Il Bishop Alexander

1. The earliest explicit rule on the subject is Canon 11 of the council held at Neocaesarea between 314 and 325 (EOMIA 1.132-135), cf. J. Gaudemet, L'Église dans l'empire romain aux IV et Ve siècles (Paris, 1957), 124-127.

2. O. von Lemm, 'Koptische Fragmente zur Patriarchengeschichte Alexandriens,' Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg7 36, No. 11 (1888), 20, frag. P.5 (text), 36 (translation and discussion).

3. Epistula Ammonis 13—claiming that Pachomius defended his election. A. Martin, 'Athanase et les Mélitiens (325-335),' Politique et théologie (1974), 31-61, at 42/3, argues that the election was irregular.

4. See the texts edited by W. Telfer, 'St. Peter of Alexandria and Alius,' Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949), 117-130, at 126; P. Devos, 'Une passion grecque inédite de S. Pierre d'Alexandrie et sa traduction par Anastase le Bibliothécaire,' Analecta

Bollandiana 83 (1965), 157-187, at 167,180: they are translated and discussed by T. Vivian, St. Peter of Alexandria: Bishop and Martyr (Philadelphia, 1988), 64-84.

5. Rufinus, HE 10.15; Socrates, HE 1.15; Sozomenus, HE 2.17.5-31; Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE 3.13.10-14 (and later lives of Athanasius and Constantine). The immediate or indirect source of all the extant writers is Gelasius of Caesarea (frag. 27 in the numeration of F. Winkelmann, 4Charakter und Bedeutung der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia,' Polychordia: Festschrift F. Dolger [Byzantinische Forschungen 1, 1966J, 346-385).

6. Socrates, HE 4.13.4. G. Bardy, Saint Athanase (296-373)* (Paris, 1925), 1 n. 2, states that Athanasius was succeeded as bishop in 373 by his brother Peter: that appears to be a confusion with the attested fact that Peter, who is not known to be related to Athanasius, was succeeded by his brother Timothy {Hist. ac. 5.14; Sozomenus, HE 7.7.3).

7. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 21.6. As time went by, Athanasius' cultural attainments were inevitably enhanced and exaggerated: whereas Rufinus agrees with Gregory in making Alexander provide the young Athanasius with instruction from a notarius and a grammaticus, both singular {HE 10.15), and Socrates paraphrases the same passage as stating that Alexander gave him an education (HE 1.15.3), Sozomenus speaks of Athanasius attending plural grammatici and rhetors (HE 2.17.10).

9. , G. C. Stead, 'Rhetorical Method in Athanasius,' Vig. Chr. 30 (1976), 121-137.

10. C. Gent. 10.36/7 Thomson; De Incarn. 2.16-18, 43.34-38, cf. Plato, Rep. 327a; Tim. 30a; Pol. 273d.

11. For Homer, Gwatkin, Arianism2 (1900), 73, admitted that he could find 'only a few stock phrases': of his two examples one comes from the fourth Oration against the Arians (CPG 2230), while the other is the phrase dGdvaTov kokw (Hist. Ar. 68.2), which need not be 'a quotation' of Odyssey 12.118. Athanasius names Homer once, as the inventor of epic poetry (C. Gent. 18.26), but he could well have known that without ever reading a single line of either the Iliad or the Odyssey. For Aristotle, Gwatkin appealed to J. H. Newman, Select Treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in Controversy with the Arians 2 (Oxford, 1844), 501. But Newman had observed merely that certain phrases in the same fourth Oration against the Arians 'remind the reader of Aristotle rather than S. Athanasius.'

12. Chapters VII, XIII.

13. For discussion of Athanasius as an orator, see R. W. Smith, The Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria: Its Theory and Practice in the Ancient World (The Hague, 1974), 100-104; G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton, 1983), 208-212. Kennedy's assessment is unfortunately based largely on the Life of Antony, whose Athanasian authorship is here rejected (Chapter I n. 64), but he nevertheless reaches the reasonable conclusion that Athanasius 'adopts [the] techniques of invention, but not the arrangement and style' of classical rhetoric (255).

14. For Tertullian, see J.-C. Fredouille, TertuUien et la conversion de la culture antique (Paris, 1972); T. D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study2 (Oxford, 1985), esp. 187-232. Basil and Gregory had studied with Himerius and Proaeresius in Athens and with Libanius in Antioch (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 43.14-20; Socrates, HE 4.26.6)—and it shows in their writings: G. L. Kustas,

'Saint Basil and the Rhetorical Tradition,' Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, ed. P. J. Fedwick (Toronto, 1981), 221-279; R. R. Reuther, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher (Oxford, 1969), esp. 55-128; G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric (1983), 214-239.

15. Respectively, PG 40.925-941 (CPG 2487); Theodoretus, HE 4.22.1-35 (paraphrased in Chapter XX).

16. Constantine (1981), 82-84, 196/7. Significantly, Athanasius receives no mention whatever in the excellent and sensitive article by A. Spira, 'The Impact of Christianity on Ancient Rhetoric,' Studia Patristica 18.2 (1989), 137-153.

17. De incarn. 56/7. There is no compelling reason to identify the bishop of Alexandria with the Athanasius whose autograph letter to the holy man Paphnutius survives (P. Lond. 1929), as argued by H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (London, 1924), 115-118.

18. W. Schneemelchei; 'Der Schriftgebrauch in den "Apologien" des Athanasius,' Text, Wort, Glaube: Studien zur Überlieferung, Interpretation und Autorisierung biblischer Texte Kurt Aland gewidmet, ed. M. Brecht (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 50 [Berlin and New York, 1980)), 209-219.

19. R. W. Thomson, Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Oxford, 1971), xvii, sums the matter up very well: 'He was unphilosophic and repetitive in argument, but had a profound grasp of scriptural exegesis.'

21. E. P. Meijering, Orthodoxy and Platonism in Athanasius: Synthesis or Antithesis1 (Leiden, 1974); J. M. Rist, 'Basil's "Neoplatonism": Its Background and Nature,' Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, ed. P. J. Fedwick (Toronto, 1981), 137-220, at 173-178.

22. Constantine (1981), 178-186.

25. M. Slusser, 'Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione: Place and Date of Composition,' JTS N.S. 37 (1986), 114-117. He argues principally from C. Gent. 23.10-18 and De Incarn. 51.6-10, contrasting them with the knowledge of the West shown in the Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya 8; Apol. ad Const. 3; Hist. Ar. 28.

26. Constantine (1981), 206/7.

27. C. Kannengiesser, 'La date de I'Apologie d'Athanase Contre les pai'ens et Sur I'Incarnation du Werbe,'Rech. sei. rel. 58 (1970), 383^28. However, H. Nordberg, 'A Reconsideration of the Date of St. Athanasius' Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione,y Studia Patristica 3 (Texte und Untersuchungen 78,1961), 262-266; Athanasius' Tractates Contra Gentes-De Incarnatione: An Attempt at Redating (Societas Scientiarum Fennica: Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 28.3 (Helsinki, 1961}), argued for the impossibly late date of 362/3. On the other hand, A. Stülcken, Athanasiana: Litterar- und dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Texte und Untersuchungen 19.4, 1899), 1-23, argued for a date of c. 323, but conceded in a footnote that 'selbst 327 wäre nicht ausgeschlossen' (5 n. 1).

28. Respectively, E. P. Meijering, Athanasius: De Incarnatione Verbi (Amsterdam, 1989), 11-20; W. A. Bienert, 'Zur Logos-Christologie des Athanasius von Alexandrien in contra Gentes und de IncarnationeStudia

Patristica 21 (1989), 402-419, at 407-412.

29. T. Kehrhahn, De sancti Athanasii quae fertur Contra Gentes oratione (Diss. Berlin, 1913), 9-11,20-23,34/5,37-43,44-50 (also arguing that the work uses Eusebius, Praep. Evatig. 7.10), 56/7, 62-65. Kehrhahn drew the unconvincing conclusion that a work which copied Eusebius could not be by Athanasius (71/2). More recently, M.-J. Rondeau, 'Une nouvelle preuve de l'influence littéraire d'Eusèbe de Césarée sur Athanase: L'interprétation des Psaumes,' Rech. sei. rel. 56 (1968), 385-434, argued :hat Athanasius also used Eusebius' Commentary on the Psalms in his own exegesis of the Psalms. But the Athanasian authorship of the texts upon which she relied has been disproved by G. Dorival, 'Athanase ou pseudo-Athanase?' Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 16 (1980), 80-89. Significantly, the word 8ço4>àveia occurs in four passages alleged to derive from Athanasius' Commentary on the Psalms (PG 27.80, 220, 229, 529), cf. below, n. 31. For the date of the Theophany, which Eusebius is often wrongly supposed to have written after 330, see Constantine (1981), 186-188.

30. As argued most recently by E. P. Meijering, Athanasius (1989), 11-20.

31. See R. W. Thomson, Athanasius (1971), 5, 23, 25, 67, 69, 71, 85, 111, 133, 171, 267. A small but telling indication of Athanasius' indebtedness to Eusebius is the occurrence of the word 9eo4)dveia in De lncarn. 8.3. The concept is central to Eusebius' interpretation of the course of human history, but virtually unique to him among Christian theologians: see P. W. L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places i Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the fourth Century (Oxford, 1990), 87. In Athanasius it occurs elsewhere only at Orat. c. Ar. 1.63 (PG 26.144), cf. Müller, Lexicon (1952), 650.

32. E. Mühlenberg, 'Vérité et bonté de Dieu: Une interprétation de De incarnatione, chapitre VI, en perspective historique,' Politique et théologie (1974), 215-230, at 227-230; W. A. Bienert, Studio Patristica 21 (1989), 409/10.

33. A date between 328 and 335 was deduced from a comparison with the early Festal Letters by A. L. Pettersen, 'A Reconsideration of the Date of the Contra Gentes-De Incarnatione of Athanasius of Alexandria,' Stadia Patristica 17.3 (1982), 1030-1040, cf. Camplani, Lettere (1989), 239-244.

34. A. Pettersen, '"To Flee or Not to Flee": An Assessment of Athanasius' De Fuga Sua,' Persecution and Toleration (Studies in Church History 21, 1984), 29-42, at 40-42.

35. M. Krause, 'Das christliche Alexandrien und seine Beziehungen zum koptischen Ägypten,' Alexandrien: Kulturbegegnungen dreier Jahrtausende im Schmelztiegel einer mediterranen Grossstadt, ed. N. Hinskc (Aegyptiaca Treverensia 1 (Mainz, 19811), 53-62, at 55: 'der einzige Bischof Alexandriens, der auch koptisch sprechen konnte.'

36. For example, L T. Lefort, 'S. Athanase: Sur la virginité,' Le Muséon 42 (1929), 197-275, published what he claimed to be the original Coptic of a letter or treatise on virginity (CPG 2147). For proof that it was composed in Greek, see M. Aubineau, 'Les écrits de Saint Athanase sur la virginité,' Revue d'ascétique et de mystique 31 (1955), 140-173, reprinted in his Recherches patristiques (Amsterdam, 1974), 163-196.

37. L. T. Lefort, 'St. Athanase, écrivain copte,' Le Muséon 46 (1933), 1-33; C. D. G. Müller, 'Athanasios I. von Alexandrien als koptischer Schriftsteller,' Kyrios:

Vierteljahresschrift für Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte Europas, N.F. 14 (1974), 195-204.

38. P. Peeters, Orient et Byzance: Le tréfonds oriental de l'hagiographie grecque (Subsidia Hagiographies 21 [Brussels, 1950]), 29-32.

39. T. Orlandi, 'The Future of Studies in Coptic Biblical and Ecclesiastical Literature,' The Future of Coptic Studies, ed. R. McL. Wilson (Leiden, 1978), 143-163, at 153, cf. 151.

40. G. Bardy, La question des langues dans l'église ancienne 1 (Paris, 1948), 131. Bardy argued that the fact that Athanasius quotes the letter which Constantius wrote to him in 350 in two slightly different versions of the same Latin original (Apol. ad Const. 23; Hist. Ar. 24) implies that he made the Greek translation himself on each occasion. He presumably also translated the letter of Ursacius and Valens to Julius, which he obtained from Paulinus of Trier [Hist. Ar. 26.2/3, cf. Apol. c. Ar. 58.1-4). For discussion of Athanasius' knowledge of Latin Christian writers, see J. L. North, 'Did Athanasius (letter 49, to Dracontius) know and correct Cyprian (letter 5, Härtel)?' Studia Patristica 17.3 (1982), 1024-1029. On the different question of what Latin Christian texts might have been available to Athanasius in Greek, see E. Dekkers, 'Les traductions grecques des écrits patristiques latins,' Sacris Erudiri 5 (1953), 193-233, esp. 197.

42. W. H. C. Frend, 'Athanasius as an Egyptian Christian leader in the Fourth Century,' New College Bulletin 8 (1974), 20-37, reprinted his Religion Popular and Unpopular in the Early Christian Centuries (London, 1976), No. XVI. However, Frend presents Athanasius as coming from 'an Alexandrian middle-class background' (21 n. 1) with appeal to Sozomenus, HE 2.17.10 (on which, see above, n. 7).

43. CSEL 65.154.19; Socrates, HE 1.8.13; Sozomenus, HE 1.17.7.

44. Constantine (1981), 215-219.

45. On the origins of the Melitian schism, sec briefly Constantine (1981), 201/2; for full discussion and bibliography, T. Vivian, St. Peter (1988), 15-50. The earliest stages of the quarrel between Peter and Melitius are documented by two contemporary letters, one of four bishops to Melitius, the other of Peter to his congregation, preserved in Cod. Ver. LX (58), fols. 113v-l 16r, and most readily accessible in EOMIA 1.634-636. Athanasius indirectly implies that the schism began in 306 (Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya 22).

46. Epiphanius, Pan. 68.1.4-3.4; Sozomenus, HE 1.15.2.

47. P. Lond. 1913-1922, published by H. I. Bell (with W. E. Crum), Jews and Christians in Egypt (London, 1924), 38-99. Another document from the same dossier was subsequently published by W. E. Crum, 'Some Further Melitian Documents,' JEA 13 (1927), 19-26.

48. A plan of Alexandria is given by C. Andresen, "'Siegreiche Kirche" im Aufstieg des Christentums: Untersuchungen zu Eusebius von Caesarea und Dionysios von Alexandrien,' Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.23.1 (Berlin and New York, 1979), 387-459, facing p. 440.

49. Epiphanius, Pan. 69.1.2,2.2-7, cf. Socrates, HE 5.22.43-46.

50. Debate about Arius himself and his views has been lively in recent years: among major contributions, note A. M. Ritter, 'Arianismus,' TRE 3 (1978), 692-719; 'Arius,' Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, ed. M. Greschat 1 (Stuttgart, 1984), 215-

223; R. Lorenz, Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius (Göttingen, 1979), with the review by R. Williams, JTS, N.S. 34 (1983), 293-296; R. Lorenz, 'Die Christusseele im Arianischen Streit: Nebst einigen Bemerkungen zur Quellenkritik des Arius und zur Glaubwürdigkeit des Athanasius,' ZKG 94 (1983), 1-51; R. C. Gregg and D. E. Groh, Early Arianism— A View of Salvation (Philadelphia, 1981); J. T. Lienhard, 'Recent Studies in Arianism,' Religious Studies Review 8 (1982), 330-337; R. Williams, 'The Logic of Arianism,' JTS, N.S. 34 (1983), 56-81; Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London, 1987), with the review by R. C. Gregg JTS, N.S. 40 (1989), 247-254; the collective volume Arianism (1985); Hanson, Search (1988), 3-128.

Williams advances the historically attractive interpretation that Arius was 'a committed theological conservative' with a distinctly Alexandrian stamp (175) who attempted to bring Christian theology into the 'post-Plotinian and post-Porphyrian world' (230). But both Plotinus and Porphyry taught in Rome, and that interpretation of Arius may well over-estimate the diffusion of their ideas in the East in the early decades of the fourth century, on which see J. M. Rist, Basil of Caesarea (1981), 165-179.

On the reconstruction of Arius' lost Thalia, see now K. Metzler and F. Simon, Ariana et Athanasiana: Studien zur Überlieferung und zu philologischen Problemen der Werke des Athanasius von Alexandrien (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 83 (Oplanden, 1991)), 11^5.

51. Eusebius, C. Marc. 1.3.18; Eccl. Theol., passim.

52. See the trenchant remarks of G. Gentz, RAC 1 (1950), 647; Hanson, Search (1988), xvii/xviii.

53. Epiphanius, Pan. 69.3.3. Some sources allege that Arius had been ordained deacon by the schismatic Melitius (EOM/A 1.635/6; Sozomenus, HE 1.15.2). But the early Melitian Arius was an accidental homonym, exploited for polemical purposes: see R. Williams, 'Arius and the Melitian Schism,' JTS, N.S. 37 (1986), 35-52; A. Martin, 'Les relations entre Arius et Melitios dans la tradition Alexandrine,' JTS, N.S. 40 (1989), 401-413.

54. Urkunde 6—where it must be suspected that the three concluding names (those of the Libyan bishops Sec und us and Theonas, and Pistus) are later additions to the original document. Both the order of events and the absolute chronology of the controversy before late 324 are uncertain. Both the order and the absolute dates for the documents included by H.-G. Opitz in his Urkunden (1934) which he had argued in the article 'Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfängen bis zum Jahre 328,' ZNW 33 (1934), 131-159, have largely been accepted in recent scholarship, as in Constantine (1981), 202-206,374-376. For some significant revisions to Opitz's dates, and in turn objections to the revised dates, see R. Williams, Arius (1987), 48-66; U. Loose, 'Zur Chronologie des arianischen Streites,' ZKG 101 (1990), 88-92.

55. Urkunde AbM.

56. Urkunde 1. Also preserved in whole or in part are letters from Eusebius of Nicomedia to Arius (Urkunde 2) and to Paulinus of Tyre (8), from Eusebius of Caesarea to Euphration of Balaneae and to Alexander of Alexandria defending Arius' central thesis (3,7), fragments of a letter by Paulinus (9), and an attempt by George, the future bishop of Laodicea, to mediate between Alexander and Arius (12,13).

57. Sozomenus, HE 1.15.11,10, whence Urkunden 10, 5. Opitz dated these two councils to c. 320 and c. 321/2 respectively: in favor of regarding the Palestinian one as the earlier (against Sozomenus), see R. Williams, Arius (1987), 50-60. However, it seems unlikely that the Bithynian council occurrec three years after the Palestinian, as he posits (58).

58. Urkunden 14,16. The latter is known only from an allusion in a letter by Liberius written in 353/4 (CSEL 65.91.24-28).

59. Urkunde 14.3-8,57/8; Epiphanius, Pan. 69.3.2. Arius' return may be the occasion of Alexander's circular to all bishops ( Urkunde 15).

60. Urkunden 4b, 14. The first letter is sometimes identified from its opening words as Henos somatos, and the second sometimes similarly from its opening words as He philarchia.

61. M. Aubineau, 'La tunique sans couture du Christ: Exégèse patristique de Jean 19, 23-24,' Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten 1 (Münster, 1970), 100-127, esp. 107-109, reprinted in his Recherches patristiques (1974), 351-378, at 358-360; A. Pettersen, Studia Patristica 17.3 (1982), 1030-1040.

62. G. C. Stead, 'Athanasius' Earliest Written Work,'/TS, N.S. 39 (1988), 76-91.

65. Eusebius, VC 1.51.1, cf. Constantine (1981), 376 n. 154.

66. Eusebius, VC 2.63-73. The envoy, identified as Ossius by Socrates, HE 1.7.1, is argued to be the notarius Marianus by B. H. Warmington, 'The Sources of Some Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' Church History and Life of Constantine,* Studia Patristica 18.1 (1985), 93-98, at 95/6.

67. John Chrysostom, De beato Philogonio (PG 47.747-756), cf. Theodoretus, HE 1.7.10.

68. On this council, see now Hanson, Search (1988), 146-151. It was unknown to modern scholarship until Eduard Schwartz published Urkunde 18 in 1905 (Ges. Sehr. 3 11959], 134-155). On its creed, see esp. L. Abramowski, 'Die Synode von Antiochien 324/25 und ihr Symbol,' ZKG 86 (1975), 356-366.

69. Urkunde 20.

70. On the Council of Nicaea, whose proceedings can be reconstructed only in the barest outline, see Constantine (1981), 215-219; C. Luibheid, The Council of Nicaea (Galway, 1982), 67-124.

71. Urkunde 23.6-10, cf. A. Martin, Politique et théologie (1974), 33-38.

72. Urkunden 31.2,27,28; Philostorgius, HE 1.10.

73. For other evidence and proof of the date, see 'Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some Problems,' AJAH 3 (1978), 53-75, at 59/60. These arguments are ignored in the restatement of a case for dating the fall of Eustathius to 330/1 by R. P. C. Hanson, 'The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch,' ZKG 95 (1984), 171-179; Search (1988), 208-211.

74. Theodoretus, HE 1.22.1, cf. Eusebius, VC 3.59-62.

75. The principal evidence for this council comprises Urkunden 29-32; Eusebius, VC 3.23; Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar. 59.3; Philostorgius, HE 2.7, 7*. For the reconstruction of events assumed here, see AJAH 3 (1978), 60/1; Constantine (1981), 229; New Empire (1982), 77. The council is sometimes misleadingly called 'the second Council of Nicaea,' as recently by Hanson, Search (1988), 174-178. Its existence is still denied by some scholars: for example, C. Luibheid, The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea,'/EH 34 (1983), 165-174; A. Martin, 'Le fil d'Arius,' BHE 84 (1989), 297-320. The latter argues that Arius was in exile continuously from 325 to 335 and dates Urkunde 29 to 334, Urkunden 32 and 31 to 335.

76. Epiphanius, Pan. 68.7.2, 69.11.4. Both passages are unfortunately misunderstood by D. W.-H. Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (Notre Dame/London, 1991), 29, 31, who fails to recognise either reference to the imperial court.

77. Sozomenus, HE 2.17.4, 25.6. Sozomenus also quotes Apollinaris of Laodicea (HE 2.17.2/3 = frag. 168 Lietzmann), who confirms that Athanasius was absent from Alexandria when Alexander died. The account of his election which Athanasius himself penned in 338 (Apol. c. Ar. 6.5/6) is predictably tendentious: see L. W. Barnard, Two Notes on Athanasius/ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 41 (1975), 344-356, reprinted in his Studies in Church History and Patristics (ANAAEKTA BAATAAON 26 (Thessaloniki, 19781), 329-340.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment