Palladius of Helenopolis on John Chrysostom’s Ordinations in Asia

John Chrysostom ordained and deposed several bishops in the province of Asia. His opponents decried his extra-jurisdictional actions and cited them as justification for his removal from office. Palladius of Helenopolis, who was directly involved in the affair, discussed the matter extensively in his Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom (chapters 14-16), and argued that John had done nothing wrong. Although scholars have debated the historical merits of his treatment, they have ignored the fundamental rhetorical elements that reveal Palladius’ personal assessment of the strength of his case in John’s defense. This paper offers a rhetorical analysis of Palladius’ treatment of the Asian depositions, by examining it for the first time through the lens of late-antique forensic rhetoric and stasis theory. It argues that forensic rhetoric makes clear that chapters 14-16 of the Dialogue must not be treated as a historical narrative, but as an argument made in defense of a client. It employs stasis theory to demonstrate that it conforms to the rules of conjecture (stochasmos), a form of argument that denies any illegal act occurred. It then argues that despite the use of this form, stasis theory also suggests that Palladius recognized the issue was rather one of counterplea (antilepsis), in which one admits that an act occurred that might reasonably be deemed illegal. In conclusion, although Palladius sincerely believed that John was innocent of wrong doing, beneath his rhetorical bluster he also recognized that his actions were not self-evidently legal.