The Elder Statesman

1. Chapter XIV.

5. For discussion, see J. F. Drinkwater, 'The "Pagan Underground," Constantius IPs "Secret Service," and the Survival and the Usurpation of Julian the Apostate,' Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History1, ed. C. Deroux 3 (Collection Latomus 180 (Brussels, 1983)), 348-387.

7. Chapter XVI.

8. Brennecke, Hilarius (1984), 360-367.

9. Despite Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini 6.7: 'cum sancto Hilario compcrisset regis paenitentia potestatem indultam fuisse redeundi . . .' ; Chron. 2.45.4: 'redire ad Gallias iubetur absque exilii indulgentia.' For discussion, see Y.-M. Duval, 'Vrais et faux problèmes concernant le retour d'exil d'Hilaire de Poitiers et son action en Italie en 360-363,' Athenaeum, N.S. 48 (1970), 251-275.

10. CSEL 65.43-46. Authorship of the letter is claimed for Phoebadius of Agen by P. Gläser, Phoebadius von Agen (Diss. Augsburg, 1978), 74-80.

11. Sulpicius Severus 2.45.5.

12. Brennecke, Homöer (1988), 87 n. 1, holds that Julian was probably also present, but his known movements in 360 tell against this attractive hypothesis (App. 9).

13. For the usual inference, see J. Bidez and F. Cumont, luliani Imperatoris Epistulae et Leges (Paris, 1922), 51.

14. On the career of Modestus, consul in 372, see PLRE 1.605-608. What is reported about his religious attitudes makes it clear that he was a time-server: under Julian he claimed to have been a secret pagan before 362 (Libanius, Ep. 804, cf. 791 ), but later he adopted the creed of his master Valens (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 43.48; Sozomenus, HE 6.18.3).

15. As Gregory of Nazianzus complained {Orat. 4.84/5). Rufinus, HE 10.33 (994.21-25), goes so far as to state that Julian used neither violence nor torture.

16. On Julian's religious policies, see esp. J. Bidez, 'L'évolution de la politique de l'empereur Julien en matière religieuse,' Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres 7 (1914), 406-461; J. Vogt, Kaiser Julian und das Judentum: Studien zum Weltanschauungskampf der Spätantike {Morgenland 30 [Leipzig, 1939}); G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), 79-93.

17. Constantine (1981), 39,148-163.

18. Julian, Ep. 60,378c-380d: preserved in Socrates, HE 3.3.

19. Rufinus, HE 10.28, states that Eusebius, not Athanasius, convened the council.

20. Philostorgius p. 230.14-22 Bidez, cf. Tomus ad Antiochenos 3.1.

21. Rufinus, HE 10.28; Socrates, HE 3.5; Theodoretus, HE 3.4; Sozomenus, HE 5.12.1/2.

22. M. Tetz, 'Ein enzyklisches Schreiben der Synode von Alexandrien (362),' ZNW 79 (1988), 262-281. Tetz provides a critical edition (271-273) of the letter (PG 28.81-84; CPG 2241), which Montfaucon had pronounced spurious in his edition of Athanasius published in 1698 (2.28-30). Since Montfaucon's condemnation was universally accepted, the letter is not employed in earlier scholarly accounts of the council, such as C. B. Armstrong, The Synod of Alexandria and the Schism at Antioch in A.D. 362,* JTS 22 (1921), 206-221,347-355; J.-M. Leroux, 'Athanase et la seconde phase de la crise arienne (345-373),' Politique et theologie (1974), 145-156, at 151-154; Hanson, Search (1988), 639-653.

23. PC 25.796-809, reedited by Opitz 320-329, whose chapter and section divisions are here employed.

24. Hence the un-Athanasian vocabulary which led Montfaucon to deny his authorship: M. Terz, ZNW 79 (1988), 266-270, shows that the language of the letter is no obstacle to joint authorship—and that the content fits the historical context of 362.

25. The phrase ¿noouoios Tpids appears to be a new coinage in 362, but it was soon repeated by Serapion of Thmuis, Ep. ad monachos 11 (PG 40.936), cf. M. Tetz, ZNW 79 (1988), 276/7.

26. Epistula Catholica, edited by M. Tetz, ZNW 79 (1988), 271-273.

29. For a thorough analysis of the whole document, see M. Tetz, 'Über nikäische Orthodoxie: Der sog. Tomus ad Antiochenos des Athanasios von Alexandrien,' ZNW 66 (1975), 194-222. On Tomus 7, where some scholars have detected allusions to the teaching of Apollinaris of Laodicea, see also A. L. Pettersen, 'The Arian Context of Athanasius of Alexandria's Tomus ad Antiochenos VII,' JEH 41 (1990), 183-198.

31. Tomus 3.1-4.1, 6.1-4. The last requirement appears to reflect current theological debates in Antioch, cf. M. Tetz, ZNW 66 (1975), 201/2,204-206.

32. Tomus 5.1-3, cf. Chapter VIII, at nn. 36-40. It is relevant that the theological statement forms part of the western synodical letter as quoted by Theodoretus, HE 2.8.1-54—who explicitly states that what he quotes was brought to Antioch.

33. As the concluding section emphasises (Tomus 8.2-9.1).

36. Tomus 11.1/2; Epiphanius, Pan. 77.2.1, cf. M. Tetz, ZNW 66 (1975), 218-221. The final line of the text presents a serious problem. It reads: eppwoGcti 0|ias euxonai eyu) Kaptepios, eafi Si 7TÖX€io? Zvpia?. The last four words are an editorial addition, and Opitz on 329.16 argued that Carterius was an error for Cymatius (as in the manuscripts of Hist. Ar. 5.2), whose declaration has been lost in transmission. Tetz argues that the text is complete, but that Carterius is an error for Asterius (221/2).

37. Rufinus, HE 10.31 (993.6-994.5). For a brief sketch of Lucifer's life after 361, see G. F. Diercks, CCL 8 (1978), xxvii-xxxv.

38. Rufinus, HE 10.31 (993.16-18), cf. Socrates, HE 3.25.18 (the bishops who attended the Council of Antioch in 363).

39. Basil, Ep. 69.1, cf. Rufinus, HE 10.31 (993.18). Basil's letter goes on to ask Athanasius to condemn Marcellus (69.2), which he also declined to do, cf. M. Tetz, 'Markellianer und Athanasius,' ZNW64 (1973), 75-121. After Athanasius' death, his exiled successor Peter accused Meletius of being an Arian in the presence of Damasus in Rome (Basil, Ep. 266.2).

41. Ep. ad Rufinianum (PG 26.1180/1 ). Councils were also held in Asia Minor by the supporters of Macedonius, the former bishop of Constantinople, and Eustathius of Sebasteia (Basil, Ep. 251.4; Socrates, HE 3.10.4).

42. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 4.86, with the scholiast, implies that Pythiodorus also stirred up anti-Christian riots.

45. Rufinus, HE 10.35; Socrates, HE 3.14.1; Sozomenus, HE 5.15.3.

46. There is a picturesque story of how Athanasius outwitted the soldiers pursuing him up the Nile by turning downstream, sailing boldly past their boat, and finding safety again in Alexandria: Rufinus, HE 10.35; Socrates, HE 3.14.1-6; Theodoretus, HE 3.9.3/4; Vita Athanasii (BHG> 185) 26 (PG 25.ccviii); Photius, Bibliotheca 258, p. 484a25-b5; Simeon Metaphrastes, Vita Athanasii (BHG3183) 15 (PG 25.ccxliii). The final detail implies that incident, if it is historical, belongs to Athanasius' flight from the agents of Constantius in the late 350s—as Sozomenus saw (HE 4.10.4). But its obvious folk-lore motifs suggest that the story may be a 'Wanderanecdote' without any basis in reality: for discussion, see M. Tetz, 4Ztir Biographie des Athanasius von Alexandrien,' ZKG 90 (1979), 304-338, at 310-316.

47. For two recent (and independent) accounts of Athanasius' dealings with Jovian, see Brennecke, Homöer (1988), 169-173; L. W. Barnard, 'Athanasius and the Emperor Jovian,' Studia Patristica 21 (1989), 384-389. Jovian himself should not be regarded as a nonentity: see G. Wirth, 'Jovian: Kaiser und Karikatur,' Vivarium. Festschrift Theodor Klauser zum 90. Geburtstag {Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 11 [Münster; 1984]), 353-384.

48. On the text of Index 35, see M. Albert, Sources chrétiennes 317 (Paris, 1985), 265. Jovian is attested in Edessa on 27 September (CTh 7.4.9s), but he had arrived in Antioch by 22 October (CTh 10.19.2). Sozomenus, HE 6.5, states that Athanasius reached the emperor in Antioch.

49. PG 26.813, reedited by Opitz 330. The letter is rejected as spurious by F.. Schwartz, 'Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts,' ZNW 34 (1935), 129-213, at 166 n. 3 = Gesammelte Schriften 4 (Berlin, 1960), 1-110, at 50 n. 2; Opitz on 330.Iff.; Brennecke, Homöer (1988), 171 n. 82. The grounds alleged are inconclusive, and the letter was known to Rufinus, HE 11.1 (1002.10/1): 'honorificis et officiosissimis litteris Athanasium requirit.'

51. Socrates, HE 3.25.10-17. Brennecke, Homöer (1988), 175/6, has demonstrated that the name of Acacius of Caesarea among the signatories of the letter must be an error: this Acacius was presumably the obscure bishop of some other see.

52. Basil, Ep. 89.2, later reminded Meletius that he had failed to take up an offer from Athanasius while he was in Antioch in 363/4 to enter into communion with him— but he neglects to disclose either the precise circumstances or the terms of the abortive offer.

53. PG 26.813-820 = Opitz 330-333, quoted by Theodoretus, HE 4.3.

54. CSCO 150.70.19-71.9 (text); 151.27.20-28.6 (French translation), cf. Camplani, Lettere(m9)i 103-105.

55. PC 26.820-824 = Opitz 334-336, cf. Sozomenus, HE 6.5.2-4.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment