V

Get Paid To Write Online

Get Paid to Write at Home

Get Instant Access

9. For the complicated negotiations of 350, see the table in J. Sasel, The Struggle between Magnentius and Constantius II for Italy and Illyricum,' Ziva antika 21 (1971), 205-216, at 209.

10. Zonaras 13.8. On the date (which is controverted), see P. Bastien, Le monnayage de Magnence (3S0-3S3)1 (Wettern, 1983), 15/6; 'Décence, Poemenius: Problèmes de chronologie,' Quaderni ticinesi: Numismatica e antichità classiche 12 (1983), 177-189. D. Gricourt, Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren, 1987), 221, argues for June. The fact that Decentius became consul only in 352, not 351, creates a presumption that he was proclaimed Caesar in 351 rather than 350 (Consuls 11987], 239). But Gaiso, who shared the consulate of 351 with

Magnentius, had killed Constans for him (Epit. de Caes. 41.23; Zosimus 2.42.5)— and may already have been designated consul for 351 before Decentius was proclaimed Caesar.

11. Zosimus 4.43.1; John of Antioch, frag. 187, cf. PLRE 1.488/9. Justina later became the second wife of Valentinian: for the hypothesis that her father, Justus, was the son of Vettius Justus, consul in 328, and a daughter of the Caesar Crispus, see New Empire (1982), 44,103.

Socrates, HE 4.31.11-13, reports that Justus governed Picenum 'in the time of Constantius' and was executed by Constantius because of a dream in which his daughter gave birth to an emperor. PLRE 1.490 puts his governorship of Aemilia and Picenum between 352 and 361, but a date before 350 is preferable: Justus was presumably put to death in 352 or 353 for consenting to his daughter's marriage to the defeated usurper, cf. J. Rougé, 'Justine, la belle Sicilienne,' Latomus 33 (1974), 676-679.

12. ILS 742 (a milestone between Pavia and Turin). The mint of Aries advertised Victoria) Aug(usti) Lib(ertas) Rom(ana) / Romanor(um) / Rom(ani) orb(is) (RIC 8.213/4 Aries 131/2,158/9).

13. RIC 8.261 Rome 168, 266/7 Rome 207/8, cf. W. Kellner, Liberias und Christogramm: Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Münzprägung des Kaisers Magnentius (350-353) (Diss. Freiburg, publ. Karlsruhe, 1968), 15-56.

14. RIC 8.157 Trier 260.

15. Constantine (1981), 75,209.

16. J. Z.eglen, Zur religiösen Haltung der Gegenkaiser im 4. Jh. n. Chr. (Frankfurter Althistorische Studien 4 [Opladen, 1970]), 53-69.

17. Eusebius, VC 2.45.1. In favor of accepting Eusebius' clear statement that Constantine prohibited sacrifice (which is usually discounted), see Constantine (1981), 210/1; 'Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice,' American Journal of Philology 105 (1984), 69-72; 'Christians and Pagans in the Reign of Constantius.' L'Église et l'empire au IVe siècle (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 34 [Vandoeuvres, 1989]), 301-337, at 322-325, 330.

19. Firmicus Maternus, De err. prof. rel. 28.6.

20. H. Broise and J. Scheid, Recherches archéologiques à la Magliana: Le balneum des frères arvales (Roma antica 1, 1987), 275-277.

21. CTh 16.10.5, cf. J. Ziegler, Zur religiösen Haltung (1970), 67/8.

22. P. Salama, 'L'empereur Magnence et les provinces africaines,' Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren, 1987), 203-216.

23. Athanasius does not name Magnentius in connection with Paul's death: for the hypothesis that he was executed, though not deposed and exiled, for treasonable correspondence with Magnentius, see App. 8.

24. Apol. c. Ar. 49.1 Nos. 85,112. Opitz on 127 declared that the acta of the Council of Cologne in 346 (C. Munier, Concilia Galliae A. 314-A. 506 [CCL 148,1963], 27-29) were 'unzweifelbar echt': in fact, the acta are a forgery of the eighth century, but the forger appears to have used a genuine list of the names of Gallic bishops from the 340s: see H. C. Brennccke, 'Synodum congregavit contra Euphratam nefandissimum episcopum: Zur angeblichen Kölner Synode gegen Euphrates,' ZKG 90 (1979), 176-200. The names in the heading of the letter (27) include

Maximinus of Trier—who is otherwise first attested as bishop in 347 (Chapter XI, at nn. 29-30).

25. For TauTa ttot6 (Opitz 285.16), read TaCna; ttotc.

26. As argued in Chapter XI.

27. Athanasius quotes a different Greek translation of the same Latin original in Hist. Ar. 24.

30. On Julius Constantius, see New Empire (1982), 108.

31. Socrates, HE 3.1, and Sozomenus, HE 5.2.9, allege that he was spared because he was ill and expected to die. Julian's mother was Basilina, the daughter of Julianus, the former praetorian prefect of Licinius (IJbanius, Orat. 18.8/9): she died a few months after her son was born (Julian, Misopogon 22, 352b).

32. Julian, Ep. ad Ath. 271c-272a. The role of George is deduced from the fact that he allowed the young Julian to borrow and transcribe books from his library (Ep. 107, 378c). It is not relevant here whether the six years run from 342 to 348 or from 344 to 350.

34. See the careful discussion of J. Sasel, Ziva antika 21 (1971), 210-216. The fullest extant account is in Zosimus 2.45-53, which Seeck, Geschichte 4 (1911), 435, derived from a panegyric of Constantius: on problems in it, see N. H. Baynes, 'A Note of Interrogation,' Byzantion 2 (1925), 149-151; F. Paschoud, Zosime: Histoire nouvelle 1 (Paris, 1971), xlii, 120/1, 253-261.

35. RIC 8.372 Siscia 318/9. J. P. C. Kent dates the issue to September 351 and argues that Magnentius held the city for a month before the Battle of Mursa (ib. 345).

36. Chr. min. 1.237. On the high casualties, see Eutropius, Brev. 10.12.1; Jerome, Chronicle 23 8d; Epit. de Caes. 42.2.

38. AE 1982.383 (an epitaph dated by the consuls Decentius and Paulus). A hoard at Emona appears to reflect the flight of Magnentius' officials: A. Jelocnik, Revue numismatique6 9 (1967), 226-231.

39. The governor of Aemilia and Picenum transferred his loyalty rapidly: see G. Camodeca, 'Per la redazione dei fasti delle provincie italiche: Fl. Romulus, consularis Flaminiae et Piceni nel 352(-3),' ZPE 28 (1978), 151-158. He reinterprets AE 1975.358 = 1978.290 (near Urbs Salvia) and reedits AE 1951.17 (Alba Fucens).

40. Chr. min. 1.69, cf. Chastagnol, Fastes (1962), 135-139.

41. RIC 8.188/9 Lyons 153-176, cf. W. Kellner, Liberias und Christogramm (1968), 63-80.

42. RIC 8.164/5 Trier 328-337; Ammianus 15.6.4, cf. J. P. C. Kent, 'The Revolt of Trier against Magnentius,' Numismatic Chronicle5 19 (1959), 105-108; P. Basticn, Quaderni ticinesi 12 (19831, 187-189.

43. Chr. min. 1.238; Eutropius, Brev. 10.12.2, cf. Seeck, Geschichte 4 (1911), 439. Athanasius, Apol. ad Const. 7.3, diverges from the narrative sources which record the death of Magnentius by making him hang (not stab) himself.

45. Ammianus 14.5.1, cf. 'Structure and Chronology in Ammianus, Book 14,' HSCP

47. Matthews, Ammianus (1989), 34/5,406-408.

48. Especially Thalassius, the praetorian prefect, and the quaestor Monti us (Philostorgius, HE 3.26').

49. Ammianus 14.11.6-34.

51. Matthews, Ammianus (1989), 81-93.

52. For Athanasius' attacks on Constantius, see Chapter XIV; for Hilary's, Chapter XVI, at nn. 54-57. The abuse which Lucifer heaped on the emperor is catalogued at length in W. Tietze, Lucifer von Calaris und die Kirchenpolitik des Constantius (Diss. Tubingen, 1976): in De non parcendo in deum delinquentibus alone, Constantius is compared to Saul, Holofemes, Antiochus IV, Herod, Judas Iscariot, and the Jewish high priests who tried Jesus. K. M. Girardet, 'Kaiser Konstantius II als "Episcopus Episcoporum" und das Herrscherbild des kirchlichen Widerstandes (Osius von Corduba und Lucifer von Caralis),' Historia 26 (1977), 95-128, aptly observes that the heated abuse of Constantius does not prove that his treatment of the Christian church differed from that of his father.

53. Jerome, De vir. ill. 112, states that Cyril composed the work in adulescentia.

54. F. M. Young, from Nicaea to Chalcedon (London, 1983), 125. On Cyril's career and theology, see esp. E. J. Yarnold, TRE 8 (1981), 261-266; R. C. Gregg, 'Cyril of Jerusalem and the Arians,' Arianism (1985), 85-109.

56. Jerome, De vir. ill. 112: 'saepe pulsus ecclesia et receptus ad extremum, sub Theodosio principe octo annos inconcussum episcopatum tenuit.' The Chronicle gives the following succession of bishops of Jerusalem: Cyril, Eutychius, Cyril again, Irenaeus, Cyril for the third time, Hilarius, Cyril for the fourth time (237a). Epiphanius, Pan. 66.20.3, shows Hilarius in possession of the see in 376.

57. Theodoretus, HE 2.25.6.

58. Jerome, Chronicle 237\

59. Cyril's letter (BHCJ 413 = CPG 3587) is best edited by E. Bihain, 'L'épître de Cyrille de Jérusalem à Constance sur la vision de la croix (BHG3 413),' Byzantion 43 (1973), 264-296. The letter gives the nones of May as the day (4.17); that the year was 351 (not 350) is strongly implied by Socrates, HE 2.28.22, cf. Chr. min. 1.237/8.

60. RIC 8.416 Thessalonica 146; C. Brenot, 'Sirmium d'août à octobre 351: La reprise des émissions de billon d'après le trésor de Kosmaj,' Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren, 1987), 233-239 No. 1 (Sirmium, probably minted shortly before the Battle of Mursa).

61. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.38.5-8.

XIII. SIRMIUM, ARLES, AND MILAN

1. Socrates, HE 2.28.23,29.1, whence Sozomenus, HE 4.6.4. Socrates states that the bishops who attended included not only Marcus of Arethusa, George of Alexandria, Basil of Ancyra, Pancratius of Pelusium, Hypatianus of Heraclea, and the apparently inseparable Ursacius and Valens, but also Ossius—which must reflect some confusion with his visit to Sirmium in 357. A fuller list is preserved in the fragments deriving from Hilary (CSEL 65.170.3-8, cf. Feder, Studien II [1910], 101-103): it includes Narcissus, Theodorus, Eudoxius, Cecropius, Macedonius, and Acacius, but not Pancratius or Hypatianus.

2. Epiphanius, Pan. 71.1.5-8. However, Zossmus 2.48.5 states that Thalassius was still with Constantius shortly before the Battle of Mursa. On the wider significance of Epiphanius' list of witnesses, see 'Christians and Pagans in the Reign of Constantius,' L'Église et l'empire au IV siècle (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 34 [Vandoeuvres, 1989]), 301-337, at 314/5.

3. As asserted by Seeck, Kegesten (1919), 198; PLRE 1.879: 'the committee which tried Photinus.' On the impossibility of such a 'trial,' sec Chapter XVIII.

5. Hilary, Syn. 38; Athanasius, Syn. 27, cf. Kelly, Creeds1 (1972), 281/2.

6. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.37.5: 'igitur Arriani astuto consilio miscent innoxium criminosis, damnationemque Photini et Marcelli et Athanasii eadem sententia comprehendunt.'

7. Chapter XII.

9. The essential arguments are set out by K. M. Girardet, 'Constance II, Athanase, et l'Édit d'Arles (353): À propos de la politique religieuse de l'empereur Constance II,' Politique et théologie (1974), 63-91. Unfortunately, he spoils a compelling case by identifying the sententiae Orientalium to which Constantius required assent in 355 (Liberius, Ep. ad Eusebium 1.1.2 [CCL 9.121.7-9]) with the synodical letter of a council which he supposes to have met in Antioch in 347/8 (73-83). The counterarguments which Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 184-192, marshals against Girardet are not valid against the modified form of his thesis adopted here. The direct evidence (Fwg. 4.2; Hist. Ar. 31.3-6; Liberius, Ep. ad Eusebium 1.1.2; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.39) makes it clear that there was an imperial edict requiring all bishops to accept the decisions of a council of eastern bishops which contained both a condemnation of Athanasius and a creed, and that imperial officials carried the relevant document through the provinces for signature by individual bishops upon pain of exile. Moreover, Lucifer of Caralis not only refers to the edict condemning Athanasius, but also protests constantly that Constantius is both persecuting Athanasius and championing heresy: see esp. De Athanasio 1.10.58-64 Diercks, 2.30.15-51; De non conveniendo cum haereticis 6, 9.60-63,12; De non parcendo in deum delinquentibus 9.22-24,35.40-42; Moriundum esse pro deifilio 2.27-37, 9.14-24,12.41-52.

11. A contemporary source gives the day as 21 May (Chr. min. 1.76): in favor of 17 May, see L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis 1 (Paris, 1883), ccl.

12. Chapters IV, VI.

15. CSEL 65.90.18/9 = CCL 8.312.52/3. On this Roman council of late 352, sec E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 1 (Tübingen, 1930), 169-171; Piétri, Roma (1976), 238-241.

16. CSEL 65.167.4-7: 'inter haec [since these are the opening words of the extract, their reference is unclear] . . . multi ex Italia coepiscopi convenerunt, qui mecum religiosissimum imperatorem Constantium fuerant deprecati, ut iuberet, sicut ipsi placuerac dudum, concilium ad Aquileiam congregari.'

18. Athanasius' argument assumes that these quotations from third-century writers are genuine: L. Abramowski, 'Dionys von Rom (t268) und Dionys von Alexandrien (1264/5) in den arianischen Streitigkeiten des 4. Jahrhunderts,' ZKG 93 (1982), 240-272, contends that they come from a pseudonymous work composed c. 340.

19. The nine documents quoted in Dec. 33-42 are also edited by Opitz as Urkunden 22, 4a, 4b, 23,25, 33, 34,27, 28 respectively.

20. See esp. F. Dinsen, Hotnoousios: Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) (Diss. Kiel, 1976), 115-153; G. C. Stead, 'Homousios (ônooûoioç),' RAC16 (1992), 364-433. Both these scholars adopt the conventional date of 350/1 for On the Council of Nicaea.

22. The Defense refers to an individual accuser (ô KcmVyopos) at 3.1, 5.1, 7.1, 17.2, 17.6, 19.6, though plural slanderers also appear (3.4, 3.8). The fictive setting is clearest in remarks such as 'I wish that he [the accuser), whoever he is, could have been here' (8.1) and 'since they have dared to speak against me before you' (12.1).

23. Gwatkin, Arianism1 (1900), 72, claimed that Athanasius modeled the speech on Demosthenes' classic apologia for his career the De Corona, appealing to the list of borrowings given by E. Fialon, Saint Athanase: Étude littéraire (Paris, 1877), 286/7 —a scholar who presents Athanasius as 'formé par l'étude des grands écrivains de Grèce' and 'le dernier des Attiques' (284-297). But the passages which Fialon quotes (in French translation) fail to prove either derivation from or knowledge of Demosthenes, and elsewhere Fialon notes that Athanasius' use of documents in the Defense before Constantius differs from that of his presumed model (145). The truth is the exact opposite: like all of Athanasius' other works, the Defense before Constantius lacks the formal polish which would be expected of one who had received a traditional rhetorical training: it exhibits what J. Quasten, Patrology 3 (Utrecht, Antwerp, and Westminster, Md., 1960), 23, denounced as Athanasius' principal faults as a writer—'a certain negligence in form and a lack of order in the arrangement of his material that cause prolixity and frequent repetition.'

25. See the passages translated and discussed in Chapters IV, VII, and XII.

26. M. Meslin, Les Ariens d'Occident, 33S-430 (Patristica Sorbonensia 8 [Paris, 1967)), 29-44.

27. Lucifer, De non conveniendo cu?n haereticis 7.18 (CCL 8.175); CSEL 65.46.1-4; Sulpicius Severus, Chr.; 2.40.4,45.7.

28. On Epictetus' career, see Meslin, Ariens (1967), 37-39. In 355 he was present during the interview between Constantius and Liberius in Milan (Theo-doretus, HE 2.16; Sozomenus, HE 4.11) and helped to consecrate Felix as Liberius' successor (Hist. Ar. 75. 3; Jerome, De vir. ill. 98). The Libellus precum which the Luciferian priests Marcellinus and Faustinus submitted to Theodosius in Constantinople in 383/4 (CSEL 35.8-44, reedited by M. Simonetti, CCL 69 (1967), 361-392), alleges that he interfered in the church of Naples when Maximus was exiled and that he maltreated Rufin-ianus—whose identity is not stated (25/6). Epictetus is last heard of as an ambassador sent by Constantius to Julian in 360 (Julian, Ep. ad Ath. 15, 286c).

29. Hilary, Contra Auxentium 8 (PL 10.614), cf. Meslin, Ariens (1967), 41-44.

30. Libellus pre cum 62-65, cf. Meslin, Ariens (1967), 36/7.

31. Clavis Patrum Latinorum1 (1961), Nos. 541-544, cf. PLS 1.202-216. On all aspects of his life and writings, see the thorough discussion by A. Montes Moreira, Potamius de Lisbonne et la controverse arienne (Louvain, 1969), 39-323.

32. Libeilus precum 32.

35. Phoebadius of Agen, Contra Arianos S (PL 20.16 = CCI- 64.27). Centuries later Alcuin quoted from an otherwise unknown letter of Athanasius to Potamius which poses a number of theological questions (PL 101.113, cf. J. Madoz, 'Potamio de Lisboa,' Revista Espaítola de Teología 7 [ 1947}, 79-109, at 86): in favor of the authenticity of the quotation, see A. Wilmart, 'Le De Lazaro de Potamius,' JTS 19 (1918), 289-304, at 289 n. 1; A. Montes Moreira, Potamius (1969), 159-167.

36. On the Council of Aries, see Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 133-147 (with earlier bibliography).

37. There is no direct evidence: Brenneckc, Hilarius (1984), 137.

38. Sulpicius Severus, Cbron. 2.39.1-3, 37.7, cf. H. Crouzel, 'Un "résistant" toulousain à la politique pro-arienne de l'empereur Constance II: L'évêque Rhodanius,' BHE 77 (1976), 173-190. For earlier references to the deposition of Paulinus by the council, see CSEL 65.102.9-13.

39. CSEL 65.166.15-167.16: respectively, Vincentius of Capua and Marcellus, who was also a bishop in Camapania.

40. Sulpicius Severus, Cbron. 2.37.7.

41. Liberius, Ep. ad Eusebium 1.1.2 (CCL 9.121.7-9).

43. CSEL 65.89-93 = CCL 8.311-316 (two versions with many minor variants). On Liberius' actions after the Council of Aries, see the recent discussion by Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 147-164—who has some difficulty in excluding theological issues altogether.

44. Three letters arc preserved from Liberius to Eusebius before the Council of Milan (CCL 9.121-123), and one from Lucifer, Pancratius, and Hilarius (CCL 9.120): on the murky question of Eusebius' precise role in 355, see Brennecke, Hilarius ( 1984), 172-185; L. A. Speller, 'A Note on Eusebius of Vercellae and the Council of Milan,' JTS, N.S. 36 (1985), 157-165.

45. For full discussion and bibliography, see Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 164-184. However, his denial that the Nicene creed was ever mentioned during the proceedings is unconvincing: see J. Doignon, 'Hilaire de Poitiers " Kirchenpolitiker "? À propos d'un ouvrage récent,' RHE 80 (1985), 441-454.

46. Socrates, HE 2.36.1. Magnified further into 'plusieurs centaines d'Occidentaux' by Piétri, Roma (1976), 294.

47. The letter and the subscriptions were published by Cardinal Baronius in his Annales Exclesiastici, anno 355, paras. 6, 22, from a manuscript 'in Archivo Ecclesiae Vercellensis.' The manuscript is now lost, but there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of either the letter or the subscriptions: see Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 165/6. The letter has recently been reedited by V. Bulhart, CCL 9.119; the most accessiblc text of the subscriptions is C. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici 4 (Antwerp, 1865), 537.

48. Predictably, Socrates, HE 2.36, mentions only Athanasius. The charges of 335 still appear to have formed part of the indictment of Athanasius: CCL 9.119.4; Theodoretus, HE 2.15.2.

49. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.39.3-6.

50. Jerome, Chronicle 239'; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.39.4.

52. Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 178-184.

54. Hilary, Syn. 91 (PL 10.545): 'regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens, fidem Nicaenam numquam nisi exulaturus audivi.' On the interpretation of Hilary's words, see further Chapter XV n. 50.

56. Theodoretus, HE 2.16, cf. Sozomenus, HE 4.11, who states that Ursacius and Valens were there too. For discussion of the document, see V. Monachino, 'II Prima to nella controversia Ariana: Saggi storici intorno al Papa to,' Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1959), 17-89; J. Herrmann, 'Ein Streitgespräch mit Verfahrensrechtlichen Argumenten zwischen Kaiser Konstantius und Bischof Liberius,' Festschrift für Hans Liermann zum 70. Geburtstag (Erlangener Forschungen, Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften 16 (1964J), 77-86; R. Klein, '2ur Glaubwürdigkeit historischer Aussagen des Bischofs Athanasius von Alexandria über die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Constantius II,' Studia Patristica 17.3 (1982), 996-1017, at 996-1002.

57. Jerome, De vir. ill. 98. Athanasius' taunt that Felix was consecrated 'in the palace' (Hist. Ar. 75.3) should not be taken literally.

58. Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem 2 (CSEL 35.1).

59. Quae gesta sunt 3; Philostorgius, HE 4.3; Theodoretus, HE 2.17.7; Sozomenus, HE 4.11.12. Observe, however, that the date of CTh 16.2.14, issued at Milan and addressed 'Felici episcopo,' must be emended from 6 December 357 to 6 December 356 (Seeck, Regesten [1919], 202).

60. Theodoretus, HE 2.17.3; Sozomenus, HE 4.11.11. These clear statements must be preferred to the accusation of Arianism leveled by Rufinus, HE 10.23; Socrates, HE 2.37.

61. T. Mommsen, 'Die römischen Bischöfe Liberius und Felix II.' Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, N.F. 1 (1896-1897), 167-179, reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften 6 (Berlin, 1910), 570-581. Felix died on 21 November 365 (Quae gesta sunt 4), but the Liber Pontificalis 28 (p. 211 Duchesne) states that Constantius executed him as a martyr.

62. Ammianus 27.3.12/3. The account in Quae gesta sunt 8-12 gives a still higher total: the supporters of Damasus killed one hundred and sixty men and women in church.

63. George returned on 26 November 361 and was lynched four weeks later (Hist. ac. 2.6, cf. Chapter XVII, at n. 18.

64. The Greek of the relative clause (¿^TTXtYrroiTO ous €tt ypuCeiv etkös Otto ößoira) is extremely obscure, but must reflect an original Latin containing the phrase mussitare sub dente or something closely similar. I have adopted (with some misgiv-

ings) the traditional interpretation of Montfaucon (PG 25.634), followed by M. Atkinson and A. Robertson (Select Writings 11892], 250).

65. On missionary activity under Constantius, see W. H. C. Frend, 'The Church in the Reign of Constantius II (337-361): Mission, Monasticism, Worship,' L'Église et l'empire au IV siècle (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 34 [Vandocuvres, 1989]), 73-111.

66. CTh 12.12.2s: Mommsen, ad loc., emends the text to avoid the absurdity of making Constantius forbid ambassadors to spend a year in Alexandria itself.

67. E. Littmann, Deutsche Axum-Expedition 4 (Berlin, 1913), Nos. 4 (= OG/S 200), 6, 7 (the same text in Greek, Sabaitic, and Ethiopie), 10,11, cf. E. Littmann, Deutsche Axum-Expedition 1 (Berlin, 1913), 48. On Constantius' letter and the inscriptions, see esp. A. Dihle, Umstrittene Daten: Untersuchungen zum Auftreten der Griechen am Roten Meer ( Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 32 [Cologne and Opladen, 1964]), 51-56, 65-67; 'L'ambassade de Théophile l'Indien ré-examiné,' L'Arabie préislamique et son environnement historique et culturel, ed. T. Fahd (Strasbourg, 1989), 461-468.

XIV. APOLOGIA, POLEMIC, AND THEOLOGY

1. Historia Lausiaca 63, cf. M. Tetz, 'Zur Biographie des Athanasius von Alexandrien,' ZKG 90 (1979), 304-338, at 316-319. Rufmus knows the story, but places it immediately after the Council of Tyre in 335 (HE 10.19).

2. Robertson, Select Writings (1892), Ivii, justly observed that 'the history of Athanasius during this period is the history of his writings.'

3. For Antony and Athanasius, see Chapter III, at n. 23; Chapter IV, at n. 42; Chapter XI, at n. 24.

4. Epistula Ammonis 2, 5,13,31; Sancti Pachomii Vita Graeca Prima 120,137/8, cf. P. Rousseau, Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt (Berkeley, 1985), 72, 161/2, 189/90; J. E. Goehring, The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian Monasticism (Patristische Texte und Studien 27 [Berlin and New York]), 190,201-205,234-236,282-285.

5. For comment, see A. Martin, Sources chrétiennes 317 (1985), 297, with J. Dummer, 'FI. Artemius dux Aegypti,' Archiv für Papyrusforschung 21 (1971), 121-144.

6. Apart from the Festal Letters (App. 1), no systematic collection or ancient edition was ever made of Athanasius' letters: hence, as is also the case with the emperor Julian, the manuscript attestation of different letters and groups of letters varies widely (CPG 2094/5,2097/8,2100,2103/4,2106-2112). Among the letters transmitted under Athanasius' name, which are either interpolated or fictitious, are two letters to Lucifer of Caralis (CPG 2232, now edited by G. F. Diercks, CCL 8 [1978], 306-310): for proof that they are ancient forgeries, see L. Saltet, 'Fraudes littéraires des schismatiques Lucifériens aux IV* et Y siècles,' BHE 1906.300-326, at 305-315.

7. The Index states that Athanasius wrote no Festal Letter for any Easter from 357 to 361 (29-33). But a fragment of Letter XXIX, written for Easter 357, is preserved by Severus of Antioch: edited and translated by J. Lebon, CSCO 101 (1933), 294; 102 (1933), 216/7.

8. Opirz 181/2. This letter is dated 340 by Kannengiesser, Athanase (1983), 375-397.

9. PG 26.1185-1188 (CPG 2108). The ancient Latin version of this letter preserved with the works of Lucifer of Cagliari is now edited by G. F. Diercks, CCL 8.316/7.

10. The fragments, previously published as C/G 8607; H. E. White and W. E. Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes 2 (New York, 1927), 124 No. 585, were reedited by G. de Jerphanion, 'La vraie teneur d'un texte de saint Athanase rétablie par l'épigraphie: L'Epistula ad Monachos,' Rech. sci. rei 20 (1930), 529-544— with important consequences for the textual history of the complete Greek and Latin versions.

11. Chapters XV, XVI.

12. Athanasius twice refers to his presence 'in these parts' without specifying where he is (5,7): for discussion, see Robertson, Select Writings (1892), li/lii, 222.

13. Chapter XII.

14. It need not be assumed, however, that the extant version was ever in any sense published in Athanasius' lifetime (App. 3).

15. The reference to the capitulation of Ossius (5.3)—which Athanasius may have added before he ever circulated the work.

16. Opitzon68.

17. Socrates, HE 2.37.7-9. Socrates states that Eudoxius learned of the actual death of Leontius in Rome: in that case, however, he would surely have arrived in Antioch too late to secure election as Leontius' successor.

19. On Athanasius' possible knowledge of Cyprian, see J. L. North, 'Did Athanasius (Letter 49, to Dracontius) Know and Correct Cyprian (Letter 5, Hartel)?' Studia Patrística 17.3 (1982), 1024-1029.

21. On the argument of the work, and its underlying assumptions, see M. Tctz, ZKG 90 (1979), 320-325; A. Pettersen, tMTo Flee or Not to Flee": An Assessment of Athanasius' De Fuga Sua,% Persecution and Toleration (Studies in Church History 21, 1984), 29-42; O. Nicholson, 'Flight from Persecution as Imitation of Christ: Lactantius' Divine Institutes IV.18, 1-2,' JTS, N.S. 40 (1989), 48-65.

22. Robertson, Select Writings (1892), Ivii.

23. But :he letter to the monks which precedes it in the manuscripts (Opirz 181/2) is not to be regarded as an introductory letter to it (Opitz on 181.1).

24. Opitz on 183.

25. The traditional date of 358 (Opitz on 183, 206.11, 210.16, 216.13) depends on dating the capitulation of Liberius to 358 instead of 357.

26. On which, see respectively 'Synesius in Constantinople,' GRBS 27 (1986), 93-112; Averil Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century (Berkeley, 1985), 49-66.

27. Opitz 178-180. In favor of a date c. 340, see Kannengiesser, Athanase (1983), 380-397. Athanasius embroidered the story in his Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya (18/9), cf. A. Martin, 'Le fil d'Arius,' BHE 84 (1989), 297-333, at 320-333.

28. For the year and context, see Constantine (1981), 242. An early martyrology may attest the day as 6 June {Patrología Orientalis 10.17).

29. In 5.2 another nine exiled bishops are named, cf. Chapter VI.

30. On the normal, coarse meaning of the verb Yafieif at this period, see Alan Cameron, 'Strato and Rufinus,' Classical Quarterly, N.S. 32 (1982), 162-173, at

163/4. Müller, Lexicon (1952), 212, is mistaken to gloss it as 4in matrimonium duco.' In Ep. ad Dracontium 9.2 (PG 26.533 = Opitz 307.19) it also refers to copulation, not marriage.

31. In fact, to Arsaces, the thoroughly respectable Christian king of Armenia (Ammianus 20.11.13).

32. In 8.1 the phrase Tairra o'jvopwvres refers back to the events of the reign of Constantine described in 1-6: the whole of Paul's episcopal career is later than the recall of exiled bishops in June 337 (App. 8).

33. Most conspicuously, Constantius' alleged dictum 'Let what I wish be a rule of the church' (33.7) has often been treated as an accurate and impartial definition of the relationship between the emperor and the church: see T. Mommsen, 'Die römischen Bischöfe Liberius und Felix IL' Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, N.F. 1 (1896-1897), 167-179, reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften 6 (Berlin, 1910), 570-581; K. M. Setton, Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century (New York, 1941), 86/7; H. Berkhof, Kirche und Kaiser: Eine Untersuchung der Entstehung der byzantinischen und der theokratischen Staatsauffassung im vierten Jahrhundert (Zürich, 1947), 79 ('Das ist Staatskirche, ohne Vorbehalt oder Verschleierung'); S. L. Greenslade, Owrcb and State from Constantine to Theodosius (London, 1954), 25; K. Aland, 'Kaiser und Kirche von Konstantin bis Byzanz,' Kirchengeschichtliche Entwürfe (Gütersloh, 1960), 257-279; W. Schneemelcher, Kirche und Staat im 4. Jahrhundert [Bonner Akademische Reden 37 [Bonn, 1970]), 18; K. Baus, History of the Church, ed. H. Jedin and H. Dolan, trans. A. Biggs 2 (New York, 1980), 82/3.

34. Chapter DC.

35. Socrates, HE 2.22.5, translated in Chapter X, at n. 12.

36. Chapter X.

37. Chapter XII. Significantly, the History of the Arians names Magnentius as a legiri-mate emperor, together with Vetranio and Gallus (74.4), and it calls Constantinus 'blessed' (50.2).

38. For the apparently double diminutive neuter formation KootúXXiov, see R. Kühner and F. Blass, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 1.23 (Hanover and Leipzig, 1892), 277, 280. Opitz on 234.4 takes it to be masculine, not neuter.

40. W. Bright, Historical Writings of St. Athanasius (Oxford, 1881), Ixxvii: 'It is not, and does not pretend to be, a textual reproduction of what they said or wrote, but a representation ad invidiam of what is assumed to have been in their minds.'

41. As Klein, Constantius (1977), 16-159.

42. Chapter XVI.

46. For bibliography and discussion, see A. Heron, 'Zur Theologie der "Tropici" in den Serapionbriefen des Athanasius: Amos 4,13 als Pneumatologische Belegstelle,' Kyrios: Vierteljahresschrift für Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte Osteuropas, N.F. 14 (1974), 3-24.

47. The set of Letters to Serapion (CPG 2094) has not been edited since Montfaucon, whose text is reprinted in PG 26.529-648, but there are two modern translations with helpful notes and substantial introductions: J. Lebon, Sources chrétiennes 15 (Paris, 1947); C. R. B. Shapland, The Letters of Saint Athanasius concerning the Holy Spirit (London, 1951). I follow the consensus of scholarship in treating the second and third letters as a single letter wrongly divided in transmission.

48. Opitz on 231,258.21, holds the work to be a unitary composition of the winter of 361/2. But at that date it would have been pointless for Athanasius to write as he docs—ignoring almost all the events of the intervening two years.

50. In 38.1,4, Acacius and Eudoxius are invoked as Athanasius' main adversaries.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment