CARM
Robert Whelan, p.38
"Finally, the Nicenes asked Cyrila to set out his arrangements
for the conference. His response baffles modern scholars as much as it did
them: “I do not know Latin [Nescio latine].” Victor of Vita’s Nicene bishops dismiss
this answer as tactical: “We know that you have quite obviously always spoken
Latin. You ought not to excuse yourself now, especially as you lit a fire under this
matter [huius rei incendium suscitasti].” In Victor’s account, the Homoian bishop
finds other excuses to avoid giving the Nicenes a hearing, before they read out a
pre-prepared statement of their doctrine, the Book of the Catholic Faith (reproduced
in full by the historian). Cyrila’s enigmatic statement receives no further attention.
"This curious incident has occasioned much comment. [36] It has universally (and
plausibly) been interpreted as evidence for use of a non-Latin language in Homoian
circles in Vandal Africa, whether a specifically Vandalic language or a form of
Gothic (perhaps related to the archaic ecclesiastical language of Ulfila’s biblical
translation and the commentaries used in Ostrogothic Italy). [37] It is difficult to say
more. This has not stopped speculation that Cyrila’s claim to non-Latinity was a
statement of ethnic pride: an attempt to distinguish the Homoian Church as non-
Latin, and thus non-Roman and Vandal. [38] This story has been used to frame the
Homoian Church as an essentially Vandal institution, in a manner that would
make it totally diff erent from its Nicene rival.
"A deliberate claim to ethnic distinction is not easily supported by the specifi c
passage. Cyrila’s statement is reported by an author generally hostile to him and
with particular reason to attack the “patriarch” here. It cannot be ruled out that
Victor invented these words; they are certainly reported in a manner calculated to
make Cyrila look absurd, and thus illegitimate. Bishops in ecclesiastical meetings
were supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Statements like this were oft en
seized upon as uninspired speech Even if Cyrila’s pronouncement was not a
gaff e, it is difficult to turn it into the policy statement of an exclusively Vandal
Homoian Church. The motive imputed by his Nicene opponents is more plausible."
[36.] Haubrichs (2012) provides a detailed summary.
[37.] Possibly a false distinction—debate continues over whether Vandalic was a separate language
or a Gothic dialect: see (best) Reichert (2008); Reichert (2009); also Markey (1989); Tiefenbach (1991);
Francovich Onesti (2002), 73–74, 85–87, 133–202; Francovich Onesti (2010); Steinacher (2008), 253–54;
Haubrichs (2012). For ecclesiastical Gothic, its contrast to spoken language, and surviving texts, see
Heather and Matthews (1991), 124–85; Amory (1997), 237–51; Burton (2002); Falluomini (2010). In the
African ecclesiastical context, I will refer to this language as Vandalic for convenience.
[38.] Haubrichs (2012). It has even been suggested that Huneric must have condoned the move, since
he left Cyrila in charge of the conference: ibid., 22, 27; cf. Lancel (2002a), 308 n. 229. Such suggestions
underestimate the independence with which even bishops with close relationships to secular rulers
could act on such occasions: see, e.g., McLynn (1994), 128–49; Wessel (2004), 138–80.
