“Diagnosing Heresy: Ps.-Martyrius’s Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom” Journal of Early Christian Studies 24.3 (Fall 2016): 395-418.

'LDJQRVLQJ+HUHV\3V0DUW\ULXV·V)XQHUDU\6SHHFKIRU-RKQ&KU\VRVWRP -HQQLIHU%DUU\ -RXUQDORI(DUO\&KULVWLDQ6WXGLHV9ROXPH1XPEHU)DOOSS $UWLFOH 3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV )RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH Access provided by Drew University Library (27 Aug 2016 19:14 GMT) Diagnosing Heresy: Ps.-Martyrius’s Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom JENNIFER BARRY John Chrysostom died ignominiously as an exiled and condemned heretic. Yet, early biographers worked to reverse his reputation and transformed John into a symbol of Christian orthodoxy. In this essay, I examine how one such biographer, Ps.-Martyrius, managed this task through the language of proper diagnosis. In his Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, Ps.-Martyrius differ- entiates the symptoms of the disease of heresy from the symptoms of righteous suffering. To make his case, Ps.-Martyrius compares John’s symptoms, through reference to the lesioned bodies of the Constantinopolitan leper community, to the fecund and cursed body of the Empress Eudoxia. Ps.-Martyrius’s diagnosis concludes that John’s suffering through conspicuous exile conveyed honor and orthodoxy, while Eudoxia’s embedded and hidden maladies reflected her culpability as the bearer of lies. Despite John Chrysostom’s legacy as the “Doctor of the Church,” many of his contemporaries dealt with the embarrassing reality that he died a condemned heretic while in exile. Shortly after the news of Chrysostom’s death reached his supporters in Constantinople in 407 c.e., Ps.-Martyrius penned an ardent defense of the ill-fated bishop under the guise of a funer- ary speech. Ps.-Martyrius’s Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom avoids customary conventions, however, and instead makes ample use of medical themes and retributive theology to restore John’s reputation as an orthodox I wish to say thank you to several people for their invaluable feedback at vari- ous stages in the making of this article, especially Virginia Burrus, Kristi Upson-Saia, Heidi Marx-Wolf, Chris Frilingos, Andrew Jacobs, David Brakke, and Richard Flower. Journal of Early Christian Studies 24:3, 395–418 © 2016 Johns Hopkins University Press 396 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES bishop.1 With the aid of these tropes, he provides striking examples of diseased bodies that differentiate between punitive and righteous suffer- ing. These suffering bodies highlight and clarify for his readers how John’s experience must be interpreted. To analyze this text, I trace two illnesses discussed by Ps.-Martyrius: first, I explore Eudoxia’s many-headed illness (νόσημα πολυκέφαλος), which manifests itself in her second miscarriage and resulting death. This striking story reveals how the divine deals with those involved with John’s expul- sion. Second, I note Ps.-Martyrius’s tangential discussion on the sacred disease (ἱερὰ νόσος), which emphasizes John’s affiliation with the ostracized leper community. This seemingly innocuous story reminds readers of the difficulty posed by proper diagnosis; namely, even when illness is clearly visible, its cause is easily misunderstood. In this text, I argue, proper diag- nosis of John’s exile is essential to Ps.-Martyrius’s efforts to rehabilitate John’s memory.2 Why John suffers is paramount to his legacy as either a heretic or saint. PS.-MARTYRIUS’S FUNERARY SPEECH An unnamed supporter of John composed the Funerary Speech soon after the bishop’s death in 407 c.e.3 The text appears to be originally composed 1. For a discussion on the peculiar style of the text, see Timothy David Barnes and George Bevan, Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, Translated Texts for Historians 60 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014), 6. 2. The use of medical language is not unusual as the city of Constantinople was an epicenter for medical practice and innovation in late antiquity. In the 1980s, Byz- antine scholars gathered at Dumbarton Oaks to counter prevailing claims made by medical historians that Byzantine medicine was insignificant. See John Scarborough, ed., Symposium on Byzantine Medicine, DOP 38 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1985). Contrary to such assumptions, the sympo- sium produced a plethora of evidence that pointed to Byzantium as a dominant con- tributor to medical innovation as well as a major reason why many ancient medical texts survive. Galen’s commentaries on the Hippocratic Corpus, for example, were quite popular. See in particular, Vivian Nutton, “From Galen to Alexander: Aspects of Medicine and Medical Practice in Late Antiquity” DOP 38 (1985): 1–14. As Nutton attests, following O. Temkin, rational medicine was the dominant practice as both empirical and methodical schools were increasingly overshadowed in late antiquity. See also Owsei Temkin, “Byzantine Medicine: Tradition and Empiricism,” DOP 16 (1962): 97–115. 3. For a recent English translation and a revised argument over the dating of the text, see Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom. In this essay, the Greek is drawn from the critical edition of Martin Wallraff, ed., Ps.-Martyrius: Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi (Ps.-Martyrius Antiochenus, BHG  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 397 as a speech that was later edited and circulated.4 While the literary con- ventions are hardly consistent with any particular genre, it is clear that the goal of Ps.-Martyrius’s text is to laud John’s efforts to promote and to preserve orthodoxy in spite of the embarrassing reality that the bishop suffered and died in exile as a heretic.5 Specifically, John’s reputation as an orthodox bishop became the intense focus of a Johannite faction immediately after his death. John was not only embroiled in the Trinitarian controversies surrounding “Arianism,” but was also posthumously connected with the growing Origenist controversy of the later fourth and early fifth centuries.6 The controversy, however, was relatively short-lived.7 John’s name was restored to the diptychs in 418 c.e. 871, CPG 6517), Quaderni della Rivista di Bizantinistica 12 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, 2007). An Italian translation by C. Ricci is helpfully appended to Walraff’s text. All English translations are from Barnes and Bevan unless otherwise noted. 4. T. D. Barnes, “The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom (BHG3 871 = CPG 6517),” SP 37 (2001): 332–34, argues that the author is a deacon by the name of Cosmas, although this is contested and the pseudonym Pseudo-Martyrius remains the key identifier of the author; Wallraff, in his introduction, argues the author is Philip of Side (Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, 17). Barnes and Bevan reject Wallraff’s theory, however, and with admitted reservation follow Barnes’s earlier theory (Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, 6–8). I have chosen to use the accepted nomenclature of Ps.-Martyrius. 5. For a discussion on the inconsistency of episcopal exile, see Eric Fournier, “Exile Bishops in the Christian Empire: Victims of Imperial Violence?” in Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices, ed. H. A. Drake (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 157–66; cf. Daniel Washburn, Banishment in the Later Roman Empire, 284– 476 C.E. (New York: Routledge, 2013), 47. The making of orthodoxy is a fragile process that was by no means a finished one in the late fourth and early fifth centu- ries. The discursive nature of exile makes us aware of how the theological discourse and rhetoric of orthodoxy and heresy adapt themselves to the phenomenal instability of this historical moment. For an in-depth exploration of these processes, see Jenni- fer Barry, “Bishops in Flight: The Discourse of Exile in Late Antiquity” (PhD diss., Drew University, 2013), 19–29. 6. For a comprehensive evaluation of the Origenist controversy, see Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992). For a recent examination of Palladius’s involvement in the controversy as it pertains to his Dialogue, see Deme- trios S. Katos, Palladius of Helenopolis: The Origenist Advocate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 7. See Wendy Mayer, “Media Manipulation as a Tool in Religious Conflict: Con- trolling the Narrative Surrounding the Deposition of John Chrysostom,” in Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam, ed. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 151–68. See also Geoffrey Dunn, “The Date of Innocent I’s Epistula 12 and the Second Exile of John 398 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES and his body was returned to Constantinople in 438 c.e.8 Although the controversy was quickly resolved, the discursive politics involved in the battle over the correct reception of John’s exile point to a larger dilemma: episcopal exile was not always a clear indicator of orthodoxy. To frame his defense of John’s orthodoxy, Ps.-Martyrius rhetorically connects John to one of the most famous biblical examples of righteous suffering, namely, Job, whose story is a consistent backdrop in this text. Ps.-Martyrius maps Job’s narrative onto Chrysostom’s story in order to alert his readers that they may have misperceived the cause of John’s suf- fering, as those around Job likewise did. In order to prove his righteous- ness, as well as the righteousness of his followers, John too must undergo a painful trial. The bishop of Constantinople was exiled two times. His first exile took place in September/October of 403 c.e. and the second in June of 404 c.e. As many of John’s more recent biographers have noted, despite the large amount of evidence circulating around the events that led up to John’s exiles, there is no clear and discernible cause.9 Nonetheless, it is evident that the events leading up to John’s two exiles were driven by his controversial election as bishop in 397 c.e. After the death of Nectarius, many vied for the position as the ruling patriarch. John is said to have been secretly elected by the young emperor Arcadius—or, as J. N. D. Kelly insists, John was appointed under the influence of Eutropius.10 However, as Wendy Mayer aptly points out, John’s election was hardly incidental and was steeped in a long history of conciliar politics. Tensions arose once it Chrysostom” GRBS 45 (2005): 155–70; Martin Wallraff, “Tod im Exil: Reaktionen auf die Todesnachrict des Johannes Chrysostomos und Konstituierung einer ‘johannit- schen’ Opposition,” in Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten der Wirkungs- geschichte eines Kirchenvaters, ed. Martin Wallraff and Rudolph Brändle, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 23–37. 8. For an up to date assessment of the debate over the schism, see Peter Van Nuffelen, “Palladius and the Johannite Schism,” JEH 64 (2013): 1–19. 9. Part of the problem appears to be the amount of sources available to the histo- rian. Both Wendy Mayer and Geoffrey Dunn have argued convincingly that the surplus of evidence reveals a struggle between Johannite and anti-Johannite camps in Con- stantinople soon after John’s departure and for a few years after his death (see n.7). 10. Kelly defers to Sozomen’s narrative of the infamous eunuch and superinten- dent to the sacred bedchamber (J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995], 105–6). Claudian also composes a scathing poem about Eutropius’s questionable con- duct in Against Eutropius; cf. Jacqueline Long, Claudian’s In Eutropium: Or, How, When, and Why to Slander a Eunuch (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996).  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 399 was clear that John would remain actively involved in Antiochene politics upon his election. For example, John proved to be an avid supporter of the leader of the pro-Nicene (specifically Meletian Nicene orthodoxy) faction in Antioch under the leadership of bishop Flavian. The history behind this controversial endorsement linked Constantinople to Alexandria through a long-standing rivalry in Antioch.11 It is unsurprising then that one of the two chief enemies in Ps.-Martyrius’s text is the infamous Theophilus of Alexandria. Ps.-Martyrius narrates for his readers Theophilus’s belabored efforts to bring about John’s expulsion. Theophilus enlists the help of known enemies of John, who accuse the bishop of all manner of evils, the worst of which is the “false charge of heresy.”12 Here Ps.-Martyrius refers to John’s protection of the so-called Tall Brothers who are involved in what later became the Origenist con- troversy.13 The threat heresy poses is its ability to spread easily; even a brief exposure could result in contamination.14 In this text, John’s enemies imply he is culpable by association and his failure to appear at the Synod of the Oak ensures a guilty verdict. For the purposes of this essay, the oration also provides us with further insight into the growing condemnation of the Empress Eudoxia, who 11. Wendy Mayer, “John Chrysostom as Bishop: The View from Antioch,” JEH 55 (2004): 455–66. 12. Orat. funeb. 43 (Wallraff, 94; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 63). Palladius also discusses them in Dial. 6.41–139; cf. Socrates, Hist. eccl. 6.7.27–29; Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 8.12.2. 13. The so-called Tall Brothers were a group of monks from Egypt excommu- nicated by Theophilus on the charge of heresy. For a more detailed assessment of Theophilus’s involvement in John’s exile, see Peter van Nuffelen, who discusses Palla- dius’s report of Theophilus’s involvement (“Palladius and the Johannite schism”). For a discussion of Theophilus’s role in John’s exile in Ps.-Martyrius’s account, see Peter van Nuffelen, “Theophilus Against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost Liber and the Reasons for John’s Deposition,” Adamantius 19 (2013): 138–55, as well as Sussana Elm, “The Dog That Did Not Bark: Doctrine and Patriarchal Authority in the Conflict Between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom of Constanti- nople,” in Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community, ed. Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (London: Routledge, 1998), 68–93. 14. For example, John’s involvement in the Gaïnas affair also plays a definitive role leading up to his first exile. Gaïnas, a Gothic “Arian” general commanding troops in and around Constantinople, appeals to the Emperor Arcadius in an effort to secure the right to worship inside the city limits. Although known elsewhere as a “barbar- ian,” Ps.-Martyrius labels Gaïnas as an Arian bent on invading and infecting the city with heresy. John’s success in convincing Arcadius to refuse Gaïnas is presented as a win for Nicene orthodoxy. See Orat. funeb. 24–26. The account is also mentioned in Socrates, Hist. eccl. 8.7 and Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 6.5. 400 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES appears to have played a critical role in John’s expulsion. As we will come to see, Ps.-Martyrius exploits Eudoxia’s two miscarriages and eventual death in childbirth in order to link her to a long tradition of persecuting emperors and the most infamous of heretics. Her fecund body comes under sharp scrutiny as Ps.-Martyrius prescribes for his readers the importance of proper diagnosis and perception of hidden illnesses. RETRIBUTIVE LITERATURE AND DISEASE In his article, “Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom,” T. D. Barnes addresses Ps.-Martyrius’s choice of an imperial literary foil.15 He notes a standard schema used to describe rulers who persecute the faithful: the persecutor is afflicted by a painful illness, worms consume him, and then, in pain, he acknowledges his error and is permitted to die. The deaths of Antiochus IV of Syria (2 Macc 9.5–28) and King Herod Agrippa serve as popular models within Jewish texts. For example, in Flavius Josephus’s War of the Jews, we find a detailed description of Herod’s untimely end: After this, the distemper seized upon his whole body, and greatly disordered all its parts with various symptoms; for there was a gentle fever upon him, an intolerable itching over all the surface of his body, continual pains in his colon . . . and a putrefaction of his privy member, that produced worms . . . when he sat upright, and had a convulsion of all his members . . . the diviners said those diseases were a punishment upon him for what he had done to the Rabbins.16 Elizabeth Castelli has also drawn attention to the use of this literary schema in later Christian invectives.17 In Lactantius’s On the Death of Persecuting Emperors, gruesome medical conditions are a frequent form of fantasti- cal retribution. Galerius, like the infamous Nero, set fire to the city and poorly chose to blame it on the Christians. Consequently, he suffered from a painful gastro-intestinal disease. Lactantius describes for his readers how the cancerous ulcer slowly rots away the emperor’s intestines: As the marrow was assailed, the infection was forced inwards, and got hold of his internal organs; worms were born inside him. The smell pervaded 15. Barnes, “Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom,” 336. 16. Josephus, War of the Jews 1.33.5 (trans. W. Whiston, The Works of Flavius Jose- phus: Complete and Unabridged [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989], 656). 17. Elizabeth Castelli, “Religious Identity through the Prism of Spectacle in Early Christianity,” unpublished talk presented at the Symposium on Identity in Late Antiq- uity, Duke University, 2009. I am grateful to Elizabeth Castelli for allowing me access to a draft of this talk.  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 401 not just the palace but the whole city; and this was not surprising, since the channels for his urine and excrement were now confused with each other. He was consumed by worms, and his body dissolved and rotted amid insupportable pain.18 The pain is so excruciating, Lactantius reports, that it compels the emperor to cry out to God that “he would restore the temple of God and make satisfaction for his crime.”19 It is only after he repeals Christians from fur- ther persecution that his disease finally eases into death. Here, Lactantius carefully dissects the body of the persecutor to display before his readers the internal corruption of the tyrant. Each detail penetrates the reader’s senses: we hear the guilty cry out; we smell the bodily decay; and finally, we see their insides burst forth in a display of their guilt. After the turn of the fourth century, retributive schemas and vivid depic- tions of human suffering and gore such as these surface in heresiological texts as well. As Ellen Muehlberger has noted, Arius’s illness and death was frequently commented upon.20 In his Letter to Serapion on the Death of Arius, Athanasius of Alexandria invokes similar execrable images to those described in Lactantius’s text. Only moments before Arius is sup- posed to be received back into communion with the Church, Athanasius gleefully reports: A wonderful and extraordinary circumstance took place . . . Arius, who had great confidence in Eusebius and his fellows, and talked very wildly, [was] urged by the necessities of nature [and] withdrew, and suddenly, in the language of Scripture, ‘falling headlong he burst open in the midst,’ and immediately expired as he lay, and was deprived both of communion and of his life together.21 18. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 33.6–8 (ed. J. Moreau, De la mort des persécuteurs, SC 39 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1954], 115; trans. J. L. Creed, De mor- tibus persecutorum [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984], 51). 19. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 33.11 (SC 39:51; trans. Creed, 53). 20. Muehlberger traces how the story of Arius’s death from the 360s on is coopted into different ancient historiographical projects. The very details of how and where Arius dies shifts in order to meet the needs of different Christian authors. For exam- ple, she compares Rufinus’s emphasis on the exposure of Arius’s shame in a public toilet (Hist. eccl. 10.14) with Socrates’s added spectacle of his death out in the open near the porphyry column (Hist. eccl. 1.38.7). See Ellen Muehlberger, “The Legend of Arius’ Death: Imagination, Space, and Filth in Late Ancient Historiography,” Past and Present 277 (2015): 8–10. I am grateful to Ellen Muehlberger for sharing an advance copy of her article and providing invaluable feedback on early drafts of this paper. 21. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion On the Death of Arius 3 (ed. H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, vol. 2.1 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1940], 178–80; trans. NPNF (second series) 4:564–65). Arius’s death is also reported in Socrates, Hist. eccl. 1.38.7. Epipha- nius also describes Arius death in Panarion 68.6.9 with reference to Judas as well. 402 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES The phrase “burst open” (ἐλάκησεν) used here links Arius to Judas Iscariot’s death in Acts 1.18, which reads, “Now this man [Judas] obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines gushed out.” Both Arius and Judas Iscariot are deprived of mercy and their bodies are unable to contain the error within them. Furthermore, their corrupted bodies are cut off from communion with the Church. Heresy, imagined as a disease, was a popular concept that flourished after the second half of the fifth century.22 These Christian etiologies of heresy proved to be an effective means of identifying the impious and reimagin- ing how the enemies of God were punished.23 Moreover, by overlapping the medical with the theological, Christian authors helped their readers to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. This growing trend took a troubling turn once the pregnant body of a persecuting empress became the target of Christian invective. Ps.-Martyrius’s description of Eudoxia’s punishment for her involvement in John’s two exiles makes this link all the more clear. EUDOXIA As Wendy Mayer has noted, the Empress Eudoxia remains an infamous character within Christian memory.24 While Eudoxia’s involvement in 22. See, for example, John Rufus, Plerophories 26, 40, 65. Other scholars have noted an earlier link between the rhetoric of psychagogy in philosophical traditions and medical imagery in New Testament texts. This connection treating diseased souls appears to underline much of what Christian authors view as the corruptive nature of heresy. See Abraham Malherbe, “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers in Honor of Stuart Dickson Currie, ed. W. Eugene March (San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1980), 19–35; Martha Nussbaum, “Therapeutic Arguments: Epicurus and Aris- totle,” in The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics, ed. Malcolm Schofield and Gisela Striker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 31–74. 23. For a discussion on the infection of worms in tyrants, see Thomas Africa, “Worms and the Death of Kings,” Classical Antiquity 1 (1982): 1–17. The most famous etiology of heresies is, of course, found in Epiphanius of Salamis’s Panarion, in which he lists heresies and prescribes cures. For a recent discussion of the overlap of heresy and disease, see Peter Mena, “Insatiable Appetites: Epiphanius of Salamis and the Making of the Heretical Villain,” SP 67 (2013): 257–64; cf. Richard Flower, “Genealogies of Unbelief: Epiphanius of Salamis and Heresiological Authority,” in Unclassical Traditions, Volume II: Perspectives from East and West in Late Antiq- uity, ed. Christopher Kelly, Richard Flower, and Michael Stuar Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 70–87. 24. Wendy Mayer, “Doing Violence to the Image of an Empress: The Destruction of Eudoxias Reputation,” in Drake, Violence in Late Antiquity, 205–13. The empress’s  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 403 John’s first exile is not discussed in detail in Ps.-Martyrius’s text, one pre- sumes the empress is at least complicit with the imperial strength used to ensure John’s initial departure from the city. It is only from other biographi- cal sketches, however, that we learn more about her particular influence. The fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen, for instance, claim Eudoxia called for John’s second exile after an inflammatory sermon he gave chastising the empress.25 Later Byzantine lives, however, state John’s criticism of the empress’s confiscation of a poor widow’s vineyard is what prompted her actions (a clear link to Jezebel).26 Barnes and Bevan have recently suggested that the strife between the empress and John actually arose from John’s sharp critique of imperial politics—especially as they related to the treatment and subsequent execution of the powerful eunuch Eutropius in 399 c.e.27 Although both Eudoxia and Arcadius could easily play the role of perse- cuting despot in the funerary speech, Ps.-Martyrius focuses almost exclu- sively on Eudoxia. It remains to be seen why Ps.-Martyrius would favor an invective solely against the empress and not the emperor. Retributive literature frequently aligned punitive illness with male rulers.28 At first glance, we might assume that the woman with power is singled out because reputation is often marred by her perceived involvement in John’s exile. See also Wendy Mayer, “Constantinopolitan Women in Chrysostom’s Circle,” VC 53 (1999): 265–88. 25. Socrates equates Eudoxia with the infamous Herodias in John’s Gospel. He exclaims, “Herodias rages madly again, dances again and again seeks to receive the head of John on a platter” (Hist. eccl. 6.18.1–6). Ps.-Martyrius, however, favors the equally slanderous biblical type Jezebel. Sozomen’s records of the ill-fated speeches are found in Hist. eccl. 8.16, 20. 26. See Kenneth G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Domin- ion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 48–78. The link to Jezebel is discussed further below. 27. Barnes and Bevan go on to argue that this criticism appears to have put him at odds with the royal couple to such an extent that as a public sign of their rejec- tion of John’s authority, Arcadius and Eudoxia have their son Theodosius baptized by Severianus of Gabala, an event that later pro-Johannite sources omit entirely (Funer- ary Speech for John Chrysostom, 24–32). The link to children appears to support the message conveyed in this account. On the death of Jezebel’s children see n.32. 28. The notable exception is found in a much older source in Herodotus’s Histo- ries, in which he references the death of the Queen of Cyrene, Pheretime, whom the gods punish with a comparable disease. The gods target her because she used exces- sive force against her enemies. She impaled the chief instigators of her son’s murder and cut off the breasts of their wives. Herodotus notes, “Pheretime . . . died an evil death, having become suddenly full of worms while yet alive; for, as it seems, too severe punishments inflicted by men prove displeasing to the gods” (Hist., 4.205; trans. G. C. Macaulay, The History of Herodotus [London: MacMillan, 1890], 372). As we will soon see, Eudoxia’s body is also overcome with worms. 404 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES she fully embodies the role of the persecuting imperial figure. If we look closer, however, we soon see that her body contains a more grievous error and makes her experience akin to the fate of Arius. EUDOXIA’S ILL BODY In a charged moment of Ps.-Martyrius’s narration, John’s first exile ends immediately after Eudoxia’s miscarriage. The author explains: I will not willingly hide the symbol of the Lord’s anger at what was done . . . knowing that the root of all evil had been concealed (τῆς κακίας ἁπάσης ἡ ῥιζα ἀποκέκρυπται) in the woman who exercised power, [he then] released his hand. The arrow flew and hit the stomach of the wretched woman, reminding her and saying: ‘Woman, in pain will you give birth to children’ (Gen 3.16), sending them forth from your stomach straight to the grave, mixing with the first swaddling clothes the final burial shroud and becoming in one instant both a mother and childless.29 This striking passage reveals several details about John’s imperial enemy. First, the body of the empress is the explicit target of God’s anger. Her hus- band is not to blame and neither is the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus— at least not yet. Second, the arrow strikes her body and instantly kills the root of all evil within her.30 And finally, the episode ends with a damning reference to Eve’s curse. This revealing biblical link emphasizes that the empress’s body is predis- posed to error. Nosological treatises consistently stressed that the consti- tution of the patient determined a proper diagnosis.31 Both biological and 29. Orat. funeb. 66 (Wallraff, 122; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 77). The translation here has been altered for reasons I explain in greater detail below. Barnes and Bevan translate γαστρὸς as “womb,” but the most common term for womb in medical litera- ture is μήτρα or the uterus is ὑστέρα. Here, if we follow the retributive literature from which this text is drawing, then it should be translated as belly or stomach. Barnes and Bevan translate this term as stomach in other passages in the text. 30. Ps.-Martyrius here appeals to the classical trope of poisoned arrows from the gods. Divine beings were known to use poisoned arrows as punishment. Poisoned arrows are also an ambivalent symbol. They kill off many monsters in Greek myth, but they also injure innocent bystanders. For example, the death of the centaurs Chi- ron and Pholus are a frequent reference (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2.83–87). It appears that even the most powerful heroes and villains are vulnerable to poison- ous arrows. The most famous example is Hercules who kills and is killed by the poisonous arrows. For a popularized version of his death, see Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.134–272 and Heroides 9. 31. The Hippocratic author of Airs, Waters, Places, for instance, emphasizes the role that the constitution of the sufferer plays in diagnosis. See Airs, Waters, Places 9. According to Ps.-Martyrius, this predisposition appears to be the case with women who all fall under the curse of Eve.  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 405 external factors must be taken into account. In this instance, Eudoxia’s cursed body and the poisoned arrow results in a painful and deadly dis- ease that kills the evil growing inside her. Ps.-Martyrius certainly makes use of other typological links as well. Ps.- Martyrius frequently refers to Eudoxia as Jezebel (Orat. funeb. 3; 6; 138), the infamous matriarch of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who exiles the prophet Elijah (1 Kgs 19).32 This additional biblical link also further sup- ports the idea that Eudoxia promoted competitive Christian factions in and around Constantinople.33 Readers attuned to the biblical narrative might recall that her first son, Jehoram, died from an arrow wound (2 Kgs 9.19–21). It appears that the comparison was not lost on Ps.-Martyrius. Jezebel was a favored character deployed, if not by John himself, at least, by his biographers.34 Classical myths are interwoven into the text as well. The Homeric myth of Niobe, the queen of Thebes, was also familiar to Ps.-Martyrius’s readers. Ovid, for example, recounts how Niobe’s taunting of Leto draws down the wrath of the gods. Her children are subsequently hunted down and killed by the poisoned arrows of Apollo and Artemis.35 Both the hubris of nefarious women and the original mother’s curse place Eudoxia within a long line of deviant mothers. After she miscarries (and is sufficiently humbled), Eudoxia immediately calls for John’s return. She even attempts to personally reinstate him as the bishop of Constantinople. Yet John, Ps.-Martyrius insists, would not willingly take back his see without the consent of a council—the readers 32. Jezebel was a more threatening power than her husband Ahab and promoted the worship of the god Baal. For a discussion on Jezebel’s afterlife see, Tina Pippin, “Jezebel Re-Vamped,” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield, England: Bloomsbury, 1994), 196–206. For a description of the gendered pairing, see Phyllis Trible, “The Odd Couple: Elijah and Jezebel,” in Out of the Garden: Women Writers on the Bible, ed. Christina Büchmann and Celina Spie- gel (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994), 166–79, 340–41. The second miscarriage might also be linked to Jezebel’s daughter Athalia. The corrupt king of the southern kingdom, who is also named Jehoram, married Athalia. Athalia is also described as corrupt ruler, but it is her husband Jehoram who dies from a disease of the bowels. The disease described mirrors Eudoxia’s second miscarriage. Like Eudoxia, his bow- els are painfully expelled from his body (2 Chr 21.19–21). While Jezebel’s progeny die as adults, there may be a loose allusion here to Eudoxia’s supposed culpability as the mother of whores. 33. The empress’s alliances with bishop Arsacius (d. 405) and his successor Atticus (d. 423), John’s rivals, are frequently remarked upon throughout the text. 34. Mayer, “Image of the Empress,” 206–8. 35. See Ovid, Metamorphoses 6.146–312. These arrows were particularly deadly and resulted in a swift death. 406 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES are reminded that the empire does not hold any jurisdiction in matters of faith. It is only after an unnamed council clears John of Theophilus’s false charges that he agrees to return to his bishopric.36 Yet John’s return is only temporary. Ps.-Martyrius reports, “He [the Devil] caused the woman who wielded power to forget the earlier blow and introduced in its place a deep hatred, which was without any trouble, planting many lies through many mouths.”37 As forgetfulness sets in and the many lies take root in her second and last pregnancy, the empress calls for John’s second and last exile. John, for a final time, leaves Constantinople and, as Ps.-Martyrius nar- rates, the entire city suffers as a consequence. Bereft of its true father, the church is burned and, as Nathaniel Andrade has noted, all spiritual life departed from the city along with the bishop.38 With the city ablaze, father- less, and devoid of spirituality, Ps.-Martyrius turns his gaze once again to the fecund mother and says, “Another arrow of the Lord again hit the woman, no longer saying ‘in pain,’ but ‘in death, woman, shall you bear children’ (Gen 3.16).”39 Eve’s story is once again read through the body of the empress, but the root of evil is replaced with a horrific monstrosity. Unlike her previous crime, for which she was justly punished, this second pregnancy is significantly different. It is no longer the simple pride of a monarch or the stain of Eve’s disobedience that gestates within her, but an all-consuming excrescence that too must be pierced by another arrow. This second arrow, however, releases a powerful disease. Ps.-Martyrius remarks, “[The arrow] loosed against her a painful and many-headed illness (νόσημα πολυκέφαλος) that virtually spoke: ‘This is the finger of God.’”40 The arrow that strikes Eudoxia in the first instance only kills the 36. John is once again removed from his position on the grounds that a second council could not be lawfully adjudicated after an initial deposition has been made. Here Ps.-Martyrius cites a law instituted after Athanasius’s deposition thought to be carried over with Theophilus from Alexandria. For example, Canon 5 from the council of Nicaea states: “Concerning those, whether of the clergy or the laity, who have been excommunicated, the sentence is to be respected by the bishops of each province, according to the canon that forbids those expelled by some to be admitted by others. But let an inquiry be held to ascertain whether anyone has been expelled from the community because of pettiness or quarrelsomeness or any such ill nature on the part of the bishop” (trans. Norman Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Coun- cils (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990], 8–9). 37. Orat. funeb. 84 (Wallraff, 140; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 86–87). Emphasis mine. 38. Nathanael Andrade, “The Processions of John Chrysostom and the Contested Spaces of Constantinople” JECS 18 (2010): 161–89. 39. Orat. funeb. 121 (Wallraff, 174; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 104). 40. Orat. funeb. 121 (Wallraff, 174; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 104).  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 407 root of evil growing within her. In this second attack, a disease is let loose that devours her from the inside out. What Eudoxia carries within in her is much more dangerous than before. In order to reveal the growing monster within and the epic battle waged by this disease, our author draws us into a very detailed and elaborate account of Eudoxia’s suffering: See: there was a dead fetus in her, buried in its mother’s cavities, which, by blocking the passage of foods, turned what was recently ingested in nauseous bile and forced the bitter fluid to rush back up to her throat, and thrust what had long lain dead downwards by the weight of the body with a great rushing. Next, as may be expected to happen with a dead body, floods of worms teemed forth, some quivering on top of the head of the unseen corpse and causing vomiting of the undigested food, other under its feet making the flux of the belly sharper and painful, and some on occasion creeping out with the mass of blood flowing forth. In addition, a fever seized the whole of the rest of her body, so close to fire that it shone, and all sleep, as you know, shuns the eyes of the delirious.41 Based on Ps.-Martyrius’s description, Eudoxia’s stomach is flooded with the most nauseous of descriptions. And as this glimpse into the birthing chamber shows, Eudoxia’s torment follows a familiar pattern to the stom- ach ailments of those persecuting emperors before her: her intestines [along with her child] rot, spewing forth worms; sharp pains overcome her; and her body is racked by a fever. And like her male predecessors, she is fully conscious of every stage of her torment. What stands out in this description is that Ps.-Martyrius avoids any description of gynecological disease.42 In the two instances where Eudoxia’s 41. Orat. funeb. 121 (Wallraff, 174; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 105). I have altered Barnes and Bevan’s translation to reflect more accurately the ambiguous nature of the fetus and clearly convey what Ps.-Martyrius suggests is actually rooted within Eudoxia’s body. If Ps.-Martyrius is using medical theory related to fetal development, the fetus has no independent agency until at least the eight month of pregnancy. See Ann Ellis Hanson, “The Gradualist View of Fetal Development” in L’embryon: forma- tion et animation; antiqué grecque et latine tradition he’braï, chrétienne et islamique, ed. Luc Brisson, Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, Jean-Luc Solère (Paris: Librairie Phi- losophique, 2008), 96–97. 42. For a discussion on different gynecological diseases related to the womb, see Christopher A. Faraone, “Magical and Medical Approaches to the Wandering Womb in the Ancient Greek World,” Classical Antiquity 30 (2011): 1–32. There is quite a bit of discussion in the Hippocratic corpus and medical literature at large (from Plato to the more contemporaneous doctors of late antiquity) on the relationship between the “wandering womb” and the “sacred disease.” Faraone argues that the wander- ing womb provokes diseases. In other words, the “womb was not the site of disease 408 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES body is struck by the arrows of God, the Greek term for womb is absent. We are certainly aware that she is pregnant because the outcome of each strike is described as a miscarriage. Ps-Martyrius, however, favors the more generic term γαστρός (stomach/belly) to describe the target.43 Particularly in this second scene, Ps.-Martyrius intentionally distances Eudoxia from her sex and queers her gender to fit her within this long line of persecuting emperors.44 The disease that pierces and takes over her body is a gastro-intestinal one that places her firmly within the retributive tradition.45 For our purposes it is worth noting that, according to vari- ous medical texts, not only do these diseases frequently result in horrific pain and are troublesome to treat, but they are also extremely difficult to diagnose because they remain hidden from view.46 While it is clear that Ps.-Martyrius makes full use of the retributive tra- dition, a few notable differences stand out. In this text, we are reminded of the reason for Eudoxia’s excessive torment. When she cries out in pain in this second scene, she does not call out to God, but to John: “Why do you attack me, John?”47 Her suffering is thus tied directly to the suffer- ing of the exiled bishop. This connection to John’s experience—and, as but rather the cause of spasmodic disease in other areas of the body” (3). As many have argued, within ancient medical literature the male and female bodies are often divided and treated separately. A series of gynecological texts was created to account for this difference. For instance, the Hippocratic corpus devotes an entire treatise to these particular gendered issues. See Helen King, Hippocrates’ Women: Reading the Female Body in Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1998), 21–39. See also Ann Ellis Hanson’s translation and introduction to the Diseases of Women in “Hippocrates: ‘Diseases of Women 1,’” Signs 1 (1975): 567–84. 43. This term does have a semantic range that includes “womb.” It appears that the choice made by Barnes and Bevan to translate γαστήρ as such is tied to their under- standing of John’s interactions with Eudoxia and her children and Ps.-Martyrius’s contemporaries, who also compare the empress to Jezebel. See Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, 25–28. 44. Another queering takes place when John and his rival are compared to the two mothers in 1 Kgs 3.16–28. John too cares for his child(ren) and is character- ized as the true mother, who proved her (his) legitimacy when s/he willingly handed over her child in order to save it from being cut into two. See Orat. funeb. 128–29. 45. Stomach ailments are particularly notable in ancient medical literature. Dis- cussions pepper the Hippocratic Corpus, see Airs, Water, Places 7; Regimen of Acute Diseases 17. These diseases are also particularly prevalent throughout Pliny’s Natu- ral History. For Pliny’s discussion of various diseases and treatments, see 30.19–23. 46. Nosological treatises, such as the Sacred Disease and Acute Diseases, place a particular import on the need for careful diagnosis especially when the effects of the diseases are not visible. For a description on the efficacy of the physician for discern- ing hidden illnesses, see Science of Medicine 9–13. 47. Orat. funeb. 121 (Wallraff, 176; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 105).  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 409 we will soon learn, reputation—requires the divine to take matters into his own hands. Again, Ps.-Martyrius relies on classical tropes to explain why such a disease is required to punish Eudoxia: it is what she carries that makes her such a dangerous threat. The description of the battle that takes place within her recalls for us the second labor of Hercules, in which he defeats the many-headed serpent, the Lernean Hydra.48 After shooting flaming arrows at the beast, Hercules grabbed the hydra as it wrapped itself around his foot. As many familiar with the tale know, upon chopping off each of its original heads, multiple regenerated heads would appear in their place, thus making it a very difficult monster to defeat. To prevent any regrowth, Hercules has his companion Iolaos burn the sinews of each neck.49 When the beast is finally defeated, Hercules dips his arrows into the venomous blood of the monster. In later labors, Hercules uses the arrows to defeat his enemies. A simple touch of the arrow would result in a burning sick- ness that attacked the body and let off a putrid smell.50 48. Several references are made to Hercules’s second labor, which circulate in and around Constantinople. See Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4.11.5; Pseudo- Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2.77–80; and Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.69. As he proves throughout the course of his twelve labors, Hercules is, of course, the ultimate slayer of monsters. The cult of Hercules was wide spread in late antiquity. The tragedy Herakles, for example, composed by Euripedes and then later adapted by Seneca as the Hercules Furens was frequently performed in the theaters and depicted in the material culture of Constantinople. For a discussion on the “performance” of mate- rial culture, see Ismene Lada-Richards, “‘By Means of Performance’: Western Greek Mythological Vase-Paintings, Tragic ‘Enrichment,’ and the Early Reception of Fifth- century Athenian Tragedy,” Arion 17.2 (2009): 99–166. For a discussion on Sene- ca’s interpretation of Hercules’s madness, see Anna Lydia Motto and John R. Clark, “The Monster in Seneca’s Hercules Furens,” Classical Philology 89 (1994): 269–72. Two statues of Hercules were believed to be present in the Hippodrome in Constan- tinople, cf. Albrecht Berger, “Herakles and the Hippodrome of Constantinople” in Æ Hippodrom/Atmeydanı: Istanbulʹun Tarih Sahnesi, ed. Brigitte Pitarakis (Istanbul: Pera Müzesi, 2010), 194–205. Later, in the Byzantine lives such as the ‘Halkin (or Patmos)-Vita,’ hagiographers depict Constantine as a type of Hercules who defeats several trials at the court of Galerius. See Samuel Lieu and Dominic Montserrat, eds., From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views: A Source History (New York: Routledge, 1996), 102. 49. In Euripides’s tragedy, Herakles gains sole credit for the defeat of the Hydra (Her. 154). 50. Ironically, Hercules is infected with this very same poison and it is the cause of his own death. See, Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2.157; Ovid Metamorpho- ses 9.129, 158. Two accounts use the story of Centaur(s), who is shot by one of Hercule’s arrows washed his poisoned wound in the Anigros. This story is used to explain why the river emits such a horrific odor. See Strabo, Geography 8.3.19 and 410 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Ps.-Martyrius, certainly familiar with this popular tragedy, weaves in several narrative strands to describe the war waged within. The many- headed lies growing within Eudoxia require a many-headed illness to kill it. Similar themes such as the hero’s hand, the burning fever, and the putrid smells invoke familiar visceral, literary links in Ps.-Martyrius’s descrip- tion of Eudoxia’s bedroom struggle. Still more, he intentionally ties this familiar story to reveal to his readers what grows within Eudoxia. The many-headed lies are tied to the rumors circulating of John’s collusion with and protection of known heretics. The disease of heresy, a favored description used by John Chrysostom himself, is particularly pernicious as it spreads quickly and is hard to kill. Other heresiologists, such as Epipha- nius of Salamis, also describe heresy as a “many-shaped monstrosity.”51 To kill off even the rumor of heresy requires the drastic intervention of the divine.52 These rumors, or lies, gestate within the empress. Her very person threatens to reproduce those lies and possibly create still more. What is even more remarkable is that instead of finding care in the hands of a competent midwife, Eudoxia is pierced by the finger of God (δάκτυλος θεοῦ) and suffers grievously. And still, Ps.-Martyrius disdainfully remarks, Eudoxia does not repent and die. Instead, like Pharaoh, her heart is hardened and she makes no attempt to recall John from exile as she did before. Writhing in pain, she obstinately summons John’s rival, Arsacius, to her bedside instead. Eudoxia brazenly receives the Eucharist and Ps.-Martyrius exclaims, “this was the only sin she had not yet committed.”53 Ps.-Martyrius then uses grotesque imagery to draw the reader’s eye to what is typically hidden from view: Pausanias, Description of Greece 5.5.9. The waters were supposed to have healing powers as well. And, according to Strabo, many lepers came to be healed there: “The baths here cure leprosy, leuke, and leichene” (trans. Duane Roller, The Geography of Strabo [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014], 348). 51. Panarion 30.1.1. Andrew Jacobs draws attention to this point in his work, Christ Circumcised: A Study in Early Christian History and Difference (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 105. Jacobs highlights this phrase found in Epiphanius’s description of the Ebionite heresy. 52. Ps.-Martyrius is stepping outside of convention in several ways. This is a curious turn on the popular image of God as good physician. Here he introduces a retribu- tive disease to cure the disease of heresy. It does not cure Eudoxia, but is intended to heal the Church (and restore John’s reputation). To kill a disease with another disease is also an aberration in the medical tradition—although not without some support. See, for instance, the reference to hemorrhoids, which are said to cure melancholia, mania, and nephritic affections mania. See On Aphorisms 4.11, 21 in the Hippocratic corpus. My thanks to Richard Flower for pointing out this reference. 53. Orat. funeb. 121 (Wallraff, 176; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 105).  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 411 [Eudoxia] seized the infant and she quickly vomited out her soul along with the communion. Still breathing and half-alive, she filled the sensory organs of those standing by her with an evil stench surpassing the plants of India and the flies of Persia . . . her suffering hinting at nothing else than that <it> had long been among the dead things. In this way she brought her life to a close.54 The violence of this spectacle grabs our senses. We see the fetus clutched in her arms, we hear her vomit out both soul and Eucharist, and we smell the stench emanating from her belabored breaths and the decaying bodies. Ps.-Martyrius makes visible through Eudoxia’s second miscarriage and in her post-miscarriage emesis the corruption of both the body and the soul.55 In her pursuit of the cleansing perfection of a deathbed absolution, she perfects her sinfulness instead. The only evidence of holiness is vomited out and, like that most notorious heretic Arius, Eudoxia is successfully cut off from the Church. This final scene reveals that Eudoxia is not simply a persecuting empress—although, she has certainly proven she holds court among the most notorious of emperors. Her suffering in this second miscarriage mir- rors the gastro-intestinal diseases of her heinous imperial predecessors and heretical counterpart. Ps.-Martyrius concludes that what Eudoxia harbors is nothing short of a war against the Church.56 Even more insidious for Ps.-Martyrius is that the error she houses within her body threatens John’s legacy: the charge of heresy is here implanted into Eudoxia’s body. She carries not a child but “the many lies spread through many mouths.” It is a contagion of error that is hidden from view. We are only made aware of its corrupting power after the divine introduces the many-headed illness, which consumes Eudoxia’s body from the inside out. And still, Ps.-Martyrius laments, the cause of Eudoxia’s suffering is not readily apparent. We find this point reinforced by the inconsistent rumors surrounding John’s death. One rumor stands out among the rest: John too 54. Orat. funeb. 121 (Wallraff, 176; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 105, slightly adapted): καὶ τούτων ὄντων ἐν τούτοις ἐκείνη τὸ βρέφος κατελάμβανε, ταχέως τῇ κοινωνίᾳ συνεξεμέσασα τὴν ψυχήν. τοσαύτης δὲ ἐνέπλησε τὰ τῶν παρεστηκότων αἰσθητήρια δυσωδίας, ἕμπνους ἕπι καὶ ὑπόζωος οὖσα, ὥστε νικᾶσθαι καὶ τὰ Ἰνδίας φυτὰ καὶ τοὺς Περικοὺς μύας ἅπασάν τε . . . οὐδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ πάθους αἰνιττομένου ἢ ὅτι πάλαι ἐν νεκροῖς ἐτύγχανε. καὶ οὕτω δὴ καταλύει τὸν βίον. 55. Here, Ps.-Martyrius may be gesturing to John’s catechetical sermon in which he describes how the mouths of the wicked defile the Eucharist. See John Chrysos- tom, Catech. 2.2 (PG 49.233). 56. Orat. funeb. 122. 412 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES dies of an unknown illness aggravated by his travels in exile.57 After news of the bishop’s death spreads, Atticus (John’s rival and Arsacius’s replace- ment) dons the robes of bishop. He travels about the city attempting to win over those who supported John and ease the tensions that had arisen after his final exile. Ps.-Martyrius berates Atticus’s efforts and calls him a false physician: Tyrant . . . with what objective in view do you apply medications to wounds that you have inflicted? Or, because you know how to flatter, did you deliberately cause pain before so that you might have an opportunity to practice your skill, acting exactly like a doctor who, having gathered countless herbs and fastened them with a rag, might carry this in his left hand, strike a man with a club in his right hand and say to him: ‘Cheer up, my dear friend, I have the remedy in my hands.’58 Again, the medical mingles here with the theological. In the Hippocratic corpus, we find several arguments about the danger of false physicians. Chief among the characteristics of false physicians is the intentional harm they cause their patients.59 It therefore remains unclear who the imposter might be. John dies as an accused heretic in exile, while his rival walks free. How then do we tell the difference between the righteous and the corrupt? As I have argued, proper diagnosis is of central concern for Ps.- Martyrius.60 This theme is made all the more apparent when the author draws our attention to a discussion of the sacred disease, which immedi- ately precedes his description of Eudoxia’s first miscarriage. It is a seemingly tangential story about John’s charitable works with the leper community 57. Ps.-Martyrius reports his death was “brought about not by iron, but by what was much more cruel than iron—long forced marches and illness imposed on the natural frailty of the body” (Orat. funeb. 135; Wallraff, 192; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 114). As Andrew Crislip has pointed out, illness in the saints has symbolic value and invokes a certain element of ambivalence in hagiographers. Palladius (another of John’s biographers) makes great use of illness in the saints in his Lausiac History. Crislip highlights Palladius’s repeated discomfort with saints who fall ill. See Andrew Crislip’s description of the saints Papias and Stephen in Thorn in the Flesh: Illness and Sanctity in Late Ancient Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 17–18; cf. Papias, fg. 18 and Lausiac History 12.3, 24.2. Crislip also draws attention to John’s homilies on the topic in 182n20. See John Chrysostom, On the Statues 1.5–7 (PG 49.15–34). 58. Orat. funeb. 137 (Wallraff, 194; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 115). 59. Pliny rants against the lack of accountability present in the profession. It is the only profession in which killing another human being is permissible and without consequence. See Pliny, Natural History 29.8. 60. For a discussion on the consequences of misdiagnosis, see Hippocratic Corpus, Science of Medicine, 9.  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 413 in Constantinople, but if we pay attention to the medical language at play, it becomes readily apparent how Ps.-Martyrius thinks we may distinguish between those who suffer for righteousness and those who suffer for their own culpability.61 As we have seen in the case of Eudoxia, even when an illness is exposed, its causes are not readily apparent. DIAGNOSING LEPERS In a second case of misdiagnosis, Ps.-Martyrius stresses that John had a particular affinity for those who suffer from what he calls the sacred dis- ease: “He himself emptied out, so to speak, all his feelings of care toward those who were stricken with what is called the sacred disease. I believe that this disease has acquired such a name because it surpasses all human misfortunes and pain.”62 This disease has a long history within medical literature and is most commonly associated with epilepsy. Symptoms of the disease, however, are fairly open-ended. What Ps.-Martyrius exploits for his own purposes is that the disease appears to have no clear cause.63 It is for this reason that we learn the origins of its name. In the Sacred Disease, found in the Hippocratic corpus, the author states: If a patient imitates a goat, grinds their teeth, or has convulsions on his right side, they say the Mother of the gods is responsible; if he speaks in a sharper more intense tone, they compare this state to a horse and say that 61. See, for example, Orat. funeb. 61: αὐτος ἅπασαν ὡς εἰτεῖν ἐκένωσε τὴν αὑτοῦ φιλοστοργίαν ἐπὶ τοὺς τὴν ἱερὰν καλουμένην περικειμένους νόσον (Wallraff, 114). Palla- dius also makes reference to his philanthropic work with lepers. See Palladius, Dial. 5 (SC 341:122, 128–39). For the role patronage played in John’s work with the leper community, see Wendy Mayer, “Patronage, Pastoral Care and the Role of the Bishop at Antioch,” VC 55 (2001): 58–70. 62. Orat. funeb. 61 (Wallraff, 114; trans. Timothy S. Miller and J. W. Nesbitt, Walking Corpses: Leprosy in Byzantium and the Medieval West [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014], 188). 63. Plato also has a broader description of the “sacred disease” in the Timaeus 85b: “As a disorder of our sacred part, it is perfectly named the ‘sacred disease.’ Phlegm that is acid and salty is the source of all those ailments that involve fluxes from the head, the names of which vary according to the places into which they flow” (trans. Robin Waterfield and Andrew Gregory, Plato: Timaeus and Critias [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008], 89). For a description of all the variety of diseases linked to ἱερά νόσος, see Julie Laskaris, The Art is Long: On the Sacred Disease and the Scientific Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1–29. For a list of authors who have also described the disease as leprosy, see Barnes and Bevan, Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, 74n144. Ps.-Martyrius also follows the lead of other Christian writers who tie the “sacred disease” to leprosy, cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 14.6; Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul 5.462. 414 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Poseidon is responsible; if any faeces are involuntarily passed, which is often the case owing to the violence of the disease, the name of the goddess Endia is blamed.64 In this passage, the author highlights why this illness is intimately linked to the divine realm.65 And yet, the author here sharply criticizes what he or she calls nonsensical conclusions. It is irrational to assume that mani- festations of the disease are caused by a specific divinity because of some fault in the patient. In other words, this particular disease is in no way punitive—although other diseases certainly could be (as we saw with the empress). Those who claim otherwise clearly demonstrate their ignorance, or worse, seek to profit from misdiagnosis. Other medical texts that reference the sacred disease in the Hippocratic corpus go on to accuse false doctors of intentionally deceiving their patients for personal gain: Those who first made the disease into something sacred were, in my opinion, such persons as the sorcerers, purificators, mountebanks, and charlatans now are, who pretend to be pious and to know more than other people. Using the divine as a veil and defense to hide their own inability to give any useful prescription, these people expressed the idea that this disease was sacred in order to avoid that their total ignorance be obvious.66 This conclusion does not preclude that this disease (or any other illness) is in fact divine in origin. What the Hippocratic authors oppose are false physicians who promote superstitious claims and who willfully deceive others for their own personal profit or reputation. In the Prognostic, for instance, the author reminds us why proper diag- nosis is so important: “He must know to what extent the nature of such afflictions exceeds the power of the body, and at the same time, if there is anything divine about the disease, the doctor should know how to 64. The Sacred Disease 1.6.360.13–362.6 L (trans. Jacques Jouanna, “Hippocratic Medicine and Greek Tragedy,” in Greek Medicine From Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers, ed. Jacques Jouanna [Leiden: Brill, 2012], 62). 65. Jouanna argues that many modern interpreters of the Hippocratic treatises have glossed over the religious argument supported in medical texts: “The fifth-century doctors’ rationalism is softer and more complex and malleable than the rationalism of the nineteenth- and twentieth-century translators, who sometimes had a tendency to force the opposition between the rational and the divine, between reason and reli- gion, whether it be in the text’s interpretation, constitution or translation” (Jouanna, “Hippocratic Medicine and Greek Tragedy,” 111). 66. The Sacred Disease 1.6.354.12–18 L (trans. Jouanna, 63); see also, Hippocr., morb. sacr. 1= 6.358,16–19-8 and Hippocr., Aer. 22=2.78,1L.  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 415 prognosticate this, too.”67 In sum, to understand when a disease is from natural causes and when it is from the divine is to affirm one’s credibility as a true physician. Ps.-Martyrius capitalizes on this tradition and argues that there are false physicians and enemies of the Church, who intentionally waged war against the lepers and John. For example, these charlatans point to the alleged sacred disease and argue that those who are afflicted suffer from their own invisible error, and that their very presence in the community threatens to spread such error and suffering to all those they encounter. In Ps.-Martyrius’s text, the physical details of the sacred disease are intentionally vague. The oration instead prioritizes the nature of the sus- pected origin of the disease and how it is spread.68 Those afflicted with the illness, Ps.-Martyrius argues, are detestable because they appear to be cursed. They are also presumed to place the community at risk. The only remedy then is to exile the lepers from the community. Ps.-Martyrius further stresses the alienating properties of this sacred disease. Without any apparent cure, people viewed the disease—and, by extension, the diseased—as a plague on society with significant, contra- dictory social consequences: For it is truly the worst of diseases, a disease at the same time inspiriting pity and hatred. It draws even the soul as hard as a diamond to pity, but it also drives away the most philanthropic soul, whenever it might be necessary to touch the afflicted body. This disease dissolves the bond of family relationship and overturns the law of friendship; this disease deprives those taken by it of the joy of life and of the repose of death.69 It is a disease that promotes both pity and fear. To add insult to injury, the external symptoms break all social connections. And even though this 67. Prognosis 1.2.112.3–6 L (trans. Jouanna, 109). 68. The medical literature on leprosy is extensive. The disease, which is often linked to a disorder of the four humors, is supposedly due to an excess of black bile. See Plato, Tim. 80b; Oribasius Collect. Med. 45.27.1; Aretaeus 4.13.19–21. Miller and Nesbitt describe the various names associated with the disease: kakochymia, leontiasis, satyriasis and elephantiasis (Walking Corpses, 8). For a review of the various types of treatment available in the medical literature, see Susan R. Holman, “Healing the Social Leper in Gregory of Nyssa’s and Gregory of Nazianzus’s ‘περὶ φιλοπτωχίας,’” HTR 92 (1999): 292–93. Holman also cites Paul of Aegina’s preservation of Galen’s and Oribasius’s description of elephantiasis in his medical commentaries. Each author states that the disease has no cure and that the patient should be abandoned. Cf. Miller and Nesbitt for their discussion on Aretaios of Cappadocia’s description of elephantiasis (Walking Corpses, 11–16). 69. Orat. funeb. 61 (Wallraff, 114–16; trans. Miller and Nesbitt, 188). 416 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES disease requires extensive care, the most common treatment is ostracism. Ps.-Martyrius continues: For in addition to the other evils [i.e., the painful symptoms of the disease], the Demon who hates the human race sowed among all people a suspicion against these wretched brothers, a suspicion that believe that this sickness was contagious and that it could transfer to those who came close to it. Thus, all of those people who dwell in homes and cities forbade that those with the disease should enter their houses or agoras, baths or cities.70 It is this final symptom—that is, suspicion—that is of key concern for Ps.-Martyrius. Here, he affirms the conclusions drawn by the Hippocratic corpus. He too argues that the sacred disease is not punitive in nature, but instead quite the opposite: it is incurred from divine favor.71 Like Job, it is John’s righteousness that makes him a target of the Devil’s wrath. In addition to the medical lineage associated with the sacred disease, Ps.-Martyrius appears to rely on a tradition of Christian writers in the Greek East who fought the social stigma associated with leprosy.72 Basil of Caesarea was among the first to build a hospital for lepers. Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus also sought to promote a theologically- motivated social campaign to care for the lepers.73 John Chrysostom, too, spoke openly about the care of lepers in his sermons and did appear to have established a hospital in Constantinople.74 Moreover, Ps.-Martyrius’s 70. Orat. funeb. 61 (Wallraff, 116; trans. Miller and Nesbitt, 188). 71. Here the link to Job is most apparent. Job is targeted by the devil because of his righteousness. For direct references comparing John to Job, see Orat. funeb. 61.3, 27–28, 84. 72. For a discussion of the de-stigmatization of illness, see Andrew T. Crislip, From Monastery to Hospital: Christian Monasticism and the Transformation of Health Care in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005), 118–19. Here Crislip cites Gregory of Nazianzus’s commentary on Basil’s philanthropic work with the lepers as a model of Christian charity, cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 43.63. 73. See Wendy Mayer, “Poverty and Generosity Towards the Poor in the Time of John Chrysostom,” in Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 140–58. See also Timothy S. Miller and John W. Nesbitt, “Saint John Chrysostom and the ‘Holy Disease’: An Excerpt from an Unpublished, Anonymous Eulogy (BHG 871; CPG 6517),” Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici 42 (2005): 38–41. 74. See, for example, John Chrysostom’s series of sermons on the Rich Man and Lazarus, especially discourse three, in which John encourages his community to accept those who suffer from illnesses. If the afflicted suffer due to sin, the illness will lessen the sin. If the afflicted suffers due to righteousness, the illness is but a sign of a greater reward (John Chrysostom, Sermon on Lazarus and the Rich man 3.8)  BARRY / DIAGNOSING HERESY 417 report of John’s charitable works with the lepers intends to emphasize his legitimacy as a righteous man who recognizes the true nature of the dis- ease, and consequently that these lepers should be uplifted and cared for not on the outskirts of the city but in the very heart of the community. Ps.-Martyrius stresses that in John’s zeal to care for the afflicted, he found a perfect location for his hospital where the river was accessible for washing the pus from the wounds of the lepers. The immediate neighbors, however, protested loudly; and the most affluent among the protesters brought a legal suit against John. The building campaign was thus brought to an abrupt halt. These so-called charlatans also profited from their suit by re-allocating the capital funds into their own pockets. Ps.-Martyrius rages that these enemies who opposed John’s efforts waged a war against heaven: “How have they not launched [arrows] against the very heavens or rather against their own heads, those who, through their own money have brought back upon themselves these diseases of the brothers.”75 While these men lamely launch arrows into the heavens, they do so to their own detriment. As we saw before, the arrows of the divine are much more deadly. The punishment of these men, however, is temporarily postponed: “let them await a more intense flame in the hereafter.”76 It is clear that this deferred suffering further supports Ps.-Martyrius’s argument that only the true physician is capable of discerning the nature of these men and will decide when and how they will be punished. These enemies, like the false physicians discussed before, will walk freely for a time, but as Ps.-Martyrius concludes, “There is a God in heaven who suffices to punish the unjust.”77 For they too harbor the seed of error, he reminds us, only it has not yet been made manifest, as it was with Eudoxia. Finally, the alienating properties of the sacred disease are unmistakably akin to and parallel John’s suffering and death in exile. John is also forced to wander, homeless, and without pity. He too is left to die from a righteous illness aggravated by neglect. Although the circumstances surrounding his exile appear to make him suspicious, only those who understand the true nature of his disease will know the reason for his suffering. And like the lepers, Ps.-Martyrius insists, John’s suffering is the result of divine favor, not divine punishment. To make this point all the more clear, Ps.-Martyrius 75. Orat. funeb. 65 (Wallraff, 120; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 77, slightly adapted and emphasis mine). 76. Here, Ps.-Martyrius makes reference to Gehazi in 2 Kgs 5.20–27, who healed Nehemiah of leprosy, but subsequently lied in order to profit from the miraculous event. In the biblical account, the divine punishes this would be profiteer with leprosy. 77. Orat. funeb. 143 (Wallraff, 200; trans. Barnes and Bevan, 117). 418 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES shows us exactly what a punitive illness looks like by contrasting the sacred disease with Eudoxia’s many-headed illness. Ultimately, the hid- den causes and signs of internal illness are not always readily apparent. To the discerning eye, the physical suffering of a man who dies in exile is not due to his error, but instead serves as proof of his righteousness. John, Ps.-Martyrius concludes, is not a heretic, but a martyr. CONCLUSION In this text, Ps.-Martyrius takes great pains to differentiate the symptoms of the disease of heresy from the symptoms of righteous suffering. One is distinctly punitive in nature and the other is akin to martyrdom. What Ps.-Martyrius stresses, however, is that these two illnesses are notoriously difficult to diagnose. As we have seen, to make his case, Ps.-Martyrius com- pares the pain and suffering of two very public and very visible bodies: the fecund body of the Empress Eudoxia and the lesioned body of the Constantinopolitan leper community. Ps.-Martyrius argues that although the cause of the hidden illnesses are not readily apparent, John’s exile, which might seem to be evidence of ill favor (and possible guilt), is not actually as it appears. So also with Eudoxia and the bodies of the lepers. The author demands that we take a much closer look. What we find is far from pleasant. Ultimately, the dis- eased bodies must be carefully dissected, in all their gore, in an effort to dismiss the charges of heresy that continue to plague John Chrysostom’s reputation. In this text, both the righteous and unrighteous suffer, but only the true physician knows why. Jennifer Barry is Assistant Professor of Religion at Mary Washington University