Introduction: screeds, councils and controversies
Introduction: screeds, councils and controversies
INTRODUCTION
The three texts translated in this volume were all written in the febrile environment of the late 350s, when a rapid sequence of ecclesiastical councils was held and a number of statements of faith were written in an attempt to find a theological settlement that would be acceptable to most bishops in the Roman empire. The impetus for this policy is often identified as having come from the emperor Constantius II, who was famously described by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus as having disturbed
Christianity with his constant meddling and thus hamstrung the empire's system of post-horses because of the number of bishops who were using it to get to his various councils.1 This sarcastic remark is, in fact, relatively mild by the standards of the time. It is vital to note that the ancient accounts of these events range from markedly partial to vehemently polemical, with the three invectives translated here falling firmly into the latter category.
Owing to the nature of the material and the number of different councils and meetings that took place, the reconstruction of the chronology of these events poses a number of difficulties for modern historians. This introduction seeks to provide as neutral an account as possible both of the context within which Athanasius, Hilary and Lucifer wrote their works and of the roles that they played in the major events and debates of the period. It also gives a guide to the themes of their texts and the tendentious narratives that they created, presenting Nicene Christians as the persecuted faithful while demonising their theological opponents, chief of whom was
Constantius himself.
The first section of the introduction consists of a brief survey of the convoluted doctrinal arguments of the period from the start of the 'Arian controversy' in 318 to the death of Constantius in 361, as well as the many councils and creeds that sought to bring a resolution to the ongoing disunity among the empire's bishops. This provides the historical context
1 Amm. 21.16.18.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
for the careers of Athanasius, Hilary and Lucifer, which are discussed in the next part of this chapter, as are the dating and characteristics of the text that are translated in the main body of this volume. A final section of the introduction covers the nature of their invective and the rhetorical methods involved in the construction of their portraits of the main figures of the period, most notably themselves.2
Ecclesiastical and theological politics, 318–361 Around 318, a few years after the end of the 'Great Persecution' of the Christians, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, addressed his clergy on a matter of theology, specifically the unity of the Holy Trinity. One of his presbyters, a clever character by the name of Arius, was concerned that Alexander's teachings did not distinguish sufficiently between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and thus resembled the unorthodox views of the third-century theologian Sabellius.3 Arius' response was to challenge his bishop, declaring, 'If the Father begat the Son, then the begotten has a beginning of coming into existence. So from this it is clear that there was a time when the Son was not, and it follows necessarily that he got his subsistence from nothing.'4 This account comes from the opening chapters of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, written in the middle of the fifth century. Like all surviving accounts of the life and opinions of Arius, it cannot be taken at face value, particularly with regard to the
2 I have, as far as possible, sought to direct the reader towards commonly available
English works on this subject, at least in the first instance, in order to make the material as accessible as possible for a broad audience. It has, however, been necessary to refer to a number of more specialised pieces of scholarship for certain specific issues.
3 Sabellius was a presbyter at Rome who described the three persons of the Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) as being 'modes' of the Godhead, rather than differentiating between them as much as other theologians did. For this reason, the accusation of 'Sabellianism' was sometimes used by fourth-century Christians as a way of attacking positions which they regarded as not articulating the relationship between the Father and the Son (or of the Trinity as a whole) with sufficient distinctions. On Sabellius, see Epiphanius,
Panarion 62; Simonetti (1980); Bienert (1993).
4 Soc. HE 1.5.1–2, quoting 1.5.2. The Greek term for 'subsistence' used here is hypostasis. This word does not figure as prominently as ousia in the debates of this period, although it was to come to prominence later, especially in the creed agreed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. On these terms, see the Glossary.
INTRODUCTION
theological statements that Socrates attributes to the presbyter. As the Christological controversies of this period wore on, and even after they had been largely resolved, Arius was progressively vilified in polemical
Christian literature, being transformed into the archetypal heretic: he was portrayed as following in the footsteps of Jews and other earlier enemies of Christ, as well as spawning a host of newer depraved doctrines that continued to assail the orthodox in the succeeding decades.5 As Rowan
Williams has remarked, Arianism came to be irrevocably cast as the Other in relation to Catholic (and civilized) religion.
Arius himself came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical menace, a deliberate enmity to revealed faith […] No other heretic has been through so thoroughgoing a process of 'demonization'.6
Attempts to reconstruct the origins of this controversy and the authentic theology of Arius are therefore faced with significant challenges.7
It would appear, however, that he took a 'subordinationist' position that the Son was inferior to the Father, as well as not being co-eternal with him.
This introduction will be concerned less with the historical Arius and his own 'Arianism' than with the theological developments and ecclesiastical disputes that followed and which are often associated with him under the title of 'the Arian controversy'. Even though Arius was widely disavowed by participants in these events, his name was frequently invoked, since any association with him gradually came to be regarded as poisonous. As the texts translated in this volume make abundantly clear, the term 'Arian' developed into a damaging label to attach to one's enemies, placing them clearly outside the boundaries of acceptable Christian orthodoxy. For example, Hilary of Poitiers described his opponents as denying that the Son was truly God or properly the Son of the Father, while Lucifer of Cagliari accused the 'Arians' of saying that the Son had been created from nothing.8
It should also be recognised that, although ecclesiastical historians and polemicists were keen to present Arius as the originator of these disputes,
5 For this phenomenon, especially in the works of Athanasius, see Lyman (1993); Brakke
(2001) 467–75; Ayres (2004) 105–17; Gwynn (2007) 169–244; Flower (2013) 189–90.
6 Williams (2001) 1.
7 On the theology of Arius and the difficulties involved in its reconstruction, see
Simonetti (1975) 46–55; Kelly (1977) 226–31; Hanson (1988) 5–18; Williams (2001) 95–116;
Ayres (2004) 54–7; Gwynn (2007) 186–202.
8 Hilary, In Const. 5, 9, 22; Lucifer, Moriundum 3.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
their roots lay in earlier theological speculation, rather than being produced by the presbyter ex nihilo. Nonetheless, since it features so prominently in contemporary narratives, the confrontation between Arius and his bishop acts as a useful starting point for this introduction to the historical context of the translated texts.9
Although Arius was swiftly rebuked by Alexander for challenging both his theology and his authority, the argument was far from settled. Both men looked for support from other figures in the church, not only within Egypt but also further afield, and Arius soon found supporters who were sympathetic to his concerns, including Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia.10
When the emperor Constantine defeated his colleague Licinius in 324 and took control of the eastern part of the empire he intervened in the situation, much as he had previously done (with little success) in the Donatist schism in North Africa. In his biography of the emperor, Eusebius of Caesarea preserves a letter sent by Constantine to Alexander and Arius in which the emperor exhorted them to agree to disagree on these minor matters and to focus their attention on the beliefs that they shared, which were more important to the Christian faith.11 This move failed, however, as did other attempts to resolve the issue through letters or small synods. Constantine, therefore, gave his support to the summoning of an ecclesiastical council to settle the issue, as well as to consider other matters of dispute between the churches, most notably over the date of Easter. Approximately 250–300 bishops gathered at Nicaea in 325, under the presidency of Ossius, bishop of Cordoba in Spain, with Constantine and a number of his court officials in attendance.12 The council rejected Arius' view that the Son was not
9 This introduction is focused on the 340s and 350s, since these decades are most relevant to the texts in this volume. The best and clearest reconstruction of the events of this period is to be found in Barnes (1993). Galvão-Sobrinho (2013) represents an attempt to understand the early years of the Arian controversy, while Gwynn (2007) focuses on the reign of Constantius II, particularly the presentation of 'Arianism' by Athanasius. Hanson
(1988) and Ayres (2004) provide detailed guides to the theological developments of this period, although the former is rather dated in places, especially in the use of the term 'Arian', while there is also much useful information in Kelly (1972) 205–95 and (1977) 223–51. The councils and creeds are also covered in depth in Simonetti (1975) 153–249, 313–49, and Brennecke (1984) and (1988) 5–56.
10 On this early stage of the controversy, see Barnes (1993) 14–16; Ayres (2004) 11–17;
Galvão-Sobrinho (2013) 35–77 (although caution should be exercised over his characterisation of Alexander).
11 Eus. VC 2.64–72.
12 On the Council of Nicaea and its Creed, see, for example, Kelly (1972) 205–54; Hanson
(1998) 152–72; Barnes (1993) 16–18; Ayres (2004) 85–100; Galvão-Sobrinho (2013) 84–91.
INTRODUCTION
co-eternal with the Father, leading to the presbyter being exiled by imperial authority. In addition, the bishops also agreed the text of a creed which excluded 'Arian' beliefs and defined the Son as being homoousios ('of the same essence') with the Father. Even though some participants were not pleased with the wording of this statement of faith, all those present, with the exception of two bishops from Libya, assented to the creed. Despite signing this document, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea would not, however, agree to the condemnation of Arius and so were also exiled a few months later.13
The Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed have come to occupy a pivotal position in the history of the Christian Church. It should be borne in mind, however, that this canonical status is primarily a product of the afterlife of this event, rather than a reflection of its perceived significance at the time. It was the largest Christian council ever convened up to that point, as well as being attended by the emperor himself, which led to it being assigned a prominent position in the biography of Constantine written by Eusebius of Caesarea over a decade later.14 Nevertheless, even for its supporters, Nicaea's designation as the first 'ecumenical' council and a touchstone of orthodoxy emerged only decades later, particularly in the 350s, when the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria played a key role in promoting an image of the divinely inspired nature of the council's discussions and the unassailable supremacy of its creed.15 In 325, however, it represented an attempt to define a statement that would defend against and exclude 'Arian' beliefs, rather than an ambitious project to create a foundational document for imperial orthodoxy. The events of the following decades demonstrate that many theologians felt comfortable with creating other creeds without having to explain or excuse their departure from the profession of faith agreed at Nicaea.
Within a few years the apparent settlement of 325 had started to unravel. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were formally restored to the church and soon came into conflict with Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria in 328 and continued his predecessor's policy of refusing to readmit Arius and his followers into communion. Athanasius was accused of violent behaviour towards clergy
13 Hanson (1988) 173; Barnes (1993) 17.
14 Eus. VC 3.4–22.
15 On this issue, see Lienhard (1999) 30–3; Gwynn (2007) especially 169–70, 224–44, and (2012) 76–90. For the vital role played by Athanasius in promoting the Council of Nicaea as important and 'ecumenical', see Chadwick (1972).
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
from the Egyptian schismatic group known as the Melitians, leading to him being deposed from his see at a Council held in Tyre in 335 and then exiled to Gaul soon afterwards in rather unclear circumstances.16 In the next year there was an attempt to persuade Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, to readmit Arius to communion, but the presbyter expired suddenly, providing an opportunity for Athanasius to write up his death as a grisly example of divine punishment.17 Around the same time, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra and a fierce opponent of 'Arian' theology, was also deposed from his see at a Council in Constantinople and went into exile. Moreover, Eusebius of Nicomedia came back into imperial favour and baptised Constantine when the emperor was on his deathbed in 337.
After a brief period of uncertainty and a massacre of other potential rivals within the imperial family, Constantine's three sons – Constantine
II, Constantius II and Constans – shared the empire between themselves.18
They decreed that exiled bishops could return to their homelands, which led to both Athanasius and Marcellus taking control of their respective sees. The two bishops were, however, soon deposed once more, when a council was held in Antioch in 338/9; the participants included Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had recently moved to become bishop of Constantinople.
Athanasius and Marcellus travelled to the West, where they gained the support of Julius, bishop of Rome. The political situation also changed in 340, when Constans became sole ruler of the West after the death of his brother Constantine II during a civil war.19 Soon after this came the first significant occasion since Nicaea when a large ecclesiastical council drafted a statement of faith: the so-called 'Dedication Council' of Antioch
16 For more detail on these events, and Athanasius' career more generally, see pp. 21–4 below. The Melitians were a set of rigorist schismatics in Egypt who rejected the authority of the bishop of Alexandria after a dispute about the readmission of lapsed Christians during the Great Persecution. They were involved in some of the accusations against Athanasius in the 330s and are mentioned by him at Hist. Ar. 3.2, 78.1–79.2. See also Epiphanius, Panarion
68; Martin (1974) and (1996) 217–319; Barnes (1993) 20–28.
17 See Ath. De morte Arii, especially 3.3, where Arius' death is narrated using the same phrase that appears at Acts 1.18 to describe Judas' demise. The development of the story of Arius' gruesome death is explored in Muehlberger (2015). This is the traditional date of Arius' death, although it has been suggested that he was readmitted to communion in the late
320s and then died shortly afterwards: see Brennecke et al. (2007) xxxvi–xxxviii. Barnes
(2009) is a forceful response to this proposal and reasserts the standard chronology, while
Brennecke (2010) is a rejoinder to Barnes.
18 On this dynastic massacre, see n. 252 to Ath. Hist. Ar. 69.1 on p. 98 below, as well as Burgess (2008).
19 See Hunt (1998) 5.
INTRODUCTION
in 341, which took its name from the fact that the bishops were dedicating a grand new church in the city, with Constantius II in attendance.20 Four different creedal statements have been transmitted by Athanasius as being associated with this gathering, possibly in an attempt to portray its participants as vacillating and indecisive, but only the 'Second Creed' was actually formally agreed during the council and then circulated as part of its letter to other bishops in the eastern part of the empire.21 This text does not use the term homoousios that appears in the Nicene Creed, but does state that the Son is 'the exact image of the ousia of the Father', while also challenging the 'Monarchian' heresy of Sabellianism by distinguishing between the members of the Trinity in terms of hypostasis ('subsistence'), echoing the words of the third-century theologian Origen.22 J. N. D. Kelly regards the creed as rejecting the views of Marcellus of Ancyra for being too close to Sabellianism, as well as being an attempt to create a fairly moderate and widely acceptable definition: 'The synod was working with a theology which, while by no means sympathetic to Arianism, was subordinationist and pre-Nicene […] Their real object was to steer a middle course between Arianism and the Sabellianism they dreaded.'23 Also of note is the 'Fourth
Creed' of Antioch, which actually appears to have been written separately a few months after the council, and which avoids any use of ousia ('essence') language, while also condemning Arius' ideas forcefully. This text was brought to the western emperor Constans in 342 by an eastern delegation and may have been intended as another attempt at compromise.24
Julius of Rome remained unhappy with the actions of the eastern councils, particularly their refusal to repeal their depositions of Athanasius
20 On this council, see Simonetti (1975) 153–60; Brennecke (1984) 5–16; Barnes (1993)
57–9; Martin (1996) 419–22.
21 Ath. De synodis 22–5. The 'First Creed' was a statement made by the council, but apparently not intended as a formal creed; the 'Second' was officially ratified by the council; the 'Third Creed' was merely a formulation put forward by a single bishop, Theophronius of Tyana; the 'Fourth Creed' was a separate statement of faith written after the council by a group of eastern bishops and sent to Constans. On all these creeds, see Kelly (1972) 263–74;
Hanson (1988) 284–92; Ayres (2004) 117–22. The 'Second Creed' is preserved at Hilary, De synodis 29–30 and Ath. De synodis 23.
22 The term 'Monarchian' is used to refer to theological views which stress that God is a single 'person' or 'principle': see (1977) 115–23; Ayres (2004) 68 (with remarks on Marcellus' relationship to this tradition). For more on these other theological terms, see the Glossary.
23 Kelly (1972) 271.
24 See Ath. De synodis 25; Kelly (1972) 272–3; Hanson (1988) 291–2; Ayres (2004) 121–2.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
and Marcellus, and made his views known in a forceful letter.25 The bishop of Rome also played a key role in helping the exiled eastern bishops, who also included Paul of Constantinople, who had recently been expelled from his see, so that they could gain the support of Constans.26 The western emperor communicated with his surviving brother Constantius
II, who controlled the eastern part of the empire, and arranged for an ecclesiastical council to take place at Serdica in 343.27 The western delegation included Ossius of Cordoba and exiles from the East, most notably Athanasius and Paul, but the eastern bishops were not willing to join them in a general council. The divisions were irreconcilable, so the two groups of prelates never actually met for a joint session, but instead acted independently and both claimed that their own gathering constituted the council. The eastern delegates wrote a letter to bishops elsewhere in the empire strongly criticising the behaviour of the exiled bishops, especially Athanasius and Marcellus, as well as accusing the latter of heresy, before deposing Julius, Ossius and their associates.28 They also attached a statement of faith consisting of the 'Fourth Creed' of Antioch together with some extra anathemas which condemned Marcellus and his supposedly 'Sabellian' teachings, as well as defending themselves against any accusations of regarding the Trinity as consisting of three separate gods.29 The western bishops also wrote a number of missives, including an encyclical letter which defended many of the exiles of the charges against them and accused a number of eastern bishops of being violent persecutors and 'Ariomaniacs'.30 Included among the supposed ringleaders
25 See Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 21.1–35.8; Barnes (1993) 58–61.
26 Paul had become bishop of Constantinople early in the reign of Constantius II, but had been deposed and replaced with Eusebius of Nicomedia. When Eusebius died in 341, Paul had attempted to regain the episcopal throne, but was unsuccessful and sought the help of Constans for his cause. For a reconstruction of the career of Paul, including the problems with identifying his date of election, see Barnes (1993) 35–6, 68, 212–17.
27 On this council, see Kelly (1972) 274–9; Hanson (1988) 293–306; Barnes (1993)
71–86; Martin (1996) 422–36; Ayres (2004) 122–6; Parvis (2006) 210–45; Maraval (2013)
251–3. See also the version of events given by Athanasius in Apol. c. Ar. 36–50 (with relevant documents) and Hist. Ar. 15–19. A number of documents relating to this council are preserved in Hilary's Against Valens and Ursacius, which is translated by Lionel Wickham in TTH volume 25.
28 See Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.IV.1.
29 See Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.IV.2; Kelly (1972) 275–6; Hanson (1988) 298–9;
Barnes (1993) 75.
30 See Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.1 and Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 44–50 for versions of this letter in Latin and Greek respectively. Barnes (1993) 77 notes that the letter does
INTRODUCTION
of the heretics were two Illyrican bishops, Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa, who were to feature frequently in 'anti-Arian' polemic for the next two decades.31 Theodoret of Cyrrhus also preserves a version of this letter that concludes with a creedal formula that is absent from the text transmitted by both Athanasius and Hilary.32 This includes a forceful rejection of the recent 'eastern' theological statements, most notably by stating that there was a single hypostasis ('subsistence') for the Trinity.33
After the divided council broke up, relations between the various individuals and groups continued to be fractious. A subsequent council at Antioch in 344 was particularly notable for a failed attempt by the local bishop, Stephen, to discredit a western delegate, the aged bishop Euphrates of Agrippina, by sending a prostitute into his bedroom while he was asleep.34 The following year, however, Constantius was pressured by his brother Constans into agreeing to allow Paul and Athanasius to return.35
This was followed by a period of relative calm lasting a few years, during which Ursacius and Valens attended a council at Rome in 347, where they declared that their accusations against Athanasius had been false.36 This all not discuss the case of Paul of Constantinople explicitly, but argues that this should not be taken to indicate that the western bishops did not seek to restore him to his see. The term
'Ariomaniacs', or 'Arian madmen', is a polemical label that was particularly favoured by Athanasius: see n. 144 to Hist. Ar. 39.2 on p. 72 below.
31 These two bishops, who are nearly always mentioned together, are referred to as 'the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of the Arian controversy' at Parvis (2006) 125. Hanson (1988)
591 compares them to Laurel and Hardy.
32 Theod. HE 2.8.1–52.
33 Kelly (1972) 277–9; Hanson (1988) 300–305; Barnes (1993) 76–7; Ayres (2004) 124–5.
This creed is widely regarded as a poor attempt to define the faith and is described as 'rambling' by both Kelly (1972) 277 and Barnes (1993) 76.
34 For this episode, see Ath. Hist. Ar. 20.2.–5 in this volume. Agrippina is modern
Cologne. This council also wrote the so-called Macrostich or 'Long Creed', which expanded on the 'Fourth Creed' and rejected the use of ousia terminology: see Ath. De synodis 26;
Kelly (1972) 279–80; Hanson (1988) 309–12; Ayres (2004) 127–9.
35 See Barnes (1993) 89–91 on the form of this pressure, which also included a threat of civil war if his demands were not met, at least according to the letter quoted by Socrates:
Soc. HE 2.22.4–5. Maraval (2013) 254–5 regards Constans' threat as unlikely to have been serious. Barnes (1993) 92–3 notes that support for Marcellus had ebbed and that Constans did not lobby his brother on his behalf.
36 Ath. Hist. Ar. 26; Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 58; Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.6–8. Barnes
(1993) 97–100 reconstructs the events of this period, including the condemnation of Paul of Constantinople at a council, possibly in early 349, and the calling of another synod at Antioch to depose Athanasius. Barnes argues for dating this council to 349, as opposed to 351, or even
352, which appears in some other modern accounts, including Hanson (1988) 325.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
changed, however, with the death of Constans in 350 during the usurpation of the Gallic military commander Magnentius, leaving Constantius II as the sole surviving son of Constantine I. In 351 Constantius marched westwards and inflicted a defeat on his new rival at the Battle of Mursa, which took place in late September.37 In the same year Constantius was also present in Sirmium for a council at which the local bishop Photinus was condemned, as were his beliefs and those of his former teacher, Marcellus of Ancyra.38
The bishops also followed the established practice of deposing Athanasius, as well as issuing a letter incorporating a statement of faith that consisted of the 'Fourth Creed' of Antioch. To this were added twenty-six anathemas, which included condemnations of many beliefs associated with Marcellus and Photinus, as well as a growing sense of hostility towards the language of ousia employed at Nicaea in 325.
The next two years saw victories for Constantius in the ongoing civil war, with Italy falling under his control in 352 and the usurpation finally coming to an end in the summer of 353, with the suicide of Magnentius after the defeat of his troops in Gaul.39 Constantius was the sole Augustus of the Roman empire and, having gained control over the western provinces for the first time in his reign, he now had an unprecedented opportunity to bring about an ecclesiastical consensus across his dominion. At this point, Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa also become more prominent in the accounts of ecclesiastical affairs, especially in the works of Hilary and Athanasius, with the latter presenting them as being the leading 'Arians' who were involved in forcing western bishops to agree to Constantius' demands.40 In 353/4 a council at Arles condemned Marcellus,
Photinus and Athanasius, with Paulinus of Trier being exiled after refusing to reject the bishop of Alexandria.41 There has been speculation concerning whether the bishops at this council were also asked to subscribe to a theological formula, and Timothy Barnes has suggested plausibly that the 37 Hunt (1998) 17–20.
38 On this council, its decisions and its creed, see Kelly (1972) 281–2; Hanson (1988)
325–9; Barnes (1993) 109–10; Ayres (2004) 134–5. Ayres presents the council as taking place while Constantius was on his way to the West, and Hunt (1998) 17 also suggests that it took place in early 351, before the Battle of Mursa. Hanson and Barnes date the council to late in the year, when Constantius had returned to spend the winter in Sirmium before resuming the campaign in the following year.
39 Hunt (1998), 21–2.
40 See, for example, Ath. Hist. Ar. 31.4; Hilary, In Const. 2.
41 Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.37.4, 39.2; Hilary, Liber I ad Constantium 8.1. On the career of Paulinus of Trier, see PCBE IV.2 1443–4 (Paulinus 1).
INTRODUCTION
epistola which Paulinus refused to sign was the letter issued by the Council of Sirmium in 351.42 This did not, however, settle matters in the West. In 354
Liberius, bishop of Rome, wrote to the emperor to complain about the state of affairs and to ask for the calling of another council.43 This letter is also notable for the bishop's reference to the faith of Nicaea, explicitly described as confirmed in the presence of Constantius' father, as a statement that ought to be defended and reaffirmed.44 When the proposed council met at Milan in 355 a similar stance appears to have been taken by some of the bishops present there.45 According to Hilary of Poitiers, when Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, was asked to condemn Athanasius at this synod, he produced a copy of the Nicene Creed and declared that, before this could happen, the faith of those present ought to be tested.46 Dionysius of Milan started to sign the document, but Valens of Mursa angrily snatched the pen and paper away from him and a great commotion ensued.47 Regardless of whether this dramatic event actually took place or not, a small number of bishops certainly refused to agree to the council's decisions.48 Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercelli and Lucifer of Cagliari were exiled, while imperial envoys pressured other bishops to agree to the same matters, including the condemnation of Athanasius.49 Liberius himself was also
42 Barnes (1993) 115. Hanson (1988) 329–31 discusses the evidence for bishops being instructed to sign up to a theological formula at Arles, as well as the Council of Milan in 355, and concludes that this is likely to have occurred. The epistola is referred to at Sulpicius
Severus, Chronicle 2.37.4.
43 The letter is preserved at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.VII. See Hanson (1988) 338–40 for a discussion of it. Liberius had succeeded Julius as bishop of Rome in 352.
44 Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.VII.6.
45 On this council, see Kelly (1972) 284–5; Hanson (1988) 332–4; Barnes (1993) 117–18;
Ayres (2004) 136–7; Maraval (2013) 266–8. These events, together with the exile of Lucifer of Cagliari, are also discussed further on pp. 31–2 below.
46 Hilary, Liber I ad Constantium 8.1–2. On Eusebius, see PCBE II.1 692–7 (Eusebius 1).
47 On Dionysius of Milan, see PCBE II.1 563–5 (Dionysius 1).
48 Barnes (1993) 117–18 argues that this event is plausible, against suggestions to the contrary.
49 A particularly colourful account of all these events can be found in Ath. Hist. Ar. 31–4.
There is no evidence to suggest that new bishops were appointed to take the places of Eusebius and Lucifer, who were both able to return to their sees after their exile came to an end with the death of Constantius and the general amnesty proclaimed by Julian. Dionysius died in exile, but had already been replaced by the 'Homoian' bishop Auxentius, who maintained control of the see of Milan until his death in the 370s, despite a number of attempts to dislodge him, including one by Hilary in the 360s: see pp. 18–19 below. At Hist. Ar. 75.1, Athanasius complains about the fact that Auxentius was not a local candidate for the position, but had been sent by Constantius from Cappadocia and did not even know Latin.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
exiled later that year, although he eventually relented and subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius in 357, at which point he was allowed to return to his see.50
In early 356 imperial officials used troops to drive Athanasius from Alexandria and into exile for the next six years, installing George 'the Cappadocian' in his place.51 Ossius of Cordoba, now very advanced in age, was also summoned to Sirmium and kept there for a year until, according to Athanasius, he agreed to enter communion with Ursacius and Valens, although he still refused to condemn the Alexandrian bishop.52 In addition,
Ossius was also persuaded to put his name to a new theological statement, which has come to be known by the name assigned to it by Hilary of Poitiers: the 'Blasphemy of Sirmium'.53 This document, probably heavily influenced (and quite possibly written) by Ursacius and Valens, should be regarded not as a formally adopted creed but rather as an attempt to shape the debate.54 It is notable not only for its unambiguously subordinationist position regarding the relationship of the Son to the Father but also for its
50 Ath. Hist. Ar. 35–41 covers these events, arguing also at 41.3–4 that Liberius' eventual capitulation was far from an expression of his actual beliefs. Another bishop, Felix, was consecrated in his place, as is described highly tendentiously at Ath. Hist. Ar. 75.3. On Felix, who left Rome after Liberius' return, see Jerome, De uiris illustr. 98; PCBE II.1 770–71
(Felix 7); Barnes (1993) 118. He retained some support within the city, which contributed to the factional violence between the supporters of Damasus and Ursinus in the disputed episcopal election of 366 after the death of Liberius, as is famously described in Amm.
27.3.12–13.
51 On these events, see Ath. Hist. Ar. 47–63, 81 and p. 24 below. The bishop George, who was appointed to replace Athanasius by a council at Antioch in 349, is often called 'George the Cappadocian' because he was from this part of Asia Minor. Athanasius used the fact that George was from so far away, as well as his former role as an imperial official, as a way of criticising his rival as being an imperial stooge rather than a legitimate bishop: see Hist. Ar.
75.1. Even after Athanasius was driven from the city George himself did not arrive until the next year, before being driven out himself by rioting in 358. He finally returned in late 361, but, soon afterwards, following the death of Constantius II, he was killed by an angry crowd: see Barnes (1993) 119, 155.
52 Ath. Hist. Ar. 42–5, esp. 45.4–5 for the 'fall' of Ossius. In this section, Athanasius also transmits what he claims is a very bold and forthright letter sent to Constantius by Ossius.
53 Hilary, De synodis 10, with the text of the statement following at 11. Hilary refers to it as 'the nonsense of Ossius' at In Const. 23. This document is also preserved at Ath. De synodis 28. On this theological formulation, also sometimes referred to as the 'Second Creed of Sirmium', see Kelly (1972) 285–8; Simonetti (1975) 229–33; Brennecke (1984) 312–25, esp. 323–4; Hanson (1988) 343–7; Barnes (1993) 138–9; Ayres (2004) 137–9.
54 Barnes (1993), 139 refers to it as a 'manifesto' or 'trial balloon'.
INTRODUCTION
rejection of all ousia language in theology, including homoousios, which is to be shunned because it does not appear in Scripture. This represented a direct challenge to the Nicene Creed and demonstrates the growing criticism of the term as unbiblical during this period, which led Athanasius to defend it in his De decretis (On the Decisions of the Nicene Council).55
As part of their proscription of definitions involving ousia, the transmitted versions of the 'Blasphemy' also condemn the notion of referring to the Son as homoiousios ('of like essence') with the Father, perhaps reflecting the recent appearance of this term in theological discourse.56
While the statement from Sirmium caused some consternation, especially in the West, concerns also started to be raised about the theologian Aetius and his pupil Eunomius. Aetius was probably born early in the fourth century, most probably at Antioch, while Eunomius, who acted as his secretary, was born in Cappadocia around the middle of the 320s, and both men placed great emphasis on the ingenerate (i.e., not having been generated from anyone or anything else) nature of God in their theological statements, which made prominent use of formal logical arguments and syllogisms.57 They are sometimes referred to as 'Anomoians', from their supposed belief that the Son was anomoios ('unlike') the Father, although, as is sometimes noted, this is a hostile description by their opponents and they actually rejected such terminology.58 Lewis Ayres has described their theology as 'Heterousian' ('of different essence'), since it stressed that, while there were a number of ways in which the Father and 55 This is stated explicitly at De decretis 1.1. Most suggestions for the date of this work fall in the range 350–356: see Kopecek (1979) I 116–17; Kannengiesser (1982) 988; Barnes
(1993) 110–12, 198–9; Gwynn (2007) 29–33 (2012) 11; Ayres (2004) 140, although Hanson
(1988) 419 dates it to 356–7 and Brennecke (1984) 11 n. 41 places it later in Athanasius' third exile.
56 Hanson (1988) 346 notes that this statement is the first documented appearance of homoiousios. Barnes (1993) 281 n. 26, 282 n. 32 suggests that this term was not coined until later and that it was not present in the original version of the 'Blasphemy', but Ayres (2004)
138 accepts the transmitted text.
57 On these two men and their beliefs, see Kopecek (1979); Hanson (1988) 598–636;
Vaggione (2000); Ayres (2004) 144–9. For the date and place of Aetius' birth, see Kopecek
(1979) I 61 (suggesting a date c. 313). On Eunomius' origins, see Vaggione (2000) 2. The text of the Syntagmation, the only surviving work by Aetius, can be found at Epiphanius,
Panarion 76.11.1–12.37. For a critical edition and translation of Eunomius' writings, see
Vaggione (1987).
58 Kelly (1972) 283 and (1977) 249 repeats the claim that they promoted anomoios theology. Hanson (1988) 598 and Ayres (2004) 145 both reject the label 'Anomoian' as polemical and inaccurate.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
Son were similar, they were fundamentally different in their ousiai.59 In addition, after the death of Leontius of Antioch in late 357, Eudoxius of Germanicia managed to become bishop of the nearby see of Antioch and started espousing ideas associated with Aetius.60 Opposition to the views of these men was soon expressed at a council convened in Ancyra in 358 by Basil, bishop of the city.61 A letter written from the council by Basil rejected the views of the 'Heterousians' and asserted that the Son was homoios kat' ousian ('like according to essence') the Father, leading to the common modern designation of this position as 'Homoiousian'.62 They also anathematised the use of the terms homoousios ('of the same essence') or tautoousios ('of identical essence').63 The council then sent delegates, including Basil, to Constantius to apprise him of their decisions.64 The emperor approved of what they said and sent a letter to Antioch in which he condemned the views of Aetius and Eudoxius, as well as affirming that he had for a long time supported the Homoiousian formula that the Son was kat' ousian homoios ('like according to essence') the Father.65
According to Philostorgius, who demonstrated hostility to Basil of Ancyra in his Ecclesiastical History, Aetius, Eunomius and Eudoxius were then all exiled, as were a number of others who shared their beliefs.66 Sozomen also reports that a council was held in Sirmium at this time and that it approved a statement that the Son is kata' ousian kai kata panta homoios
('like according to essence and in all respects) the Father, and that Liberius of Rome agreed to this formulation.67 Around the same time Hilary also sought to create a theological rapprochement between 'Nicene' and 'Homoiousian' Christians through his De synodis (On the Councils), which 59 Ayres (2004) 144–9. Kopecek (1979) refers to them as 'Neo-Arians' and is followed by Hanson (1988) 598. Barnes (1993) 137 rejects this label as inappropriate. The term anomoiousios ('of unlike essence') is employed by Hilary at In Const. 12.
60 Hanson (1988) 348; Barnes (1993) 139.
61 On this council and its immediate aftermath, as well as Basil's letter from it, see Kelly
(1972) 287–8; Hanson (1988) 349–57; Barnes (1993) 139–40; Ayres (2004) 149–53.
62 This letter is preserved at Epiphanius, Panarion 73.2–11. Hilary uses the term homoiousios in his In Constantium to define the theological position of Basil of Ancyra and others.
63 Epiphanius, Panarion 73.11.10.
64 Soz. HE 4.13.4–6.
65 Soz. HE 4.13.6–14.7.
66 Philostorgius, HE 4.8.
67 Soz. HE 4.15. This document, which is not extant, is sometimes referred to as the 'Third Creed of Sirmium': see Kelly (1972) 288; Hanson (1988), 357–8.
INTRODUCTION
defended the term homoousios against a number of potential criticisms, including its absence from Scripture and its association with the thirdcentury 'heretic' Paul of Samosata, but also affirmed that homoiousios was acceptable and should be regarded as carrying the same meaning as homoousios.68
Constantius also agreed to hold another council at Nicomedia, but after the city was hit by a massive earthquake in 358 it was agreed that this gathering would be split into two, with the western delegates assembling at Ariminum (modern Rimini) in Italy and the eastern group at Seleucia in Isauria.69 In preparation for these events a small group of bishops, including Mark of Arethusa, Ursacius, Valens and Basil of Ancyra, produced a statement of faith at Sirmium. The preface to this text states that it was produced on 22 May 359 and so it has become known as the 'Dated Creed'.70 It not only avoided the language of ousia in its theological definition but also stated that any such discussion of the 'essence' of the Father and Son should not take place, as this term was not found in Scripture and was not recognised by the laity. Even though homoiousios had seemed to be on the ascendancy, it was now rejected, as was homoousios once again. This new creed then closed by defining the Son as homoios ('like') the Father kata panta ('in all respects'), picking up part of the statement also written at Sirmium in the previous year.
To this was also appended the phrase 'as the Holy Scriptures both say and teach', emphasising the difference between this definition and the 'non-Scriptural' use of ousia. Because of the use of the key term homoios this theological position is often referred to as 'Homoian'.71
68 Hilary, De synodis esp. 64–91. Paul of Samosata was a bishop of Antioch who was deposed from his see at a council in that city in 268, possibly for stating that Christ possessed a human soul and body and that 'the Son' did not exist before the Incarnation, although it is hard to reconstruct his theology from the polemical representations of his opponents: see Eus. HE 7.27.1–30.19; Epiphanius, Panarion 65; Hanson (1988) 70–72;
Burrus (1989); Lang (2000); Ayres (2004) 76. The council that condemned him had also condemned the term homoousios, which made the Nicene position vulnerable to criticism: see Ayres (2004) 94.
69 On these councils and the surrounding events, see Kelly (1972) 288–93; Kopecek
(1979) I 199–215; Hanson (1988) 362–80; Brennecke (1988) 16–53; Barnes (1993) 140–41,
144–8; Ayres (2004) 157–64; Maraval (2013) 272–6.
70 The text is given at Ath. De synodis 8.3–7. At De synodis 3 Athanasius mocks the idea of creating the Catholic faith on a particular day.
71 On the broader history of Homoian theology and its proponents in the fourth-century
Roman empire, see Brennecke (1988).
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
This document was presented to the bishops at Ariminum, who were said to be more than 400 in number, making it the largest church council ever held up to that time, although it was clearly divided sharply from an early stage.72 A majority of those present were unwilling to accept the 'Dated Creed' and, instead, produced a statement which explicitly endorsed the Council of Nicaea, as well as defending the use of ousia terminology as 'nothing new', but rather as something that 'was introduced into our minds by many Holy Scriptures'.73 In a document dated to 21 July 359 this group of bishops also condemned Ursacius, Valens, Germinius of Sirmium and another bishop called Gaius, whose see is unknown.74 In addition, they sent a ten-man delegation to Constantius with a letter in which they repeated their accusations against these four bishops and affirmed their view that no change ought to be made to the decisions of Nicaea, which were here described as being agreed in Constantine's presence and adhered to by him at the time of his baptism and death in 337.75 At the same time the minority group at the council, which included Ursacius and Valens, also sent its own delegation of ten to Constantius and wrote him a letter in which they once again condemned ousia and homoousios, calling them
'words unknown to the Church of God'.76 Constantius refused to receive the majority delegation and had them moved to Niké in Thrace, where, on 10 October, and under the leadership of Restitutus of Carthage, they eventually relented, rescinded their condemnation of their opponents and agreed to endorse a statement that was very similar to the 'Dated Creed', although omitting the term kata panta ('in all respects').77 According to Sulpicius Severus, the rest of the bishops were then not allowed to leave
72 See Ath. De synodis 8.1; Soz. HE 4.17.2.
73 The text of this statement is preserved at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.XI.1. The term ousia is here rendered into Latin as substantia.
74 Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.XI.2–3. A Greek version appears at Ath. De synodis
11. This group of four bishops also appears at Hilary, Contra Auxentium 5, where they are associated with both Auxentius of Milan and Arius himself. The trio of Valens, Ursacius and Gaius were also condemned, along with some other bishops, at a council held in Paris shortly after Hilary had returned from the East – see Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.I.4.2.
75 Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.V.1. This letter is also preserved in a Greek translation at Ath. De synodis 10.
76 Rival delegations: Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.V.2. Letter: Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac.
A.VI.
77 Theod. HE 2.21.1–2. This event is also referred to by Hilary at In Const. 26 and Contra
Auxentium 8, while the text of the capitulation is preserved at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac.
A.V.3. On Restitutus of Carthage, whose name is given as Restutus in Hilary's text, see
PCBE I 968–9 (Restitutus 1). The text of the creed is given at Theod. HE 2.21.3–7. As well as
INTRODUCTION
Ariminum until they assented to this decision, which the vast majority eventually agreed to do.78
The Council of Seleucia met in late September, with about 160 bishops attending, including Hilary of Poitiers.79 Most of them appear to have been happy with a 'Homoiousian' Christology, but a minority group, headed by Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, and also including Eudoxius of Antioch, was keen to approve a new statement.80 After some debate the majority reaffirmed the 'Second Creed' from Antioch in 341, but then
Acacius presented a new theological statement for consideration. This accepted the 'Second Creed' as orthodox, but rejected anomoios, as well as homoousios and homoiousios, which were deemed unscriptural, and instead affirmed that the Son was homoios the Father, 'according to the Apostle', before quoting Colossians 1.15.81 The bishops could not, however, reach agreement and, like their colleagues at Ariminum, the two groups engaged in mutual condemnations and sent separate delegations to the emperor. When they reached the court, Constantius showed himself more receptive to the 'Homoian' approach and pressured the majority delegation from Seleucia to accept the same theological statement that those from Ariminum had already signed.82 They eventually did so on rejecting ousia, this creed also proscribed the use of hypostasis ('subsistence') in Trinitarian theology.
78 Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.41, 2.43–4. The complaint about the confining of western bishops at Hilary, In Const. 7 probably also refers to these events.
79 Ath. De synodis 12.1. Hilary describes his experience of the council in tendentious terms at In Const. 12–15. On the circumstances of his attendance, see p. 27 below.
80 Hilary states at In Const. 12 that most bishops present originally supported homoiousios. Ath. De synodis 12.4 does not mention this term, but instead states that the majority were happy to accept the Nicene Creed, with the exception of the term homoousios.
See Ayres (2004) 163 on the problems with accepting Athanasius' claim. Acacius had been bishop of Caesarea since he succeeded Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian and biographer of Constantine, early in the reign of Constantius. He had aroused the ire of Nicene Christians early in his episcopate and was among the list of bishops deposed by the 'western' delegation at Serdica in 343 (Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 47.3; Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.1.8), but he rose to particular prominence in 359. On Eudoxius, who had previously been bishop of Germanicia, see p. 14 above.
81 For this creed, which is extremely similar to the 'Dated Creed', see Ath. De synodis
29.2–8. There is also a version with a longer preamble preserved at Soc. HE 2.40.8–17 and at Epiphanius, Panarion 73.25.1–26.8 (with a list of signatories). Hilary discusses the use of the quotation from Colossians, which describes the Son as 'the image of God invisible', at In Const. 21.
82 Soc. HE 2.41.2–4; Soz. HE 4.23.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
the final day of 359.83 Another council was then held in Constantinople in January 360 to confirm these decisions, with Acacius taking a leading role.84 This gathering issued a final 'Homoian' creed, which was extremely similar to the one agreed to at Niké the previous year.85 It once again condemned the use of ousia theological language, as well as prohibiting the employment of the term hypostasis ('subsistence') for discussing the Trinity. Like the formula approved at Niké, it affirmed that the Son was homoios ('like') the Father 'as the Holy Scriptures both say and teach', rather than saying homoios kata panta ('like in all respects') as had been the case in the 'Dated Creed'. The council also deposed a number of its opponents, including Basil of Ancyra, Macedonius of Constantinople and Cyril of Jerusalem. Eudoxius was rehabilitated and became bishop of Constantinople, while Eunomius was elevated to the see of Cyzicus.
After this sequence of councils the 'Homoian' creed could be regarded as having been agreed by more bishops than any earlier statement of faith, and therefore gained widespread legitimacy. There were, of course, a number of bishops who still opposed it vehemently, including Athanasius, Hilary and Lucifer. The situation in the West was also soon altered by the usurpation of Constantius' cousin and caesar,
Julian, in February 360, allowing Hilary and other Gallic bishops a freer hand to promote the Nicene Creed instead, since Constantius could no longer enforce his decisions in that area.86 Nonetheless, the creed of Constantinople, which was often described as 'Arian' by its opponents, enjoyed continued legitimacy after the death of Constantius II in late
361. The eastern emperor Valens upheld it as orthodox, while his western colleague, his brother Valentinian I, although he may have held Nicene beliefs himself, did not remove 'Homoian' bishops from their sees.87 In the middle of the 360s, when Hilary of Poitiers challenged the orthodoxy of Auxentius of Milan, the bishop confidently responded by informing the emperors that he stood by the faith agreed at Ariminum and Niké, which 83 Soz. HE 4.23.8.
84 On the Council of Constantinople and its creed, see Kelly (1972) 293–5; Hanson (1988)
380–82; Brennecke (1988) 54–6; Barnes (1993) 148–9; Ayres (2004) 164–5; Maraval (2013)
276–8.
85 For the text of this creed, see Ath. De synodis 30.2–10, as well as Soc. HE 2.41.8–16.
86 On the uncertain details of Hilary's return to Gaul from the East, see p. 28 below.
87 Lenski (2002) 238–42 discusses both the religious policies of Valentinian and the difficult question of the emperor's own confessional position. On the 'Homoian Church' during the reign of Valens, see Brennecke (1988) 181–242.
INTRODUCTION
led to him retaining his see while Hilary was expelled from Milan as a troublemaker.88 It was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381 that 'Nicene' theology could be said to have reached the ascendancy again, since it then received imperial support from the new eastern emperor
Theodosius I, although the creed promulgated in 381 (and often referred to as the 'Nicene Creed' in the present day) was not identical to the one written at Nicaea in 325.89 Even after that the 'Homoian' position was soon to receive a new lease of life as the standard of faith supported by a number of the 'barbarian' groups who went on to establish kingdoms on the territory of the western empire in the fifth century.
The traditional picture of Constantius that emerges from these events is of an overbearing autocrat whose desire to impose his theological views on all his Christian subjects led him to use force and coercion to a degree that could be termed persecution. This image is, however, largely a product of the negative rhetoric of his opponents, among whom Athanasius, Hilary and Lucifer were major figures, as well as of the works of later authors who used and embellished their accounts, including the heresiologist Epiphanius of Salamis and the ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen and Sulpicius
Severus. An alternative, more positive version of Constantius' actions can, however, occasionally be glimpsed in a small number of texts, such as the fragmentary work of the fifth-century author Philostorgius.90 Nonetheless, it would be wrong to accept these as a clear corrective to the dominant,
'Nicene' strand of condemnatory literature, just as it would be an error to take that literature at face value. Instead, it is necessary to acknowledge the inherent difficulties present in the interpretation of these events, where polemic pervades the vast majority of the contemporary material. This is particularly evident in the use of labels such as 'Arian' or 'Sabellian', with which individuals or groups sought to destroy the reputations of their enemies by denying them the name of 'Christian', associating them with known 'heretics' and thus situating them outside the boundaries of acceptable religious belief.
The preceding section has sought to give a reasonably uncontentious insight into the key events and concerns of this period, as well as the roles
88 Hilary, Contra Auxentium 8, 15. On these events and this text, see Flower (2013)
207–17, 252–60.
89 For the creed from Constantinople, sometimes called the 'Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed', and the differences between it and the original Nicene Creed, see Kelly (1972)
296–331; Hanson (1988) 815–20; Ayres (2004) 255–8.
90 On this issue, see Flower (2013) 95–6, 107–8.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
played by notable figures, as far as is possible under the circumstances.
Moreover, while it can be hard to reconstruct actions, the identification of motives is even more challenging. For example, not only is it uncertain whether the initiative for certain policies came from Constantius or from particular bishops, but also a historian of this period is faced with diametrically opposed presentations of the emperor's wishes: was he driven by a pure and pious desire for Christian unity or a tyrannical, diabolical urge to enforce his wicked will? The answer is almost certainly neither, but any conclusions about such matters must remain highly speculative.
It is, instead, more fruitful to examine the representations of these events as representations, to understand the ways in which their authors shaped particular narratives of history and created literary personas for their major characters, including themselves. Although some of their details can appear extreme or even ridiculous, such as when Athanasius calls his opponents 'Ariomaniacs' or presents them as saying 'If we run away, we can protect the heresy somehow', these texts must be understood as attempts to sway opinion through the language of invective, which relied on these seemingly exaggerated caricatures, just as late-antique panegyric employed hyperbolic praise.91 The disputes of this period were conducted at least as much through rhetorical presentation as through rigorous theological argument, and the three texts translated in this volume are prime examples of this phenomenon. Moreover, as was noted at the start of this introduction, it should be recognised that such polemical labelling and language was extremely successful, with many of these authors' opponents going down in history as 'Arian heretics'. The following sections will discuss the lives of Athanasius, Hilary and Lucifer, as well as exploring the ways in which they crafted their polemical works to persuade others to accept their particular versions of reality.
91 For this quotation, see Ath. Hist. Ar. 15.5.
INTRODUCTION
Authors and texts Athanasius of Alexandria and the Historia Arianorum Athanasius was probably born late in the third century and was a deacon in the church of Alexandria under Bishop Alexander.92 Despite his very extensive literary output, his level of education is a subject of debate, although it is clear that he had some acquaintance with the techniques of oratory that were current in fourth-century political discourse.93After attending the Council of Nicaea in 325, he assumed the episcopate as Alexander's successor in 328, after an election that was disputed on the grounds that he was not yet old enough to be a bishop.94 During the following years he was involved in a number of controversies within Egypt, including the accusation that he had acted violently towards the schismatic Melitians, who refused to accept Athanasius' authority as bishop.95 Attempts were made to remove him from his office and a number of accusations were made against him: on one occasion, he was alleged to have ordered an attack on a priest called Ischyras in which a chalice was smashed, while he also faced the charge of having masterminded the murder of Arsenius, bishop of Hypsele in Egypt.96 Although he was able to disprove the latter accusation by producing the bishop alive and well, the Council of Tyre in 335 sent a commission to the area of the Mareotis near Alexandria to investigate the claims concerning the chalice and, after receiving its report, declared him to be deposed from his see.97 He fled from this meeting to Constantinople, where he managed to persuade Constantine that he was being treated
92 Barnes (1993) 10 (suggesting a date of 299 for his birth); Gwynn (2012) 1 (suggesting a birthdate sometime in the 290s). For introductions to Athanasius' life and works in English, see more generally Barnes (1993); Gwynn (2012) esp. 1–17.
93 For a similar view, see Louth (2004) 275, suggesting that Athanasius may not have progressed as far as undertaking formal study with a rhetor. Barnes (1993) 11–12, 126 and Gwynn (2012) 3–4 both argue that Athanasius does not show the same knowledge of rhetoric and 'classical' literature as some more highly educated bishops of the period. In contrast,
Stead (1976) sees more influence of traditional education in his works.
94 Barnes (1993) 14, 18–20; Martin (1996) 321–9; Gwynn (2012) 5–6.
95 On these Egyptian rigorists, see n. 16 above.
96 One these alleged events and the ensuing controversies, including the Council of Tyre in 335, see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 59–89 (which includes various relevant documents); Barnes
(1993) 20–33; Martin (1996) 348–57. They are also alluded to at Hist. Ar. 3.2.
97 On this council, see Barnes (1993) 22–3; Martin (1996) 357–87.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
unfairly, as is evident from the letter that Constantine dispatched to the bishops at Tyre.98 During the ensuing discussions, however, an argument arose between emperor and bishop, which Athanasius later attributed to a false accusation that he had threatened to withhold the grain supply from Alexandria to Constantinople.99 Constantine therefore exiled him to Gaul.100
The death of the emperor in 337 was followed by an amnesty for exiled bishops, issued by his three sons, who now shared the empire between them. Athanasius preserves the text of the letter from Constantine II to the city of Alexandria allowing him to return to his see.101 His stay in the city was, however, to be short-lived, as attempts were soon made to remove him again.102 At a council held in Antioch in 338/9 he was once against condemned for his behaviour towards Ischyras, as well as being accused of inciting violence after he had returned to Alexandria in 337, and was replaced as bishop by a man called Gregory, often referred to as 'the Cappadocian'.103 In the spring of 339 Gregory arrived in the city with the help of the prefect of Egypt, Philagrius, as well as armed supporters, leading to Athanasius' departure into exile in the West for the second time.104 He travelled to Rome, where he gained the support of Bishop
Julius, who wrote to eastern bishops requesting that they come to a council 98 For the text of this letter, see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 86.2–12. It is worth noting, however, that, although Constantine's support for Athanasius would mean that the decision of council could not be enforced, as is noted at Barnes (1993), 24, the condemnation at Tyre was never formally rescinded, which proved useful to his enemies in later years: see, for example, the remarks in the letter of the 'eastern' bishops from Serdica in 343, preserved at Hilary, Adu.
Val. et Ursac. A.IV.1.7–8.
99 Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 9. The letter from the 'eastern' bishops at Serdica in 343 simply states that Athanasius was questioned by Constantine, who recognised the bishop's crimes and so sent him into exile: see Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.IV.1.7.
100 In Hist. Ar. 50.2 Athanasius presents a more positive version of these events, with the emperor protecting Athanasius from his enemies through this action, as does the letter of Constantine II preserved at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 87.4–7.
101 Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 87.4–7. See also Hist. Ar. 8.
102 Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 3–19 contains a letter from a council held at Alexandria in 338 to defend Athanasius against the charges made against him.
103 Barnes (1993) 45–6. Gregory, who died in 345 before Athanasius' return from his second exile, is not to be confused with George 'the Cappadocian', who was another rival bishop of Alexandria later in Athanasius' episcopacy: on George, see n. 51 above and p. 24 below.
104 A very colourful account of these events is given by Athanasius in his Epistula
Encyclica (Encyclical Epistle), as well as being discussed briefly at Hist. Ar. 9–10. On Philagrius, see n. 30 to Ath. Hist. Ar. 7.5 on p. 45 below. On the Epistula Encyclica, see
Barnes (1993) 47–50; Gwynn (2007) 51–7; Flower (2013) 118–20, 196–7.
INTRODUCTION
at Rome.105 Julius' envoys attended the 'Dedication Council' of Antioch in 341, but were rebuffed.106 Julius nonetheless held his own council and wrote a letter to complain to the bishops who had refused to attend.107
As described above, the emperor Constans now became involved in the ongoing ecclesiastical discord, leading first to the unsuccessful Council of Serdica in 343 and then to Constantius II consenting to Athanasius's return to Alexandria.108 Although this was agreed in 345, Athanasius did not arrive home until the autumn of 346, and he was keen to trumpet the fact that Constantius had written to him three times requesting that he do so.109 His account of his own arrival back into the city of Alexandria is filled with self-praise and depicts the popular celebrations as extraordinary, evoking panegyrical accounts of the imperial ceremony of aduentus, in which the emperor entered a city in a vast procession.110
Athanasius was to remain in possession of his see for the next decade, but this period was far from free of dispute and controversy.111 He was already facing challenges to his position before the death of his erstwhile champion Constans in 350 destabilised the situation further.112 Athanasius was now placed in a precarious position, especially as he was accused of having been in contact with the western usurper Magnentius, and he was condemned at the Council of Sirmium in 351.113 After Constantius
105 See Barnes (1993) 50–52 for the suggestion that Athanasius also sought the help of the emperors Constans and Constantine II at this time. On Athanasius' time in the West, see also
Martin (1996) 410–19.
106 Ath. Hist. Ar. 11.
107 Ath. Hist. Ar. 15.1. See Apol. c. Ar. 20–35 for the text of this letter. For a survey of the events of this period, including Julius' involvement, see Barnes (1993) 56–62.
108 See Ath. Apol. Const. 2–5 for Athanasius' later rejection of the charge that he turned
Constans against his brother Constantius.
109 Barnes (1993) 90–92; Martin (1996) 442–7. For these letters and other relevant documents, see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 51–6, as well as Athanasius' account of these events in Hist.
Ar. 21–4.
110 Ath. Hist. Ar. 25. For discussion of this passage and its relationship to aduentus, as well as the reuse of this image in Gregory of Nazianzus' speech celebrating the life of Athanasius, see Flower (2013) 121–3.
111 See Barnes (1993) 94–120 for a succinct account of these years.
112 Barnes (1993) 99 suggests that Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos (Defence against the Arians) was compiled into its current form to defend him against charges at a council in Antioch in 349. Gwynn (2007) 16–19 does not agree with this conclusion, but dates the work to around the same time.
113 For Athanasius' defence against this charge, see Apol. Const. 6–13. The events of the years preceding Athanasius' expulsion from Alexandria in 356 are also covered in Hist. Ar.
28–47.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
became sole Augustus of the Roman world in 353 and then set about trying to create ecclesiastical agreement through the councils at Arles and Milan he finally attempted to remove Athanasius from Alexandria, firstly in 355 and then again in early 356.114 On the latter occasion the military commander Syrianus led an assault on a church in the early hours of 9 February, which caused Athanasius to flee the city and start what is usually referred to as his third exile.115 This was followed by other acts of violence against those who sided with Athanasius, but, despite these actions, the man appointed to replace him, George 'the Cappadocian', was never able to take possession of his see for any sustained period of time.116 Athanasius' sojourn away from his see lasted until 362, and the bishop spent this period in hiding in various places around Egypt. He finally returned openly to Alexandria under the amnesty proclaimed by the pagan emperor Julian, a few months after George had been killed by an angry mob shortly after the people of the city learned the news of Constantius' death.117 He was, however, soon exiled again by Julian, only to return after the emperor had met his end on campaign in Persia in 363.
He was then to suffer his fifth and final period of exile – or, rather, of concealing himself from the imperial authorities – under the 'Homoian' emperor Valens during a short time in 365–6, before enjoying a period of relative peace until his death in 373 after almost half a century as bishop of Alexandria.118
For much of our knowledge of the events of this period, and particularly of Athanasius' involvement in them, we are heavily reliant on the bishop's own writings, with the Historia Arianorum, or History of the Arians, playing an important part, especially for reconstructing the ecclesiastical history of the 350s. It was probably written relatively early during his third exile and consists mostly of a polemical and tendentious account of events from the last years of the reign of Constantine I to the time of 114 See Ath. Apol. Const. 19–24, including the bishop's attempt to explain why he had not responded to an earlier imperial letter instructing him to go to Italy.
115 Hist. Ar. 48.2–3 (narrative), 81 (description of these events in a petition by Athanasius' supporters). See also Apol. Const. 25–7; Hilary, In Const. 11; Lucifer, Moriundum 2, 8;
Barnes (1993) 118–19; Martin (1996) 474–8. Athanasius presented a defence of his actions in his De fuga.
116 For this ongoing violence, see Hist. Ar. 48–63, as well as Apol. Const. 28. For the repeated attempts to secure George's position, see Barnes (1993) 119. On George and his designation as 'the Cappadocian', see n. 51 above.
117 Barnes (1993) 155.
118 Barnes (1993) 162–4; Martin (1996) 590–96; Gwynn (2012) 16–17.
INTRODUCTION
composition.119 The greatest part of this narrative concerns events since the death of Constans in 350, with particular emphasis on the Councils of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355, the confrontations between Constantius and the bishops Liberius of Rome and Ossius of Cordoba, and also the violence in Alexandria and Egypt that surrounded Athanasius' expulsion from the city in early 356. Compared with other more guarded or deferential works, such as the Apologia ad Constantium (Defence to Constantius), it is notable for the force of the invective directed against Constantius himself, particularly in its later chapters, where he is said to resemble Saul, Ahab and Pilate, and to be preparing the way for the coming of the Antichrist, or even to be the Antichrist himself.120 Athanasius also consistently refers to his ecclesiastical opponents as 'the Arians' or 'the Eusebians' (after the presbyter
Arius and the bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, respectively) and presents them as being like wild animals, especially snakes, or as worse than earlier enemies of Christianity, especially Jews.121 His polemical language also involves other little quips and puns designed to undermine the positions of his enemies, including accusing some of the hostile 'bishops' of actually being imperial 'spies' by making use of the similarity between the Greek words ἐπίσκοπος ('bishop') and κατάσκοπος ('spy').122 It is uncertain exactly what audience it was written for, although it has often been believed that it was circulated among pro-Athanasian monks. This assumption is, however, largely based on the fact that it is preceded in manuscripts by the Epistula ad monachos (Letter to the Monks), which mentions an associated text that the recipients are instructed not to share with others.123
There is now widespread agreement that the History of the Arians is not the work referred to in this letter, meaning that there is no definitive evidence for its intended audience or the means and breadth of its distribution.124
Timothy Barnes argues that the text 'was addressed, if indeed it had a definite audience, to monks sympathetic to the author', but David Gwynn does not agree with this suggestion, proposing instead that it had 'a wider
119 For the suggested dating of the work to late 357, see Barnes (1993) 126; Gwynn (2012)
13 and n. 19 to Hist. Ar. 4.2 on p. 42 below.
120 See Hist. Ar. 67–80.
121 See, for example, Hist. Ar. 45.3, 61.4 and 66.1–5.
122 Hist. Ar. 3.4, 48.3, 75.3.
123 There is also a comment at the end of the text in the manuscript tradition of the Historia
Arianorum that claims that it was addressed 'to the monks everywhere': see Hist. Ar. 80.4.
124 See the first note to the edition of the Epistula ad monachos at Opitz (1935–41) 181, as well as Barnes (1993) 278 n. 23 and Gwynn (2007) 41.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
but still Egyptian audience'.125 Whatever the immediate readership was, it is clear that this was an inflammatory text designed to persuade anyone who encountered it that Constantius was a heretical persecutor. It would therefore be sensible to assume that it came into the possession of a larger number of people only once Constantius was safely dead.
Hilary of Poitiers and the In Constantium Compared with the large amount of information surviving about the life and episcopate of Athanasius, relatively little is known about the pre-exile activities of Hilary, with even the date of his election as bishop of the Gallic city of Poitiers being uncertain.126 From the style of his work he is generally believed by modern scholars to have had a reasonable level of literary and rhetorical education.127 Along with bishop Rhodanius of Toulouse he was exiled at, or soon after, a council held in the Gallic city of Béziers (Bitterae), probably in 356.128 At In Constantium 2 Hilary claims that he had suggested that a hearing be held to expose the heresy of certain 'false apostles', but that they had refused to listen to him and so he had been in exile ever since.
Similarly, in his more deferential letter to Constantius, known as the Ad Constantium (Address to Constantius), which was probably written shortly before the In Constantium, he argued that, despite being an exile, he was still 'a bishop in communion with all the churches and bishops of the Gauls' and that he had been exiled 'not by an accusation, but by a faction and false messages from the synod to you, pious emperor'.129 Hilary was keen to claim that he remained bishop of Poitiers and had not been formally condemned and deposed from his see, although it is unclear whether this was the case. Certainly, the causes and circumstances of his exile have been the subject of much debate, with the main issue of contention being whether
Hilary was condemned for theological reasons, such as standing up for the Nicene Creed and refusing to accept an alternative statement of faith,
125 Barnes (1993) 126; Gwynn (2007) 41.
126 For a good, brief introduction to Hilary's life and the ancient references to him, see
PCBE IV.1 989–997 (Hilarius 1).
127 See Borchardt (1966) 6–8; Wickham (1997) xii; Rocher (1987) 9–10.
128 Hilary, In Const. 2, 11; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.39. Wickham (1997) 18 also sees a reference to these events at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.I.5 by accepting the proposed emendation of the text from in terris to Bitteris. On this suggestion, see Smulders (1995)
89–91. See also Jerome, De uiris illustr. 100.1. On the relatively minor figure of Rhodanius, see PCBE IV.2 (1610) (Rhodanius 1).
129 Hilary, Ad Const. 2. On this text, see n. 133 below.
INTRODUCTION
or because of political motives, possibly related to the usurpation of the military commander Silvanus in Gaul in 355.130 As well as being opposed to Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa, as Athanasius was, he also singles out Saturninus of Arles for criticism in his work, and it may be that his disagreement with this bishop contributed to his being sent into exile.131
As has already been seen, Hilary stated that he had not been formally deposed as a bishop and it is clear that he enjoyed relative freedom of movement and even the opportunity to attend ecclesiastical councils during his time in exile. He went to Phrygia and seems to have become more involved in the theological debates of the time, since he then wrote his De synodis (On the Councils) to some of his western colleagues to attack the 'Blasphemy of Sirmium' and to argue that the term homoiousios could be acceptable to those who defended the Nicene concept of homoousios.
He also attended the Council of Seleucia in 359, which he describes in vivid terms at In Constantium 12–15, and travelled on from there to Constantinople.132 Early in 360 he composed his Ad Constantium, which 130 The various questions concerning the root cause of Hilary's exile are raised at Wickham
(1997) xiii and there is a good survey of the debate at Beckwith (2005) 21–4. Beckwith's own view in this article is that, while Hilary did exaggerate his experiences at Béziers to some extent, his account can largely be accepted. Other 'conservative' descriptions of Hilary's life up to and including his exile can be found at Borchardt (1966) 1–39, 165–77; Doignon
(1971); Hanson (1988) 459–64. The suggestion of mostly 'political' motives is favoured by Brennecke (1984) 223–43 and Williams (1991), although the two scholars disagree on certain points. Barnes (1992) and Burns (1994) see theological matters as of primary importance in this matter. Smulders (1995) 126–31 argues that the main accusation concerned Hilary's refusal to be in communion with Saturninus and others and that he was not condemned at the council, but was instead exiled by Constantius after a report of the proceedings was sent to him by Julian. See also Barry (2016), which does look at this issue (at 159–60), but moves away from attempts to reconstruct the precise cause of Hilary's exile and focuses instead on his literary construction of it.
131 Hilary states at In Const. 2 that he, 'together with the Gallic bishops', withdrew from communion with Ursacius, Valens and Saturninus after the condemnations at the Councils of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355, and then places this action at the head of a chain of events that led to Béziers and his own exile. These three bishops are also mentioned together by Hilary at Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.5.3, while the letter of the synod held in Paris after Hilary's return from exile also mentions Saturninus' excommunication: see Hilary, Adu. Val. et
Ursac. A.I.4.4. Saturninus is similarly singled out for criticism by Hilary at De synodis 3.
On the career of this bishop, see PCBE IV.2 1714–16 (Saturninus 1).
132 See Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.42, 2.45.2, where it is stated, amongst other things, that imperial officials enforced Hilary's attendance at the council. As Barnes (1993) 287 n. 48 rightly remarks, Sulpicius clearly exaggerates the level of involvement that Hilary had in the discussions at Seleucia.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
praises the emperor Constantius, but he was frustrated in his attempts to gain an imperial audience.133 In this work he describes the emperor in the panegyrical terms that were common to imperial rhetoric, including calling him 'most pious emperor' and 'best and most religious emperor', although he was soon to invert these virtues to create expressions of Constantius' extreme vice for his In Constantium.134 At some point Hilary then returned home under circumstances that are far from clear, especially as Sulpicius Severus' claim that Constantius now sent him back to Gaul to stop him disrupting the East seems, once again, to exaggerate the bishop's importance in the theological and ecclesiastical controversies of the day.135
Moreover, in another of his works Sulpicius offers another explanation for Hilary's return, this time attributing it to Constantius' repentance.136
Neither explanation is satisfactory. It seems likely that he either gained permission from the emperor to return to Gaul or was simply able to do so without Constantius' consent.137 A brief mention in a text known as the 133 Barnes (1993) 287 n. 50 argues convincingly for dating this text to 360, since at 5.2 it refers to the 'Dated Creed' of 359 as 'the creed of last year' (proximi anni fides). Since
Hilary also refers to Julian as Constantius' caesar at 2.1, the news of his usurpation at Paris in February 360 cannot have reached Constantinople at the time of composition. An English translation can be found at Wickham (1997) 104–9. This text is also sometimes referred to as the Liber II Ad Constantium in order to distinguish it from the so-called Liber I Ad
Constantium. The latter is not an address by Hilary, but rather the text of a letter to Constantius from the 'western' delegation at Serdica in 343, followed by some later commentary by Hilary and remarks on the Council of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355. Discussion of these passages can be found at Wickham (1997) xxiii–xxiv, 6, with a translation at 65–9.
134 Hilary, Ad Const. 1.1, 4.1. On the laudatory forms of address to Constantius in this text, as well as similar terms in Athanasius' Apologia ad Constantium, see Flower (2013)
99–102. The same sort of deferential rhetoric also appears in Eusebius of Vercelli's letter to Constantius concerning the Council of Milan in 355, with the emperor referred to as 'most merciful' and 'most glorious' – Eus. Verc. Ep. 1. For a translation of this text with introduction, see Flower (2013) 242. On Hilary's presentation of his relationship with Constantius in both the Ad Constantium and the In Constantium, see also Barry (2016).
135 Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.45.2. As discussed above, Sulpicius Severus both accepted and inflated Hilary's own self-presentation as a key figure in the battle against the 'Arian heresy'. On the issue of his return from exile, see Duval (1970) esp. 253–66;
Brennecke (1984) 352–61; Williams (1992) 10–12; Barnes (1993) 150–51; Pelland (1997)
249–50; Wickham (1997) xiv; Barry (2016) 160.
136 Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini 6.7. The two different versions put forward by Sulpicius are discussed at Duval (1970) 261–6.
137 Modern views are split on this subject: see, for example, Hanson (1988) 464 favouring the former explanation and Barnes (1993) 153 opting for the latter. If he did receive imperial permission for his return, Sulpicius' different versions could have been attempts to ensure that Hilary retained his image as a fearless opponent of orthodoxy, just as Athanasius put a
INTRODUCTION
Altercatio Heracliani cum Germinio (The Dispute between Heraclianus and Germinius) suggests that Hilary made his way through Sirmium on his westward journey, but he was soon back in Gaul, which had now passed out of Constantius' control after the usurpation of Julian.138 He attended a council held in Paris in 360 or 361 and a letter from this synod, preserved by Hilary himself, mentions him repeatedly as the bearer of information and greetings from the East.139 Among the bishops excommunicated by this gathering are not only the usual suspects Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa but also Auxentius of Milan, who was to become another target for Hilary later in the 360s, as has been described above.140 He also probably brought his Aduersus Valentem et Ursacius (Against Valens and Ursacius), which is now fragmentary but nonetheless preserves many useful documents, into its final form shortly before his death in 367/8.141
The In Constantium, or Against Constantius, can be dated to the very end of Hilary's exile or shortly thereafter. Perhaps because of the highly polemical tone of the work, Jerome claimed that it was not written until after Constantius' death, but this suggestion has been largely rejected by modern scholars.142 In chapter 2 Hilary states that he and the bishops of Gaul withdrew from communion with Saturninus, Ursacius and Valens quinto abhinc anno, after the exile of Paulinus, Eusebius, Lucifer and Dionysius.143
Since these bishops were condemned at the Councils of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355, this suggests that the work was composed in 359 or 360.144 positive spin on his exile under Constantine at Hist. Ar. 50.2. It should not be assumed that Hilary's dramatic switch from effusive panegyric in the Ad Constantium to fierce invective in the In Constantium was the result of disappointment in his attempt to gain an audience with the emperor. Rather than treating one text or the other (or both) as representing Hilary's
'sincere' views, these works should be seen as examples of the malleability of imperial rhetoric, which could be directed to different audiences for different purposes.
138 Altercatio Heracliani 345 (Hamman).
139 Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.I. On this council, see Barnes (1993) 153–4.
140 Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.I.4.2. On Hilary's unsuccessful attempt to unseat
Auxentius, see p. 18 above.
141 Wickham (1997) xxvi. His Against Ursacius and Valens was a polemical account of ecclesiastical affairs that presented the Church as under threat from 'Arian' heretics, chief amongst whom were Valens of Mursa and Ursacius of Singidunum. The surviving fragments cover the period from 343 to 366: see Smulders (1995); Wickham (1997) xxii–xxvi.
142 Jerome, De uiris illustr. 100.3. Wickham (1997) ix is unusual in accepting this dating.
143 I have translated this phrase as 'more than four years ago'. Rocher (1987) 171 renders it as 'plus de quatre ans que'.
144 Hilary could be giving a rounded figure here, but it nonetheless suggests an approximate date which can then be compared with the other evidence.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
The text also contains a reference to the capitulation of the delegation of bishops who had come to Constantius from the Council of Seleucia.145 As this event took place on the last day of 359, it seems reasonable to date the work to 360. André Rocher, in the introduction to his edition and French translation of the text, suggested a two-stage process of composition, with the first version being distributed to bishops in Gaul after Hilary's return, but before the death of Constantius, but the revised version being completed only after Constantius had died in 361.146 This seems, however, to be unnecessarily convoluted in its attempt to incorporate the testimony of Jerome, and Timothy Barnes has presented an excellent argument for dating the whole work to 360.147
The In Constantium provides a tendentious account of the religious policies of Constantius in the final part of Hilary's exile in the East.
It opens with a defence of Hilary's policy of remaining quiet about Constantius' impious and persecuting behaviour up to this point, but this is combined with a justification for his decision to speak out finally, all supported with biblical quotations and allusions. The first six chapters address the anonymous readers, but from chapter 7 onwards Hilary speaks to the emperor himself in the second person, employing a range of abusive terms and accusations, including calling him a persecutor, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the son of the Devil and the Antichrist, as well as criticising his repeated involvement in the drafting of theological statements. Apart from the brief interlude on the Council of Seleucia and its aftermath in chapters
12–15, this direct address to the emperor is maintained for the rest of the work, thereby giving it the rhetorical form of an invective, even though it will never have been delivered to Constantius himself. After the opening criticism of the emperor, chapters 12–22 feature a detailed discussion of some of the theological issues involved in the discussions at Seleucia in 359 and Constantinople in 360, with Hilary analysing a number of biblical passages in order to criticise the 'Homoian' concept of 'likeness'
(here rendered into Latin using the term similitudo). Towards the end of the work he also accuses Constantius of inconstancy, since the emperor repeatedly changes his mind about the definition of orthodoxy, as well as forcing bishops to condemn their earlier statements of faith. Hilary then concludes by stating that Constantius should be regarded as a rebel against 145 In Const. 15.
146 Rocher (1987) 29–38.
147 Barnes (1988) 610. Brennecke (1984) 361 supports this dating and also suggests that Hilary wrote the work after he had arrived back in Gaul.
INTRODUCTION
his father, Constantine I, because he has chosen to reject the creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The immediate audience for the work is uncertain, but it is likely to have been primarily intended for Christians who were sympathetic to Hilary's cause, particularly those in other parts of the West.148
Lucifer of Cagliari and the Moriundum esse pro dei filio The final author translated in this volume, Lucifer, bishop of the Sardinian metropolitan see of Cagliari, first appears in the historical record in the middle of the 350s.149 There is little information about his early life and education, although his writings display some knowledge of classical literature, including echoes of Virgil and Cicero, who were standard authors in the late-antique Latin schoolroom.150 Lucifer, along with a presbyter named Pancratius and a deacon called Hilarius, acted as a delegation to Constantius from Liberius of Rome after the Council of Arles in 353/4.151 They then proceeded to participate in the Council of Milan in 355 and wrote an extant letter to Eusebius of Vercelli, encouraging him to attend.152 As discussed earlier, Lucifer refused to agree to the decisions of the council and was exiled, along with his associates Pancratius and Hilary and the bishops Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Milan.153
148 Rocher (1987) 41–2 suggests an audience of Gallic bishops. Despite the issues with Rocher's reconstruction of the process of composition, his hypothesis here remains reasonable, although Hilary could also have been addressing some people outside Gaul, as he did in the preface to his De synodis.
149 For a brief survey of Lucifer's life and the ancient evidence, see PCBE II.2 1324–8
(Lucifer 1). A collection of ancient testimonia to the life of Lucifer is also provided at Ugenti
(1980) xvii–xxxv.
150 Laconi (2004) 119 makes the plausible suggestion that Lucifer had some degree of literary education. His quotations from, and allusions to, other authors are tabulated at Diercks (1978) 363–4 and Laconi (1998) 437–8.
151 The letter concerning their role is preserved at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.VII. See also Jerome, De uiris illustr. 95.1. The evidence for Lucifer's life, up to the Council of Milan, is surveyed at Diercks (1978) vii–x. On Lucifer's two companions in the delegation, see
PCBE II.2 1581–2 (Pancratius 1); PCBE II.1 985–6 (Hilarius 1).
152 The text of this letter can be found at Diercks (1978) 319 and is translated in Flower
(2013) 240–41.
153 The narrative of events presented by Athanasius at Hist. Ar. 41.1 gives the impression that the exile of the presbyter and deacon occurred shortly after that of the bishops. A letter from Liberius to Eusebius, Dionysius and Lucifer, probably sent soon after these events took place, is preserved by Hilary at Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.VII.1–2. On Lucifer at the Council
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
His case was obviously quite well known, since, unlike Hilary, he came to the attention of Athanasius, who mentions him several times.154 He was sent to the eastern part of the empire, first to Germanicia, a city to the north of Antioch and the see of Eudoxius, then to Palestine and finally to the Thebaid in Egypt.155 After the death of Constantius, Lucifer, like
Athanasius, was able to leave his exile through the amnesty issued by the emperor Julian.156 While his fellow exile Eusebius of Vercelli joined
Athanasius at a council in Alexandria, Lucifer travelled to Antioch, where he intervened in the existing dispute among the city's Christians in a manner that was not necessarily particularly helpful: although there were already two rival bishops – Euzious and Meletius – Lucifer exacerbated the situation by consecrating a pro-Nicene character called Paulinus as bishop, thereby creating a three-way contest for the episcopal see.157 After this he returned to the West and died in Sardinia in around 370 or 371. A group of rigorist Nicene Christians known as Luciferians sprang up as his followers and were criticised by Jerome in his Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi
(Dispute between a Luciferian and an Orthodox Person).158
A number of polemical works by Lucifer are extant. All appear to have been composed during the bishop's exile and it is widely believed that the Moriundum esse pro dei filio, or The Necessity of Dying for of Milan, as well as the references given above, see also Diercks (1978) x–xiii; Brennecke
(1984) 164–95, esp. 182–92; Hanson (1988) 332–4; Corti (2004) 63–85; Laconi (2004) 38–9.
As is mentioned in n. 49 above, there is no evidence of a replacement for Lucifer being appointed to the see of Cagliari at this time, but that does not mean that he was not formally deposed from this office by the council.
154 Lucifer appears, always discussed alongside Paulinus of Trier, Dionysius of Milan and Eusebius of Vercelli, at Hist. Ar. 33.6, 41.1, 46.3, 76.3. Hilary also mentions the four bishops together at In Const. 2.
155 The evidence for Lucifer's exile, including the succession of places that he was sent to, is discussed clearly at Diercks (1978) xiii–xviii. See also Meloni (2001); Corti (2004) 136–47.
On Eudoxius, who was successively the bishop of Germanicia, Antioch and Constantinople, see pp. 14, 17–18 above.
156 Ammianus Marcellinus attributed Julian's policy for exiled bishops to the emperor's view that most Christians were worse than wild beasts in their ferocity towards each other, meaning that his amnesty would sow factional dissent among them: see Amm. 22.5.4. It is not clear whether this represents Julian's actual intention or merely Ammianus' reconstruction of it, but Lucifer's rhetoric and behaviour might be seen as an extreme example of this intraChristian hostility.
157 Hanson (1988) 509; Barnes (1993) 155–6.
158 On the later years of Lucifer's life and the subsequent schism, see Diercks (1978) xxvii–xxxiv. The Luciferians also feature at Augustine, De haeresibus 81.
INTRODUCTION
the Son of God, was the last of his major works to be written.159 In chapter 11 Lucifer mentions the establishment of Eudoxius as bishop of Constantinople, which means that the work must postdate the council held in that city in January 360, and so it is likely to have been composed very close to the time that Hilary was writing the In Constantium. Lucifer's prose style is quite opaque, with very long sentences and convoluted word order and syntax combined with some rhetorical flourishes, including a fondness for asyndeton.160 The overriding theme of the text is Lucifer's own presentation of his 'persecution' by Constantius and his profession of his willingness to undergo martyrdom for the sake of his Nicene faith. As Hilary does in his own diatribe, Lucifer addresses the emperor directly in the second person throughout the work. There is less 'serious' historical and theological discussion in the Moriundum compared with the polemics of Athanasius and Hilary, but the work is impressive for the sustained and vitriolic nature of the invective hurled at Constantius, particularly in the characterisation of him throughout the text as a violent persecutor.161
Amongst other things, the emperor is described as the precursor to the Antichrist, an imitator of Judas, a 'worm of Arius' and resembling an ulcer, as well as being an inhuman monster, a rabid dog, a devourer of innocents and 'an egregious idiot'.162 Lucifer also makes sarcastic references to Constantius' supposed imperial virtues, such as prudence and piety, in order to demonstrate their absence, as well as inverting the forms of praise found in panegyrics by addressing him as the possessor of superlative vices, using phrases such as 'most brutal emperor', 'most cruel', 'most ignorant' or 'most unjust'.163 The emperor's current power and happiness is repeatedly described as temporary and insignificant,
159 On Lucifer's writings and their chronology, see Diercks (1978) xviii–xxv.
160 I have tried to retain these characteristics in the translation as far as is possible, but have, through necessity, broken up some sentences and rearranged their structure. Modern editions do not provide any paragraph breaks in the text beyond dividing it into fifteen chapters, but I have split these up into paragraphs to make it easier to read.
161 There is, however, some mention of recent events, including the violence in Alexandria, as well as criticism of 'Arians' for denying that Christ is the 'true Son' of the Father and co-eternal with him.
162 Precursor of the Antichrist: 1.30; imitator of Judas: 2.12, 11.71–2; worm of Arius:
4.31; ulcer: 2.33, 11.1–2; inhuman monster: 5.31–2, 6.16, 9.6; rabid dog: 12.76; devourer of innocents: 6.52; egregious idiot: 6.5.
163 Prudence: 4.13, 7.7; piety: 4.59; most brutal emperor: 2.40; most cruel emperor: 3.22; most ignorant emperor: 4.41 (as well as a similar phrase at 14.1); most unjust persecutor:
14.27.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
as are the sufferings of the orthodox, and these are contrasted with the eternal joys that await the blessed in heaven and the eternal punishments that will come to Constantius and the other 'Arians'.
Like Lucifer's other works, the Moriundum makes extensive use of quotations from the Bible, although it contains a smaller percentage of scriptural texts than the bishop's other treatises.164 What is more notable, however, is that Lucifer also incorporated a large number of sentences and phrases from works by, or attributed to, the third-century bishop and martyr Cyprian of Carthage and the early fourth-century Christian rhetorician Lactantius into his text, as well as quoting the same biblical passages that were used by these authors to support their arguments.165
The writings that he uses here are mostly concerned with the persecution of Christians by secular authorities, especially pagan Roman emperors, and so are well suited to Lucifer's main argument in this text.166 These largely appear in the same order as they do in the source texts, implying that he was reading the books as he wrote, but he never acknowledges his sources, although he does adapt the grammar of the material to fit his context, such as by changing a third-person reference to a persecutor into 164 On Lucifer's engagement with the Bible, see Piras (2001). His quotations from Scripture across his works are tabulated at Diercks (1978) 331–62, while a list for the Moriundum is provided at Laconi (1998) 435–6.
165 These quotations appear in the indices of sources given by Diercks (1978) 363–4 and Laconi (1998) 437–8, as well as being tabulated by Merk (1912) 22–4, 26–32; Ferreres (1977)
110–15, Ugenti (1980) 155–6 and Laconi (1998) 437–8. There are variations between the different scholars' lists, and also between theirs and my own. As well as a few scattered allusions to other texts, there are also five passages that probably draw on a brief section of the Tractatus Origenis attributed to Lucifer's contemporary, Gregory, bishop of Elvira in Spain, although there is also the (less likely) possibility that the textual influence may have run in the opposite direction. The relevant section of the Tractatus Origenis comes at the end of the discussion of the Book of Daniel and is, like the other texts used by Lucifer, concerned with the celebration of martyrdom. At Tractatus Origenis 18.22, there is also the statement pro deo, pro sacris legibus moriendum est ('it is necessary to die for God, for the sacred laws'), which bears some resemblance to the title of Lucifer's work.
166 I have provided references and translations for the relevant passages in footnotes at the appropriate points, as well as giving extra information about their original context where necessary. A full list is provided as an index on pp. 224–5. The majority of the passages are drawn from three sources: book 5 and the start of book 6 of Lactantius' Divine Institutes, which are mostly concerned with justice, piety and the character of true religious behaviour;
Cyprian's Ep. 6, 10, 55 and 58, all of which are addressed to confessors and martyrs or discuss their experiences; and the pseudo-Cyprianic De laude martyrii, which, as its name suggests, praises Christian martyrdom in the face of imperial persecution and presents it as a sure and certain means of attaining eternal life in heaven.
INTRODUCTION
a second-person jibe at Constantius.167 Lucifer's work also differs from those of Hilary and Athanasius because of the suggestion that the intended audience for this libellous libellus may have been the emperor himself.
Jerome claims that the bishop sent polemical writings to the emperor and there is also extant a pair of letters that purport to be between Lucifer and the magister officiorum Florentius, in which the former assures that the latter that he is the author of the works transmitted to the emperor under his name.168 Assuming that these letters are genuine and do indeed refer to Lucifer's more inflammatory works, including the Moriundum, it nonetheless seems unlikely that Florentius or any other imperial official deigned to pass them on to Constantius himself. Certainly, Lucifer did not suffer any further harsh punishment from the emperor or receive the martyr's death that he looked forward to with such great enthusiasm throughout this work. It would be sensible to assume that, like Hilary, who also used second-person forms of address extensively, Lucifer's works were circulated to an audience that extended beyond Constantius, if it included him at all.169
Invective, imperial criticism and self-presentation As has already been mentioned, these texts are united not only by their theological opposition to Constantius II but also by their polemical tone and the personal invective that they direct towards the emperor.170 The Historia
Arianorum and In Constantium have, therefore, tended to be studied less than other works by Athanasius and Hilary, while Lucifer, whose writings are all pervaded by fierce criticism of his opponents, has received relatively little attention at all. Modern scholarship is, in fact, littered with remarks about these texts that range from the embarrassed to the highly critical or 167 On this phenomenon within the Moriundum and its significance, see Flower (2013)
115–17, 163–76.
168 Jerome, De uiris illustr. 95.2. The exchange of letters can be found at Diercks (1978)
305.
169 Laconi (2002) 227 and (2004) 119–20 accepts the idea that Constantius was the main intended audience for Lucifer's writings.
170 For a more in-depth discussion of the themes and rhetorical tropes of these texts, see Flower (2013) esp. 78–177. Individual examples of all of the points discussed here are highlighted in the notes throughout the translations of the three texts below.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
even the outright polemical.171 Nonetheless, like panegyrics, which used to be dismissed in equally violent terms, these invectives have begun to be taken more seriously and to be understood as engagements with the rhetorical and political culture of the time.172 Although there are idiosyncrasies in the arguments and rhetoric employed by the three authors, they all take the recognisable tropes of imperial panegyric and invert them to create an image of Constantius as a paradigmatic tyrant. He is therefore presented not as having come from a noble lineage, as he would have been in a speech of praise, but either as the heir to a persecuting genealogy or as standing in stark contrast to his relatives, Constantine I and Constans, who are transformed into paragons of piety.173 He is also depicted as lacking a number of stock virtues that are recognisable from contemporary panegyrics, including justice, manliness, wisdom and self-control, thereby making him out to be a textbook example of a villain. Just as panegyric created a portrait of an ideal emperor and proclaimed that the current ruler embodied it, so these invectives turned this concept on its head and thus presented Constantius as the epitome of vicious tyranny.
These texts do, however, also represent a departure from the contemporary political discourse of the time, which was still primarily rooted in the 'classical' literary tradition for its exempla of heroes and villains.
Instead of comparing Constantius and other 'Arians' to figures from 'pagan' mythology or Greek and Roman history, these authors chose examples from the Old and New Testaments, such as Ahab or Judas.174 When they did mention individuals from Roman history, including those such as Nero who were widely regarded as tyrants, these men were invoked not as exemplifying traditional vices, as they might have been in contemporary
171 A good example is the statement at Hanson (1988) 323 that Lucifer's writings consist of 'one continued shrill monotone of abuse'. For more discussion of such negative responses, particularly to Lucifer, see Flower (2013) 7–8, 85 n. 26.
172 For an eye-opening survey of scholarly attitudes to Roman panegyric since the early twentieth century, see Rees (2012) 15–16.
173 This is one area where a notable difference is visible in the treatment of Constantine
I by Lucifer and by the other two authors. While Athanasius and Hilary exalted him as a staunch defender of the Nicene cause who did not interfere autocratically in church affairs, thereby making Constantius an unworthy heir to him, Lucifer focused on Constantine's later years to present him as an impious supporter of 'Arians', which meant that his son could be seen as a chip off the heretical block. On this issue, see n. 86 to Lucifer, Moriundum 5 at p. 158 below, as well as Humphries (1997) and Flower (2013) 90–94.
174 Ahab: Ath. Hist. Ar. 45.5, 53.3, 68.1. Judas: Ath. Hist. Ar. 64.3; Hilary, In Const. 10;
Lucifer, Moriundum 2.12, 11.71–2, 15.53.
INTRODUCTION
political discourse, but specifically as persecutors of Christians, placed alongside figures such as the third-century emperor Decius.175 Within these texts the classical heritage is replaced by, or sometimes subsumed within, a distinctively Christian conception of history that connects biblical time with the authors' own day, presenting contemporary circumstances as continuations or repetitions of situations and conflicts from a sanctified past. Unsurprisingly, the traditional imperial virtue of pietas is also promoted to a prime position in these texts' portraits of the ideal emperor, with an individual ruler's piety being assessed almost exclusively by the criterion of how he treats good, Nicene Christians, especially bishops such as our three authors.
While the negative characterisation of Constantius is a core theme of these works, they are also striking in their promotion of the authors as fearless champions in the fight against heresy and persecution. Writing an invective describing – or even addressed to – a living emperor was a highly unusual action, and these texts represent the earliest surviving examples from the Roman world. The very act of authoring such a work functioned as a proclamation of the writer's brave stand against the oppressive force of tyranny, thereby demonstrating that he possessed the vital characteristic of parrhesia ('freedom of speech') that was often prized in antiquity, especially amongst those who wished to be regarded as philosophers.176 For Athanasius, Hilary and Lucifer, this willingness to speak truth to power was also intrinsically linked to the confessors and martyrs who had opposed a number of persecuting Roman emperors during the preceding centuries, as well as being evident in earlier heroic figures who had objected to impious rulers in the narratives of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, for example,
Hilary compared himself to John the Baptist addressing Herod, presenting his own prohibitions to a ruler as paralleling this biblical episode.177 Much of the rhetoric of these texts centred on portraying Constantius' ecclesiastical policy as equivalent to, or even worse than, the earlier rounds of persecution of the Christians, with detailed claims being made about the violent punishments that had been inflicted on the faithful, or which were being planned by the anti-Christian emperor and his 'Arian' assistants such as Ursacius and Valens. The authors and their theological allies were
175 Nero: Hilary, In Const. 4, 7, 8, 11.
176 See, in particular, the numerous references to this quality that are noted in the translations below, especially in Athanasius' work, along with n. 128 to Hist. Ar. 34.1 at p. 67.
177 See In Const. 6.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
therefore cast as successors to the prophets, saints and martyrs who had opposed previous enemies of the true faith, since they too were willing to stand up for their beliefs, even if it meant that they suffered exile and, so they claimed, might even face death.178 By writing themselves into these recognisable narratives of good versus evil, of piety versus impiety, they therefore invited their audience to perceive contemporary events not as reified theological disputes between groups of Christians but as continuations of the fundamental conflict against the sacrilegious and the heretical that pervaded all of sacred history. Only by choosing to embrace the authors' own positions could their readers be sure of staying on the side of the angels.
Notes on the translations The translations in this volume use the texts as printed in the following critical editions, except for a small number of points of variation that are marked in the footnotes:
• Athanasius of Alexandria, Historia Arianorum: H. G. Opitz (ed.) (1935–41) Athanasius: Werke II.1, Berlin, 183–230.
• Hilary of Poitiers, In Constantium: A. Rocher (ed.) (1987) Hilaire de Poitiers:
Contre Constance, Sources chrétiennes 334, Paris.
• Lucifer of Cagliari, Moriundum esse pro dei filio: G. F. Diercks (ed.) (1978) Luciferi Calaritani opera quae supersunt, CCSL 8, 265–300. (References to this work are given according to the numbering of chapters and, where appropriate, lines in Diercks' edition. It has not been possible to incorporate these line numbers into the translation owing to the need to restructure many of Lucifer's long and complex sentences.)
Where possible, I have used the King James Version for quotations from the Bible, although sometimes this has been adapted for clarity or to reflect details of the biblical text as reproduced by the three authors. All biblical quotations in the texts appear in italics.
178 This expectation of martyrdom is undoubtedly strongest in Lucifer's writings, with the opening of Moriundum 14 being particularly striking in this regard.