New Theological Controversies

1. The principal source for the career of Aetius is Philostorgius, HE 3.15-17, 27: for other sources and full discussion, see Kopecek, Neo-Arianism (1979), 61-132; R. A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1988), 5/6, 376; Hanson, Search (1988), 598-603.

2. Sozomenus, HE 3.15.8, also notes his standing with Gallus (and summarises his career briefly).

3. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 1.48/9 (pp. 38/9 Jaeger); Theodoretus, HE 2.27.8. Epiphanius, Pan. 76.1.1, 8, alleges that it was George who ordained Aetius deacon.

4. Sozomenus, HE 4.13.3 (letter of George of Laodicea).

5. Philostorgius, HE 4.8,

6. On the Syntagmation and Aetius' subsequent exile, see L. R. Wickham, 'The Syntagmation of Aetius the Anomoean,' )TS, N.S. 19 (1968), 532-569.

7. Julian, Ep. 46; Philostorgius, HE 9.4; Sozomenus, HE 5.5.9.

8. On his career, see Hanson, Search (1988), 611-617. R. P. Vaggione, 'Some Neglected Fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Contra Eunomium,' JTS, N.S. 31 (1980), 403-470, publishes and discusses Syriac fragments of the lost Contra Eunomium of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

9. Philostorgius, HE 5.3; Sozomenus, HE 4.25.6, cf. Kopecek, Neo-Arianism (1979), 299-360.

10. For these two works, see the exemplary edition and reconstruction by R. P. Vaggione, Eunomius: The Extant Works (Oxford, 1987), 34-127, who also provides a careful discussion of their date and context (5-9, 82-89).

11. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 2.604 (p. 402.28 Jaeger); Gregory of Nazianzus, Or at. 29.21, cf. 27.2.

12. As noted by Jerome, Dialogus contra Luciferianos 11 (PL 23.174).

13. E. Vandenbussche, 'La part de la dialectique dans la théologie d'Eunomius M!e technologue,"* RHE 40 (1944-1945), 47-72; J. Daniélou, 'Eunome l'Arien et l'exégèse néo-platonicienne du Cratyle,' Revue des études grecques 69 (1956), 412-432. The latter argues that with his 'Neoplatonic system' and 'mystical Aristotelianism' Eunomius 'est l'hiérophante d'une gnose, d'une doctrine secrète* (431).

14. L. R. Wickham, JTS, N.S. 19 (1968), 558-561; 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 185-188.

15. By M. Albertz, 'Zur Geschichte der jung-arianischen Kirchengemcinschaft,'

Theologische Studien und Kritiken 82 (1909), 205-278.

16. On the concept 'Neunizänismus,' see H. C. Brennecke, 'Erwägungen zu den Anfängen des Neunizänismus,' Oecumenica et Patristica: Festschrift für Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum 75. Geburtstag (Geneva, 1989), 241-258. The English equivalent seems not to have established itself in patristic scholarship—and neither 'Neo-Nicene' nor 'Neo-Arian' gains admittance to the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989).

17. As Athanasius gleefully emphasised in his De Morte Arii (Chapter XIV, at nn. 27-28).

19. So, recently, R. P. Vaggione, Eunomius (1987), xiii: 'Eunomius represents the second generation of Arian thinkers . . . which attempted to carry on the theological work of Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia.* The discussion in Hanson, Search (1988), 603-611,617-636, though adopting the term 'Neo-Arian,' presents Aetius as obsessed with metaphysics and Eunomius as 'an individualist, philosophically eclectic theologian' who purveyed his own 'peculiar brand of rationalist Unitarian-ism.' For a more sympathetic and accurate assessment of Eunomius, see M. F. Wiles, 'Eunomius: Hair-splitting Dialectician or Defender of the Accessibility of Salvation?* The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. Williams (Cambridge, 1989), 157-172.

21. Theodoretus, HE 2.17; Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos 3 (CSEL 35.2.3-8); Liber Pontificalis 37.6 (p. 208 Duchesne), cf. The Capitulation of Liberius and Hilary of Poitiers,' Phoenix 46 (1992), 256-265.

22. CSEL 65.155/6,168-170. Jerome, De vir. ill. 97, states that Fortunatianus was instrumental in persuading Liberius to acccpr heresy.

23. On the 'fall of Ossius,' see the lengthy and embarrassed discussion in V. C. De Clercq, Ossius of Corduba: A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian Period (Washington, 1954), 459-525.

24. Hilary, Syn. 11 (PL 10.487-489); Athanasius, Syn. 28.

25. Phoebadius of Agen, Contra Arianos 3 (PL 20.15 = CCL 64.25).

26. 1 have omitted the words et quod dicitur homoeousion ('or the term hontoiousios') from my translation, because I suspect that they did not stand in the original document of 357, but were added in 358 (see below, n. 32). Although they occur in Athanasius' version (Syn. 28.6: to Xeyonewv ¿noiouoiou), and Hilary comments on them (Syn. 10, 79, 81), they are reported to be missing in several of his manuscripts (PL 10.488 n. (j)).

27. See App. 10. It is also impossible on chronological grounds to identify it as the document which Liberius subscribed (as argued by Brennecke, Hilarius (1984], 265-297).

28. Socrates, HE 2.37.7-9; Philostorgius, HE 4.4; Theodoretus, HE 2.25.1; Sozomenus, HE 4.12.3-5. Sozomenus implies that Eudoxius had been at court since 355 (HE 4.11.3).

29. Sozomenus, HE 4.12.5-7. Those present included Acacius of Caesarea and Uranius of Tyre.

31. Gwatkin, Arianism2 (1900), 164/5.

32. Epiphanius, Pan. 73.2-11, cf. Hilary, Syn. 13-28. On this important document, see the classic study by J. Gummerus, Die homöusianiscbe Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantias (Leipzig, 1900), 66-89; more recently, J. T. Lienhard, The Epistle of the Synod of Ancyra, 358: A Reconsideration/ Arianism (1985), 349-357. It is somewhat surprising that this letter avoids the technical term homoiousios—if it was already current. It must be suspected, therefore, that the word was coined after the Council of Ancyra, precisely to sum up its theological standpoint in an easily remembered slogan, and hence that it did not stand .n the original text of the Sirmian manifesto of 357 (above, n. 26).

33. Sozomenus, HE 4.13.4-6, cf. Philostorgius, HE 4.8; Theodoretus, HE 2.25.3/4. For contemporary, but less precise, references to the embassy, see Hilary, Syn. 78, 91; Marius Victorinus, Adv. Arium 1.28.24-29 (below, n. 56).

35. Sozomenus, HE 4.16.1-13, cf. Philostorgius, HE 4.8-11.

36. On the 'Council of Sirmium of 358* accepted by many scholars, see App. 10.

37. Philostorgius, HE 4.8.

38. Chapter XVI.

39. Hilary, Syn. 8 (PL 10.485); Socrates, HE 2.39.1-7; Sozomenus, HE 4.16.14-22.

40. PL 20.13-30, reedited with new chapter-divisions by R. Demeulenaere, CCL 64 (1985), 23-54. On Phoebadius' work as an immediate, almost instinctive reaction to the Sirmian manifesto, see still Gwatkin, Ariantsm2 (1900), 162-164.

41. So, most recently, D. H. Williams, 'A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Hilar)' and Poitiers,' JEH 42 (1991), 202-217, at 213/4.

42. Contra Arianos 28.3 (23): 'quid si diversa nunc sentit... ?' V. C. De Clercq, Ossius of Corduba (1954), 525-530, concluded that Ossius died during the winter of 357/8. But Athanasius in Alexandria appears to have heard of his death before the end of 357 (Chapter XIV, at n. 25).

43. Hilary, In Const. 2,11. For this interpretation (and against the hypothesis that the charges against Hilary were primarily or exclusively political), see 'Hilary of Poitiers on his Exile,' Vig. Chr. 46 (1992), 129-140.

44. Only fragments survive, from a later edition of c. 366 (superbly edited by A. Feder in CSEL 65(19161).

45. Hilary, Syn. 1-5,8. P. Gläser, Phoebadius von Agen (Diss. Augsburg, 1978), 21-25, argues that Phoebadius presided over the council.

46. Unfortunately, there is as yet no modern critical edition: faute de mieux, therefore, references are given to Coustant's edition of 1693 reprinted in PL 10.478-546,

47. Apologética responso 2 (PL 10.545). These marginal notes indicate the intransigence of Lucifer: two not included in Coustant's edition reprinted by Migne are published by P. Smulders, Two Pasages of Hilary's "Apologética Responsa" Rediscovered,' Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Philosophie en Theologie 39 (1978), 234-243 = Texte und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatzsammlung, ed. J. Dummer (Texte und Untersuchungen 133 (Berlin, 1987]), 539-547.

50. Syn. 91: 'fidem Nicaenam numquam nisi exsulaturus audivi.' This need not mean that Hilary was totally unacquainted with or had 'never heard of the Niccne creed, as is assumed by many: for example, H. Lietzmann, RE 8 (1913), 1601; Kelly,

Creeds3 (1972), 258; G. C. Stead, '"Homoousios" dans la pensée de saint Athanase,' Politique et théologie (1974), 231-253, at 239 {'je n'entendis rien au sujet de la foi de Nicée'); Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 217; D. H. Williams JEH 42 (1991), 203,207,214. The context is tendentious, and Hilary may mean only that he had never heard the creed of 325 recited aloud.

51. Chapter XVI.

52. The work survives in two recensions, which were reedited without examination of the manuscripts by V. Bulhart, CCL 69 (1967), 221-247. The revised recension, which sets out to remove possible theological ambiguities, seems to come from Gregory's own hand: see M. Simonetti, 'La doppia redazione del wDe Fide" di Gregorio di Elvira,' Forma Futuri: Studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino (Turin, 1975), 1022-1040. For proof of Gregory's use of Phoebadius and Hilary, see B. Marx, 'Zwei Zeugen für die Herkunft der Fragmente I und II des sog. Opus historictim s. Hilarii: Ein Beitrag zur Lösung des Fragmentenproblems,' Theologische Quartalschrift 88 (1906), 390-406, at 391/2.

53. The traditional date is 360 or even 361: A. Wilmart, La tradition des opuscides de Foebadius, Gregorius Illiberitanus, Faustinus (Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 159, Abhandlung 1, 1908), 1; M. Simonetti, Patrologia 3 (Rome, 1978), 80. But the work is dated c. 358 by G. Bardy, 'L'occident et les documents de la controverse arienne,' Reiz. sei. rel. 20 (1940), 28-63, at 30, 55; J. Doignon, Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike 5 (Munich, 1989), 491-493.

54. On his career and writings, see now G. Madec and P. L. Schmidt, Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike S (Munich, 1989), 342-355.

55. On the chronology of Victorin us' works, see P. Hadot, Marius Victorinus: Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1971), 263-272. Unfortunately, he rests too much on the assumptions that there was a Council of Sirmium in 358 and that Liberius returned to Rome in 358 bringing with him the letter of Basil to which the Adversus Arium 1.28 refers.

56. Adv. Arium 1.28.22-42, csp. 24-29: 'er toro tempore postea, usquequo imperator Romae fuit, praesens audisti multa contraria, conviva exsistens istorum hominum quos nunc anathematizas, iratus vel quod sine te fidem scripserunt, an coactus a magistris legatus venisti in defensionem proditionis.' Victorinus' allusions to Constantius' visit to Rome, the Sirmian manifesto, and Basil's journey to court in 358 permit two important deductions: first, Basil accompanied Constantius to Rome; and second, Ursacius and Valens were also with the emperor. The French translation by P. Hadot, Sources chrétiennes 68 (Paris, 1960), 269, takes conviva as meaning no more than 'being in communion with,' but there seems to be no clear parallel for this attenuated metaphorical sense (Thesaurus Linguae iMinae 4.879/80), and the immediate context strongly supports the literal interpretation of the word.

57. Note the explicit equation of homoeousians with acknowledged heretics in Adv. Arium 1.45.1-23: 'discedant ergo Patripassiani . . . discedant Marcelli et Photini discipuli... discedant et Basilii etonoiotxrioi.'

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment