Flavianus

This name, of comparatively rare occurrence in the early imperial period, became more common in the later period of the empire, after the accession to the throne of the Flavian house in the person of Constantius Chlorus, father of Constantine the Great, and the assumption of the name Flavius by the successive dynasties that occupied the Byzantine throne. A considerable number of officers of high rank during and between the reigns of Constantine the Great and Valentinian III. are enumerated in the Prosopographia subjoined to the edition of the Codex Theodosianus by Gothofredus (vol. vi. part ii. pp. 54, 55, ed. Leipzig, 1736-45). The following persons of the name require distinct notice: --

1. T. Ampius Flavianus, consular legate or governor of Pannonia during the civil wars which followed the death of Galba, A. D. 69, at which time he was old and wealthy, and reluctant to take part in the contest; and when the legions of his province (the Thirteenth and the Seventh or Galbian legions) embraced the party of Vespasian, he fled into Italy. He returned, however, into Pannonia, and joined the party of Vespasian at the instigation of Cornelius Fuscus, procurator of the province, who was anxious to obtain for the insurgents the influence which the rank of Flavianus would give. His previous reluctance and a connection by marriage with Vitellius had however rendered the soldiersmistrustful, and they suspected that his return to the province had some treacherous object. He appears to have accompanied the Pannonian legions on their march into Italy; and during the siege or blockade of. Verona, a false alarm having caused the smothered suspicions of the soldiery to break out, a tumultuous body of them demanded his death. His abject entreaties for life they interpreted as the mark of conscious treachery; but he was rescued by the intervention of Antonius Primus, the most influential general of the troops of Vespasian, and was sent off in custody the same evening to meet Vespasian, but before he reached him received letters from him relieving him from all danger of punishment. (Tac. Hist. 2.86, 3.4, 10.)

2. Flavianus, one of the praefects of the praetorium under Alexander Severus. He was appointed to the office on the accession of Alexander, in conjunction with Chrestus (A. D. 222). They were both men of military and administrative ability ; but the appointment of Ulpian nominally as their colleague, but really as their superior, having led to conspiracies on the part of the praetorian soldiers against Ulpian, Flavian and Chrestus were deposed and executed, and Ulpian made sole praefect. The year of their death is not ascertained, but it was not long before that of Ulpian himself, which took place at latest A. D. 228. (D. C. 80.2; Zosim. 1.11; Zonar. 12.15.)

3. Ulpius Flavianus, consular of the provinces of Aemilia and Liguria, in Italy, under Constantine the Great, A. D. 323. (Cod. Theodos. 11. tit. 16. s. 2; Gothofred. Prosop. Cod. Theod.)

4. Proconsul of Africa, apparently under Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, A. D. 357-61. It is probable that this is the proconsul Flavian, to whole some of the rhetorical exercises of the sophist Himerius are addressed; though Fabricius supposes the Flavian of Himerius to be No. 7. (Cod. Theod. 8. tit. 5. s. 10, 11. tit. 36. s. 14, 15. tit. 1. s. 1; Gothofred. Prosop. Cod. Theod.; Himerius, ap. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 165, 243, pp. 108, 376, ed. Bekker; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. p. 57.)

5. Vicarius of Africa, under Gratian, A. D. 377. He was one of those commissioned to inquire into the malpractices of Count Romanus and his confederates ; and Ammianus Marcellinus records the uprightness of his conduct in the business. It is probable that he is the Flavian mentioned by Augustin as an adherent of the sect of the Donatists, by whom, however, he was excommunicated, because, in the discharge of his office, he had punished some criminals capitally. An inscription, belonging to a statue at Rome, "Virius Nicomachus, Consularis Siciliae, Vicarius Africae, Quaestor intra Palatium; Praef. Praetor iterum et Cos.," is by Gothofredus referred to this Flavian, but we rather refer it to No. 6. Gothofredus also regards this Flavian as the person mentioned by Himerius ; but the mention of his administration of Africa equally well suits No. 4, to whom the title ἀνθύπατος determines the reference. (Amm. Marc. 28.6; Augustin. ad Emeritum, Epist. 164 (or 87, ed. Paris, 1836); Cod. Theod. 16. tit. 6. s. 2; Gothofred. Prosop. Cod. Theod.)

6. Praetorian praefect of Italy and Illyricum A. D. 382-3. He was the intimate friend of Q. Aurelius Symmachus, many of whose letters (nearly the whole of the second book) are addressed to him. Symmachus continually addresses him as his "brother Flavian," which moderns (we know not for what reason) understand as expressive of close intimacy, but not of actual relationship. Gothofredus appears to distinguish between this Flavian and one who was praetorian praefect in 391 and 392 ; but we concur with Tillemont in identifying the two. Tillemont also (and we think justly) refers to this Flavian the inscription given above [No. 5], in which his second praefecture and consulship are recorded. He was, like Symmachus, a zealous pagan, and a supporter of the usurper Eugenius, from whom he and Arbogastes the Frank solicited and obtained the restoration of the Altar of Victory at Milan. It is probable that he was the person mentioned by Paullinus of Milan, as having threatened that, if they were successful in the war with Theodosius, they would turn the church of Milan into a stable. The text of Paullinus has, in the notice of this incident, the name Fabianus, which is probably a corruption of Flavianus. He was eminent for his political sagacity, and his skill in the pagan methods of divination, in the exercise of which he assured Eugenius of victory; and when Theodosius had falsified his predictions, by forcing the passes of the Alps, he, according to Rufinns, "judged himself worthy of death," rather for his mistake as a soothsayer than his crime as a rebel. Eugenius had appointed him consul (A. D. 394), though his name does not appear in the Fasti; and Tillemont infers from the passage in Rufinus that he commanded the troops defeated by Theodosius in the Alps, and that he chose to die on the field rather than survive his defeats; but this inference is scarcely authorized. It is more likely that, as Gothofredus gathers from the letters of Symmachus, he survived the war, and that his life was spared, though he was deprived of his praefecture and his property. It is difficult, however, to distinguish from each other the Flaviani mentioned by Symmachus, whose letters are very obscure; and possibly this Flavian has been confounded with No. 7. (Symmach. Epist. passim; Sozom. Hist. Ecc. 7.22 ; Rufin. Hist. Ecc. 2.33; Paullin. Mediol. Vita Ambros. 100.26, 31, in Galland. Bibl. Patr. vol. ix.; Cod. Theod. 1. tit. 1. s. 2; 3. tit. 1. s. 6; 7. tit. 18. s. 8; 9. tit. 28. s. 2; and tit. 40. s. 13; 10. tit. 10. s. 20; 11. tit. 39. s. 11; 16. tit. 7. s. 4, 5; Gothofred. Prosop. Cod. Theod.; Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. vol. v.)

7. Proconsul of Asia, A. D. 383, one of the Flaviani of Symmachus, and apparently the son of No. 6. Either he or his father was praefect of the city (Rome) A. D. 399, and was sent by Honorius (A. D. 414) into Africa to hear the complaints of the Provincials, and examine how far they were well-founded. Fabricius regards this proconsul of Asia as the Flavian of Himerius; but see Nos. 4 and 5. (Cod. Theod. 12. tit. 6. s. 18; Gothofred and Tillemont, as above.)

An inscription in Gruter, 170.5, speaks of "Vir inlustris Flavianus" as the founder of a secretarium for the senate, which was destroyed by fire, and restored in the time of Honorius and Theodosius II. The inscription possibly refers to No. 6, or No. 7.

8. Praefect of the praetorium under Valentinian III., A. D. 431 and 432. (Cod. Theod. 10. tit. 1. s. 36; 6. tit. 23. s. 3; Gothofred. Prosop. Cod. Theod.) [J.C.M]

9. an advocatus fisci in the time of Justinian, by whom he was nominated one of the general judges (κοινοὶ πάντων δικασταί), who were appointed in lieu of the special judges, formerly attached by a constitution of Zeno to patticular tribunals. The names of the general judges so appointed by Justinian in A. D. 539 are Anatolus, Flavianus, Alexander, Stephanus, Menas, a second Alexander, Victor, and Theodorus, of Cyzicum. At the same time the following persons were appointed superior judges, with high rank : Plato, Victor (different from the former Victor), Phocas, and Marcellus. To these the administration of justice at Constantinople was confided, in subordination to the emperor's ministers of state (ἄρχοντες). Their powers, duties, and emoluments, are prescribed by the 82nd Novell. [J.T.G]

ecclesiastics.

1. Of Antioch, was born, probably, in that city, and in the earlier part of the fourth century. His parentsdied when he was young; but he resisted the temptations arising from rank, wealth, and early freedom from parental control, and devoted himself to study and ascetic exercises, not carrying the latter, however, to such excess as to injure his constitution. He was remarkable for the early sedateness of his character, so that Chrysostom doubts if he could ever be said to have been a young man. On the deposition of Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, A. D. 329 or 330, or perhaps 331, by the Arian party [Eustathius, No. 1], Flavian is said to have followed him into exile. But this is somewhat doubtful, from the silence of Chrysostom, and from the fact that, though the bishops who succeeded Eustathius were of Arian or Eusebian sentiments, Flavian did not secede from the communion of the church, as the more zealous supporters of Eustathius did. Yet Flavian was a strenuous supporter of orthodoxy, and his opposition, with that of his coadjutor Diodorus, though they were both yet laymen, compelled the bishop Leontius to prohibit Aetius, who was preaching his heterodox doctrines at Antioch, under the bishop's protection [Aetius], from the exercise of the functions of the deaconship to which he had just been raised. The date of this transaction is not fixed; but the episcopate of Leontius commenced in A. D. 348, and lasted about ten years. Whether Flavian and Diodorus were at this time deacons is not clear. Philostorgius states that they were deposed by Leontius for their opposition to him, but does not say from what office. They first introduced the practice of the alternate singing or chanting of the psalms, and the division of the choir into parts, which afterwards became universal in the church.

Flavian was ordained priest by Meletius, who was elected bishop of Antioch, A. D. 361, and held the see, with three intervals of exile, chiefly occasioned by his opposition to Arianism, till A. D. 381. His first expulsion, which was soon after his election, induced Flavian and others to withdraw from the communion of the church, over which Euzoius, an Arian, had been appointed. The seceders still recognised the deposed prelate; and the church formed by them was, during the third and longest banishment of Meletius, under the care of Flavian and Diodorus, both now in the priesthood. Flavian himself did not preach, but he supplied materials to Diodorus and others who did. On the death of Valens, A. D. 378, and the consequent downfall of Arianism, Meletius was restored, and the orthodox party recovered possession of the churches, the Arians, or the more staunch of them, becoming in turn seceders. But the orthodox were divided among themselves; for the older seceders at the deposition of Eustathius had remained separate under their own bishop, and had not united with the second secession under Meletius. Paulinus was, at the death of Valens, the Eustathian bishop, and contested with Meletius the rightful occupation of the see. The orthodox church throughout the Roman empire was divided on the question, the Western and Egyptian churches acknowledging Paulinus, and the Asiatic, and apparently the Greek churches, recognising Meletius. To terminate the schism it was agreed upon oath, by those of the clergy of Antioch who were most likely to be appointed to succeed in the event of a vacancy, that they would decline accepting such appointment, and agree to recognise the survivor of the present claimants. Flavian was one of the parties to this agreement: but many of the Eustathians refused to sanction it; so that when Meletius died, while attending the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, Flavian, who was also attending the Council, and was elected to succeed him, with the general approval of the Asiatic churches, felt himself at liberty to accept the appointment.

The imputation of perjury, to which Flavian thus subjected himself, apparently aggravated the schism; and when Paulinus died, A. D. 388 or 389, his party elected Evagrius to succeed him; but on his death after a short episcopate [Evagrius, No. 1], no successor was chosen; and the schism was healed, though not immediately. Flavian managed to conciliate Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and by his intervention, and that of Chrysostom, now bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 397-403, he was acknowledged by the Roman and other Western churches.

On occasion of the great sedition at Antioch, A. D. 387, Flavian was one of those who interceded with the emperor, Theodosius the Great, for the pardon of the citizens. He set out on this mission in spite of the infirmities of age, the inclemency of the weather, and the illness of his only sister, who was at the point of death; and used such diligence as to reach Constantinople before the authentic tidings of the disturbance. Ecclesiastical writers ascribe the pardon of the citizens very much to his intercession, but Zosimus, in his brief notice of the affair, does not mention him.

Flavian was held in much respect, both during and after his life. Chrysostom, his pupil and friend, speaks of him in the highest terms. Theodore of Mopsuestia was also his pupil. Flavian died, A. D. 404, not long after the deposition of Chrysostom, to which he was much opposed, but which was sanctioned by his successor in the see of Antioch.

Of his writings only some quotations remain ; they are apparently from his sermons, and are preserved in the Eranistes of Theodoret. Photius mentions his Letters to the Bishops of Osroene and to a certain Armenian Bishop, respecting the rejection, by a synod over which Flavian presided, of Adelphius, a heretic, who desired to be reconciled to the church; Photius speaks also of a Confession of Faith, and a Letter to the Emperor Theodosius, written by him. ( Chrysostom, Homil. cum ordinatus esset Presbyt., Homil. III. ad Pop. Antioch., &c.; Facund. Def. Trium Cap. 2.2; Socrat. Hist. Eccles. 5.5, 10, 15; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 7.11, 15, 23, 8.3, 24; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2.24, 4.25, 5.2, 9, 23, Eranist. Dial. i. ii. iii. Opera, vol. iv pp. 46, 66, 160, 250, 251, ed. Schulze, Halae, 1769-74; Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. 3.18; Photius, Bibl. cod. 52, 96, pp. 12, 80, 81, ed. Bekker; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. p. 291, x. pp. 347, 695; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 277, ed. Oxford, 1740-43.)

2. Of Antioch. According to Evagrius he was originally a monk of Tilmognon, in Coele-Syria ; and, as appears from Theophanes, afterwards became a presbyter and apocrisiarius of the church at Antioch. He was promoted to the see of Antioch by the emperor Anastasius I. on the death of Palladius, in the year 496, or 497, or 498, according to calculations or statements of Baronius, Victor Tununensis, and Pagi respectively : the last date, which is also given by Tillemont, is probably correct. The church throughout the whole Byzantine empire was divided by the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies and the dispute as to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon : and the impression that Flavian rejected the authority of that council may perhaps have conduced to his elevation, as the emperor countenanced the Eutychian party in rejecting it. But if Flavian was ever opposed to the council, he gave up his former views after his elevation to the bishopric.

His period of office was a scene of trouble, through the dissensions of the church, aggravated by the personal enmity of Xenaias or Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, in Syria, who raised the cry against him of favouring Nestorianism. Flavian endeavoured to refute this charge by anathematizing Nestorius and his doctrine; but Xenaias, not satisfied, required him to anathematize a number of persons now dead (including Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others), who were suspected, justly or not, of Nestorianism, declaring that if he refused to anathematize them, he must remain subject to the imputation of being a Nestorian himself. Flavian refused for a time to comply; but pressed by the enmity of Xenaias and his supporters, and anxious to satisfy the emperor, who supported his opponents. he subscribed the Henoticon or Edict of Union of the late emperor Zeno; and having assembled the bishops of his province, he drew up a synodal letter, and sent it to the emperor, owning the authority of the three councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and silently passing over that of Chalcedon, and pronouncing the required anathema against the prelates enumerated by Xenaias. He also sent to the emperor a private assurance of his readiness to comply with his wishes. (A. D. 508 or 509.) Victor Tununensis states that Flavian and Xenaias presided over a council at Constantinopie A. D. 499, when the obnoxious prelates and the Council of Chalcedon itself were anathematized : but his account seenis hardly trustworthy.

The ememies of Flavian were not, however, satisfied. They required him distinctly to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, and all who held the doctrine of the two natures. [Eutyches.] This he refused to do, and in a confession of faith which he drew up, supported the authority of the council in the repudiation both of Nestorius and Eutyches, but not in its definition of the true faith. The cry of Nestorianism was again raised against him; and new disturbances were excited; and the Isaurian, and apparently some other Asiatic churches, broke off from communiion with Flavian. A synod was held A. D. 510 at Sidon, to condemn the Council of Chalcedon and depose its leading supporters; but Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem managed to prevent its effecting anything. Flavian still hoped to appease his opponents, and wrote to the emperor, expressing his readiness to acknowledge the first three councils, and pass over that of Chalcedon in silence; but his efforts were in vain; a tumultuous body of monks of the province of Syria Prima assembled at Antioch, and frightened Flavian into pronouncing an open anathema against the Council of Chalcedon, and against Theodore of Mopsuestia and the other bishops whom Xenaias had already obliged him to condemn. The citizens were not equally compliant; they rose against the monks, and killed many of them : and the confusion was renewed by the monks of Coele-Syria, who embraced the side of Flavian, and hasted to Antioch to defend him. These disturbances, or some transactions connected with the Council of Sidon, gave the emperor a ground or pretext for deposing Flavian (A. D. 511) and putting Severus in his place. Victor Tununensis places the deposition of Flavian as early as the consulship of Cethegus, A. D. 504. Flavian was banished to Petra in Arabia, where he died. His death is assigned by Tillemoint, on the authority of Joannes Moschus, to A. D. 518. In Vitalian's rebellion (A. D. 513 or 514) his restoration to his see was one of the demands of that rebel. [Anastasius.] Flavian is (at least was) honoured in the Greek Church as a confessor, and was recognised as such by the Romish Church, after long opposition. (Evagr. Hist. Ecc. 3.23, 30, 31, 32; Theophan. Chronog. pp. 220-247, ed. Bonn; Marcellin, Chron. (Paul. et Musc. Cass.); Vict. Tun. Chiron. (ab Anast. Aug. Cos. ad Cet/heg. Cos.); Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad Ann. 496 et 512; Pagi, Critice in Baron. ; Tillemont, Mém. vol. xvi. p. 675, &c.)

3. Of Constantinople. He was chosen successor to Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, who died anno 439 Alex. era, or 446 A. D. At the time of his election he was a presbyter and keeper of the sacred vessels in the great church at Constantinople. Chrysaphius, the eunuch, a friend and supporter of the monk Eutyches [Eutyches], was at this time an influential person at court ; and he having a dislike to Flavian, managed to set the emperor Theodosius II. against him, from the very commencement of his episcopate. Dioscorus, who had just ascended the episcopal chair of Alexandria, and was persecuting the kinsmen of his predecessor, Cyril [Cyrillus], was also irritated against Flavian, who had befriended the persecuted parties. Flavian was indeed befriended by Pulcheria, the emperor's sister; but her aid was more than counterbalanced by the enmity of the empress Eudocia [Eudocia Augusta], who was influenced by Chrysaphitus, and was, moreover, irritated by Flavian's defeating a plan to remove Pulcheria altogether from the state and the court by having her ordained a deaconess. Flavian was not, however, daunted. He assembled a synod of forty bishops, and deposed Eutyches from his office of archimandrite or abbot, and excommunicated him, on the ground of his heretical opinions. [Eutyches.] This bold step irritated the opponents of Flavian, and they prevailed on the emperor to summon a synod at Constantinople to try Flavian on a charge of falsifying the acts of the synod at which Eutyches was condemned. Flavian was acquitted, but his enemies persuaded Theodosius to summon a general council at Ephesus. At this council, over which Dioscorus presided, and which is known in history as the Council of Robbers (ἡ λῃστρικὴ)), Flavian and the other members of the synod which had condemned Eutyches were present, but were not allowed to vote, since their conduct was called in question. Their friends were overborne in an irregular manner, Eutyches was restored, and Flavian not only deposed and sentenced to banishment, but so roughly beaten and kicked by the Egyptian and other attendants of Dioscorus, that he died three days afterwards (A. D. 449). This violence probably tended to the reaction which took place in the mind of the emperor. Pulcheria regained her ascendancy; the body of Flavian was, by her order, honourably conveyed to Constantinople, and buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Pope Leo the Great honoured him as a confessor, and the Council of Chalcedon as a martyr; and since the time of Baronius he has been commemorated in the Martyrology of the Romish Church. Works

A letter of Flavian to Pope Leo was published by Cotelerus (Monum. Eccles. Graec. vol. i. p. 50); and a confession of his faith presented to the emperor Theodosius, and some other pieces, are given with the acts of the Council of Chalcedon in the Concilia of Labbe and Harduin; and are also inserted in the Concilia of Mansi, vol. viii. p. 833. Further Information

Evagr. Hist. Ecc. 1.8, 9, 10; Theophanes, Chronog. pp. 150-158, ed Bonn; Marcellin, Chron. (Protog. et Astur. Coss.); Vict. Tun. Chron. (Callip. ct Ardab. Coss. Post. et Zen. Coss.); Synod. Vetus, aptid Fabric. ; Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vol. ix. p. 290, and vol. xii. pp. 393, 394, and 672; Tillemont, Mém. vol. xv. pp. 446, &c. [J.C.M]