In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Julian von Aeclanum: Studien zu seinem Leben, seinem Werk, seiner Lehre und ihrer Überlieferung
  • Eugene Teselle
Julian von Aeclanum. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinem Werk, seiner Lehre und ihrer Überlieferung. By Josef Lössl . [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. LX.] (Leiden: Brill. 2001. Pp. xvi, 406. €103; U.S. $120.00.)

Julian of Eclanum burst on the scene in 418 as spokesman for eighteen Italian bishops who, after dissenting from the imperial and then papal condemnation of certain views of Caelestius and Pelagius, were removed from office. He has always been a focus of controversy; the historical documents and later scholarship have been unusually tendentious, depicting him, at the extremes, as a heretic or as a hero of independent inquiry. Lössl offers a comprehensive survey of the scholarship (life, education, Latin style, logic, theology, and controversies) and a judicious assessment of the entire record.

It seems that Julian was born in Eclanum, inland from Naples, probably in 381, with a distinguished ancestry; his father was bishop there, and he himself became bishop, probably in 416. From the start his family and friends were closely associated with John Chrysostom and the broader Antiochene tradition; it is not surprising, therefore, that he was influenced by their theology and biblical interpretation, took refuge with Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius after his deposition, and traded some important thoughts with them. [End Page 739]

In continuity with the Antiochenes and in opposition to Augustine, he argued that the goodness of God implies the goodness of creation, human nature, marriage, and sexual desire. It is well known that he made much use of logic, which is carefully examined by Lössl. Ironically the end result, it seems to me, was loss of Augustine's subtleties and reinforcement of simplistic oppositions. From the philosophical tradition and the early Augustine he drew the definition of free choice as lack of necessity or compulsion and ability to act otherwise than one does. Against the later Augustine he went on to argue that evil, which is the result of choice, cannot affect nature or substance, which remains both good and free; and in any case each soul is freshly created by God. Original sin is stereotyped as "natural sin" and linked with Manichaeism.

The polemical encounter between Julian and Augustine gives a misleading impression, however, of the total situation. Lössl offers some important correctives. First, both Innnocent in 417 and Zosimus in 418 were concerned to correct and reconcile the Pelagians, not to judge them; both popes, furthermore, used their own language, not that of the African councils. Augustine was premature, and prematurely optimistic, when he said in 417 that Rome had spoken and the matter was settled (serm. 131, 10); he himself was not so sanguine about Zosimus's action of the next year. Mediating formulations were possible, and the Pelagians were quite willing to negotiate them.

Second, Julian had a valid procedural argument. The condemnations came first from the imperial court and only then, under duress, from the pope. It was quite legitimate for the eighteen bishops to call for a council to examine the doctrinal issues.

Third, all subsequent actions by popes and councils were based not on a fresh consideration of the doctrinal issues but on the procedural fact of the condemnations in 418. Augustine's dictum was made true retroactively by later events.

The period from 418 to 431, when the Council of Ephesus condemned both Nestorianism and Pelagianism, is singularly complex, with much correspondence between the West and the East. Lössl's judgment is that Julian became a pawn in the larger struggle over Christology. Both Theodore and Nestorius, it appears, were willing to abandon him; and Cyril condemned his views largely under pressure from Rome, once again on merely formal grounds.

Rome itself never adopted the full Augustinian position on original sin and predestination. Julian had reasons for confidence when in 439 he appealed to Sixtus, a former Pelagian, for restoration to office; but this was denied, chiefly on the advice of Leo. He died before 455, teaching grammar in Sicily, according to romantic or hostile legend, but perhaps more realistically in his home city, a bishop manqu...

pdf

Share