Late antique Roman Northern Africa was a vibrant province, characterized by an array of religious and cultural diversity. St. Augustine of Hippo was born in Thagaste, a city under the administration of Carthage, the capital of the province (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 326). Augustine went to college in Carthage, and after spending time in Italy, returned to the region as bishop of Hippo. Peter Brown notes in Through the Eye of the Needle that cities in this coastal region were the most culturally connected to Rome; it was a key source of grain in antiquity, and thus cultural diffusion through trade was commonplace (Brown 326-327). Furthermore, while much of the more Roman and urban parts of the province were thoroughly Christian, there was a vast sea of religious diversity within the province itself, such as Donatism—a local sect that caught the ire of Augustine. 

​

The Donatist controversy underscores the complexity of identity in late antiquity. Not only do identities such as Roman, African, and Catholic complicate Augustine’s positioning within this schismatic crisis, but they also illustrate the ambiguity of identity. I posit that while this controversy may appear as one born out of theological differences, it is rooted in negotiating identity within late antique society, especially in terms of ‘peripheral’ and ‘imperial.’

 

I – The Donatist Identity

​

Donatism’s heretical classification stems not from its theology, but its foundational identity. Donatists descend from a tradition of bishops who refused to hand over sacred texts during the Diocletian persecutions (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 210). When Emperor Constantine appointed Caecilian, a bishop ordained by a traditor (a bishop who had handed over texts) as bishop of Carthage, Donatus rejected his legitimacy (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 210). Their liturgy, meanwhile, was practically identical to Catholicism (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 212). In fact, most of what comprises Augustine’s argument against the Donatists’ theology is their re-baptizing of Catholics; the rest of his argument focuses on the historical legitimacy of their schismatic ascendancy (Augustine, Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy). In Augustine’s de haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum [to Quodvultdeus, on heresies], Augustine notes that Donatists mainly differentiate because of heritage: “Sed post causam cum eo dictam atque finitam falsitatis rei deprehensi, pertinaci dissensione firmata, in haeresim schisma verterunt” [“But after the lawsuit with him was declared and concluded, they, having been caught as guilty of deceit, with the obstinate disagreement having been strengthened, turned the schism into heresy”]. Furthermore, Augustine only argues against one notable divergence in theological practice, re-baptism: “Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos: ubi se amplius haereticos esse firmarunt” [“They even dare to rebaptize Catholics: where they proved themselves further to be heretics”]. The singularity of his doctrinal condemnation indicates he takes less issue with their divergent practices and more issue with their readiness to schismatize. 

​

Donatists also prioritize the importance of locality over imperial design. When the Roman Emperor Constans attempted to interfere in the affairs of African churches by implementing a “Constantinian style of church government,” Donatus the bishop of Carthage challenged him: “Quod imperatori cum Ecclesia? – ‘What has the Church to do with an Emperor?’” (Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, 333). Even though this belief changed over time, Donatus’ words provided the basis for a foundational belief. Likewise, Donatism was more prevalent in communities that were geographically disconnected from the more Roman parts of Northern Africa. W. H. C. Frend observed that bishops from Numidia and countryside towns composed the core of the Donatist delegation (Frend 49-51). Archeological and literary evidence suggests that Catholic and Donatist bishoprics evenly occupied the more Roman and urban coastline of Northern Africa, yet records suggest that there were “thirty-seven unchallenged Donatist bishoprics” in the interior of the province (Frend 52). A deep connection exists between the periphery and Donatism, both in ideology and geography.

​

Catholics and Donatists both appealed to local, provincial, and imperial courts, yet they generally derived their authority from different sources of secular power. Municipal authorities, mostly comprised of non-Christian local elites, often preferred not to interfere in the bickering of Christian bishops (Shaw 505-508). Instead, bishops appealed to the emperor for support during times of trouble. After a multi-day pagan riot in the city of Calama, local authorities—who perhaps even participated in the violence—did not answer the bishop’s requests for aid (Hermanowicz 484-485). The emperor, however, supported the bishop in seeking redress for the wrongdoings (Hermanowicz). Conversely, when the same bishop convinced the proconsul of Africa to brand the Donatist bishop of Calama a heretic, the Donatist pastor appealed his case to the imperial court in Ravenna—unsuccessfully (Hermanowicz 494). 

​

Meanwhile, provincial governments benefitted Donatists. Hermanowicz reports that one proconsul of Africa, Donatus (no affiliation with the priest), “deliberately snubbed Augustine by not granting him an audience, [and] also may not have answered his letters [concerning the Donatist controversy]” (Hermanowicz 516). Likewise, many of the bureaucratic officials within the administration of the proconsul wanted to avoid engaging in such discourse and debate—they preferred the status quo at the time (Shaw 500). Local bureaucratic apathy toward the controversy allowed Donatists to strengthen their cause and maintain primary religious control of the province. However, Christians on both sides of the Donatist controversy ultimately preferred to settle issues by themselves; they only resorted to government interference when they felt slighted (Hermanowicz 492-499). 

​

The many different aspects of Donatism blended to create a distinct, collective identity, which Donatists promoted in their writings and sermons. Maureen A. Tilley argues that Donatists adopted collecta [assembly] imagery in order to portray themselves as the “holy assembly of Israel.” She even notes that Catholic bishops avoided using the very word collecta because of its Donatist connotations. This sacred imagery highlights the emphasis Donatists placed on their distinct cultural heritage. Identity comprises the core of Donatism, deeply complicating not only the controversy, but the bishops ensnared within it.

 

II – Augustine’s Identity

​

Considering Donatism’s identity-based roots, Augustine’s own multitude of identities and complexities further illustrates the depth of intricacy laced within the Donatist controversy. For one, Augustine is aware of his Northern African heritage, and it does influence him. In Book I of his Confessions, Augustine discusses his shame in enjoying the Aeneid. He continues to remark on his attachment to and pity for Dido—a fellow Northern African: 

[…] et scribam ipse, si quid uolo, quam illae quibus tenere cogebra Aeneae nescio cuius errores oblitus errorum meorum et plorare Didonem mortuam, quia se occidit ab amore […] quid enim miserius misero non miserante se ipsum et flente Didionis mortem, quae fiebat amando Aenean, non flente autem mortem suam […] et flebam Didonem extinctam ferroque secutam… (Augustine, Confessions: Books I-IV).

“[...] that I myself might write, if I want anything, than those letters by which I was driven to remember the wanderings of some Aenas, forgetful of my own errors, and to cry for dead Dido, who killed himself because of love [...] what is more miserable than a miserable one not pitying himself, mourning the death of Dido which happened on account of loving Aenas, but not crying for his own death, which happened on account of not loving you [...] and I was crying for Dido destroyed and having pursued her end with iron...”

Throughout this passage, Augustine pities and weeps for Dido, whom he frequently mentions. This reference thus stands out. Perhaps his admiration for Dido comes from a shared bond—their mutual connection to Carthage. Furthermore, Catherine Conybeare notes that in serm. 46, Augustine references distinct African locations (129-130). She remarks that “this is a sermon preached in a very specific part of Africa […] to a congregation that understood very specific African references” (129-130). Conybeare also mentions Augustine’s letter to a local grammaticus who “sneer[ed] at the Punic names of African martyrs and object[ed] to the ways their tombs were clogging up the towns;” Augustine’s firm chastisement of the grammaticus’ belittling of “Punic names” illustrates his embracement of his cultural heritage (119). Augustine is aware of his ‘African-ness,’ and it shines through in his writings, sermons, and letters. 

​

Augustine is equally aware of his Roman identity. In fact, it is through his Roman identity that Augustine achieved much of his success in society. The son of a poor Roman man, Augustine obtained a classical education as a child; scholars today debate whether or not Augustine learned the native Punic and Berber languages, but Augustine studied the works of Roman and Greek historians, authors, and philosophers (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 9-10; Too 79-85). Securing a classical education “meant status for a crowd of little men” (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 12). Indeed, it provided Augustine the opportunity to attend college in Carthage and to achieve status in the imperial court at Milan. As a professor of rhetoric, Augustine was responsible for publishing the panegyrics—a position that gave him much influence in the imperial court (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 58-59). Augustine also conceptualized in the terminology of a traditional Roman. In a letter to Publicola in 398 CE, Augustine writes, “For not only on the frontier, but throughout all the provinces, the security of peace rests on the oaths of barbarians” (Augustine, “Letter 47: Augustine to Publicola”). Despite being a peripheral figure, his use of the word “barbarian” demonstrates that he nonetheless othered non-Romans. Augustine was also a wealthy Roman who profited off his position in society. While his income did not amount to that of a Roman elite, it was sizeable: “If the revenue of a modest town councillor was 50 solidi a year, then revenue of the estates of the church of Hippo would have amounted to 1,000 solidi a year” (Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, 325). Augustine was deeply entrenched within the hierarchy of Roman society.

​

Augustine was a proponent of a universal Catholic society that maintained the uniqueness of individual culture. In The City of God, Augustine proposes that two cities exist—the heavenly and the earthly. He believed that the earthly city would fall and the heavenly would subsume the faithful. This society would be both homogeneously Catholic, yet heterogeneous in identities: 

So long, then, as the heavenly City is wayfaring on earth, she invites citizens from all nations and all tongues, and unites them into a single pilgrim band. She takes no issue with that diversity of customs, laws, and traditions whereby human peace is sought and maintained. Instead of mollifying or tearing down, she preserves and appropriates whatever in the diversities of divers[e] races is aimed at one and the same objective of human peace, provided only that they do not stand in the way of the faith and worship of the one supreme and true God (Augustine, The City of God, 465).

This Christian society does not just allow for a diverse array of cultures to exist, but ‘preserves’ them, sanctifying and safeguarding all unique features. A Catholic Roman Empire and its multinational construction are thus a pathway towards this universal society. However, Rome was not monolithic in its adoption of Catholic faith in society yet. Augustine secured a position at the imperial court despite being a Mannichee. Given that his overseer was willing to appoint him, religion must not have been a “significant concern” (Ebbeler 241). Augustine’s own worldly experience underscores an important conflict: his own outlook vs. the reality of society. Rome was a Catholic state in name, but the hiring practices of the empire illustrate the complexity—and sometimes hypocrisy—of identity extending up through the imperial administration. In late antiquity, the complexity of identity underscores issues such as the Donatist controversy, not the simplicity of it. Augustine’s ‘African-ness,’ his ‘Roman-ness,’ and his ‘Christian-ness’ impact his role in the Donatist schism, but they are tangled in ambiguity.

 

III – Negotiating Identity within the Donatist Controversy

​

The identities of both Augustine and Donatists illustrate the struggle to negotiate identity within late antique Northern Africa. Using identity as a lens fleshes out a better understanding of the Donatist controversy as a struggle between the ‘center’ and the ‘periphery,’ but it is by no means pellucid. Consider, for instance, how while both Donatism and Catholicism had their ‘bases of secular power,’ Donatists’ attempts to incur support from the imperial court frustrated Catholics; they argued that it “should have been resolved without outside interference” (Hermanowicz 494). Likewise, Augustine and his contemporaries frequently lobbied imperial authorities for greater laws against heresy yet requested relaxed punishments and exemptions from the policy for their Donatist rivals (Hermanowicz). While there are connections between the different sects and their relationships to sources of power, neither is wholly ‘imperial’ or ‘peripheral.’ Politics, faith, and culture blend together to form the identity conceptions.

​

Augustine’s letter to Boniface further illustrates the negotiation of identity. Writing to the Count of Africa, Augustine explains how many African Donatists struggled to convert because of cultural connections to the faith:

Presently, when the laws themselves arrived in Africa, in the first place those who were already seeking an opportunity for doing so, or were afraid of the raging madness of the Donatists, or were previously deterred by a feeling of unwillingness to offend their friends, at once came over to the Church. Many, too, who were only restrained by the force of custom handed down in their homes from their parents, but had never before considered what was the groundwork of the heresy itself — had never, indeed, wished to investigate and contemplate its nature, — beginning now to use their observation, and finding nothing in it that could compensate for such serious loss as they were called upon to suffer, became Catholics without any difficulty; for, having been made careless by security, they were now instructed by anxiety. But when all these had set the example, it was followed by many who were less qualified of themselves to understand what was the difference between the error of the Donatists and Catholic truth (Augustine, “Letter 185: Augustine to Boniface”).

 

Augustine’s writing demonstrates that heritage and community—not theology—bound Donatists to the religion. They are the inheritors of an identity rooted in geography, family, and history, not alternative liturgical practices. As Augustine notes, Donatists did not disagree with converting because of beliefs, rather they exchanged one status quo for another; some were even happy to do so according to him. Augustine mentions that some of the converts did not understand an error between Donatism and Catholicism: ‘Donatist’ was how they identified. This passage exhibits the limits of provincial identity within late antiquity, but also showcases negotiations such as how Northern Africans exchanged their faith for freedom from ‘anxiety.’

​

Meanwhile, Augustine served as a unique bridge between the African periphery and the Roman center. As Conybeare and Hermanowicz have each discussed, Augustine’s intersectional identities strengthened his ability in both preaching to local communities in Donatist fashion and refining Roman law in the context of different regional customs (Conybeare, Hermanowicz). Augustine’s letter to Boniface further substantiates his cross-cultural positioning: 

As to the charge that they bring against us, that we covet and plunder their possessions, I would that they would become Catholics, and possess in peace and love with us, not only what they call theirs, but also what confessedly belongs to us. But they are so blinded with the desire of uttering calumnies, that they do not observe how inconsistent their statements are with one another. At any rate, they assert, and seem to make it a subject of most invidious complaint among themselves, that we constrain them to come in to our communion by the violent authority of the laws — which we certainly should not do by any means, if we wished to gain possession of their property. What avaricious man ever wished for another to share his possessions? Who that was inflamed with the desire of empire, or elated by the pride of its possession, ever wished to have a partner? Let them at any rate look on those very men who once belonged to them, but now are our brethren joined to us by the bond of fraternal affection, and see how they hold not only what they used to have, but also what was ours, which they did not have before […] (Augustine, “Letter to Boniface”).

Augustine calls for the unification of the churches without calling for imperial subjugation of the Donatist members. While he may argue for the implementation of an imperial church within the periphery of the empire, he is not an agent of ‘Roman imperialism.’ He clarifies that he does not wish to violently conquer their church, nor does want their ‘possessions,’ rather a union of faith. Furthermore, in this passage a direct negotiation occurs. Donatists exchanged their faith for Catholic benefits. Power and identity compose the primary facets of this complicated controversy, and Augustine emerges as a negotiator between the ‘center’ and the ‘periphery.’ 

​

The Circumcellions’ identity within Donatism illustrates an even more narrow negotiation occurring within Northern Africa. Augustine defines the Circumcellions as a “genus hominem agreste et famosissimae audaciae” who “se ipsos necare consuerunt” [“A rustic race of men and famous for their audacity...plan to kill themselves”] (Augustine, “PL42:043-044”). He conceives of them as a fanatic Donatist militia, yet acknowledges that, 

Verumtamen plerisque Donatistarum displicent tales, nec eorum communione  contaminari se putant, qui christiano orbi terrarum dementer obiiciunt ignotorum crimen Afrorum. Multa et inter ipsos facta sunt schismata, et ab iis se diversis coetibus alii atque alii separarunt; quorum separationem caetera grandis multitudo non sensit (Augustine, “PL42:043-044”).

[Nevertheless they greatly displease many of the Donatists, nor do they think themselves to be mingled with their community, they who madly throw upon the Christian region of the world the sin of unknown Africans. Many even among themselves have made schisms, and from then some and others have separated themselves in different societies: of which the rest of the abundant crowd did not perceive the separation.]

His classification of Circumcellions as Donatists yet simultaneous acknowledgement that Donatists rejected the group further highlights the depth of ambiguity within Donatism. Augustine does not distinguish between a fringe sect and the plurality of it—indeed, he even uses the word “plurisque” to define the number of Donatists who oppose Circumcellions. He notes that the emergence of the Circumcellion sect caused a schism within the faith. These community schisms exhibit the presence of negotiations within peripheral identity discourse. This decision to group Circumcellions and Donatists together despite there being a lack of cohesive agreement on their place within the faith illustrates the muddled reality of late antique identity. 

​

His decision also illustrates the disconnect between the periphery and the center. Compared to the Donatists, Augustine is more closely connected to both the imperial administration and the ‘Roman’ part of Northern Africa. He is not engrained in intra-faith Donatist discourse on ‘what classifies as a Donatist,’ as he is a Catholic outsider. In this situation, Augustine adopts the perspective of an imperial observer, classifying Circumcellions as Donatists despite the varying provincial opinions. Nonetheless, one common factor protrudes: these are both uniquely Northern African faiths, even as members struggled to negotiate their separate identities. Thus, Augustine’s writings demonstrate that he struggled to negotiate and understand the boundaries of identities in late antiquity as well.

 

IV – Conclusion 

​

Negotiation of identity within late antiquity is multi-faceted and complex. Donatism’s close ties to heritage and history complicate the contemporary understanding of it. Likewise, Augustine’s multitude of identities complicates his own positioning within the controversy. The blending of the ‘provincial’ and the ‘imperial’ within Northern Africa illustrates the amorphous reality of late antique peripheral identity. The transfer of Catholicism from the center to the periphery did not always render it as homogeneous as scholars are accustomed to think. Likewise, Donatism was rooted more so in heritage than heresy. Even people living during late antiquity, such as Augustine, did not always know how to navigate negotiating ‘provincial’ and ‘imperial’ identity. The Donatist controversy ultimately affirms that negotiation of identity is an ongoing process laden with a myriad of hiccups and counterintuitive realities.

​

Author's Note: Thank you to both Professor John Eldevik in the History Department and Professor Amy Koenig in the Classics Department for their help in translating Augustine’s work, researching Donatism, and writing this paper.