Part Three: The Pelagian Crisis (411–430)
Edited By Frederick Van Fleteren
Note 80: Julian of Eclanum
Julian of Eclanum
According a printed edition, Gennadius says Julian was bishop of Capua.2 Pope Gelasius qualifies him as bishop of Celanes or Celenes.3 In his preface on the Canticles Bede calls him bishop of Celenes. Likely Bede wished to indicate the place where he was bishop although his words Iuliani Celanensis Episcopi a Camapania could mean that he lived in Celenes and was bishop in Campania. Prosper says Iulianum Heclanensem and Peter the Deacon writes to Fulgentius Iulianum Eclanensem. That phrase could be understood as the place of his birth, not his episcopacy.
These citations would not prevent us from believing Julian was bishop of Capua if it were not noted in Gennadius that the better manuscripts do not express the place of his episcopacy. Instead of Capuanus, they read Campanus which could mean he was bishop in Campania. Thus he could have been bishop of Capua according to the ancient editions of Gennadius or bishop of Celenes, a city of Campania at that time, if the texts of Gelasius, of Peter the Deacon, of Bede were corrected by Prosper. He could have been bishop of Atellus which was also in Campania as we read in Prosper, if the new editions had not placed Eclanenses or Heclanensis as founded on what are claimed to be better manuscripts. This correction has not prevented Chifflet from maintaining the ancient reading of Prosper is the best of all and the true place of his...