Palladius of Helenopolis: The Origenist Advocate by Demetrios S. Katos (review)

Demetrios Katos seeks to correct interpretations of Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia Prima, that deem him insignificant or his narration regarding John Chrysostom untrustworthy. After detailing what is known of Palladius’ life and activities, Katos treats Palladius’ Dialogue Concerning John Chrysostom and the Lausiac History, concluding with two chapters (on the ascent to God in prayer, and on theodicy and human freedom) that highlight Origenist themes in Palladius’ writings.

Katos’ book makes two main contributions. First, he carefully delineates how the Dialogue is structured by its employment of judicial rhetoric. Second, he illustrates how Palladius, especially in the Lausiac History, attempts to rehabilitate Origenism, shorn of problematic elements. Katos states that his chief contribution to Palladian scholarship lies in his rhetorical analysis of the Dialogue. This reviewer agrees.

Although John Chrysostom was deposed by the Council at the Oak in 403, the grounds for deposition remain unclear. (The minutes of the council were lost, though a summary of its proceedings was preserved by Photius, centuries later.) Katos argues that John’s accusers failed to provide convincing evidence that he was guilty of the charges against him; probably he was deposed simply because he refused to appear before the council. Katos concludes that John was deposed chiefly because he was “hated.”

Katos argues that Palladius, whose writings show few signs of high literary and philosophical culture, was trained as an advocate and used the conventions of forensic argument to construct the Dialogue. After journeying to Rome in 404 to win support for John at the papal court, Palladius was imprisoned and sent into exile for his alleged Origenist sympathies and association with John. When released, presumably after John’s death, he spent four years in the Thebaid. When Theophilus of Alexandria issued a pamphlet against John, Palladius responded with the Dialogue, both to clear John of charges and to portray Theophilus as a scheming, power-hungry villain. John, by contrast, is represented as an ascetic hermit, a characterization that helped to explain his asocial behavior. The Dialogue, Katos posits, was composed shortly after John’s death, in late 407 or early 408.

Katos argues that the Dialogue should not be considered as a “history,” but as a forensic composition whose goal was to convince readers that Chrysostom was unjustly deposed and exiled. The dialogue form echoes procedures in a court of law, with the bishop defending Chrysostom against the charges leveled by the deacon. The dialogue format, Katos claims, should not be interpreted through the lens of Platonic philosophy, but as “sophistic declamation.” Although no lexicon of ancient judicial rhetoric has yet been produced, Katos, by mining Greek rhetorical handbooks of the Christian era, shows how the seemingly strange arrangement of the Dialogue follows well-established procedures. The brief “prooemion” and “narration” that open the Dialogue are succeeded by the “argumentation” section, with a concluding epilogue aimed to rouse indignation and anger against John’s opponents.

In chapter 3 Katos analyzes Palladius’ employment of stasis or “issue” theory to defend John against his critics, comparing Palladius’ techniques with those outlined in Hermogenes of Tarsus’ On Issues. Katos shows that the peculiar opening of the “argumentation” section (which presents the most important charge against John as his “eating alone”) neatly follows legal rhetorical techniques: “eating alone” is redefined, and “intent” is scrutinized so as to turn what was alleged as a fault into a virtue. Through rhetorical devices such as counterposition, objection, counterplea, and amplification, the seemingly confused literary structure is revealed as “a sophisticated and deliberate argument organized on the principles of issue theory” (70). Katos likewise examines by way of rhetorical theory the arguments relating to charges concerning John’s deposition and installation of bishops in Asia and Olympias’ dealings with the monks, the negative perceptions of John, and the causes of John’s removal. Throughout, Palladius exonerates John from charges of rash arrogance. Rather, John espoused higher than customary standards. His shocking attack on the empress Eudoxia...