Palla'dius7. Of HELENOPOLIS. The name of Palladius occurs repeatedly in the
ecclesiastical and literary history of the early part of the fifth century. The difficulty is
in determining whether these notices refer to one individual or to more. We include in this
one article a notice of the author of the biographies usually termed the
Lausiac
History, the author of the life of Chrysostom.and the bishop of Helenopolis, and
subsequently of Aspona, noticing, as we proceed, what grounds there are for belief or
disbelief as to their being one and the same person.
Palladius, who wrote the
Lausiac History, states in the introduction, that he
composed it in his fifty-third year; and as there is reason to fix the date of the composition
in
A. D. 419 or 420, his birth may be placed in or about 367. He adds
also, that it was the thirty-third year of his monastic life, and the twentieth of his
episcopate. It is this last date which furnishes the means of determining the others. The
Latin versions of his history (100.41, Meurs., 43.
Bibl. Pat.) make him
reply to a question of Joannes of Lycopolis, an eminent Egyptian solitary, that he was a
Galatian, and a companion or disciple (ex sodalitate) of Evagrius of Pontus. But the passage
is wanting in the Greek text, and that not, as Tillemont thinks, from an error or omission of
the printer, for the omission is found both in the text of Meursius (100.41 ) and that of the
Bibliotheca Patrum (100.43) ; so that the statement is not free front doubt.
In two other places he refers to his being a long time in Galatia (100.64, Meurs., 100.113,
Bibl. Patr.). and being at Ancyra (100.98. Meurs., 100.114,
Bibl. Patr.), but these passages do not prove that he was born there, for he
was in that province in the latter part of his life. He embraced a solitary life, as already
observed, at the age of twenty, which, if his birth was in
A. D. 367,
would be in
A. D. 387. The places of his residence, at successive
periods, can only be conjectured from incidental notices in the
Lausiac History. Tillemont places at the commencement of his ascetic
career his abode with Elpidius of Cappadocia, in some caverns of Mount Lucas, near the banks
of the Jordan (100.70, Meurs., 106,
Bibl. Pair.), and his residence at
Bethlehem, and other places in Palestine. He supposes that it was at this time that he saw
several other saints who dwelt in that country, and among them, perhaps (for Palladius does
not directly say that he knew him personally), St. Jerome, of whom his impressions, derived
chiefly, if not wholly, from the representations of Posidonius, were by no means favourable
(100.42, 50, Meurs., 78, 124,
Bibl. Patr.). Palladius first visited
Alexandria in the second consulship of the emperor Theodosius the Great, i. e. in
A. D. 388 (100.3, Meurs., 1,
Bibl. Patr.), and by the
advice of Isidorus, a presbyter of that city, placed himself under the instruction of
Dorotheus, a solitary, whose mode of life was so hard and austere that Palladius was obliged,
by sickness, to leave him, without completing the three years which he had intended to stay
(100.4, Meurs., 2,
Bibl. Pair.) He remained for a short time in the
neighbourhood of Alexandria, and then resided for a year among the solitaries in the mountains
of the desert of Nitria, who amounted to five thousand (100.9, Meurs., 6,
Bibl. Patr.), of whose place of abode and manner of life he gives a description
(ibid.). From Nitria he proceeded further into the wilderness, to the district of the cells,
where he arrived the year after the death of Macarius the Egyptian, which occurred in
A. D. 390 or 391. [
MACARIUS, No. 1.] Here he
remained nine years, three of which he spent as the companion of Macarius the younger, the
Alexandrian [
MACARIUS, No. 2], and was for a time the companion and
disciple of Evagrius of Pontus [
EVAGRIUS, No. 4], who was charged
with entertaining Origenistic opinions. [
ORIGENES.] How long he
remained with Evagrius is not known (100.21, 22, 29, Meurs., 100.19, 20, 29,
Bibl. Patr.). But he did not confine himself to one spot: he visited cities, or
villages, or deserts, for the purpose of conversing with men of eminent holiness, and his
history bears incidental testimony to the extent of his travels. The Thebaid or Upper Egypt,
as far as Tabenna [
PACHOMIUS], and Syene, Lybia, Syria, Palestine,
Mesopotamia, and even Rome and Campania, and as he vaguely and boastfully states, the whole
Roman empire, were visited by him, and that almost entirely on foot (100.2, Meurs.,
Prooem. in Bibl. Patr. pp. 897, 898).
In consequence of severe illness, Palladius was sent by the other solitaries to Alexandria,
and from that city, by the advice of his physicians, he went to Palestine, and from thence
into Bithynia, where, as he somewhat mysteriously adds, either by human desire or the will of
God, he was ordained bishop. He gives neither the date of his appointment nor the name of his
bishopric, but intimates that it was the occasion of great trouble to him, so that, "while
hidden for eleven months in a gloomy cell," he remembered a prophecy of the holy recluse,
Joannes of Lycopolis, who, three years before Palladius was taken ill and sent to Alexandria,
had foretold both his elevation to the episcopacy and his consequent troubles. As he was
present with Evagrius of Pontus, about the time of his death (100.86, Bibl.
Pair.), which probably occurred in A. D. 399 [EVAGRIUS, No. 4], he could not have left Egypt till that year, nor can
we well place his ordination as bishop before A. D. 400.
All the foregoing particulars relate to the author of the
Lausiac History,
from the pages of which the notices of them are gleaned. Now we learn from Photius (
Biblioth. Cod. 57), that in the Synod "of the Oak," at which Joannes or John
Chrysostom was condemned [
CHRYSOSTOMUS], and which was held in
A. D. 403, one of the charges against him related to the ordination of a
Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis, in Bithynia, a follower of the opinions of Origen. The
province in which the diocese was situated, the Origenist opinions (probably imbibed from or
cherished by Evagrius of Pontus), and the intimation of something open to objection in his
ordination, compared with the ambiguous manner in which the author of the
Lausiac
History speaks of his elevation, are, we think, conclusive as to the identity of the
historian with Palladius of Helenopolis. He is doubtless the Palladius charged by Epiphanius
(
Epistol. ad Joan. Jerosol. apud Hieronymi
Opera,
vol. i. col. 252, ed. Vallars.), and by Jerome himself (
Prooem. in Dial. adv.
Pelagianos) with Origenism. Tillemont vainly attempts to show that Palladius the
Origenist was a different person from the bishop of Helenopolis. Assuming this identity, we
may place his elevation to the episcopacy in
A. D. 400, in which year
he was present in a synod held by Chrysostom at Constantinople, and was sent into Proconsular
Asia to procure evidence on a charge against the bishop of Ephesus. (Pallad.
Dial. de Vita S. Joan. Chrys. p. 131.) The deposition of Chrysostom involved Palladius
also in troubles, to which, as we have seen, he refers in his
Lausiac
History. Chrysostonm, in his exile, wrote to "Palladius the bishop" (
Epistol. cxiii.
Opera, vol. iii p. 655, ed. Benedictin., p. 790,
ed. Bened. secund. Paris, 1838, &c.), exhorting him to continue in prayer, for which his
seclusion gave him opportunity; and from this notice we could derive, if needful, a farther
proof of the identity of the two Palladii, since the historian, as we have seen, speaks of his
concealment for "eleven months in a gloomy cell."
Fearful of the violence of his enemies, Palladius of Helenopolis fled to Rome (Dialog. de Vita S. Chrysost. 100.3. p. 26, and Hist.
Lausiac, 100.121, Bibl. Pair.) in A. D.
405; and it was probably at Rome that he received the letter of encouragement
addressed to him and the other fugitive bishops, Cyriacus of Synnada, Alysius, or Eulysius of
the Bithynian Apameia, and Demetrius of Pessinus. (Chrys. Epistol.
cxlviii. Opera, vol. iii. p. 686, ed. Benedictin., p. 827, ed. Benedict.
secund.) It was probably at this time that Palladius became acquainted with the monks of Rome
and Campania. When some bishops and presbyters of Italy were delegated by the Western emperor
Honorius, the pope, Innocentius I. [INNOCENTIUS], and the bishops of
the Western Church generally, to protest to the Eastern emperor Arcadius against the
banishment of Chrysostom, and to demand the assembling of a new council in his case, Palladius
and his fellow-exiles returned into the East, apparently as members of the delegation. But
their return was ill-timed and unfortunate: they were arrested on approaching Constantinople,
and both delegates and exiles were confined at Athyra in Thrace; and then the four returning
fugitives were banished to separate and distant places, Pailadius to the extremity of Upper
Egypt, in the vicimty of the Blemmyes. (Dial. de Vita
Chrysost. 100.4,19, pp. 30, &c., 192, &c.) Tillemont supposes that after the
death of Theophilus of Alexandria, the great enemy of Chrysostom (A. D.
412), Palladius obtained some relaxation of his punishment, though he was not allowed
to return to Helenopolis, or to resume his episcopal functions. He places in the interval
between 412 and 420, when the
Lausiac History was written, a residence of four
years at Antinöe or Antinoopolis, in the Thebaid (100.81, vilas., 96,
Bibl. Patr.), and of three years in the Mount of Olives, near Jerusalem (100.63,
Menrs., 103,
Bibl. Patr.), as well as the visits which Palladius paid to
many parts of the East. After a time he was restored to his bishopric of Helenopolis, from
which he was translated to that of Aspona or Aspuna in Galatia (Socrat. 7.36): but the dates
both of his restoration and his translation cannot be fixed: they probably took place after
the healing of the schism occasioned by Chrysostom's affair, in
A. D.
417, and probably after the composition of the
Lausiac History, in
A. D. 419 or 420. Palladius was probably dead before A. D. 431,
when, in the third General (first Ephesian) Council, the see of Aspona was held by another
person. He appears to have held the bishopric of Aspona only a short time, as he is currently
designated from Helenopolis.
Works
The works ascribed to Palladius are the following:
Ἡ πρὸς Λαύσανα τὸν πραιπόστιον ἱστορία περιέχουσα
βίους ὁσίων πατέρων,
Ad Lausum Praepositum Historia,
quae Sanctorum Patrum vitas complectitur, usually cited as
Historia Lausiaca,
the Lausiac History. This work contains
biographical notices or characteristic anecdotes of a number of ascetics, with whom
Palladius was personally acquainted, or concerning whom he received information from those
who had known them personally. Though its value is diminished by the records of miracles and
other marvels to which the author's credulity (the characteristic, however, of his age and
class rather than of the individual) led him to give admission, it is curious and
interesting as exhibiting the prevailing religious tendencies of the time, and valuable as
recording various facts relating to eminent men. Sozomen has borrowed many anecdotes from
this work, but without avowedly citing it. Socrates, who mentions the work (
H. E. 4.23) describes the author as a monk, a disciple of Evagrius of Pontus, and
states that he flourished soon after the death of Valens. The date, and the absence of any
reference to his episcopal dignity, might induce a suspicion that the author and the bishop
were two different persons; but the coincidences are too many to allow the casual and
inaccurate notice of Socrates to outweigh them. The Lausus or Lauson (the name is written
both ways,
Λαῦσυς and
Λαύσων), to whom the work is addressed, was chamberlain (
πραιπόσιος τοῦ κοιτῶνος, praepositus culiculo), apparently to
the Emperor Theodosias the Younger. The
Historia Lausiaca was
repeatedly translated into Latin at an early period. There are extant three ancient
translations, one ascribed by Heribert Rosweyd, but improperly, to Rufmus, who died before
the work was written; and two others, the authors of which are not known; beside a
comparatively modern version by Gentianuis Hervetus. The first printed edition of the work
was in one of the ancient Latin versions, which appeared in the infancy of the typographic
art in the
Vitae Patrum, printed three times without mark of year or place,
or printer's name. It was reprinted in the
Prototypus Veteris Ecclesiae of
Theodoricus Loher a Stratis, fol. Cologn. 1547. The version ascribed by Rosweyd to Rufinus
had also been printed many times before it appeared in the first edition of the
Vitae
Patrum of that editor, fol. Antwerp,
A. D. 1615. The
remaining ancient Latin version, with several other pieces, was printed under the editorial
care of Faber Stapulensis, fol. Paris, 1504, under the following title:
Paradysus Heraclidis (Panzer,
Annal. Typ. vol. vii. p. 510), or
more fully
Heraclidis Eremitae Liber qui dicitur Paradisus, sen Palladii
Galatae Historia Lausiaca. (Fabric.
Bibl. Graec. vol.x. p. 194.)
The first edition of the Greek text, but a very imperfect one, was that of Meursius, who
added notes, small 4to. Leyden, 1616. Another edition of the Greek text, fuller than that of
Meursius, was contained in the
Auctarium. of Fronto Ducaeus, vol. ii. fol.
Paris, 1624, with the version of Hervetus, which had been first published 4to. Paris, 1555,
and had been repeatedly reprinted in the successive editions of the
Bibliotheca
Patrum, the
Vitae Patrum of Rosweyd, and elsewhere. The Greek text
and version were reprinted from the
Auctarium of Ducaeus, in the editions of
the
Bibliotheca Patrum, fol. Paris, 1644 and 1654. Our references are to the
edition of 1654. Some additional chapters are given in the
Ecclesiae Graecae
Monumenta of Cotelerius, vol. 3.4to. Paris, 1686. It is probable that the printed
text is still very defective, and that large additions might be made from MSS.
2.
Dialogus HistoricusΔιάλογος ἱστορικὸς Παλλαδίου Ἑλενουπύλεως γενόμενος
πρὸς Θεόδωρον διάκονον ʽρώμης, περὶ βίου καὶ πολιτείας τοῦ μακαρίου Ἰωάννου
ἐπισκόπου Κωνσταντινοπύλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου.
Dialogus Historicus Palladii episcopi Helenopolis cum Theodoro
ecclesiae Romanae diacono, de vita et conversatione Beati Joannis Chrysostomi, episcopi
Constantinopolis. This inaccurate title of the work misled many into the belief
that it was really by Palladius of Helenopolis, to whom indeed, not only on account of his
name, but as having been an exile at Rome for his adherence to Chrysostom, it was naturally
enough ascribed. Photius calls the writer a bishop (
Bibl. cod. 96. sub
init.), and Theodorus of Trimithus, a Greek writer of uncertain date, distinctly identifies
him with the author of the
Historica Lausiaca. A more attentive examination,
however, has shown that the author of the
Dialogus was a different person
from the bishop, and several years older, though he was his companion and fellow-sufferer in
the delegation from the Western emperor and church on behalf of Chrysostom, which occasioned
the imprisonment and exile of the bishop. Bigotius thinks that the work was published
anonymously; but that the author having intimated in the work that he was a bishop was
mistakenly identified with Palladius, and the title of the work in the MS. given
accordingly.
Editions
Latin Edition
The Dialogus de Vita S. Chrysostomi first appeared in a Latin
version by Ambrosius Camaldulensis, or the Camaldolite, 8vo. Venice, 1532 (or 1533), and
was reprinted at Paris and in the Vitae Sanctorum of Lipomannus, and in
the Latin editions of Chrysostom's works.
Greek Editions
The Greek text was published by Emericus Bigotius, with a valuable preface and a
new Latin version by the editor, with several other pieces, 4to. Paris, 1680, and was
reprinted 4to. Paris, 1738.
Περὶ τῶν τῆς Ἰνδίας ἐθνῶν καὶ τῶν
Βραγμάνων (
De Gentibus Indiae et
Braymanibus.)
Tillemont, assuming that the author of the Dialogue was called Palladius,
thinks he may have been the person to whom Athanasius wrote in A. D.
371 or 372. 3. Περὶ τῶν τῆς Ἰνδίας ἐθνῶν καὶ
τῶν Βραγμάνων,
De Gentibus Indiae et Braymanibus.
This work is, in several MSS., ascribed to Palladius of Helenopolis, and in one MS. is
subjoined to the
Historia Lausiaca. All that can be gathered from the work itself, is that the author was a Christian
(passim), and lived while the Roman empire was yet in existence (p. 7, ed. Biss.), a mark of
time, however, of little value, as the Byzantine empire retained to the last the name of
Roman; and that he visited the nearest parts of India in company with Moses, bishop of
Adula, a place on the borders of Egypt and Aethiopia. If this be the Moses mentioned by
Socrates (H. E. 4.36) and Sozomen (H. E. 6.38), he
lived rather too early for Palladius of Helenopolis to have been his companion, nor is there
any reason to suppose that the latter ever visited India, so that the work
De Gentibus Indiae is probably ascribed to him without reason.
Editions
It was first published with a Latin version, but without the author's name, in the
Liber Gnomologieus of Joachimus Camerarius, 8vo. Leipsic, without date,
according to Fabricius, but placed by Niceron (
Mémoires, vol.
xix. p. 1l2),in 1571.
It was again printed, and this time under the name of Palladius, together with "S.
Ambrosius De Ambrosius Brachmanorum," and "Anonymus, De Bragmanibus" by Sir Edward Bisse (Bissaeus), Clarenceux King of Arms, 4to.,
London, 1665.
Some copies were printed on large paper in folio. The editor was evidently ignorant of
the work having been published by Camerarius, and consequently gave a new Latin version,
which is not considered equal to that of his predecessor.
The authorship of Palladius is doubted by Cave, and denied by Oudin. Lambecius (De Biblioth. Caesaraea, vol. v. p. 181, ed. Kollar) ascribes the work to
Palladius of Methone. [No. 9.]
Work of St. Ambrose ascribed to Palladius
The supposed work of St. Ambrose, published by Bisse, is repudiated by the Benedictine
editors of that father, and has been shown by Kollar to be a free translation of the work
ascribed to Palladius.