Paul Of Constantinople

1. See esp. F. Fischer, 'De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum catalogis et de chronologia octo primorum patriarcharum,' Commentationes philologae Jenenses 3 (1894), 263-333, at 310-329; Schwartz, Ges. Sehr. 3 (1959), 273-276 (originally published in 1911); W. Telfc% 'Paul of Constantinople,' HTR 43 (1950), 30-92; A. Lippold, 'Paulus 29,' RE, Supp. 10 (1965), 510-520; G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris, 1974), 419-435; Klein, Constantius (1977), 31, 70-77; Hanson, Search (1988), 265, 279-284. The reconstruction offered by Opitz on 178.15ff., 186.11, 13 deserves separate comment. Opitz holds that Alexander died before 330: hence Paul was the first bishop of Constantinople; he was exiled for the first time to Pontus in the winter of 331, but recalled by Constantine before September 335; he was then deposed again and exiled to Thessalonica in 338, whence he traveled via Corinth to Gaul to seek the protection of Maximinus of Trier. Of the five items of evidence which Opitz successively adduces in support (respectively, Hist. Ar. 7.1; CSEL 65.57; Socrates, HE 2.7,2.16.6; CSEL 65.67), only the second is correctly dated. Moreover the whole reconstruction rests upon the improbable assumption that Athanasius was mistaken in believing that Alexander was still bishop of Constantinople when Arius died (De Morte Arit 2.2-3.1; Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya 18/9).

2. For example, Klein, Constantius ( 1977), 71-77, and G. Dagron, Naissance (1974), 432, hold that Paul spent his first exile in the West, not in Pontus, as Athanasius states, while Girardet, Kaisergericht (1975), 142, has Paul exiled to Mesopotamia in 342—which leaves no room for his expulsion by the praetorian prefect Philippus in 344 (Socrates, HE 2.16).

4. For the argument used here, see 'Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some Problems,' AJAH 3 (1976), 53-75, at 64, 66. V. Grumel, Traité d'études byzantines 1: Im chronologie (Paris, 1958), 434, had already dated Alexander's death to August 337—which must be approximately correct.

6. Chapter IV.

7. So Schwartz, Ges. Sehr. 3 (1959), 274; F. Winkelmann, 'Die Bischöfe Metrophanes und Alexander von Byzanz,' BZ 59 (1966), 47-71, at 61. Alan Cameron, 'A Quotation from S. Nilus of Ancyra in an Iconodule Tract?' JTS, N.S. 27 (1976), 128-131, appeals toTelfer and Dagron for putting Alexander's death 'as early as August 335,' while Hanson, Search (1988), 265, follows Opitz on 186.11 and states boldly that he 'was dead by 330.'

8. CSEL 65.57.20-21: 'Paulus vero Athanasi expositioni interfuit manuque propria sententiam scribens cum ceteris eum ipse damnavit.'

9. There was an obvious precedent in 325, when the bishop of old Rome was represented by two priests at the Council of Nicaea: H. Geizer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Cuntz, Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina (Leipzig, 1898), xlvii-lii, 2-5, 61,78/9, 96/7, 118/9,186/7. The aged bishop of the new city of Constantinople could hardly have been denied the same privilege ten years later. Moreover, the practise of priests representing their bishops at church councils soon became quite common. The ecclesiastical historians imply that by the late 350s there was nothing unusual in deacons and even lectors representing their bishops at distant councils (Socrates, HE 2.32.22; Sozomenus, HE 4.16.16). At the Council of Seleucia in 359 deacons and even lectors signed on behalf of absent bishops (Socrates, HE 2.39.22), and the subscriptions to the synodical letter of the Council of Antioch in 363 include the priest Lamyrion, who signed on behalf of Piso, the bishop of Adana; the two priests Orfitus and Aetius, who signed on behalf of Athanasius of Ancyra; and another priest named Lamyrion, who signed on behalf of Patricius of Paltus (Socrates, HE 3.25.18).

10. On the common source of Jerome and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, which was also used by Socrates, see App. 5 n. 1.

11. Chapter VII.

12. Chapter VIII.

13. 'Praetorian Prefects, 337-361,' ZPE 94 (1992), 249-260, at 254.

14. Chapter X.

15. Edited by P. Franchi de' Cavalieri, 'Una pagina di storia bizantina del secolo IV: II Martirio dei santi Notari,' Analecta Bollandiana 64 (1946), 132-175, at 169-171.

16. W. Telfer, HTR 43 (1950), 86-88; A. Lippold, RE, Supp. 10 (1965), 519.

17. The confusion of the two names is easy and frequent, not only in ancient writers (for example, Theodoretus, HE 3.7.6, 8.1, 21.1), but also in contemporary documents from the reign of Constantius itself (for example, P. Abirm. 47, 48, 49, 52) and in modern scholarship ('Structure and Chronology in Ammianus Book 14,' HSCP 92 (1989), 413-422, at 415, where the context shows that the restored consular date should read (¿md-roi? KoafaTaimu) Xeßaa-rw tö] c' Kai Kuu/oTaimip Kaioapi t(o 7"]).

Opirz's apparatus to 186.16 notes no variant or conjecture for KwwjTavTiwu (which is misprinted as KwvoTaTivou). Schwartz asserted that, while the older editions printed üttö Kuwraifivou, 'die Mauriner haben nach der Pariser Hs. napa Kwi/OTaircou eingesetzt, was durch die Fortsetzung widerlegt wird' (Ges. Sehr. 3 (1959], 274/5 n. 6). The first Statement is true: both the editio princeps of 1601 (1.630B) and the Paris edition of 1627 (1.813C) print uttö KiovoTcnrii/ou. Bur the second statement is false, and Schwartz has failed to verify what reading actually stands in the Benedictine edition. The facts are simple. Montfaucon printed irapa

KiüHJTaiTÚ'ou (Paris, 1698: 1.348), as did the Padua reprint of his edition in 1777 (1.275). The reading Kun'OTaiTíou appears for the first time in Migne's reprint of 1857—an edition not noted for its accurate typography. Since the parallel Latin translation has a Constantino and the appended footnote is transcribed from Montfaucon (PG 25.701 ), Migne's Kiovotcutíou can hardly be anything other than a sheer misprint. However, it was reproduced by W. Bright, Historical Works of St. Athanasius (Oxford, 1881), 188, despite a title-page which proclaims that the text is reprinted from the Benedictine edition (not from Migne), and Schwartz's misstatement about what the manuscripts transmit is repeated by A. Martin, Sources chrétiennes 317 (1985), 38 n. 2.

18. For its frequency, see Müller, Lexicon (1952), 1084-1089.

19. W. Telfer, HTR 43 (1950), 82-assuming a date of late 344.

20. So rightly A. H. M. Jones, The Career of Flavius Philippus,' Historia 4 (1955), 229-233, at 229.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment