Athanasius And Constantine

1. Philostorgius, HE 2.11. The nature of episcopal elections in Alexandria has been a matter of some contention: see the successive discussions by K. Müller, 'Kleine Beiträge zur alten Kirchengeschichte 16: Die älteste Bischofswahl und -weihe in Rom und Alexandrien,' ZNW 28 (1929), 274-296; W. Telfer, 'Episcopal Succession in Egypt,' JEH 3 (1952), 1-13; E. W. Kemp, 'Bishops and Presbyters at Alexandria,' J EH 6 (1955), 125-142; J. Lécuyer, 'Le problème des consecrations episcopales dans l'Église d'Alexandrie,' BHE 65 (1964), 241-267; 'La succession des évêques d'Alexandrie aux premiers siècles,' BHE 70 (1969), 81-98; Girardet, Kaisergericht (1975), 52-57; D. W.-H. Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (Notre Dame and London, 1991), 38-62. Philostorgius quoted what purports to be Constantir.e's reply to the city (HE 2.11a). G. Fernandez Hernandez, 'La elección episcopal de Atanasio de Alejandría según Filostorgio,' Gerión 3 (1985), 211-229, argues that the emperor allowed an election which he knew to be uncanonical because he feared that the Melitian schism might produce social unrest and thus endanger the supply of Egyptian grain to his new capital on the Bosporus.

2. Epiphanius, Pan. 68.6. The date is deduced from the fact that Constantine was in the West continuously from the spring of 328 to the spring of 330 (New Empire [1982], 77/8). What follows is based on Constantine (1981), 231-240; for recent discussion and bibliography, see D. W.-H. Arnold, Early Career (1991), 103-173.

3. This visit, whose implied date is 329/30, appears to find an echo in monastic sources: see P. Rousseau, Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt (Berkeley, 1985), 161/2. Many of the dates for the 330s in the Index are one year too early (New Empire (1982], 152 n. 30). Observe also that the Index was not originally composed for the extant collection of Festal Letters, and that the extant Festal Letter 3 was written for Easter 352, not for Easter 330 (App. 1).

4. Socrates, HE 1.13.4/5 (not at all precisely dateable), cf. Philostorgius, HE 1.9". Philumenus was believed to have interceded with Constantine on behalf of Donatus in 315 (Optatus 1.26, cf. Augustine, Brev. Coll. 3.20.38).

5. Urkunde 34. The document was taken to Alexandria by the magistriani Syncletius and Gaudencius while Paterius was governor of Egypt ( Urkunde 34.43). On the situation in Libya at this period, see D. W.-H. Arnold, Early Career (1991), 118-126.

6. For the Council of Caesarea, see P. Lond. 1913; CSEL 65.54.1/2 (dating it to the year before the Council of Tyre); Index 6; Theodoretus, HE 1.28.2; Sozomenus, HE 2.25.1, 17. On the necessity of identifying it with 'the court of the censor' {Apol. c. Ar. 65.4), see 'Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some Problems,' AJAH 3(1978), 53-75, at 61/2.

8. Eusebius, VC 4.41.3/4 (Constantine's letter to the council); Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar. 72.1/2. The emperor makes it clear that Dionysius was to be an observer at the council, not a member of it, still less to preside.

9. J.-M. Sansterre, 'Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie ** César opapiste,"' Byzantion 42 (1972), 131-195, 532-594, at 563-565, arguing from the letter of Dionysius partly quoted by Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar. 81.

10. Sozomenus, HE 2.25.2-6 (from the acta of the council), cf. CSEL 65.53/4.

11. Sozomenus, HE 2.25.12. Sozomenus also repeats from Gelasius of Caesarea the fictitious story that Athanasius was accused of sexual impropriety (cf. Rufinus, HE 10.18), but notes that 'it is not included in the acta' (HE 2.25.8-11).

12. Eusebius, VC 4.43-45; Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar. 84; Sozomenus, HE 2.27.1.

13. Index 8; Epiphanius, Pan. 68.9.4, cf. P. Peeters, 'L'épilogue du synode de Tyr en 335 (dans les Lettres festales de Saint Athanase),' Analecta Bollandiana 63 (1945), 131-144; T. D. Barnes, JTS, N.S. 37 (1986), 586-589.

15. As assumed in Constantine (1981), 239,400 n. 44.

17. For full arguments in favor of the reconstruction adopted here, see P. Peeters, 'Comment Saint Athanase s'enfuit de Tyr en 335,' Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres5 30 (1944), 131-177, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales 2 (Subsidia Hagiographica 27 {Brussels, 1951J), 53-90). His conclusions, adopted with slight modifications in Constantine (1981), 239/40, have recently been challenged by H. A. Drake, 'Athanasius' First Exile,' Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27 (1986), 193-204, who puts Athanasius' first interview with Constantine on 30 October and his second on 6 November.

19. As the Caesar Constantinus asserted in 337 (Apol. c. Ar. 87.4).

20. As is supposed by Girardet, Kaisergericht (1975), 68-73,104/5,155/6.

22. On the meaning of the phrase oi ire pi tow ôcîva in ancient Greek of all periods, see S. Radt, 'Noch einmal Aischylos, Niobe Fr. 162 N.2 (278 M),' ZPE 38 (1980), 47-58; 'Ol (at, etc.) r,€(* + acc. nominis proprii bei Scrabo,' ZPE 71 (1988), 35-40; 'Addendum,' ZPE 74 (1988), 108. In normal Greek usage of the period, such a phrase often designates the individual named alone (as in Socrates, HE 2.22.4, 23.2): see E. Schwyzer and A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik 23 (Munich, 1966), 504; N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek 3 (Edinburgh, 1963), 16. Although Müller detects this usage in Athanasius too (Lexicon [1952], 1169/70: 'non raro hac formula sola persona ut dux factionis significatur'), I am not convinced that Athanasius ever uses it to designate a single individual: hence I have consistently taken oi rep! Eucrcßiov (or some other name) in Athanasius to mean 'Eusebius and his supporters.'

25. Opitz on 139.15; T. D. Barnes, AJAH 3 (1978), 61.

26. The eastern bishops at Serdica in 343 complained that Athanasius had had Ischyras confined in military custody (CSEL 65.51.19).

27. Thus the synodical letter of the Council of Alexandria in 338, written by Athanasius himself (Apol. c. Ar. 11/2), thus the western bishops at Serdica in 343 (CSEL 65.115.6-116.1).

28. On the 'odd man out' Colluthus, see R. Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London, 1987), 45-47.

29. Chapter IV.

30. CSEL 65.76 No. 34; Socrates, HE 2.20.23, cf. Feder, Studien II (1910), 79-81.

31. The precise date of the list is uncertain: Opitz on 149.19 dated it to 325/6, whereas A. Martin, 'Athanase et les Mélitiens (325-335),' Politique et théologie (1974), 31-61, at 37, suggests November 327. Although Martin denies its existence, the Council of Nicomedia, which discussed the Melitian schism in December 327 or January 328 (Chapter II, at n. 75) provides an appropriate context for Alexander's reception of such a list.

32. Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE 3.18. The two versions are conveniently printed in parallel by G. Loeschke, 'Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzicenus,' Rheinisches Museum, N.F. 60 (1905), 594-613; 61 (1906), 34-77, at 34-36.

33. L. Parmentier, Theodorets Kirchengeschichte (GCS 19, 1911), lxii/lxiii; Schwartz, Ges. Sehr. 3 (1959), 258 n. l; Opitz on 164.12: 'Gelasius... der den Brief in seiner phantastischen Art erweitert.* For a recent statement of the case, see C. T. H. R. Ehrhardt, 'Constantinian Documents in Gelasius of Cyzicus, Ecclesiastical History,' Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 23 (1980), 48-57. His argument rests upon the explicit (and mistaken) assumption that 'there were hundreds of copies of the authentic text in the eastern provinces' (55 n. 47).

34. G. Loeschke, Rheinisches Museum, N.F. 61 (1906), 38/9.

36. Constantine was born at Naissus (Firmicus Maternus, Math. 1.10.13; Origo Constantini Imperatoris 2), but Julian, Misopogon 18, 348d, appears to indicate that his ancestors came from Dacia Ripensis: see R. Syme, 'The Ancestry of Constantine,' Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1971 (1974), 237-253, reprinted in his Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford, 1983), 63-79.

39. Socrates, HE 2.23.15-32, quotes Julius' letter to the Alexandrian church in 346 (Apol. c. Ar. 52/3) with an extra paragraph in the middle (HE 2.23.22-26*). Opitz on 133.19ff. assumed that the extra material must be a later addition: 'der Brief ist aus Athan(asius) bei Sokr(ates) 11.23, 15-32 mit einigen Erweiterungen erhalten.* More charitably, Montfaucon opined that modesty led Athanasius to omit a passage which praised him strongly (PG 25.345 n. 23).

41. N. H. Baynes, 'Athanasiania,7EA 11 (1925), 58-69, at 63 = Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955), 285: 'no Athanasian forgery, but Athanasian suppression of embarrassing veracity.'

42. P. Lond. 1914, published by H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (London, 1924), 53-71. For important textual and historical observations, see also K. Holl, 'Die Bedeutung der neuveröffentlichten melitianischen Urkunden für die Kirchengeschichte,' Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1925.18-31, reprinted in his Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte 2 (Tübingen, 1927), 283-297. An unsuccessful attempt to impugn the inferences drawn by Bell and Holl has recently been made by D. W.*H. Arnold, 'Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A Reconsideration of London Papyrus 1914,* Studia Patristica 21 (1989), 377-383; Early Career (1991), esp. 62-89, 175-186.

43. K. Holl, Sb. Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1925.21-24; H. Hauben, 'On the Melitians in P. London VI (P. Jews) 1914: The Problem of Papas Heraiscus,' Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology (American Studies in Papyrology 23 [Chico, 1981]), 447-456.

44. On the 'behavior of Athanasius' and the importance of P. Lond. 1914, see now Hanson, Search (1988), 239-262.

0 0

Post a comment