Rome as the basis of argument in the so-called Pelagian controversy (415-418)

Abstract

This paper considers the rhetoric of the so called Pelagian controversy. Its interest lies in a specific category of arguments drawn from a place (argumenta a loco). A brief outline of the theoretical concept of argumentum a loco and its popularity in the early Christian literature is presented. The main outcome of this study is to give a detailed analysis of the arguments used by Augustine and Zosimus. During his controversy with Pelagius between 415 and 418, Augustine on many occasions portrays this heretic as a long-term inhabitant of Rome. I suggest that one should be skeptical about drawing exact chronology from his vague statements. The bishop of Hippo builds also a detailed topography of the Pelagian controversy mainly to persuade the Christian world of the immense danger of this new heresy. He alarms Innocent, bishop of Rome, Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and Paulinus, bishop of Nola, that the followers of Pelagius have hideouts in their vicinities. Innocent, on his part, refrains from supporting Augustine’s prejudices about Pelagius’s popularity in Rome but excommunicates him as a heretic. Zosimus, Innocent’s follower as a bishop of Rome, reverses this verdict. He argues that that all the Roman clergy and brethren found in the alleged heretic a sound Christian. He makes reference to the exceptional authority of the Roman See in the Christian world: Pelagius is not a heretic, precisely because such is the verdict of the Roman Christians. Augustine presents Pelagius as a mendacious and cunning heretic. This is yet another context for the occurrence of an argumentum a loco. The bishop of Hippo tries to convince his addressees that Pelagius is a bad heretic, and all the more so because he lied to the bishops in Holy Land and in Rome. He succeeded in deceiving the former but felt short of harming the latter. According to Augustine’s interpretation, it was because the Roman Church had known this heretic and his error for a long time, and was not prone to his lies. On that occasion, Augustine reverses Zosimus’ arguments based on the authority of Rome and presents a flawed account of the Pope’s proceedings.