Search

John Chrysostom's failure as bishop of Constantinople, following as it did on his successful Antiochene career, continues to puzzle scholars. Increasingly, accusations of Origenism emerge as one of the many factors that led to the bishop's down-fall, initiated at the Synod of the Oaks. But what did Origenism mean to those who accused Chrysostom? How was it defined? And, more importantly, how can we assess the attitudes of those in power, instrumental in toppling the bishop of the capital, who left no written record, namely the members of the imperial elite? This paper uses elite male fashion and display, including forms of display achieved through the public sponsoring of ascetics in and near the city, to address some of these questions. Here, the fact that John's alleged Origenism was linked, rhetorically, to Arianism and Eunomianism gains particular relevance, not least because some of the elites involved in the conflicts that led to Chrysostom's downfall, were themselves Gothic Arians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]