploitation of the term eulogia is to be ascribed to Flavian or his
supporters, we might speculate that the absence of this word in Evagrius reflects his use
of sources that were more favourable to Chrysaphius than those Theophanes used. Caner,
“Towards a Miraculous Economy”, pp. 352–60 also discusses the passage from Theophanes,
which he analyses as outright “abuse of the ideal (of a blessing)” by Chrysaphius.
60  Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy” p. 352 n. 85.
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 167

sources also defamed Chrysaphius by playing out the entire spectre of slander
that late-antique authors could topically employ against eunuchs,61 avarice
being one characteristic typically ascribed to them.62 It is against this back-
ground, then, that we should interpret our passage from Theophanes, whose
implication is clearly that the eulogiai Chrysaphius asks of Flavian should par-
tially, if not entirely, benefit the praepositus himself.
Chrysaphius’ initial request that Flavian send eulogiai to the emperor at the
moment he obtained the episcopal see was not as outrageous as it might seem:
for the 6th century, at least, price lists are transmitted that specify how much
a new bishop had to pay to the emperor on acceding to a particular see.63 By
asking Flavian for blessings—if indeed this happened exactly as Theophanes
recounts—Chrysaphius must have expected to receive some monetary gifts
from the very start; he might, indeed, have used the term “blessings” not to
compromise the cleric Flavian by straightforwardly asking a cleric to pay his
fee for reaching the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Constantinople.
Flavian, however, did not play along: rather, by sending loaves as blessings,
he exploited the openness of the term eulogiai, which could, indeed, apply
to something as simple as a loaf of bread.64 Thus, Flavian appeared to naive-
ly bypass Chrysaphius’ expectations, while his understanding of a blessing
simultaneously proved his own humility. On the basis of the evidence from
Theophanes only, we cannot tell whether it had been Flavian’s own intent to
outmanoeuvre Chrysaphius or whether this was projected onto the episode by
sources hostile to the eunuch and favourable to the bishop. In any case, after
Flavian had downtuned the blessings to bread, Chrysaphius’ reaction hardly
appeared legitimate. By rejecting the bread and straightforwardly asking for
gold, his avaricious intentions are unveiled: Flavian’s humble definition of a
blessing had sidelined Chrysaphius, who now seemed to be extorting money
from the Church instead of asking the bishop for his due fee.

5 Conclusion

Where Cyril, for his political purposes, had stretched the meaning of a “bless-
ing” to include and upgrade his material gifts as a resource of influence, Flavian
disqualified the request of Chrysaphius and emphasized his own humility by

61  See n. 21 above.

62  Guyot, Eunuchen, pp. 165–6.
63  Novellae 123.3 and 16, with Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire pp. 163–4.
64  See pp. 163–4 above.
168 de Leeuw

using a narrower understanding of a blessing. In making these points, this

paper hopes to have shown how (parts of) the models by Raven and Simmel
can be used (in combination) to analyse discourses of late-antique religious
politics. Simmel’s conception of competition can help us describe late-antique
conflicts between clerics adhering to different doctrines of Christianity that
vied for imperial favour. Most significantly, it allows us to see how competing
parties presupposed that the means to exercise influence were restricted by
certain rules, which could be (re)defined in order to further one’s own cause
or to bring that of the other into disrepute. Additionally, the Power/Interaction
model of Interpersonal Influence draws attention to an actor’s considerations
in exercising influence—mostly concerns of legitimacy, in this paper—and
provides a tool to differentiate and evaluate resources of influence.
Of course, in using these theories, one has to be wary of over-rationalising
the intentions and aims of the historical persons under survey, which we can
reconstruct only with a large degree of uncertainty. To return to the subject
of this paper: it can only be speculated as to where on a scale of political ra-
tionalism Cyril’s use of blessings stands, with pragmatic Machiavellianism at
the one end and a heartfelt belief in the bishop’s intermediating power at the
other. However, our sources do allow us to make assumptions on how Cyril
or his opponents—or the two parties in any late-antique religious-political
conflict—aimed to present their intentions, as it affected how they expressed
themselves. It is the discourse of such conflict that we may analyse, and this
discourse determines how people later decide on who was right and who was
wrong: Cyril’s gifts, in (the orthodox version of) the end, outbid the cause of
Nestorius and secured that his learnings and legacy never lost their imperial
blessing.

Bibliography

Primary Sources
Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, ed. E. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumeni­
corum I.1.1–5, Berlin 1927.
Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 51–110, trans. J.I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria (The fa-
thers of the Church, 77), Washington 1987.
Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. A. Hübner, Historia ecclesi­
astica vol. 1 (Fontes Christiani, 57.1), Turnhout 2007.
Gerontius, Life of Melania the Younger, ed. and trans. D. Gorce, Vie de Sainte Mélanie
(Sources Chrétiennes, 90), Paris 1962.
Buying Imperial Favour: Cyril of Alexandria’s Blessings 169

Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 26, ed. and trans. J. Mossey, Grégoire de Nazianze:
Discours 24–26 (Sources Chrétiennes, 284), Paris 1981.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Autobiographical Poems, ed. and trans. C. White, Cambridge
1996.
Marc the Deacon, Life of Saint Porphyry of Gaza, ed. and trans. A. Lampadaridi, La con­
version de Gaza au christianisme (Subsidia hagiographica, 95), Brussels 2016.
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides, trans. G.R. Driver/L. Hodgson, Liber Heraclidis,
Oxford 1925 (also consulted online: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.
htm#Bazaar_of_Heracleides).
Novellae constitutiones, eds. R. Schöll/W. Kroll, Corpus iuris civilis vol. 3: Novellae, Berlin
1954.
Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom, eds. and trans. A.-M. Malingrey/
P. Leclercq, Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome 2 vols. (Sources Chrétiennes,
341–342), Paris 1988.
Rusticus, Synodicum, ed. E. Schwartz, Collectio Casinensis (Acta conciliorum oecume­
nicorum, I.4), Berlin 1922–23.
Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia
vol. 1: Textum Graecum continens, Leipzig 1883; trans. C. Mango/R. Scott, The Chro­
nicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern history, A.D. 284–813,
Oxford 1997.

Secondary Literature
Batiffol, P.H., “Les présents de Saint Cyrille à la cour de Constantinople”, Bulletin d’an­
cienne littérature et d’archéologie chrétienne 1 (1911), pp. 247–64.
Bond, S.E., “The Corrupting Sea: Law, Violence and Compulsory Professions in Late
Antiquity”, in R. Kroeze/A. Vitória/G. Geltner (eds.), Anticorruption in History: From
Antiquity to the Modern Era, Oxford 2017, pp. 49–61.
Brown, P., Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of
Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD, Princeton 2012.
Brown, P., Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire, Madison
1992.
Caner, D.F., “Towards a Miraculous Economy: Christian Gifts and Material ‘Blessings’ in
Late Antiquity”, JECS 14.3 (2006), pp. 329–77.
Elm, S., “The Dog that Did Not Bark: Doctrine and Patriarchal Authority in the Conflict
between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom of Constantinople”, in
L. Ayres/G. Jones (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community,
London 1998, pp. 68–93.
Ferreiro, A., Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Traditions, Leiden
2005.
170 de Leeuw

Guyot, P., Eunuchen als Sklaven und Freigelassene in der griechisch-römischen Antike,
Stuttgart 1980.
Hess, H., The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, New York
2002.
Huebner, S.R., “Currencies of Power: The Venality of Offices in the Later Roman
Empire”, in A. Cain/N. Lenski (eds.), The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, Farnham
2009, pp. 167–80.
Kelly, C., Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, Massachusetts 2005.
Krismanek, H.-B., Das Briefkorpus Kyrills von Alexandrien als Quelle des antiken
Mönchtums. Kirchenpolitik, Christologie und Pastoral (Patrologia. Beiträge zum
Studium der Kirchenväter, 24), Frankfurt am Main 2010.
Liddell, H.G./Scott, R./Jones, H.S., A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1940.
MacMullen, R., Voting About God in Early Church Councils, New Haven 2006.
MacMullen, R., Corruption and the Decline of Rome, New Haven 1988.
Mauss, M., “Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés achaïques”,
L’Année sociologique (1923–24), pp. 31–186.
Millar, F., A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–50),
Berkeley 2006.
Osteen, M., The Question of the Gift: Essays Across Disciplines, London 2002.
Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of
Transition (The transformation of the classical heritage, 37), Berkeley 2005.
Raven, B.H., “The Bases of Power and the Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal
Influence”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 8.1 (2008), pp. 1–22.
Raven, B.H., “Power/Interaction and Interpersonal Influence: Experimental Investi­
gations and Case Studies”, in A.Y. Lee-Chai/J.A. Bargh (eds.), The Use and Abuse
of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption, Philadelphia 2001,
pp. 217–40.
Rist, J., “Kirchenpolitik und/oder Bestechung: Die Geschenke des Kyrill von Alexandrien
and den kaiserlichen Hof”, in M. Vinzent (ed.), Studia Patristica vol. 16 (From the
Fifth Century Onwards), Leuven 2013, pp. 51–9.
Rollason, N.K., Gifts of Clothing in Late Antique Literature, London 2016.
Scholten, H., Der Eunuch in Kaisernähe. Zur politischen und sozialen Bedeutung des
praepositus sacri cubiculi im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Frankfurt am Main 1995.
Schulz, F., “Beyond the veil: Athanasius at Constans’ court”, forthcoming.
Simmel, G., “Soziologie der Konkurrenz“, Neue Deutsche Rundschau 14 (1903), pp. 1009–
1023 (consulted online: http://socio.ch/sim/soziologie/soz_4.htm, 4 April 2019).
Stevenson, W., “The Rise of Eunuchs in Greco-Roman Antiquity”, JHSex 5 (1995),
pp. 495–511.
Watson, T.W., The Rhetoric of Corruption in Late Antiquity, diss. University of California,
Riverside 2010.