Protecting the Civitas, Warning the Civis: Spiritual Defences in Two Sermons by Maximus of Turin

Abstract

The late antique world and the Scriptures both provided late antique bishops with potent civic imagery to apply in their sermons. Often preaching in an urban context the bishop could rhetorically deploy civic terminology and imagery to relate to his listeners’ experiences and expectations as citizens or inhabitants of their civitas with the aim of making his instructions and exhortations effective. This chapter zooms in on two sermons by Maximus of Turin (d. ca. 408–423) where civic imagery is applied. In both sermons the bishop works with the notion of a city community under threat and connects this to the spiritual threat of Judgement Day. Zooming in on the application of civic imagery in the two sermons this chapter will show how Maximus connects to his congregants’ expectations and concerns with regard to their well-being and their city’s protection to make them acknowledge the necessity of their spiritual safety and to take proper action to procure this.

I thank Els Rose and Robert Flierman for reading drafts of this article and offering me valuable suggestions for improvement. This chapter advances a selection of findings resulting from my PhD-research, which is conducted as part of the NWO-VICI project ‘Citizenship Discourses in the Early Middle Ages, 400–1100’, funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO VICI-Rose 277-30-002). For a description of the project’s aims and approaches, see: Els Rose, ‘Citizenship Discourses in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 55 (2021): 1–21, and the project website https://citizenshipdiscourses.sites.uu.nl/ (last consulted 18 January 2023).

1 Introduction

From the first centuries of Christianity up to and throughout the early Middle Ages a wide range of sources attest to the variety of ways in which Christian authors applied vocabulary, images, and notions pertaining to city, citizen, or citizenship both in their speaking and writing. Informed by both Scripture and the classical world in which Christianity was rooted and developed Christian thinkers could tap into and invent a wide array of this ‘civic imagery’ to convey the proper ways of life as a Christian and to converse about what it means to be part of God’s community.¹ The soul, in need of protection against sin and vice, could be visualised as a city with its defensive barriers.² Martyrs and bishops could be described as the very walls of their city providing protection to their community.³ In addition to the material aspects of a city, the communal notions inherent to the term civitas (polis, politeia) provided a template to think about becoming and being a member of God’s people on earth and in heaven.⁴

Late antique sermons constitute a particularly profitable source for the study of this rich field of Christian civic imagery.⁵ Given the fact that sermons were often delivered within an urban context,⁶ terms like civitas and civis could be rhetorically deployed by bishops to relate to their congregants’ associations, expectations, and experiences as members and inhabitants of the civitas. In doing so, these preachers may have hoped to render their instructions and exhortations and, more generally, their efforts of building and fostering a Christian community particularly effective.

For the purpose of this article two sermons of Maximus of Turin (d. ca. 408/423⁷) will take centre stage. Maximus preached in a time when Christianity was officially recognised as the state religion, but, in the view of Maximus at least, had yet to take proper shape in the civitas of Turin.⁸ Maximus as a spiritual leader faced the challenge of building and fostering a Christian community in a city that was still very much rooted in and functioned according to pagan traditions and classical values and systems.⁹ Indeed, studies on Maximus’ sermons have revealed the bishop’s many rhetorical efforts of making his congregants adapt their lives according to the Christian moral yardstick and of driving out pagan elements from the civitas and its surrounding countryside.¹⁰

Furthermore, Maximus was at some point(s) during his episcopacy confronted with the challenge of managing his community during especially troublesome times for the city. Several of his sermons refer to battles and ‘barbarians’ and show that the inhabitants of Turin anticipated hostile attacks; they also reveal how fear of hostilities made citizens decide to flee their city¹¹ and instigated preparations of Turin’s material defences.¹² The anxiety and anticipation that seep through these sermons can amongst others be linked to a period in and around the first decade of the fifth century when Northern Italy formed the scene of battle and the corridor for moving troops, including those of the Goths.¹³

Amongst the many instances of exhorting, correcting, and guiding his flock we can observe how Maximus made use of civic imagery to elucidate, enliven, and strengthen his instructions.¹⁴ For the purpose of this chapter two instances of this rhetorical employment of civic imagery will be closely examined. I will focus on two sermons where Maximus makes use of the notion of a city under threat with the purpose of turning the congregants’ attention to the necessity of accepting and building spiritual protection. In both sermons this notion of a city under threat is particularly linked to the prospect of future Judgement Day.

The discussion of these two sermons will provide insight into the ways in which this imagery of a city or citizen community under threat could be applied, as well as the kind of situations that could induce the use of this imagery. More importantly, however, this chapter will show how the bishop could connect to the urban context in which he preached—including his congregants’ daily experiences and expectations concerning civic well-being and safety—and use this in conjunction with specific Scriptural passages to point his audience towards the importance of spiritual safety.

2 Sermon 85: Defending Turin, protecting the City within

As noted in the introduction several of Maximus’ sermons allow us to observe a preacher at work during a time of anxiety and insecurity. They provide insight in how the bishop aimed to steer his audience towards a proper understanding of the situation and the necessary course of action.¹⁵ In sermons 81 and 82 for example, held on two subsequent Sundays, Maximus uses the biblical story about the Ninevites, whose city was threatened with destruction because of the citizens’ sins, to convince his audience that they could save Turin by staying in the city, by abandoning sin, and through fasting and prayer.¹⁶ In sermon 85, Maximus approaches the fear of hostilities from quite a different angle. Maximus spends a significant part of this sermon on the importance of taking care of one’s spiritual salus. He uses the real-life preparations for the defence of Turin as an image for the spiritual defences of a person’s inner city.

In what follows I will discuss how Maximus in sermon 85 utilises the fact that the city of Turin was being fortified and armed in the anticipation of hostilities to instruct the audience how to properly protect their soul, the inner city. We will see how Maximus presents the erecting of spiritual defences as fulfilling multiple tasks: they provide the necessary protection against the threat of Judgement Day, but at the same time these spiritual defences constitute a fundamental factor in the protection of Turin against earthly threats. Furthermore, the sermon reveals how the entire congregation is enabled to participate in the defensive preparations.

Maximus begins his sermon by addressing possible feelings of concern amongst his congregants. He observes that continually hearing about the battles that take place (tumultus bellorum et incursiones proeliorum fieri) may cause them (‘you’, uos) to be troubled; they may be even more troubled because of the question why these things are taking place ‘in our times’.¹⁷ In what follows, Maximus provides his audience with an interpretation of these events, explaining how the nearby battles are proof that the coming of Christ is near. Maximus presents this first of all as consolation. Maximus states that the arrival of the adversary (uenientem aduersarium) is not to be feared, as it signals the coming of the Saviour (saluatorem). Furthermore, the bishop contrasts the temporal anxiety that the adversary incites with the eternal salus that the Saviour will bring and presents Christ as the powerful Lord who can repel the hostile dread (hostilem […] pauorem) from ‘us’ and impart his presence and protection (suam […] praesentiam) upon ‘us’.¹⁸

The events are, therefore, not only to be seen as a signal that eternal salvation is near. The idea of Christ’s coming is also presented as an antidote to the anxiety experienced by the audience.¹⁹ Maximus at this point does not explain how the protection provided by Christ is to be understood, whether it helps against fear or wards off hostile events themselves, or both. This particular issue of proper protection, as we will see, and what it consists of, is an essential part of Maximus’ subsequent instructions.

Maximus moves from his consoling words towards a cautionary message on what the people should truly be fearful about. The battles that are taking place do not only signal the arrival of Christ the Saviour, but as Maximus points out, also that of Judgement Day. They furthermore do not only form the prelude, so to say, of this day (futurum enim iudicium dei haec inquietudo praecedit), but they also have an admonitory function: the fear and caution incited by the current—and visible—tribulations will make one considerate of the fearful things to come and more cautious about the things one hopes for.²⁰ In what follows Maximus explains to his audience what they are to do in the face of these current fearful events and the prospect of God’s judgement:

But <a wise man> (Ramsey: one who is wise) is instructed by these earthly events as to how he must avoid the coming judgment of the world. For, as he perceives how, in this universal confusion, the leading men prepare for safety <for the city (walls)> (Ramsey: by building ramparts), he himself is warned as to how to prepare a defense for Christian souls in the future destruction of the world.²¹ (trans. Ramsey, 204, adapted)

Here Maximus refers to the activities deployed by the leading men of the city (primores uiros) who prepare protection for the city (walls) (tuitionem moenibus). Maximus presents these activities, which the congregants may have witnessed daily,²² as an instruction to ‘the wise man’ (Vir […] sapiens) of how to protect the Christian souls in the face of Judgement Day.

Before going into more detail about what these spiritual defences should be like, it is first necessary to shortly reflect on the identity of the primores viri Maximus mentions. These men can be identified as the most prominent ruling men of the city. As Leonard Curchin observes, the principales viri, who in some cities were referred to as primores or primates, made part of the local curia and ‘acquire[d] a special, legally recognised status, becoming a kind of oligarchic inner circle or “executive committee” of the council after the mid-fourth century’.²³ The tasks of these principales included ‘assessment and collection of taxes’, ‘enrolment of new members in the curia’ and providing aid ‘to suppress Christian heresies’.²⁴

Judging by Maximus’ words, in the unsettling times in which he delivered sermon 85 these primores viri were engaged in the preparation of Turin’s defences. Furthermore, the sermon for the subsequent Sunday (sermon 86) seems to point to a specific responsibility of these men to care for the safety of the city and its citizens. Although Maximus on that occasion does not specifically refer to primores or principales he seems to address this group of men when he states that one’s own salus should first be taken care of, before one engages in providing for the salus ‘of many’ (saluti […] multorum).²⁵ Several lines later Maximus observes that security for the citizens (securitatem ciuibus) can truly be provided by one who prepares the city’s fortification (munitionem praeparat ciuitati) in God’s name.²⁶

In the case of sermon 85 Maximus’ words are not geared towards reminding the primores viri of their responsibility. Instead, he uses the protective activities of the leading men as a ‘manual’ so to speak to activate a much broader range of people. By introducing the notion of a wise or prudent man (vir sapiens) the bishop seems to aim at enticing all his listeners²⁷ to prepare proper spiritual defences for the Christian soul. As we will see below, Maximus pictures the soul as a city that needs protection against the future judgement of God and the destruction of the world; at the same time this city’s spiritual defences are presented as a way to be relieved of fear and as a base requirement for earthly victory.

In his discourse on the spiritual protection of the inner city Maximus not only draws from the activities deployed by the primores viri. For his defensive imagery he also makes use of Scripture, amongst others Psalm 117/118. The theme of the Psalm in general closely relates to the circumstances in which Maximus and the congregants find themselves. The psalmist speaks about tribulation (v. 5), enemies (v. 7), and being surrounded by nations (vv. 10–12). Furthermore, reminiscent of Maximus’ comforting words about the coming of Christ the psalmist speaks of not being afraid of man and about God’s salvation. The Psalm also conveys the message that it is better to trust in and hope for God than to trust in men or to set one’s hope on rulers (in principibus, v. 9).²⁸ This message, as we will see, also plays an important role in Maximus’ message and rhetoric on preparing spiritual city defences.²⁹

The first explicit reference to the Psalm follows Maximus’ statement about the wise man and the protective actions of the primores viri. Maximus cites Psalm 117/118:19, ‘aperite mihi portas iustitiae’,³⁰ and interprets the ‘gates of righteousness’ in such a way that it fits his earlier reference to city defences:

Seeing that the gates of the city are fortified, we ought first to fortify the gates of righteousness in ourselves, for there are gates of righteousness, about which the holy prophet said: Open to me the gates of righteousness, and so forth. But the city gate can be secured only if the gate of righteousness in ourselves is first made secure […].³¹ (trans. Ramsey, 204)

In Maximus’ exegesis the Psalm’s gates become positioned ‘inside us’ (in nobis) and it is these that must be armed and strengthened; additionally, through the comparison with the defensive activities deployed for the audience’s real-life city gate³² those of the Psalm are implicitly characterised as city gates. This notion of an inner city gate that must receive proper protection is subsequently expanded upon: through a series of parallels the material defences that are being prepared for the city gates (illa) are matched with a spiritual counterpart for the inner city gate (haec):

The one is built of iron, stones, and spikes; let the other be armed with <compassion> (Ramsey: mercy), innocence, and chastity. The one is guarded with a large number of spears; let the other be defended with frequent prayers. And for the complete protection of cities the ensigns of <rulers> (principum, Ramsey: ‘princes’) usually stand before the gates, but let the ensign of the Savior stand before the gates or our souls.³³ (Ramsey, 204, adapted)

Here, for each protective measure applied to the city gate of Turin Maximus exhorts his listeners to provide their inner city gate with a spiritual protection. As Merkt notes, the historical events observed by the people of Turin are here, as an allegoria in factis, provided with a deeper spiritual meaning and, amongst others, applied as a moral instruction of how to prepare spiritual defences.³⁴ The iron, stones, and stakes become images of the virtue or moral conduct of ‘compassion, innocence and chastity’; the many spears stand for ‘frequent prayers’ with which the inner city gate is to be defended, and lastly, the signs of the rulers that are positioned in front of the city gates (urbium portas) as a full protection (ad plenam tuitionem) are paralleled to the sign of the Saviour which is to stand before the gates of ‘our souls’ (animarum […] nostrarum).³⁵

It is clear that Maximus by means of this vivid imagery of protective measures applied to the city of Turin strives to convince his audience of the necessity of providing the soul with proper protection. What needs yet to be addressed however is to what end the congregants were to make these spiritual defences.

Previously we noted how Maximus grounds the necessity of proper spiritual protection first of all in the light of the threat of God’s judgement and the destruction of the world. That it is this threat that needs to be anticipated and prepared for is brought back to mind when Maximus, after his enumeration of spiritual city defences, again directs the attention to the future judgement of the world (propter futurum mundi iudicium), and exhorts the congregants to arm and protect themselves with heavenly arms, the breastplate of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of God’s word (here referencing Ephesians 6:14–17).³⁶ However, directly following this exhortation, Maximus conveys to his audience how those who carry heavenly weapons do not fear present tribulations, nor God’s future judgement (nec praesentem perturbationem metuit nec futurum iudicium pertimescit).³⁷ Reminiscent of the introduction of the sermon, where Christ is said to be able to drive away the fear of the enemy,³⁸ the spiritual defences are thus not only presented as instrumental in protecting against God’s future judgement, but also as offering assistance in the present unnerving events.³⁹

This support in present times reaches beyond a mitigation or dissolving of anxiety. In his reflection on the gates of righteousness from Psalm 117/118 Maximus introduces a causal relation between the effectiveness of material defences of the city on the one hand, and the care one takes of one’s own soul on the other. The gates of the city, the bishop states, can only be fortified, when first (prius) the inner gates of righteousness are fortified.⁴⁰ Subsequently, he notes how it is of no use to protect the walls with defensive structures while offending God with sins (ceterum nihil prodest muros munire propugnaculis et deum prouocare peccatis).⁴¹ Additionally, in connection with a later observation that David did not carry heavy weapons when confronting Goliath Maximus concludes his sermon with the statement that ‘victory is not to be hoped for from arms alone but is to be prayed for in the name of the Savior’ (non in armis tantum speranda uictoria est sed in nomine saluatoris oranda).⁴²

The spiritual protection is thus presented as serving more than one purpose: first, and primarily, it provides the soul protection from God’s judgement and the destruction of the world. Second, proper spiritual protection provides the necessary support in present tribulations. With the spiritual defences set in place one does not have to worry about what the current events might bring. And without these defences, the preparations of Turin’s material protection are to no avail. By including these multiple reasons in his argumentation, Maximus may have sought to maintain a balance between offering the congregants consolation in their anxiety on the one hand and impressing upon them the urgency of spiritual salvation on the other. In the light of the latter, by presenting the spiritual defences as a base necessity for the effectiveness of the physical protective measures Maximus may also have wanted to increase the congregants’ willingness to take care of their spiritual safety.

Given the above considerations, the way in which Maximus relates to the activities deployed to strengthen Turin’s defences may not only be interpreted as an allegoria in factis as discussed above, that is, as an instructive image representing spiritual protection. It may additionally be seen as supporting Maximus’ message of prioritising spiritual defences over the material ones. The parallelism that Maximus applies when speaking about the signs of the rulers (principum […] signa) and the sign of the Saviour (signum saluatoris) in his enumeration of city defences may corroborate this interpretation. The pairing of the two types of signs can be understood as a specific rendering of Psalm 117/118:9, where it is stated that it is better to trust in the Lord than in rulers (in principibus). Possibly, by mirroring the signs of the rulers with the sign of the Saviour Maximus wanted to convey the message that the congregants should first of all not seek salvation from hostile threat in the protective measures of the primores viri, but in God. Here it is relevant to recall how in this sermon, in contrast to the sermon of the subsequent Sunday (86), Maximus does not address a specific group of people responsible for the city’s and citizens’ security. Instead, he aims to activate every wise man and woman to start or keep working on the protection of the Christian inner city. This way they will be able to withstand the threat of Judgement Day, as well as play their own part in building Turin’s material defences.

3 Sermon 92: The Bishop on Guard

In sermon 92 we encounter another instance where Maximus connects imagery of outside attacks on the city or citizen community to the notion of spiritual threat. Here Maximus does not make any mention of his audience anticipating actual attacks on their city. Instead, the bishop focuses on quite a different issue that required his and the congregants’ attention. The sermon is the first in a series of three sermons preached on subsequent Sundays where Maximus focuses on the task, the function and the effect of a bishop’s preaching.⁴³ In all three sermons Maximus works with the notions of outside attacks on a city or citizen community but does so in different ways. In sermon 93 and 94 Maximus uses the story of Jericho’s demise in Joshua 6 to explain the effectiveness of a bishop’s preaching. Like the Israelite priests who with the sound of their trumpets broke down Jericho’s walls, with his voice the bishop is able to soften the heart, to destroy sin⁴⁴ and, having broken down bad thoughts and destroyed every work of unrighteousness, to reach the bare soul.⁴⁵

In sermon 92, in contrast, the preaching bishop is pictured not as an assailant breaking down city walls, but as a watchman protecting the citizen community against the dangers of enemy attacks. In the introductory words of the sermon Maximus addresses the fact that people are aggravated by their bishop’s stern preaching.⁴⁶ Maximus phrases their complaints as follows: ‘For they say: “How severely and bitterly the bishop has preached!”[…]’⁴⁷ (trans. Ramsey, 213). It is this criticism that leads Maximus to emphasise how his preaching is much more an unavoidable necessity (necessitas), than something that he wants to do (uoluntas).⁴⁸ Through an intense rhetoric spiked with judicial language of crime, guilt, and condemnation Maximus expounds how he must speak up about a congregant’s wrongdoings and in this way correct that person, because otherwise he will be condemned himself.⁴⁹ He is placed in such a position (In hoc enim positi sumus), he states, that if he has not addressed sinners about their crimes (ut si delinquentibus non eorum scelera dixerimus), the guilt of their crimes involves him (scelerum ipsorum etiam nos reatus inuoluat).⁵⁰ With this rhetoric Maximus wants to make it indisputably clear that his preaching is born out of a necessary, unavoidable task that is inherent to his position and role as bishop, ánd that by not obeying to this task he himself will not be spared from condemnation.⁵¹

To support this presentation of the heavy responsibility inherent to his position as bishop Maximus introduces a Scripture passage from the book of Ezekiel. He cites from Ezekiel 3:17–18, or the very similar passage from Ezekiel 33:7–8,⁵² where God speaks to Ezekiel and appoints the prophet as a speculator, a watchman, over the people of Israel. It is his task to point out to the sinner that he, i.e., the sinner will die because of his sins, so that the sinner takes heed about his godless way. If the speculator does not do so, not only will this unrighteous person die, but God will ask the blood of this person of the hand of the speculator himself.⁵³ In his subsequent reflection on this passage Maximus once more conveys to his audience the critical and perilous nature of his task: the speculator is judged guilty (illum reum statuat) when he does not want to censure the unrighteous, he notes, and the wrongdoings of the sinner make the bishop stand accused (sacerdos arguitur).⁵⁴ In fact, the sinner himself can blame the bishop for his silence on the Day of Judgement (ne silentium nostrum in die iudicii idem peccator accuset).⁵⁵

Maximus, by referring to Ezekiel’s speculator taps into an existing strand of Christian reflections about the bishop’s responsibility for the people placed under his care.⁵⁶ It is important to note that within this strand of thinking about the bishop as speculator the passage from Ezekiel 33 (Ezekiel 33:1–8, here especially vv. 2–6) forms an important point of reference. There the passage about the prophet being assigned the role of speculator is preceded by a description of a hostile and war-like scenario. There the speculator is presented as appointed by the people to stand above them (constituerit eum super se speculatorem, v. 2) and when seeing hostile threat to provide the people with a timely warning for hostile attacks (ille viderit gladium venientem super terram, v. 3) by blowing his trumpet.⁵⁷

In the following discussion we will see how Maximus in his further reflections on the bishop as speculator works with a similar kind of battle or war-like setting.⁵⁸ But we will also see how Maximus makes particular rhetorical choices in how he presents this setting and the speculator’s role, namely: repeatedly opposing the people to the hostile threat for which the people need to be warned, highlighting the caring nature of the speculator’s task, and imbuing the setting as a whole with notions of civic well-being.

First, Maximus provides his audience with an elaborate explanation of what a speculator is and what is to be expected of such a person:

What is a watchman? A watchman is one who, while standing, as it were, on a lofty pinnacle (in quadam sublimi arce), looks out on the populace (populo) around him so that no enemy might fall unexpectedly upon it but so that, as he keeps careful watch, the <people> (or: community: plebs; Ramsey: ‘the citizens’) might retain the sweetness of peace. If he should suddenly see something hostile, he lets it be known at once, he proclaims it without cease, both so that the <citizen> [ciuis; Ramsey: ‘the city’] might be prepared for the danger and so that the enemy, once detected, might flee. Otherwise, if the watchman is careless or silent or negligent while the enemy attacks, the consequence is that the unprepared people (populus) are seized and the enemy overcomes them and rages uncontrollably. And therefore the whole guilt is ascribed to the one who was unwilling to speak so as to save the many (ut saluaret plurimos) but preferred to be silent so that he himself would perish with the many.⁵⁹ (trans. Ramsey, 214, adapted)

In Maximus’ description the speculator is first of all positioned on a high look-out point, specifically defined as an ‘arx’. This arx can be interpreted as a height or summit but may additionally carry the connotation of a fortress or stronghold.⁶⁰ Possibly, Maximus even had a high fortified place of a city in mind, similar to Isidore of Seville’s’ definition of ‘arx’ in his seventh-century Etymologiae.⁶¹

How Maximus talks about the task of the speculator is reminiscent of the image of the speculator we discussed above, in that he is said to warn the people when he perceives oncoming hostile attacks. However, Maximus’ rhetoric emphasises particular features of and adds certain elements to this picture. First of all, he applies a repeated contrast between the people and the enemy for which the people need to be warned. Maximus repeatedly alternates between those who need protection (populo; plebs; ciuis; populus) and the enemy against which protection is to be provided (hostis; aduersi; hostis; aduersario; inimicus). This repeated contrast may have functioned to underscore the extent and reality of the spiritual threat, and thereby the necessity of the speculator’s precautionary actions.

Second, Maximus phrases the speculator’s task in terms of providing care. The term ‘prospicit’, first of all, does not only refer to the act of looking into the distance, to see from far off and keeping watch, but also implies the notion of taking care.⁶² Maximus furthermore notes how the people (plebs) have peace because of the unceasing care that is provided by the speculator (illo sollicite curam agente).⁶³

Third, when talking about the people that depend for their peace on the speculator’s watchful gaze the bishop not only applies the terms ‘populus’ and ‘plebs’, but also the term ‘ciuis’. By vocalising the beneficiary of the speculator’s action as a ciuis Maximus leaves no doubt about it that the populus and plebs are here to be understood as a community of citizens and, by extension, the speculator as a watchman of citizens.

Taking into account the above considerations it is relevant to note that Maximus describes the speculator’s warning as having the purpose of saving many (ut saluaret plurimos). This phrasing is reminiscent of how Maximus talks about the people preparing the city’s defences, as discussed in the previous section. In sermon 85, the defensive activities are said to be deployed by the leading men of the city, the primores viri; in sermon 86, as we have seen, the preparation of the city’s defences is linked to the notion of providing salus multorum and securitas ciuibus.⁶⁴ Thus, the phrasing ‘saluaret plurimos’ in combination with the application of the term ‘ciuis’ in this sermon (92) suggests that Maximus aimed to relate the speculator’s duty to expectations concerning the special responsibilities of the city’s leading men to provide for the safety and well-being of the citizens. We will return to this idea later.⁶⁵

After reflecting on what it means when the speculator does not fulfil his task—the people are unexpectedly seized, the enemy comes upon them, the speculator is held guilty and dies along with ‘the many’⁶⁶ (periret ipse cum pluribus)—Maximus applies the image of the speculator to the role of the bishop:

These watchmen who have been established by the Lord, then – who do we say that they are if not the most blessed bishops? Having been set, as it were, on a kind of lofty pinnacle of wisdom (in sublimi quadam arce sapientiae), they look out over a distance for oncoming evils for the sake of the people’s safety (ad tuitionem populorum) and, while still far away, they survey future distress not with the sight of the fleshly eye but with the vision of spiritual prudence. Therefore they cannot be silent but are compelled to cry out, lest by their silence the enemy, the devil, invade Christ’s flock.⁶⁷ (trans. Ramsey, 214)

The speculator is now explicitly connected with the figure of the bishop (beatissimos sacerdotes).⁶⁸ Standing on an arx of wisdom the bishops observe and warn their people for oncoming bad things (supervenientia mala) and future sufferings (or torments: futura supplicia). Maximus here places much emphasis on the scrutiny and attentiveness with which the bishops apply their ‘spiritual gaze’ and observe and survey (intuentur; contemplantur) those things that constitute a spiritual danger to the people placed under their care. Like the speculator the bishops are explicitly said to have a caring function: they look out for danger ‘ad tuitionem populorum’. This phrasing implies both care, protection, and being a guard.⁶⁹ This care here acquires a specific pastoral tone as Maximus defines the people as the ‘gregem Christi’.⁷⁰

Above we observed how Maximus’ representation of Ezekiel’s speculator reveals an association with the notion of caring for the citizens’ well-being and the specific responsibility of those with power to provide in this. But for whom did Maximus think he as a bishop had to provide care and protection? In his concluding reflections on Maximus’ war-related sermons Merkt states that Maximus sees himself as responsible for the entire civitas and regards his religious responsibility as having ‘eine politisch-soziale Dimension’. As part of this argumentation Merkt relates to sermon 92, observing that Maximus regards himself as Ezekiel’s ‘“Wachter” der Stadt’.⁷¹ Merkt also observes how Maximus at another occasion associates himself with the biblical king of the city of Nineveh who rallied the city to penance when his city was threatened with destruction.⁷² However, although it is very likely that Maximus saw his episcopal role as extending to the civitas as a whole, in sermon 92 the focus is more narrow as he explicitly defines the beneficiaries of the bishop’s care as the grex christi, that is, the Christian community.

Concerning what exactly the grex christi needs to be protected against Maximus remains somewhat ambiguous. First, he talks about the invasion of the devil (diabolus hostis inuadat). This phrasing could be interpreted as the dangers of succumbing to the temptations of sin and vices, but this is not explicitly said so. Instead, Maximus focuses most of his attention on the future Judgement of God. Not only does he talk about futura supplicia, but he explicitly points to the danger of Judgement Day. Having discussed how the image of the speculator can be applied to the bishops he turns to the things he himself has observed:

For look, we foresee the day of judgment coming, and already in our very thought we sense the <punishments of sinners> (Ramsey: punishment of sin). And so we announce to each person that he should turn away from the path of his wickedness […].⁷³ (trans. Ramsey, 214, adapted)

Here the foreseen (or: discerned, praeuidemus) arrival of Judgement Day becomes specifically ominous by Maximus’ reference to the punishment of the sinners and how he perceives or senses these punishments in his thought.⁷⁴ It is because of this (ideo), so the bishop states, that he proclaims to every person to return from his or her impious ways. In the subsequent and concluding lines of his sermon Maximus makes this call to reform concrete by admonishing the drunk to strive for temperance in drinking and the greedy person not to venerate his wealth.⁷⁵

There is no way of knowing whether Maximus’ concluding exhortations had any effect on his addressees. But it is certainly possible to imagine Maximus expecting his corrections to meet less criticism and have a greater chance of swaying his congregants because of his rhetorical efforts. The sermon reveals to us a bishop who by highlighting the necessity and heavy duty of preaching, and by painting the actions of the bishop-speculator with a hue of civic well-being, sought to make his message land with a critical audience.

4 Conclusion

The preceding discussion has shown us two different ways in which Maximus made use of the imagery of a city or citizen community under threat to convince his audience of the necessity of proper spiritual defences, especially in view of Judgement Day. Sermon 85 reveals how the bishop tapped into the experiences of the congregants by relating to the building of Turin’s defences and combined this with the imagery of the Scriptural gates to direct the people’s attention to the issue of the safety of one’s inner city. In Sermon 92, the figure of the speculator is first of all drawn from Scripture and informed by the Christian tradition of thinking about the bishop’s responsibility. But we have also seen how Maximus, when picturing the function and actions of the speculator, emphasises the idea of enemy threat as well as reaches out to the notion of providing civic well-being. This in order to have his ‘harsh’ preaching more favourably and effectively received by his critical congregants. Thus, we could say that in two different ways Maximus was able to combine Scriptural imagery with the congregants’ desire for living a life in peace and safety to have them make work of their own spiritual salus.

In both sermons the bishop expects his audience to take action, in the first case by building the defences of their inner city, in the other by taking heed of the warnings issued by their guardian bishop. A significant difference, however, pertains to the way in which the imagined city or citizen community is related to the audience. In sermon 85, the spiritual city is positioned inside each person, and each person is exhorted to protect his or her inner city through the application of spiritual defences. In sermon 92, the notion of a citizen community under threat relates to the audience on a communal level: the citizen community is used as an image for the grex Christi, for which the bishop, like a speculator, is to take watch and to provide timely warnings. I would suggest that this communal character is first of all born from the fact that the sermon revolves around explaining the bishop’s responsibility towards the people placed under his care; second, it may also be informed by the fact that the sermon focuses on the act of preaching, an act which the bishop typically performed in a communal setting.

Overall, we have seen how Maximus tapped into the urban context in which he preached to relate to his audience’s experiences and expectations with relation to civic well-being and the safety of their city. This in close conjunction with the imagery that Scripture provided. Furthermore, the two sermons testify of how the bishop by means of this civic imagery wanted his audience to extend their gaze from their worldly temporal concerns and desires towards the spiritual. In the light of Judgement Day, the congregants were to acknowledge the necessity of spiritual safety and act upon this under the watchful gaze of their bishop.