De prohibitione carnis.

Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists

by Alberto Ferreiro

In the study of Priscillianism one issue that is central to the Church’s con-
cerns about the sect has surprisingly received the most scant of scholarly
attention. I am referring to the meat abstention mentioned in the letter
of Pope Vigilius directed to Profuturus of Braga on 29 June 538 at the
request of the latter. The solicitation of Profuturus did not refer only to
Priscillianist meat abstention teaching, for which he was suspected to be a
Manichaean, but the rest of the content is not relevant to this study1. The
meat abstention of the sect of Priscillian was perceived by their opponents
to be a sure sign of their Manichaeism.
The letter of Pope Vigilius is not the only place where the issue was
raised. It surfaces in other papal correspondence, in some Iberian council,
and even in the Tractates of the Priscillianists. As with other accusations
against Priscillian and his followers, questions linger as to whether there
is any truth to the charge that they held to a Manichaean view of meat

1
The letter, the first papal reference to this issue, has gone almost completely unnoticed
in major monographs or articles about Priscillian or the papacy in recent times. There
is one exception – the only study dedicated exclusively to the letter – the article by J.O.
Bragança, A carta do Papa Vigilio ao Arcebispo Profuturo de Braga, BrAug 2, 1967,
65-91. Yet even this important study in which Bragança attempted to engage the full
content, focused mostly on liturgical issues and did so with great erudition and insight.
The earliest treatment was by A.C. Vega, El Primado Romano y la Iglesia Española en
los Siete Primeros Siglos, CDios 154, 1942, (237-284) 246-249, and as the title suggests
his interest was mainly the much discussed section on the Petrine primacy. The remainder
of the content is only summarized. Henry Chadwick in his magisterial monograph is
very brief: H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila the Occult and the Charismatic in the Early
Church, Oxford 1976, 223, and Raymond Van Dam chose not to include the letter of
Pope Vigilius in his insightful chapter: R. Van Dam, The Heresy of Priscillian, in: idem,
Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul. The Transformation of the Classi-
cal Heritage 8, Berkeley 1985, 88-114. Virginia Burrus in her otherwise in-depth and
masterful chapter titled “Manichean” bypasses the letter of Pope Vigilius completely: V.
Burrus, The Making of a Heretic. Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy,
The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 24, Berkeley 1995, 47-78. An excellent
historiographical survey of modern Priscillian scholarship is given by A.O. Guillem, Pri-
sciliano a través del Tiempo. Historia de los Estudios sobre el Priscilianismo, Colección
Galicia Histórica, La Coruña 2004. For bibliography of Priscillian studies for 1984 to
2003 see A. Ferreiro, The Visigoths in Gaul and Iberia. A supplemental bibliography, 1984-
2003, The Medieval and Early Modern Iberian World 28, Leiden 2006, 156-163.

ZAC, vol. 11, pp. 464-478 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2007.024

© Walter de Gruyter 2008
 De prohibitione carnis. Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists 465

eating and vegetarianism. This article seeks to come to some conclusion

by considering all of the sources related to this specific alleged heretical
practice and belief of the Priscillianists. To adequately accomplish these
goals, Priscillianism must be considered within the backdrop of two key
religious developments: the continued challenge posed by Manichaeism,
alleged or actual, as an alternative to Catholic-Orthodoxy, and the spread
of the still relatively new Christian monastic ascetic movement
The considerable amount of writings, which the Church Fathers, Latin
and Greek, devoted to refute Manichaean doctrines is well documented.
It did not matter if there were actually any organized groups of Man-
ichaeans in a particular region – in fact there were none at all in Gaul
and Iberia – it was the alleged promotion of their teachings about which
the bishops worried the most. Van Dam insightfully notes: “Unlike North
Africa, where there were genuine Manichees, in late Roman Spain and
Gaul only the image and the accompanying accusations of Manichaeism
were in circulation”2. The concern in Gaul and Iberia may have been that
the presence of Manichaean teachings could become the foundation for an
institutionalized Manichaeism, as could be found in North Africa.
We have no evidence that Priscillianism ever came close to becoming
a parallel alternative Church; in fact, there is nothing in the Priscillianist
Tractates that would even hint at such intentions. I completely agree with
Van Dam when he says there is no evidence, “that they founded their
own churches”3. In other words, the persecution against Priscillian and
his followers has the earmarks of a personal revenge by certain bishops
and secular authorities. We can not, however, entirely rule out that in the
case of the opposing bishops they may have feared the rise of a situation
similar to the Manichaeans in North Africa because some of Priscillian’s
supporters were bishops. This fear was likely heightened when Priscillian
in 381 was elected and consecrated as bishop of Avila by Instantius and
Salvianus when the See of Abula became vacant. His opponents predictably
declared the ordination invalid4. Still, some modern scholars who believe
Priscillian was intent on establishing a parallel Church have the burden to
provide proof to sustain such an interpretation. Van Dam, again, accurately
based on the evidence that we have, simply says: “The thesis has, however,
little historical support”5. Even though there was an attempt to install a
Priscillianist bishop in Mérida soon after the Council of Zaragoza that

2
Van Dam, Leadership and Community (see note 1), 103.
3
Van Dam, Leadership and Community (see note 1), 94. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila
(see note 1), (33f.) 33.
4
A. Ferreiro, Jerome’s polemic against Priscillian in his Letter to Ctesiphon (133,4), REAug
39, 1993, 326. See Sulp. Sev., chron. II 47 (CSEL 1, 100f. Halm) and chron. II 51 (105
H.) where he expressed great concern about ecclesial divisions the Priscillianists were
allegedly causing.
5
Van Dam, Leadership and Community (see note 1), 91.
466 Alberto Ferreiro

resulted in riots, this does not mean that a parallel Church was emerging
there6. Moreover, no matter how mean-spirited, unjust, and unnecessarily
rash the course of action the bishops decided upon, they may have felt
threatened that Priscillianism could supplant them. This explains why
Priscillian’s opponents sought to impute on him every manner of heresy, but
most especially Gnosticism and Manichaeism. In my view, these responses
reflect acts of desperation and paranoia. The main suspicions against the
sect are summarized well by Virginia Burrus when she notes: “The label
was persuasively applied in a context in which Priscillian’s asceticism, his
eclectic reading habits, his preoccupation with demonology and dualistic
cosmology, and his predilection for small-group meetings lent plausibility
to Hydatius’ damaging suggestion that the ‘false bishop’ was a Manichaean
merely masquerading as an orthodox Christian”7. Although some of the
accusations have some basis in truth, I and other scholars are convinced
that a good number were baseless gossip and character assassination,
and I further uphold that alleged Manichaean meat abstention falls in
the latter category.
The Christian ascetic movement generally was still a young one every-
where, but particularly in the West in the fourth century, precisely the time
when Priscillian entered the scene. A great deal of fluidity characterized
monastic asceticism overall, which was still in the process of defining its
own charism. The movement was a long way from the highly organized
asceticism that finally emerged centuries later with standard monastic rules,
clear uniform directives on every aspect of the ascetic life, a greater amount
of episcopal intervention, and a mature asceticism purged of excess and
potentially heretical expressions. The near absence of all of these elements
in the fourth century would make any ascetic such as Priscillian or even
Martin of Tours either the object of admiration or suspicion, and even a
combination of the two. Martin of Tours was at some point suspected of
Manichaeism. It seems to have been fueled by his public protest against
the treatment of Priscillian at the hands of certain bishops and Magnus
Maximus. In many fundamental respects it was – on the surface – hard to
distinguish between the asceticism of a Martin of Tours or Priscillian, and
a Manichaean electus. It was essential for defenders of Martin of Tours or
opponents of Priscillian to either disprove or confirm their Manichaeism,
respectively. In the end, Martin of Tours survived any suspicions or op-
positions much better than Priscillian.
The Church Fathers dedicated much thought to abstinence from meat
and vegetarianism and its place in the life of the Christian in general and
in monastic asceticism specifically. They were in turn building upon the
pagan Greco-Roman discussion of food, but for Christian ends. There is

6
G.K. van Andel, The Christian Concept of History in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus,
Amsterdam 1976, 103.
7
Burrus, Making of a Heretic (see note 1), 49.
 De prohibitione carnis. Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists 467

no need here to go into detail with every Church Father – a task already
brilliantly executed by Veronika E. Grimm –, but it should be sufficient
to say that one of their primary goals in discussing vegetarianism was to
demonstrate that Christian abstention from meat and vegetarianism was
not based upon Manichaean teaching.
An early apologetic writing is the Vita Antonii of Athanasius, where
Christian asceticism is proposed as the true practice in contrast to that of
the heretical Manichaean electus. As Grimm astutely observes, “how close
the figure of the Manichaean Elect came to that of the revered Desert Father
is clearly demonstrated by the insistence of the author of the Vita Antonii
that the originator of self-mortifying desert monasticism was a strictly
Catholic Christian, and not a Manichaean”8. The Vita Antonii drives this
point home when it says of Anthony’s relationship with Manichaeans:
“And neither toward the Manichaeans nor toward any other heretics did
he profess friendship, except to the extent of urging the change to right
belief, for he held and taught that friendship and association with them
led to injury and destruction of the soul”9. It tells that Anthony sought
to bring them to right belief and not to correct practice, which included
their abstention from meat. The problem was not the practice itself, but
the doctrine that backed up the practice, which must be based upon or-
thodoxy. The abstention from meat by Christian ascetics was already so
widely practiced and considered normative at the time of the Vita Antonii
that it says on the matter: “There is no reason even to speak of meat and
wine, when indeed such a thing was not found among the other zealous
men”10.
In the Iberian Church, Fructuosus of Braga in his Rule for the Monastery
of Compludo, in the chapter De mensis, addressed the subject of meat and
the ascetic life. He admonished the monks that it was prohibited to con-
sume or even to taste meat, not because the creature of God was unworthy,
but rather because abstinence from meat was salutary and proper for the
monk (carnem cuiquam nec gustandi neque sumendi est concessa licentia.
Non quod creaturam dei iudicemus indignam, sed quod carnis abstinentia
utilis et apta monachis extimetur)11. With an even sterner tone he warned,
that if any monk violated the prohibition and ate meat in violation of the
regula and against ancient custom, they were to be confined to their cell
for up to six months (quod si quis monacus uiolauerit et contra sanctio-

8
V.E. Grimm, From Feasting to Fasting, the Evolution of a Sin. Attitudes to food in late
antiquity, Routledge 1996, 185.
9
Athanasius, The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus, translation and introduc-
tion by R.C. Gregg, preface by W.A. Clebsch, ClWS, London 1980, 82.
10
Athanasius, The Life of Antony (see note 9), 36.
11
Fructuosus Bracarensis, Regula monachorum 3 (J. Campos Ruíz/I. Roca Melia, San
Leandro, San Isidoro, San Fructuoso, Reglas monásticas de la España visigoda, Los tres
libros de las “Sentencias”, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. Santos Padres Españoles 2,
Madrid 1971, 142).
468 Alberto Ferreiro

nem regulae usumque ueternum uesci carne praesumserit, sex mensium

spatio retrusioni paenitentiae subiacebit)12. Furthermore the monks were
encouraged to eat vegetables, greens, beans, and on occasion fresh or salt
fish (uiuant enim solis oleribus et leguminibus raroque pisciculis fluuialibus
uel marinis)13. Chadwick says, Fructuosus’ biographer makes no allusion
to any confrontation with Priscillianism14. In the Regula, however, Fruc-
tuosus seems to have had in mind cutting off any possible meat abstention
motivated by Manichaeism/Priscillianism15.
Leander of Seville in Rule for Nuns 24 (De indulgentia et prohibi-
tione carnis) turned to the question of meat and its perceived dangers for
the spiritual life. Addressing himself to a nun in poor health with great
understanding, he said that in view of the sister’s poor health he would
not prohibit her from eating meat. Someone, however, who strived to be
virtuous (in good health, too) should indeed abstain from meat (esum
carnium, infirmitatis tuae obtentu, nec prohibere tibi audeo nec permittere.
cui tamen subpetit uirtus, a carnibus abstineat)16. His argument echoed a
normative patristic teaching on the same. He then warned the sisters that
eating meat could lead them to eat in excess not only meat but other foods
as well (i.e. gluttony). He reasoned that it was the quality not quantity of
food that was the problem (fomenta uitiorum esus carnium; nec solum
carnium, sed et nimia saturitas aliorum ciborum, quoniam non culpatur
escae qualitas, sed quantitas reputatur in uitium)17. Leander capped off his
teaching by saying that a virgin needed to be primarily healthy, not robust
(uirgo tantum sana debet esse, non rigida)18. He undergirded his argument
by calling attention to the fact that those who worked in physical labor or
were athletes required meat to maintain their strength and that religious
by contrast had no such physical needs (quibus ergo uires corporis opus
sunt, habeant carnis usum: scilicet, qui metalla effodiunt, qui in agone
terreno certantur; qui construunt celsorum culmina aedificiorum uel qui
in diuersis opificiis labore desudant corporis; sic reparandarum uirium
aptus est usus carnis)19.

12
Fructuosus Bracarensis, Regula monachorum 3 (Campos Ruíz/Roca Melia, San Leandro,
San Isidoro, San Fructuoso [see note 11], 142).
13
Fructuosus Bracarensis, Regula monachorum 3 (Campos Ruíz/Roca Melia, San Leandro,
San Isidoro, San Fructuoso [see note 11], 142).
14
Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), 230f.
15
Fructuosus Bracarensis, Regula monachorum 3 (Campos Ruíz/Roca Melia, San Leandro,
San Isidoro, San Fructuoso [see note 11], 142). Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note
1), 230f.
16
Leander, reg. 24 (J. Velázquez, Leandro de Sevilla, De la Instrucción de las Virgenes y
Desprecio del Mundo, CPaHi 1, Madrid 1979, 159).
17
Leander, reg. 24 (Velázquez, Leandro de Sevilla [see note 16], 160).
18
Leander, reg. 24 (Velázquez, Leandro de Sevilla [see note 16], 160).
19
Leander, reg. 24 (Velázquez, Leandro de Sevilla [see note 16], 160f.).
 De prohibitione carnis. Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists 469

Isidore of Seville, in Regula monachorum 9 (De mensis), also addressed

to the dietary expectations of monks. He required that monks eat mainly
vegetables and dried fruit throughout the entire week (diebus uero sanctis
interdum cum oleribus leuissimarum carnium alimenta)20. Isidore warns
that overeating can also lead to a covetous desire for meat (nam ex pleni-
tudine uentris cito excitatur luxuria carnis)21. Moreover, no monk was
to be prohibited from abstaining from meat and wine during dinner. He
did believe that voluntary abstinence from meat was cause for great ad-
miration. Isidore taught that meat abstinence should not be motivated
by contempt for the creature that God created for humans to consume
(quicumque ad mensam residens carnibus uel uino abstinere uoluerit non
est prohibendus; abstinentia enim non prohibetur, set potius conlaudatur;
tantum ne ex contemptu creatura dei humanis concessa usibus execretur)22.
With Priscillianism being so far in the past when Isidore wrote his regula,
it was unnecessary to warn specifically against Manichaeism.
In the Vita uel passio sancti Desiderii of Sisebutus it recalls with ad-
miration how Desiderius mortified his body for ascetical discipline (rur-
sus cum longa distractione suum corpus abstitentia maceraret et carnium
perceptione non pro inmunditia, sed pro temperantia interiecto tempore
castigaret, consacerdos eius aut procul ab urbe ad eum uisitandi gratia
uenit)23. The narrative relates how a sea-eagle appeared suddenly in the
sky. The bird had in its mouth a creature from the sea (a fish) to eat, after
which thanksgiving was offered to God the Provider with joy. What is
being exalted here in an indirect manner is a meatless diet as the higher
road of ascetic discipline in the monasteries24. Lastly, in the homily De
monachis perfectis Valerius of Bierzo likewise taught his monks to eat
vegetables and beans with bread (cibus eorum olera et legumina tantum
cum pane sumuntur ad uesperum)25.
So the question becomes this: Was Priscillian abstaining from meat
because he was a Manichaean or did he as a Catholic-Orthodox ascetic
in line with Anthony, Martin of Tours, and the Iberian Fathers we just
surveyed? We need to turn now directly to the pertinent sources that ad-
dresses Priscillian’s vegetarianism to find out if the charge of Manichaean
abstention from meat can be established with any certainty.
20
Isid., reg. monach. 9 (Campos Ruíz/Roca Melia, San Leandro, San Isidoro, San Fructuoso
[see note 11], 105).
21
Isid., reg. monach. 9 (Campos Ruíz/Roca Melia, San Leandro, San Isidoro, San Fructuoso
[see note 11], 105).
22
Isid., reg. monach. 9 (Campos Ruíz/Roca Melia, San Leandro, San Isidoro, San Fructuoso
[see note 11], 105).
23
Sisebutus, Vita et passio sancti Desiderii 8 (PL 80, 381 Migne).
24
Sisebutus, Vita et passio sancti Desiderii 8 (382 M.). See also, J.C. Martín, Caracterización
de personajes y tópicos del género hagiográfico en la Vita Desiderii de Sisebuto, Helm.
48, 1997, 111-133.
25
M. Díaz y Díaz, Anecdota Wisigothica I. Estudios y ediciones de textos literarios menores
de época visigoda, AcSal.F 12/2, Salamanca 1958, (71-87) 83.
470 Alberto Ferreiro

We begin our search with what some scholars maintain is the earliest
intervention to address Priscillianist teachings that were allegedly hereti-
cal, the Council of Zaragoza that met in 380. Scholars have dedicated a
considerable amount of commentary debating not whether the Council of
Zaragoza concerned itself with Priscillian at all, but rather to what extent
it was a central issue in the agenda of the bishops. Priscillian insisted in
his letter to Pope Damasus that he was not condemned at the Council of
Zaragoza. Sulpicius Severus emphatically contradicted him by reporting
that the Council did indeed condemn Priscillianism and that it explicitly de-
nounced by name Priscillian, Elpidius, Instantius and Salvianus (Chronica II
46f.). Later the First Council of Toledo (400) will also outright undermine
Priscillian’s claim to the pope that he was not condemned at the Council
of Zaragoza. Whether Priscillian was truthful about what he told Pope
Damasus about the council or if he outright lied to him or maybe even
intentionally withheld information, are questions whose answers we can
not establish with absolute certainty. Virginia Burrus, on the other hand,
has proposed a working plausible explanation: “Priscillian conveniently
suppressed this information in his letter to Damasus, while Severus, writing
many years later, simply merged two originally separate rulings: the gen-
eral judgments issued by the council and the personal excommunications
that may have been enacted by an enforcing bishop like Hydatius”26. The
acts of the council such as they have come down to us do not mention
Priscillian by name nor is there anything close to what resembles a list of
questionable teachings allegedly practiced by the sect and central to this
article: no clear accusation of Manichaeism much less abstinence from
meat. In fact the canons that supposedly censure Priscillian are debatable
and most scholars think that if the bishops had Priscillian in mind it was
in a most general way27. I maintain, moreover, that it is highly improbable
that Priscillian outright lied.
There is also another source that promotes the Manichaean nexus
with Priscillian, the letter of Magnus Maximus to Pope Siricius written
in 386 just a few years after the Council of Zaragoza. Turning to Priscil-
lian and his followers he wrote: ceterum quid adhuc proxime proditum
sit Manichaeos sceleris admittere, non argumentis, neque suspicionibus
dubiis uel incertis, sed ipsorum confessione inter iuducia prolatis, malo
quod ex gestis ipsis tua sanctitas, quam ex nostro ore cognoscat; quia
huiuscemodi non modo facta turpia, uerum etiam foeda dictu, proloqui
sine rubore non possumus28. Magnus Maximus informed the pope that
Priscillian’s condemnation was not based on circumstantial evidence or
doubt; rather it was based on confessions from the accused. The main

26
Burrus, Making of a Heretic (see note 1), 30.
27
See A. Ferreiro, Priscillian and Nicolaitism, VigChr 52, 1998, (382-392) 386f.
28
Maximus imperator, Epistola ad Siricium papam (PL 13, 592 Migne).
 De prohibitione carnis. Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists 471

accuser of Priscillian, Ithacius of Ossonuba, had befriended Britto, bishop

of Trier and close confidant of Maximus, who had passed on to him the
accusations against Priscillian. Let us remember that the charge was crucial
for Maximus’s case to execute Priscillian, an act he mistakenly thought
would endear him to the Church29. It is evident from this early passage
that the charge was already being brandished about rather loosely, so it
seems to me, in order to tarnish Priscillian even though Manichaeism is
not explicit in the acts of the Council of Zaragoza.
Sulpicius Severus, who dedicated several sections of his Chronica to
the Priscillianists, had absolutely nothing to report of his Manichaean
vegetarianism30. It was pointed out long ago in Priscillianist historiography
by Ernest C. Babut that “le texte de la Chronique est une de nos sources
principales d’information, non sur la doctrine de Priscillien, dont Sulpice
ne dit presque rien, mais sur son histoire”31. We have to rely on other
writers to gain any information about what the Priscillianists actually
believed, and the task is all the more difficult since there is good reason
to be suspicious of their accuracy. Sulpicius associated Priscillian and his
followers with Gnosticism (infamis illa Gnosticorum haeresis intra His-
panias deprehensa)32, but never with Manichaeism. Raymond Van Dam
believes that Sulpicius deliberately avoided mention of Manichaeism to
preserve the reputation of Martin of Tours whom as we know was accused
of the same heresy and was suspected even more so when he defended
Priscillian33. Sulpicius seems to have been informed about alleged Gnosti-
cism and more besides but he chose not to intentionally elaborate upon
the accusation34. He did apparently believe that there was some truth
to the charge. Sulpicius made no attempt to hide his utter contempt for
Priscillian’s accusers and his belief that they were motivated by greed and
less than noble personal motives. Sulpicius himself along with Martin
of Tours had been accused of being Manichaeans/Priscillianists at one
point. So the silence about Manichaeism was a way to distance himself
and Martin of Tours from both associations35. Van Andel also argued
that the ‘silence’ of Sulpicius was his way of showing his disapproval of
the execution of Priscillian36. Martin of Tours appears in the Chronica of
Sulpicius as a latter day prophet of the Old Testament standing up and

29
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 112f. Maximus imperator, Epistola ad Siricium
papam (593 M.). See Chadwick’s fine discussion on Maximus and his motives, Chadwick,
Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), 42-46.
30
Sulp. Sev., chron. II 45-51 (98-105 H.).
31
E.C. Babut, Priscillien et le Priscillianisme, Paris 1909, 30f.
32
Sulp. Sev., chron. II 46 (99 H.).
33
Van Dam, Leadership and Community (see note 1), 106.
34
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 107.
35
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 114.
36
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 115.
472 Alberto Ferreiro

opposing an evil ruler, the Emperor Maximus37. The prosecutor against

Priscillian went so far as to recklessly accuse anyone living the ascetical
life of belonging to the Priscillianist heresy, even including the renowned
Martin of Tours38. It is no wonder that Sulpicius recoiled so strongly against
such fanatical unbridled religious zeal. In other words, Sulpicius rightly
suspected that none of this was really about orthodoxy and morality; in-
stead there were sinister less noble motives afoot here against Priscillian.
Only Pope Damasus, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours escape his
disgust in the Chronica39. In the end, as with other modern scholars, I
concur with Van Andel – at least on the charge of Manichaeism imputed
on Priscillianists – that “I consider it most unlikely that there were any
grounds for these charges”40.
Outside Iberia Augustine and Filastrius of Brescia in their respective
heresiologies spoke with confidence about the alleged Manichaean veg-
etarianism of the Priscillianists. Augustine, in De haeresibus 46,11, con-
demned Manichaean abstinence from meat (nec uescuntur tamen carni-
bus tamquam de mortuis uel occisis fugerit diuina substantia, tantumque
ac tale inde remanserit quod iam dignum non sit in Electorum uentre
purgari)41. In the same work when Augustine turns to Priscillianism he
accused them of being Gnostics and Manichaeans (Priscillianistae, quos
in Hispania Priscillianus instituit, maxime Gnosticorum et Manichaeo-
rum dogmata permixta sectantur)42. Then directly on the issue of meat
abstinence, as proof of their heretical beliefs, he charged them of: carnes
tamquam immundas escas etiam ipsa deuitat; coniuges quibus hoc malum
potuerit persuadere disiungens, et uiros a nolentibus feminis, et feminas
a nolentibus uiris43. In his letter to Augustine Paulus Orosius regarding
questions solicited of him about Priscillianism briefly and confidently said
that Priscillian was worse than a Manichaean (Priscillianus primum in eo
Manichaeis miserior)44. Filastrius, in De haeresibus 84, condemned the
Priscillianists anonymously by calling them the ‘abstinents’ (alii sunt in
Gallis et Hispanis et Aquitania ueluti abstinentes, qui et Gnosticorum et
Manicheorum particulam perniciosissimam aeque secuntur, eandemque
non dubitant praedicare, separentes persuasionibus coniugia hominum,
et escarum abstinentiam promittentes)45.

37
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 115.
38
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 107.
39
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 98f.
40
Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 114.
41
Aug., haer. 46,11 (CChr.SL 46, 316 VanderPlaetse).
42
Aug., haer. 70,1 (333 V.).
43
Aug., haer. 70,2 (334 V.).
44
Oros., comm. 2 (CSEL 18, 153 Schepss).
45
Filastr., De haeresibus 84 (CChr.SL 9, 253 Bulhart). See also Chadwick, Priscillian of
Avila (see note 1), 119f.
 De prohibitione carnis. Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists 473

Jerome around 392 was still unsure about the heretical charges against
Priscillian, in De uiris illustribus 121 he said: Priscillianus […]. usque hodie
a nonnullis gnosticae id est Basilidis uel Marci, de quibus Irenaeus scripsit,
haereseos accusatur, defendentibus aliis non ita eum sensisse ut arguitur46.
He later had a decisive change of mind as the accusations, real or imag-
ined, gained momentum and were attached to Priscillian. In Letter 131 he
accused Priscillian Zoroastris magi studiosissimum et ex mago episcopum
[esse]. In his Letter to Ctesiphon (ca. 415) Jerome associated him with
every form of heresy, including the worst of them all, Manichaeism; yet
he never specifically mentioned abstention from meat, we can be reason-
ably sure that he believed it was motivated by heterodox views. It has
been argued in a detailed study of the letter that Jerome did not have any
direct acquaintance with Priscillianism. Rather, he relied heavily on the
rumor mill and the then well established typus of Priscillianism and his
sect created by those who had personal vendettas against him47.
Our most extensive detailed refutation of Priscillian was written by
Pope Leo the Great in answer to a request from Turibius of Astorga and is
reflected in the acts of the First Council of Toledo (400). The First Council
of Toledo brings up the meatless practices of the Priscillianists which it
condemned as erroneous. Canon 17 censured this alleged teaching warn-
ing: “If anyone says or believes that one should abstain from bird meat
or of other animals given for nourishment, not for the mortification of the
body, but because they are considered execrable, let him be anathema” (si
quis dixerit uel crediderit carnes auium seu pecodum, quae ad escam datae
sunt, non tantum pro castigatione corporum abstinendas, sed execrandas
esse, anathema sit) 48. While there is no explicit reference to Manichaeism,
it is clear that it was in the minds of the bishops, however. The bishops
acknowledged the legitimate tradition of meat abstention of the ascetic
tradition and they condemned those who held meat in contempt (sed
execrandas esse). Chadwick’s insights on the recension of the anti-Priscil-
lianist canons promulgated at the First Council of Toledo are exceedingly
relevant here regarding Canon 1749. His words about the two versions
of the acts of the council are instructive: “The differences between the
two recensions are not minor matters […]. Nevertheless the long recen-
sion cannot belong to the council of 400 because of the presence of the
‘Filioque’ which is likely to betray the direct influence of Leo’s letter of
447 to Turibius of Astorga (Ep. 15,2)”50. It is in the long recension that

46
Hier., vir. ill. 121 (BPat 12, 222 Ceresa-Gastaldo = PL 23, 750 Migne). Ferreiro, Jerome’s
polemic (see note 4), 310.
47
Ferreiro, Jerome’s polemic (see note 4), 309-332.
48
J. Vives, Concilios Visigóticos Hispano-Romanos, EspCrist 1, Barcelona/Madrid 1963,
28.
49
Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), 176-178.
50
Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), 176f.
474 Alberto Ferreiro

Canon 17, which censured abstention of meat for erroneous motives, is

found, and thus it is a later interpolation similar to the filioque clause.
So the canon does not reflect any specific charge of Manichaean meat
abstention leveled at the Priscillianists just twenty years after the Council
of Zaragoza. Again Chadwick’s comment on the textual tradition is quite
useful: “It is possible that both the short and the long recensions repre-
sent committee drafts of a later time, and that neither was produced by
or at the council of 400”51. This means that the charge of Manichaean
meat abstention was not initially imputed on Priscillian but is added to
the alleged errors of the sect as the typus of Manichaeism is attached to
them. Van Dam eloquently buttresses this essential point: “We have seen
that such accusations can often best be understood not in literal terms as
an accurate description of these men, but rather in functional terms. This
approach is reinforced when we consider, first, that on the basis of his
own denial Priscillian was not a Manichee at all”52.
It is in the sixth century with the letter of Pope Vigilius, who responded
to a request of Profuturus of Braga, where we see the issue addressed in-
disputably directly by a pontiff and in more detail than any other source.
It is titled De Priscillianistis qui se ab esu carnium substrahunt53. Meat
abstention is first on the list of five issues that the pope commented upon
at Profuturus’s request.
The Pope summarized what was by that time a common opinion
that abstinence from meat on the grounds that the animal was inher-
ently evil – not informed by orthodox monastic ascetical discipline – was
a Manichaean heretical teaching. It is crucial to remember that Pope Vi-
gilius was responding to information he had received from Profuturus
of Braga and not from any direct acquaintance with Priscillianism. The
Manichaean typus associated with Priscillianism was already a standard
one in the heresiological tradition in the sixth century when the pontiff
wrote this letter. He gave the only answer one would have expected based
on what was a suspect accusation in the first place. The pope constructed
his apostolic position with the following scriptural references beginning
with Titus 1,15f., “to the clean all things are clean, but to those who
are defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean; in fact, both their minds
and their consciences are tainted. They claim to know God, but by their
deeds they deny him. They are vile and disobedient and unqualified for
any good deed”, and 1Tim 4,1-5, “now the Spirit explicitly says that in
the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to
deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars
with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence

51
Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), 177.
52
Van Dam, Leadership and Community (see note 1), 101.
53
I have used the text in C.W. Barlow, Martini Episcopi Bracarensis Opera Omnia, Yale
1950, 290-293, section is at 290f.
 De prohibitione carnis. Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists 475

from foods that God created to receive with thanksgiving by those who
believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good and
nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made
holy by the invocation of God in prayer”, and lastly with Matt 15,11, “it
is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes
out of the mouth is what defiles one”.
The First and Second Councils of Braga (561 and 572) picked up the
theme again, a few decades after the pope’s letter, in several of its canons.
Even though the bishops did not refer directly to Pope Vigilius’s letter on
this issue they did have it on hand because they used it to discuss baptism
at the First Council of Braga. There are two references to meat in the First
Council of Braga. The first, Canon 14 of the articles against Priscillian, is
an explicit accusation of Manichaeism: “If anyone judges unclean meat that
God gave to men for their consumption, and not because of mortification
of the body, rather because they are judged unclean, to the point of not
even tasting vegetables cooked with meat, as Mani and Priscillian say, let
them be anathema” (si quis inmundos putat cibos carnium quos Deus in
usus hominum dedit et non propter afflictionem corporis sui, sed quasi
inmunditiam putans ita ab eis abstineat, ut nec olera cogta cum carnibus
praegustet, sicut Manicheus et Priscillianus dixerunt, anathema sit)54. The
bishops were concerned that heretics may in fact conceal their Manichaean
views by passing themselves off as orthodox ascetics. To weed them out
they conceived a test to identify the orthodox from the heretic. All who
claimed to be non-Manichaean ascetics were asked to taste a vegetable
soup or stew with meat in it. Once they consumed the entree they were
allowed to resume their meatless asceticism having proved that they were
not Manichaean/Priscillianists. We have no evidence if Priscillian submitted
to such a test or whether any his followers were subjected to this ordeal.
The canon identified anyone who refused the test to be a follower of
Mani and Priscillian. No other source about Priscillianism mentions the
vegetable/meat soup ordeal; it is unique to the Councils of Braga.
The second condemnation is Canon 14 of the recapitulation of the previ-
ous one (Proposita sunt igitur capitula relecta, quae continent haec)55. This
one, however, is explicitly directed at clergy as the title makes clear, De
oleribus et carnibus. De clericis ab esca carnium abstintentibus (Concerning
vegetables and meats. Clergy should not abstain from eating meat). The
bishops admonished: item placuit, ut quiquumque in clero cibo carnium
non utuntur, pro amputanda suspicione Priscillianae haeresis uel olera
cocta cum carnibus tantum praegustare cogantur; quod si contemserint,
secundum quod de his talibus sancti patres antiquitus statuerunt, necesse
est [eos] pro suspicione haeresis huius officio excommunicationis omnibus

54
Vives, Concilios Visigóticos (see note 48), 69. See also J. Orlandis/D. Ramos-Lissón,
Historia de los Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, Pamplona 1986, 143.
55
Vives, Concilios Visigóticos (see note 48), 71.
476 Alberto Ferreiro

modis remoueri56. This canon re-proposed the vegetable/meat soup test to

try to weed out those who may feign to be orthodox but who were really
clandestine Priscillianists (pro suspicione haeresis).
The last source to address meat abstinence is Canon 58 from the Second
Council of Braga, De abstinentia carnium. De praegustandis carnibus et
non execrandis (On the abstinence from meat. Concerning tasting and
not rejecting meat). The bishops declared: si quis non pro abstinentia sed
pro execratione escarum se abstinet, placuit sancto concilio ut praegustet,
et si sic uult abstineat; si autem spernit ita ut olera cogta cum carnibus
non degustet, iste non oboediens nec suspicionem haeresis a se remouens,
deponatur de ordine clericatus57. It is directed specifically at clergy. The
same vegetable/meat soup is urged to be used to weed out clergy who
might have been holding heretical views of meat abstinence. The bishops
recommended removal from ministry of those found guilty. Once again,
we do not know of any clergyman who was excommunicated for refusing
to submit to this canon. This last canon formed part of the eastern canons
that Martin of Braga brought from the East and as Metropolitan of Braga
introduced into Gallaecia via the council58.
What did Priscillian have to say in the Tractates about the accusations
against him regarding his asceticism that branded him a Manichaean? In
Tractate 1 he rejected docetism as a heresy (qui autem negat Iesum Christum
in carnem uenisse, hic antechristus est et perditio eius non indormiet dicente
apostolo: qui negat filium nec patrem habet, qui autem confitetur filium
et filium et patrem habet)59. In the same place he condemned those who
denied the resurrection of the body (resurrectionem negant)60. In Tractate
5 he asserted his belief that the world, Man, and the human body have
been created by God61. He was direct in his repudiation of Manichaeism
in Tractate 1, (anathema sit qui Manetem et opera eius doctrinas adque
instituta non damnat; cuius peculiariter turpitudines persequentes gladio,
si fieri posset, ad inferos mitteremus ac si quid est deterius gehennae tor-
mentoque peruigili, ubi neque ignis extinguitur neque uermis emoritur.
Quorum diuino iudicio ut inpuritas non lateret, etiam saecularibus iudiciis
mala prodita sunt. extra enim ea quae erraticis sensibus adserentes Solem
et Lunam rectores orbis terrarum deos putauerunt)62. His second censure
of Manichaeism was addressed to Pope Damasus: unum hoc scientes quod
qui sibi sectarum nomen inponunt Christiani nomen amittunt: inter quae

56
Vives, Concilios Visigóticos (see note 48), 74, see also Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Historia
de los Concilios (see note 54), 145.
57
Vives, Concilios Visigóticos (see note 48), 100.
58
See Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), 229.
59
Priscill., tract. 1 (CSEL 18, 7 Schepss) from 2Pet 2,3; 1John 2,22f.
60
Priscill., tract. 1 (29 S.).
61
Priscill., tract. 5 (62-68 S.).
62
Priscill., tract. 1 (22f. S.).
 De prohibitione carnis. Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists 477

tamen omnia Manicaeos iam non herecticos, sed idololatras et maleficos

seruos Solis et Lunae, inuictiacos daemones cum omnibus auctoribus sectis
moribus institutis libris doctoribus discipulisque damnamus, qui de his
scribtum est: cum tali nec quidem cibum sumere63. In a third refutation,
Priscillian in Tractate 2 utterly rejected – hence the accusation against
him – the teachings of the Manichaeans and false bishops (pseudoepis-
copus et Manichaeos) who embraced such doctrines64. These professions
of orthodoxy represent an unambiguous refutation of Manichaeism and
thus a direct response against those who sought to impute the heresy on
him and his followers. In fact the entire purpose of the Tractates was to
establish that Priscillian was thoroughly catholic-orthodox65.
Priscillian, Canones 35f. turned to abstinence from meat and wine to
warn of their harmful effects, although recommending wine in moderation
for medicinal purposes: (35) quia cum carnibus et uino aliqui abstineant,
nec iudicari ab aliis debeant nec ipsi alios iudicare eo quod mundis omnia
munda sint et quia esca et potus neminem conmendat. Deus enim et hunc,
inquit, et haec destruit. […] (36) Quia uinum sit omnis causa luxuriae
et ideo abstinendum sit ab eo, quippe quod pro sola infirmitate et ipsud
modico uti indulgeat66. We need recall that abstention from meat was a
common practice among all ascetics so the above teaching in itself does
not necessarily reflect Manichaean motives on his part. All that can be
found in Priscillian’s Tractates are possible ‘traces’ of doctrinal heresy,
but which Church Father was completely free of tendencies or traces of
questionable doctrine or whose writings could not be misconstrued67?
Henry Chadwick carried out what is still to date the best analysis of the
Canons of Priscillian. He notes how an otherwise unknown Peregrinus
edited the canons to expunge from them any heretical leanings68. I am
not quite ready to concede the point entirely in the case of every single
canon when we consider them in light of the rest of the Tractates. There
is nothing in either of them that is unquestionably Manichaean, including
as regards meat abstention.
Similar to the pontiffs who were asked to rule on Priscillian’s teach-
ings the Church Fathers who commented on the same were not directly
acquainted with his teachings. They relied entirely on what the enemies of
Priscillian in the Iberian Peninsula conveyed to them. We can not entirely

63
Priscill., tract. 2 (39 S.).
64
Priscill., tract. 2 (40f. S.). See also Van Andel, Christian Concept (see note 6), 104.
65
See Van Dam, Leadership and Community (see note 1), 95.
66
Priscill., can. 35f. (CSEL 18, 125 Schepps).
67
L.G. Müller, The De Haeresibus of Saint Augustine. A Translation with an Introduction
and Commentary, PatSt 90, 1956, 199f. identified what he called ‘traces’ of Sabellianism,
Gnosticism, and a very vague Manichaean meat abstention. All of which are debatable,
but most importantly lack clear indisputable heresy.
68
Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), (60-63) 60.
478 Alberto Ferreiro

dismiss that all suspected doctrinal deviations attributed to Priscillian were

unfounded. It seems that in this case, as with the charge of Nicolaitism,
there was no foundation to the Manichaean accusation. The ambiguity
is exacerbated even more, as we saw above, because a catholic-orthodox
ascetic on the surface was virtually indistinguishable from a Manichaean
electus. It seems that around the time of the Council of Zaragoza most of
the bishops were still unsure about the extent that Priscillian was hereti-
cal, if at all, which explains the non-committal attitude in the canons of
the council. Apparently the bishops who pursued an aggressive campaign
against Priscillian were convinced that he was a heretic and they succeeded
in irreparably tarnishing Priscillian and his followers. Any behavior that
would otherwise be considered worthy of admiration and orthodox would
be construed as manifestly heretical. Such is the case of meat abstention
which his detractors attributed to Manichaean motives, notwithstanding
Priscillian’s very clear denial of the charge in the Tractates and Canons.
Lastly, long after Priscillianism had subsided and was increasingly less an
immediate concern for the Iberian Church, Isidore of Seville in Etymo-
logiae/Origines VIII 54 (book VIII: De Ecclesia et sectis) simply repeats
in his description of Priscillianism what had become the standard typus
of the sect: Priscillianistae a Priscilliano uocati, qui in Hispania ex errore
Gnosticorum et Manichaeorum permixtum dogma conposuit69. In clos-
ing, Chadwick eloquently describes the state of Priscillianism in Isidore’s
time: “The leaders of the Spanish church in the seventh century no longer
write as men who fear to discover a Priscillianist under their bed […].
The evidence points to the conclusion that by 600 or soon after Priscil-
lianism had become a spent force”70. Asceticism had become thoroughly
domesticated in the context of institutional monasticism.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Priscillian von Avila zog in Gallien und Italien im 4. Jh. breite Aufmerksamkeit auf sich,
was dazu führte, daß einige Bischöfe ihn aller möglichen Häresien verdächtigten. Unter
diesen Häresievorwürfen findet sich auch der Vorwurf, Priscillian und seine Anhänger
verträten hinsichtlich des Verzichts auf Fleischgenuß eine manichäische Meinung. Dieser
Vorwurf, der sich in verschiedenen Quellen findet, hat bisher nur wenig Aufmerksamkeit
bei modernen Forschern gefunden. Der Artikel untersucht diesen Vorwurf und geht
der Frage nach, ob der Vorwurf berechtigt war. Dabei geht er den Hinweisen auf den
teilweise kaum erkennbaren Manichäismus dieser Zeit in Gallien und Italien nach und
berücksichtigt auch die im Westen vergleichsweise junge monastische Bewegung.

69
Isid., orig. VIII 54 (BAC 433, 698-701 Oroz Reta). See also A.V. Canale, Herejías y
Sectas en la Iglesia Antigua. El Octavo Libro de las Etimologías de Isidoro de Sevilla y
sus Fuentes, PUPCM.E 78, Madrid, 2000, 132.
70
Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (see note 1), 232, and further comments on Isidore and
Julian are at p. 231f.