Athanasius of Alexandria, History of the Arians

Athanasius of Alexandria, History of the Arians

Athanasius of Alexandria History of the Arians (Historia Arianorum) Athanasius of Alexandria 1.1 Not much later, these men carried out the schemes that they had devised.1 They laid their plans at once and immediately received the Arians into communion.2 They disregarded the many judgements against them and also falsely claimed imperial authority for those same men.3 In their writings, they were not ashamed to say 'Now that Athanasius has suffered punishment, envy has come to an end, so let us now receive the Arians', adding, to frighten their hearers, 'for the emperor has ordered it'.4 2 They also were not ashamed to add the claim that these men held correct beliefs, without fearing the words of Scripture: Woe unto them that call bitter sweet, that put darkness for light.5 For they are prepared to do anything for heresy.

For doesn't this make it clear to everyone that we suffered before, and are persecuted now, not by an ecclesiastical verdict, but by the emperor's threat,

1 The text opens with the events immediately after the Council of Tyre in 335, at which Athanasius had been condemned by his opponents, who are the men referred to here. It is generally assumed that the start of the text has been lost: see Opitz (1935–41) 183; Barnes

(1993) 126. However, Robertson (1892) 266 argued that the text is complete and is designed to pick up from the end of Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos, a view which finds approval in Gwynn (2007) 41 n. 96. On the events of the 'Arian controversy' leading up to this point, as well as those narrated in this text, see Introduction pp. 2–14.

2 On the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, treated as the founder of the 'Arian heresy', see Introduction p. 2. The term 'Arians' translates οἱ περὶ Ἄρειον, which could also be rendered as 'associates of Arius'. On Athanasius' polemical construction of both 'Arians' and 'Eusebians', referring to the associates of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, see Gwynn (2007).

3 Arius and his views had been condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Athanasius here seeks to distance the emperor Constantine from any possible accusation of having supported Arians.

4 The statements attributed to Athanasius' enemies in this text should not be taken as quotations, since they reflect Athanasius' own polemical view of events. See, for example, the comments attributed to 'the Eusebians' and 'the Arians' at 9.2–3, 15.5, 30.1–2, 42.2–3 and 45.3, and to Constantius at 33.7.

5 Isaiah 5.20.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

because of our piety towards Christ?6 For in fact they plotted against other bishops in the same way, inventing false allegations against them as well: some of them died in exile, with the pride of a confession for Christ, while others are still in exile even now, and are acting even more courageously against the heresy of those men and saying 'nothing will separate us from the love of Christ'.7

2.1 It is therefore possible to examine this heresy closely and, indeed, to condemn it: for any friend of these men and comrade in their impiety, even if he is liable to myriad accusations for other offences, even if there is the clearest evidence and proof against him, as soon as he gets their approval, through his impiety he immediately gets an introduction to the emperor and becomes his friend. This man is then granted many gifts and adopts the freedom to do whatever he wants before the judges.8

2 But if anyone who refutes their impiety and truly upholds the cause of Christ, even if he is completely innocent, even if he has nothing on his conscience and does not even have an accuser, those men invent false allegations against him and he is immediately seized and exiled by the emperor's judgement, as though he were guilty of whatever they wanted, or as though he insulted the king, like Naboth.9 3 An advocate of their heresy is then looked for and immediately sent into the church of the exiled man. Then there are confiscations of property, acts of violence and all sorts of terrible deeds against those who will not

6 On the language of persecution in this and the other texts in this volume, see

Introduction pp. 36–7. The reference to an ecclesiastical verdict here is an allusion to Athanasius' condemnation at the Council of Tyre in 335 and subsequent judgements made against him, which he did not regard as valid: see Introduction p. 21. 'Piety' in this context refers to Athanasius' view of his own orthodoxy, while 'impiety' is frequently used by him to refer to the 'heresy' of his opponents.

7 At the time of writing, probably in 357, Athanasius himself was in exile, as were a number of other bishops, including Paulinus of Trier, Lucifer of Cagliari, Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Milan, all of whom Athanasius mentions at 33.6 and 76.3 below.

Hilary of Poitiers was also in exile at this time, although Athanasius seems to have been unaware of him. On the circumstances of these bishops' exiles, see Introduction pp. 10–11.

8 'Freedom' here translates the term παρρησία, which Athanasius often treats as a positive quality possessed by those who speak out against tyranny, although here it is employed pejoratively. See n. 128 to chapter 34.1 below. The term 'judge' is being used to translate δικαστής here, although elsewhere in this text it is rendered as 'local official' based on context.

9 For the story of Naboth, who was falsely accused of insulting God and king Ahab, see

1 Kings 21 (20 LXX).

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

accept him.10 4 And what is most incredible is that the first man, whom the people want and recognise as blameless, is removed and exiled by the emperor, while the second man, whom they neither want nor recognise, is sent from afar by the emperor with soldiers and his letters.11 And then they suffer great compulsion to hate the one they love, who taught them and was their father in the worship of God, and to love the one they don't want, and entrust their own children to this man, although they do not know about his lifestyle, his behaviour or who he is, or, alternatively, to suffer retribution if they do not obey the emperor.

3.1 The impious commit these deeds against the orthodox now – and have done so previously as well – supplying evidence of their wickedness and impiety to everyone everywhere. 2 For let us set aside their accusations against Athanasius: what have the other bishops done? What allegations are there or what dead Arsenius has also been found there?12 What presbyter

Macarius is there among them and what chalice has been fabricated?13

What Melitian has concocted lies?14 But from the accusations against the others, so it seems, the charges against Athanasius are revealed to be false.

So, from their attempts against Athanasius, it is clear that the accusations against the others have also been fabricated. 3 This heresy has emerged onto the earth as some great beast. Not only does it wound the innocent with words that bite like teeth, but it has also purchased secular authority for its plot. It is incredible that, as I said earlier, none of them is formally accused; or, if he is accused, he either is not brought to trial or, after appearing to receive a hearing, he is found innocent against his accusers, and so the 10 Athanasius is probably referring particularly to the events surrounding his expulsion from Alexandria in 356, as part of an attempt to bring in George 'the Cappadocian' to replace him as bishop. See chapters 47–63, 81 below.

11 The description of the intruding bishop as being 'from afar' refers to the fact that, unlike Athanasius, George was not from Egypt, but rather from Cappadocia.

12 Athanasius had been accused of arranging the murder of Arsenius, bishop of Hypsele.

In 334 Constantine set up an investigation, which was halted when Arsenius was found to be alive and well, thereby providing Athanasius with this opportunity for sarcasm. This, and the following allegations, were investigated by a commission sent to the Mareotis, a region near

Alexandria in Egypt. On these events, see Introduction p. 21 and Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 65; Barnes

(1993) 21–3.

13 Another accusation made against Athanasius in the 330s was that his presbyter

Macarius had smashed a chalice belonging to the priest Ischyras: see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 63–4;

Barnes (1993) 21, 27–8.

14 The Melitians were a set of rigorist schismatics in Egypt who were involved in the accusations against Athanasius in the 330s: see Introduction p. 6 n. 16.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

prosecutor is plotted against, rather than the guilty man actually shamed. 4

All their people are full of filth, and their 'spies' (for they are not 'bishops') are actually the filthiest of all.15 If any of them wants to be a bishop, he does not hear 'A bishop must be blameless',16 but only 'Hold beliefs that are opposed to Christ and don't worry about your behaviour, for this is sufficient to get you an introduction and the friendship of the emperor.' 5

These are the actions of those who follow the beliefs of Arius; but those who strive for the truth, even if they are seen to be holy and pure, as I said earlier, are transformed into guilty men whenever those other men wish it and with whatever accusation they want to fabricate. As I said earlier, this can be discerned from their actions.

4.1 A certain Eustathius, a confessor and pious in his faith, was bishop of Antioch.17 Since he strove vehemently for the truth, hated the Arian heresy and would not accept its followers, he was slandered before the emperor Constantine and it was falsely alleged that he had insulted the emperor's mother.18 He was immediately exiled, as were many presbyters and deacons along with him. 2 Then, after the bishop was exiled, those responsible admitted others into the Church – men that Eustathius had not accepted into the clergy because of their impiety – and even appointed most of them as bishops so that they might have fellow-conspirators for their impiety. Among them were Leontius the eunuch, who is now at Antioch, and Stephen who was there before him, and also George of Laodicea, and Theodosius, who was at Tripolis, and Eudoxius at Germanicia and Eustathius, who is now at Sebasteia.19

15 Athanasius is here making a pun on the similarity between the words ἐπίσκοπος

('bishop') and κατάσκοπος ('spy'). See also the same pun at chapters 48.3 and 75.3 below.

16 1 Timothy 3.2.

17 Eustathius of Antioch, who attended the Council of Nicaea in 325, was deposed at a council held in his city, probably in 327, under the leadership of Eusebius of Caesarea. On these events, including the dating of the council at Antioch, see Barnes (1993) 17; Gwynn

(2007) 141–3. The term 'confessor' was used to refer to a person who had confessed their faith under persecution and so had suffered at the hands of the pagan authorities.

18 Constantine's mother was Helena, the first wife of Constantius I. Athanasius consistently portrays Constantine in a positive light, unlike his son Constantius II, with any hostile actions by the former being excused as having been carried out through the trickery of his malicious advisers: see Flower (2013) 90–92.

19 On Athanasius' presentation of a concerted 'Arian' purge of their enemies in this and other passages, see Gwynn (2007) 137–47. Leontius of Antioch died in late 357, so this text must have been written either before then or at least before the news reached Athanasius in Egypt. He was replaced as bishop by Eudoxius of Germanicia, who went on to become

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

5.1 So did they stop at this point? No. For Eutropius was bishop of Adrianople, a good man and perfect in all respects; because he often refuted

Eusebius and advised visitors not to be persuaded by Eusebius' impious words, he suffered the same fate as Eustathius and was expelled from both the city and the church.20 For Basilina was the one who acted with great zeal against him.21 2 Moreover, Euphration of Balaneia, Cymatius of Paltus, Carterius of Antaradus, Asclepas of Gaza, Cyrus of Beroea in Syria, Diodorus of Asia, Domnion of Sirmium and Hellanicus of Tripolis were merely known to hate the heresy, but those men banished them with imperial letters, some with a pretext, some without. They expelled them from their cities and, in place of them, appointed in their churches other men, whom they knew to be impious.22

6.1 Perhaps it is unnecessary to talk about Marcellus, the bishop of Galatia, since everyone knows how the Eusebians, after previously being accused of impiety by him, brought a counter-charge against the old man and caused his exile.23 2 He went up to Rome, presented his defence and, since they demanded it, he also gave a written statement of his faith, which the council at Serdica accepted;24 but the Eusebians neither presented any bishop of Constantinople in 360. On the circumstances of Leontius replacing Stephen in 344, see the story at 20 below.

20 The Eusebius mentioned here is Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was later to become bishop of Constantinople, rather than his namesake, the ecclesiastical historian and bishop of Caesarea. Eutropius of Adrianople is not a very notable figure, although he appears again, alongside Eustathius of Antioch, in a list of exiled bishops at Ath. De fuga 3.3.

21 Basilina was the wife of Julius Constantius, one of the sons of Constantius I, as well as being the mother of the emperor Julian. She died soon after Julian's birth in the early 330s: see

Julian, Misopogon 352b. Eusebius of Nicomedia played some part in Julian's upbringing and was a relative of his, probably on his mother's side: see Amm. 22.9.4; PLRE I 148 (Basilina).

22 These are not famous figures from the controversies of this period. Euphration,

Cymatius, Carterius, Asclepas and Cyrus all appear together in Ath. De fuga 3.3. Diodorus was bishop of Tenedos: see PCBE III 218 (Diodôros). Honigmann (1953) 36–8 suggests amending Opitz' text to add Cymatius of Gabala to the list of exiled bishops.

23 On Athanasius' designation of his opponents as 'the Eusebians' (οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον), see n. 2 to chapter 1.1 above.

24 Marcellus of Ancyra was first deposed at Constantinople in 336, returned to Ancyra after Constantine's death in 337 and was then expelled again shortly afterwards, not arriving in Rome until perhaps 340. He received help from Julius, bishop of Rome, and was exculpated by the 'western' bishops at the Council of Serdica in 343, although the 'easterners' continued to regarded him as a heretic: see Barnes (1993) 56–62, 71–7. On the theological views of Marcellus and his role in the controversies of this period, see Lienhard

(1999), Parvis (2006).

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

defence nor, after they were convicted as impious from their writings, did they feel ashamed, but instead they became more confident against everyone. For they received an introduction to the emperor through the women, and were regarded with fear by all.25

7.1 I assume that no one is unaware of Paul, bishop of Constantinople.26

For the more distinguished a city is, the less hidden are the events there.

An allegation was also invented against him. For Macedonius, who is now bishop in place of him, accused him – I was present at the time of the accusation – although he had entered into communion with Paul and was a presbyter under him.27 2 Nevertheless, because Eusebius was looking on enviously, wishing to seize the episcopacy of the city (for he transferred from Berytus to Nicomedia in this way), the accusation continued against Paul, and they did not neglect their plot, but kept on slandering him.28 3 He was first exiled to Pontus by Constantine, and then on the second occasion he was bound with iron chains and was exiled to Singara in Mesopotamia by Constantius; next he was transferred to Emesa from there, and then on the fourth occasion to Cucusus in Cappadocia, near the wastelands of Taurus, where, as his companions reported, he was strangled by those men

25 On the topos of being controlled by women in invectives against Constantius II, see

Flower (2013) 103–4.

26 Paul became bishop of Constantinople either late in the reign of Constantine or early in the reign of Constantius, after the death of the previous incumbent, Alexander. He was soon deposed, but later attempted to return and was ejected from the city on a number of occasions, eventually being imprisoned and then killed in 350, possibly for engaging in correspondence with the western usurper Magnentius. For a detailed reconstruction of his career, revising the traditional chronology and placing his election in mid–late 337, see

Barnes (1993) 212–17, largely accepted, but with some caution, at Gwynn (2007) 27 n. 52,

140. The reconstruction of events is complicated further by the fact that this story appears in Athanasius' narrative before the mention of the death of Constantine in May 337 and the recall of the exiled bishops (in chapter 8.1 below).

27 Macedonius became the 'Arian' bishop of Constantinople after the death of the incumbent Eusebius (formerly bishop of Nicomedia) in 341: see Soc. HE 2.12; Barnes (1993)

68. Barnes also proposes (at 216) that this passage refers to Macedonius supporting Paul at the time of his first deposition in 337 (when Athanasius was present) and then making an accusation against him in 342, when he was elected bishop himself. This is possible, although Athanasius may also simply be stating that Macedonius had not been an opponent of Paul before the accusation in 337, but had actually been an ally of his, thereby making his betrayal of his bishop an even greater crime.

28 Eusebius of Nicomedia became bishop of Constantinople shortly after the death of Constantine in 337: see Barnes (1993) 36; Gwynn (2007) 118–19.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

and died.29 4 However, after they had done this, these men, who never speak the truth, were not ashamed to invent another lie after his death, claiming that he died from a disease, even though everyone who lives there knows what happened. 5 And in fact Philagrius, who was then vicarius of those regions and was joining them in all their falsehoods in whatever way they wanted, was nonetheless amazed at this.30 Perhaps he was aggrieved that someone else had performed this evil deed, rather than him. He reported to Serapion the bishop, and also to many others of our friends, that Paul was imprisoned by them in an extremely confined and dark space and left to die of starvation.31 But when they went in after six days and found him still breathing, they then attacked the man and strangled him. So he ended his life in this way. 6 They said that Philip the prefect was the murderer.32

But divine justice did not overlook this:33 for, before a year had passed, Philip was deprived of his position with great dishonour and so, having become a private citizen, he was ridiculed by people that he did not want

29 I have here followed the text of Opitz for the translation, but it is important to note that two emendations have been proposed at Barnes (1993) 215–16 as part of his reconstruction of the career of Paul of Constantinople. Opitz's text states that the first exile was 'by Constantine'

(ὑπὸ Κωνστατίνου – with a ν missed out erroneously), but Barnes argues that this must be a corruption of 'by Constantius' (παρὰ Κωνσταντίου), since he believes that Paul did not become bishop until after Constantine's death. His second suggested emendation refers to the second exile, altering 'by Constantius' (παρὰ Κωνσταντίου) to 'to Constantius' (παρὰ

Κωνστάντιον), arguing that on the occasion of his deposition in 349 Paul was transferred to Constantius' court, which was then at Singara. Gwynn (2007) 139 regards Barnes' first emendation as plausible (at n. 21), but does not accept either change in the translation given in his main text. Since the chronology of Paul's various exiles is opaque, it is difficult to be certain about this matter and for this reason I have retained Opitz's reading here, but readers should give serious consideration to Barnes' suggestions, especially the first proposed emendation. Taurus is a mountain range in Asia Minor.

30 For the vicarius, a late Roman civilian official, see the Glossary. Philagrius had previously been Prefect of Egypt at the time of both the commission in the Mareotis to investigate the early accusations against Athanasius in 335 and also his expulsion from the city in 339: see chapter 9.3 below, as well as Ath. De fuga 3, Apol c. Ar. 14, 72, 75–6, Ep. Enc.

2–3; Barnes (1993) 45–8; PLRE I 694 (Philagrius 5).

31 Serapion was bishop of Thmuis, in Egypt, and a loyal helper and correspondent of Athanasius.

32 The Philip referred to here is the Praetorian Prefect of the East, Flavius Philippus, who had been charged with expelling the bishop Paul from Constantinople on an earlier occasion in the 340s and also sent him into exile for the final time: see Soc. HE 2.16, 5.9; Barnes (1993)

214–17. Soon after the death of Paul he was sent on an embassy to the usurper Magnentius in Gaul, but failed in his mission and was detained there, where he died. The reconstruction of the final part of his life depends on this passage: see PLRE I 696–7 (Philippus 7).

33 The same phrase about divine justice can also be found at 14.4 below.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

mocking him. And so he was distressed and, like Cain, was moaning and trembling,34 separated from his homeland and his family, expecting every day that someone would finish him off; and so, just as though he had been struck, since he did not want it to happen like this, he died. 7 But if these men have invented allegations against people during their lives, they do not even spare them when they are dead: for they were keen to make themselves appear frightening to everyone; they exiled the living and did not pity the dead. But they, alone of all men, hate the departed and plot against their nearest and dearest, being actually inhuman, hating the good and being crueller than enemies. For the sake of their impiety they have been keen to plot against both us and all the others, on the basis not of truth but of their invented allegations.

8.1 The three brothers Constantine, Constantius and Constans saw this and so, after the death of their father, they made everyone return to their own homeland and church. In the case of the others, they wrote individually to the church of each of them, but in the case of Athanasius they wrote these words, which again both reveal the violence of this affair and also convict the Eusebians of murderous intent.35

Transcript 8.2 Constantine Caesar to the congregration of the catholic church of the city of the Alexandrians.

I think that it has not escaped the understanding of your religious sense that on this account Athanasius, the expounder of the worshipful law …

{The text is given below without any alterations in the seventy-fifth book.}36 This is what was written, and what other more trustworthy witness of their plot could there be than Constantine? For what he wrote corresponded precisely to what he knew.

34 Genesis 4.12 LXX.

35 Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, the sons of Constantine, succeeded their father, Constantine I, after his death in 337. For the circumstances of their accession, together with the dynastic massacre that accompanied it, see n. 252 to chapter 69.1 below.

36 This letter from Constantine II can be found in Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 87.4–7. In it,

Constantine II claims that he was fulfilling the wishes of his father in returning Athanasius to Alexandria.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

9.1 The Eusebians, however, saw that their heresy was losing ground and so wrote letters to Rome, and also to the emperors Constantine and Constans, against Athanasius. But when the envoys sent by Athanasius refuted their claims, the Eusebians were put to shame by the emperors.

Julius, the bishop of Rome, also wrote to say that a council ought to be held, wherever we might wish, so that these men might both air their accusations and also have the confidence to defend themselves from the accusations against them;37 for the presbyters sent by those men, when they saw that they were being refuted, also requested that this should take place. 2 After this, therefore, these men [the Eusebians], who are suspected in all their dealings, saw that they were not going to win in an ecclesiastical trial; so they went only to Constantius and then complained bitterly, as to the protector of their heresy, and said 'Take pity on the heresy: you see that everyone has abandoned us; now only a few of us are left. Start persecuting, because we are being abandoned by those few as well and are left deserted. For after those men [Athanasius and his 'allies'] were exiled, we overpowered others, but the first group have returned home and have now persuaded the rest to be hostile to us again. 3 Write letters against all of them and send Philagrius as prefect of Egypt for a second time; he is capable of persecuting properly, as he has already demonstrated when tested, and particularly since he is an apostate.38 In addition, send Gregory to Alexandria as bishop, for he is also capable of establishing our heresy.'39

10.1 So then Constantius wrote, and he persecuted everyone and sent Philagrius as prefect, together with a certain eunuch called Arsacius, and he also sent Gregory with military support.40 And the same things happened as before: for, they assembled a mob of herdsmen, shepherds and other thuggish and insolent young men with swords and clubs, and all at once

37 Julius was bishop of Rome from 337 to 352, and was succeeded by Liberius.

38 On Philagrius, who was prefect of Egypt on two occasions, see n. 30 to chapter 7.5 above.

39 Gregory 'the Cappadocian' was appointed as a rival bishop of Alexandria at a council in Antioch in 338/9 and entered the city with the support of Philagrius in the spring of 339: see Athanasius' tendentious account of these events in his Epistula Encyclica, with discussion in Barnes (1993) 45–50; Gwynn (2007) 51–7. As mentioned in n. 4 to chapter 1.1 above, this passage provides an excellent example of Athanasius putting impossible words into the mouths of his enemies. Here 'the Eusebians' are cartoonish villains who call their own actions 'persecution' and their own beliefs 'heresy'.

40 No more is known about the imperial functionary Arsacius: see PLRE I 110 (Arsacius 2).

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

they attacked the church called 'of Quirinus'.41 2 Some they killed, others they trampled underfoot; others again they beat up, threw into prison and sent into exile, while they carried off many women, hauled them publicly into court and dragged them by their hair and maltreated them. Some they stripped of their property, while others they deprived of bread for no reason other than to make them join the Arians and accept Gregory, who had been sent from the emperor.42

11.1 But before these things happened and as soon as he heard about them,43 Athanasius sailed to Rome, because he knew the anger of the heretics, and also so that there might be a council, as had been decided.

Julius wrote and sent presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus, and fixed the appointed day, so that those men [Athanasius' enemies] would either come to the council or else recognise that they were under suspicion in every respect.44 2 But the moment that the Eusebians heard that it was going to be an ecclesiastical trial, with no comes in attendance,45 nor soldiers positioned in front of the doors, and nor would the decisions of the council be made in accordance with an imperial command (for through these methods they always prevailed over the bishops, and without them they are not at all confident to prattle away), they were so terrified that they detained the presbyters beyond the appointed day and invented the unseemly excuse that 'we cannot come now because of the war started by the Persians'.46 3

This was not true; the real reason was fear of conscience. For what concern is a war to bishops? Or, if they could not come to Rome because of the Persians, even though it is a long way away and across the sea, why did they then travel around the eastern provinces and the lands near the Persians,

41 The exact location of the church of Quirinus in Alexandria is unknown.

42 The bread referred to here is probably a reference to the supply that the bishop of Alexandria received from the emperor to distribute to the needy in the city: see Ath. Apol. c.

Ar. 18.

43 The expression here is confusing, but would seem to indicate that Athanasius left for Rome during the course of the events narrated in the preceding chapter. See also Ath. Ep.

Enc. 5.1–2.

44 Athanasius also mentions the dispatch of these two presbyters at Apol. c. Ar. 20.1. On Elpidius, see PCBE II.1 968 (Helpidius 1). Philoxenus also acted as one of the representatives of Julius at the Council of Serdica in 343: see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 48.2; PCBE II.2 1795–6

(Philoxenus 1).

45 For the imperial rank of comes, see the Glossary.

46 On Constantius' long-running military conflict with Persia at this time, see Hunt

(1998) 12–14.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

and hunt down their opponents like lions, so that they could slander and exile them?

12.1 And so, after they had dismissed the presbyters with this unconvincing excuse, they said to each other: 'Since we can't prevail in an ecclesiastical trial, let's show off our usual reckless behaviour.'47 They therefore wrote to Philagrius and made him go out into Egypt a little later with Gregory; bishops were then chained up and whipped harshly.48 2 For example, they exiled the bishop and confessor Sarapammon; as for Potamon, the bishop and confessor who had lost an eye in the persecution, they struck him with blows to the neck to such an extent that they did not stop until he seemed to be dead.49 He was thrown to the ground and only just recovered after a few hours of being tended and fanned, because God gave him life. But a little later he died from the injuries sustained in the beating and so achieved in Christ the glory of a second martyrdom. 3 How many other monks were whipped while Gregory sat there with Valacius, the so-called dux!50 How many bishops were beaten! How many virgins were struck!

13.1 After this, the wretched Gregory then called on everyone to be in communion with him: and yet, if you wanted communion with them, they did not deserve beatings; but if you beat them as villains, why did you call on them as holy men?51 But he had no intention other than to fulfil the plans of those who sent him and to establish their heresy. For this reason this foolish man became a murderer, an executioner, violent, treacherous, profane and, in short, an enemy of Christ.52 2 He actually persecuted the 47 Many eastern bishops gathered in Antioch at the start of 341 at the 'Dedication

Council', which takes its name from the dedication of the city's new church that took place at the same time. They then sent the two presbyters back to Julius with a letter explaining their decisions. See Introduction pp. 6–7.

48 On Philagrius, see n. 30 to chapter 7.5 above.

49 According to Epiphanius of Salamis, Potamon was bishop of Hieracleopolis in Egypt and spoke out in favour of Athanasius at the Council of Tyre in 335: see Epiphanius, Panarion

68.8.

50 On the dux, a late Roman military commander, see the Glossary. For the career of Valacius (or Balacius), see PLRE I 929 (Valacius).

51 Athanasius here addresses rhetorical questions to Gregory, who had been dead for more than a decade by the time that the Historia Arianorum was written.

52 The term Χριστομάχος ('enemy of Christ') was frequently used by Athanasius and others to describe the 'Arians', as well as being employed as a label for other heretical groups and Jews: see Lampe s.v., as well as chapters 33.6, 38.1, 38.2, 39.2, 47.2, 50.1, 53.1, 55.4,

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

bishop's aunt by refusing permission for her to be buried when she died.

This would have happened and she would have been cast out without burial, if those who received her corpse had not then carried her out as one of their own household. And so in this way he maintained his ungodly character. 3

And, after the widows and other needy folk had received their alms, he even gave orders to snatch back these gifts and break the vessels for the olive oil and the wine, so that he might not only use theft to show his impiety but also by his actions show dishonour to the Lord. He will soon hear this from the Lord: In as much as you dishonoured them, you dishonoured me.53

14.1 He also committed many other crimes that are beyond description; whoever heard about them would think them unbelievable. He acted in this way because he had not been appointed according to the Church's rules, nor was he named as a bishop in the apostolic succession. Instead he was sent out from the palace with military support and a military procession, as though he were being entrusted with some secular office. For this reason he boasted about being the friend of imperial officials, rather than of bishops and monks. 2 Whenever Father Antony wrote to him from the mountains, he [Gregory] found the holy man's letters abominable, just as the worship of God is an abomination to a sinner.54 3 But whenever the emperor or a general or some other official wrote to him, he became overjoyed, just like the people in the Book of Proverbs, where the Word complained bitterly and said: Woe unto those who leave the paths of uprightness, who rejoice to do evil and delight in the forwardness of the wicked.55 4 And while he rewarded these messengers with gifts, when Antony had written to him, he actually made the dux Valacius spit on the letter and throw it away.56 But divine justice did not overlook this: for a little while later this so-called dux was sitting on his horse and heading out to the first staging post when the horse turned around, bit him on the thigh and threw him to the ground; in three days he died.57

77.2, 77.3 and 79.3 below. Hilary also calls Constantius' pagan predecessors and ancestors

'enemies of Christ' at In Const. 9.

53 cf. Matthew 25.45.

54 The monk Antony was a revered figure within Egypt and was celebrated in Athanasius'

Life of Antony, which added to the prestige of both its subject and its author.

55 Proverbs 2.13–14.

56 For the dux Valacius, see n. 50 to chapter 12.3 above.

57 This story also appeared with slight variations in Ath. V. Ant. 86.1–7: see Kannengiesser

(2001) 133. The exact date of the death of Valacius is uncertain: see PLRE I 929 (Valacius).

For the same expression about divine justice, see 7.6 above. The phrase 'the first staging

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

15.1 They acted in this way against everyone, but about fifty bishops assembled at Rome and refused to accept the Eusebians, since they were under suspicion and were afraid to come.58 They [the bishops at Rome] also rejected what those men had written, but they accepted us and embraced our communion. 2 While this was taking place, the council at Rome and the actions against the churches in Alexandria and the whole of the East came to the attention of the emperor Constans. He wrote to his brother

Constantius and they both resolved to hold a council and investigate these matters thoroughly, so that the wronged would not suffer any longer, and the wrong-doers would no longer be able to act with such temerity.59 3

And so around 170 bishops from both East and West assembled in the city of Serdica.60 The western delegation was composed solely of bishops, with Ossius as their father, but the eastern delegation brought the comes

Musonianus and the castrensis Hesychius as instructors and advocates.61

For this reason they came readily, thinking that everything would again be carried out through their authority. With the help of these men they always made themselves terrifying to those they wished to terrify, and plotted against whomever they pleased. 4 But they arrived and saw only an ecclesiastical trial; they saw accusers from every church and city and evidence against them; they saw the honourable bishops Arius and post' refers to the first stop on the journey inland from Alexandria, at a place called Chaereu on the branch of the Nile that runs to Alexandria: see Ath. V. Ant. 86.

58 This council met at Rome in 341 and Julius sent a letter to the bishops who had written to him from the 'Dedication Council' held in Antioch in January 341. Julius' letter can be found at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 20–35.

59 The third brother, Constantine II, had died in 340 after declaring war on Constans, leaving Constans in control of the whole western part of the empire, while Constantius II had the eastern: see Hunt (1998) 5.

60 After Constans wrote to his brother, the Council of Serdica assembled in 343, although the two factions refused to meet together and each issued its own statements, letters and denunciations. See Introduction p. 8 and Barnes (1993) 63–81. Documents from both sides are preserved at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.IV, B.II.1–4, Liber I Ad Constantium 1–5, as well as Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 36–50.

61 Ossius of Cordoba (also known as Hosius) had been an associate of Constantine

I and was one of the few western bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

On the comes Musonianus, who began his career under Constantine I and went on to be

Praetorian Prefect of the East late in the reign of Constantius II, see PLRE I 611–2 (Strategius

Musonianus). Hesychius was a castrensis, an official in the imperial household, described by Jones as 'majordomo of the palace': see Jones (1964) II 567–9. Hesychius is unattested apart from his role in the Council of Serdica: see PLRE I 429 (Hesychius 1). 'Instructor' here translates παιδαγωγός, which is a term for a person, often a slave, who accompanied a child to school.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

Asterius, who arrived with them but then left them and came to us.62

These bishops described the villainy of these men and related how they were under suspicion for their actions and were afraid there would be a trial, in case they would be convicted both by us, for being false informers, and also by the accusers they had set up falsely, because they themselves had suggested and devised all their lies. They had arrived enthusiastically, because they thought we would be too afraid to attend, but when they saw all this and perceived our eagerness, they locked themselves up in the palace where they were staying. 5 Then they said to each other: 'We came here on certain conditions, but we see that the situation has changed.

We came with comites, but the trial is happening without comites. We're sure to be condemned. You all know your orders. The Athanasians have reports of what happened in the Mareotis, which exonerate him, but put us to shame.63 So why are we hesitating? Why are we delaying? Let's invent excuses and get away; if we stay we'll be condemned. It is better to run away and be embarrassed than to be convicted and condemned as false accusers. If we run away, we can protect the heresy somehow: even if we run away and they condemn us, the emperor is our protector and will not allow the congregations to expel us from the churches.'64

16.1 While they were debating this, Ossius and all the other bishops repeatedly told them that the Athanasians were eager to get started and said, 'They are ready to present their defence and are saying that they will convict you as false accusers' and also 'If you are afraid of a trial, why did you come? You should have either not come at all or come and not run away.' 2 When they heard this, they became even more panic-stricken and used a more shameful excuse than the one in Antioch: they said that they had tried to run away because the emperor had written to them about the celebration of his victory over the Persians.65 They shamelessly sent this

62 Arius, a bishop from Palestine, and Asterius, from Arabia, left the 'eastern' group at Serdica and joined the 'western' bishops. See 18.3 below.

63 On the commission that investigated accusations against Athanasius in the Mareotis, see n. 12 to chapter 3.2 above. 'The Athanasians' here probably includes not only Athanasius and his supporters, but also the other deposed eastern bishops, including Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas of Gaza, who were present at the council and are mentioned in the general letter issued by the 'westerners' at the council: see Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.1.2, B.II.4.

64 On the unrealistic statements put into the mouths of the Arians/Eusebians, see n. 4 to chapter 1.1 above.

65 For the earlier excuse, see 11.2–3 above.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

excuse via Eustathius, a presbyter of the church of Serdica.66 3 But even so their escape did not go according to plan. Immediately the holy council, with the great Ossius presiding, wrote to them clearly: 'Either come and make your defence for the charges against you and the false accusations you made, or else recognise that the council finds you guilty and declares the Athanasians to be free and innocent of any guilt.' Instead of obeying the letter, they were driven away by fear of conscience: for when they saw the people they had wronged, they did not give a rejoinder to the speakers, but instead ran away all the more quickly.

17.1 While they made this disgraceful and disreputable escape, the holy council, gathered together from more than thirty-five provinces, acknowledged the wickedness of the Arians and allowed the Athanasians to make their defence for their sufferings and the accusations against them. 2

When they had made their defence in the manner we described earlier, the council accepted them and admired them greatly. The council welcomed them and their communion and wrote letters to all places and to the see of each of them, especially to Alexandria, Egypt and the Libyas, to say that Athanasius and those with him were innocent and blameless, while their enemies were false accusers, evildoers and anything but Christians.67 3 They dismissed these men in peace, but they deposed Stephen, Menophantus,

Acacius, George of Laodicea, Ursacius, Valens, Theodore and Narcissus.68

As for Gregory, who had been sent to Alexandria from the emperor, they issued a public proclamation that he was not a bishop at all and did not even deserve to be called a Christian. They annulled the ordinations that he had claimed to perform and commanded that these should not be mentioned in the churches at all because of his novel and lawless behaviour.

66 This Eustathius is otherwise unknown.

67 Athanasius refers to the council writing a general letter, as well as then writing specifically to the see of each of the bishops that it had absolved from blame.

68 They were the bishops, respectively, of Antioch, Ephesus, Caesarea, Laodicea,

Singidunum, Mursa, Heraclea and Irenopolis/Neronias. These eight bishops are listed as having been condemned in Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 36.6 as well as in the 'western' council's letter at Apol. c. Ar. 47.3 and Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.1.8 The same list appears, with the exception of Theodore, in their letter to Julius of Rome at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac.

B.II.3, while all but George appear in the letter to Constantius at Liber I Ad Constantium

5. On Menophantus of Ephesus, see PCBE III 692–7 (Mènophantos). The episcopal duo of Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa feature repeatedly in the later chapters of this text and in the writings of Hilary of Poitiers, where they are presented as leading 'Arians' in the late 340s and 350s: see Introduction p. 9.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

18.1 In this way Athanasius and his companions were dismissed in peace (and the letters have been appended to the end because of their length).69

The council was dissolved; but, although they should have kept quiet, the men who had been deposed, along with those who had returned after their disgraceful escape, performed such terrible deeds that they made their earlier crimes seem small by comparison. 2 When the people of Adrianople refused to enter into communion with them because they had fled the council and had been found guilty, these men appealed to the emperor

Constantius. With the help of Philagrius, who was comes there again, they had ten members of the congregation from the 'arsenal' beheaded.70 The funerary monuments of these men stand in front of the city, and we saw them when we passed by. Next, as though they had been victorious, because they ran away to avoid being convicted as false accusers, the emperor told them to do whatever they wanted. 3 So they had two presbyters and three deacons exiled from Alexandria into Armenia. The bishops Arius and Asterius (one from Petra in Palestine, the other from Arabia) who had departed from them were not only exiled into Upper Libya but also subjected to violence.71

19.1 When they saw Lucius, bishop of Adrianople, speaking out very freely against them and refuting their impiety, they had his neck and hands bound with iron chains, just as before, and sent him into exile, where he died, as they know.72 2 They removed bishop Diodorus and also slandered bishops Olympius of Aeni and Theodoulos of Trajanopolis, both good and orthodox men from Thrace, after they saw that they hated their heresy.73

The Eusebians had done this first, with the emperor Constantius writing [in support], and these men [who fled the council at Serdica] now repeated it.

Their letter said that not only should the orthodox bishops be expelled from their cities and churches, but they should also suffer capital punishment if they were discovered anywhere. 3 If this seems amazing, it is no different

69 These letters do not appear at the end of this text, but can be found at Ath. Apol. c. Ar.

37–47.

70 Athanasius has here transliterated the Latin word fabricus, meaning an arsenal or arms factory, into Greek. On Philagrius, see n. 30 to chapter 7.5 above. On the events described in this and the following chapter, see the discussion in Barnes (1993) 82–6.

71 On these two bishops, who left the 'easterners' at Serdica in 343, see 15.4 above.

72 On the concept of speaking freely, or παρρησία, see n. 128 to chapter 34.1 below.

73 On Diodorus of Tenedos, see 5.2 above. The death of Theodoulos is mentioned in the letter from the 'westerners' at Serdica preserved at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 43.2 and Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.3. Olympius and Theodoulos are also both mentioned at Ath. De fuga 3.4–5.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

from their usual behaviour; they learned it from the Eusebians and they are heirs of their impiety and attitude.74 They wanted to appear terrifying in Alexandria, as their fathers had done in Thrace, and they had orders sent that the harbours and entrances of the city were to be watched to stop

Athanasius and his associates returning to their churches through the decision of the council. 4 They also had an order sent to the officials in Alexandria, concerning Athanasius and certain named presbyters, saying that an official was authorised to behead the bishop or any of the others if they were discovered having set foot in the city or its surrounding territory.

In this way this new Judaic heresy not only denies the Lord, but has also learned to murder.75

20.1 Yet even after this they did not stay quiet, but instead acquired the authority to use the cursus publicus and travelled around, just as the father of their heresy goes about as a lion seeking whom he may devour.76

Whenever they found someone who criticised them for fleeing the council and hated the Arian heresy, they had them whipped, bound and exiled from their homeland. In this way they made themselves terrifying, and also turned many people into hypocrites and caused many others to run away into the desert to avoid having anything at all to do with them. 2 These were their reckless and insane actions after their escape from the council.

They also did something else that was new and entirely appropriate to their heresy, but which had not been heard of before, and will perhaps never happen again, not even among the most shameless of the Hellenes, let alone among Christians.77 The holy council had sent as its envoys the bishops

Vicentius of Capua (which is the metropolis of Campania) and Euphrates of Agrippina (which is the metropolis of Upper Gaul) to ask the emperor

74 Eusebius of Nicomedia had died in 341.

75 On links between Arians and Jews in the polemic of Athanasius, see Lyman (1993) 55;

Brakke (2001) 467–75; Gwynn (2007) 172–3; Flower (2013) 189–90.

76 1 Peter 5.8. The father of the heresy referred to here is the Devil, who is being described in this biblical passage. The Devil was often regarded as the spiritual father of all heresies.

The cursus publicus, often referred to as the 'public post', was a system whereby officials, including messengers, could obtain travel and lodgings when moving around the empire on imperial business: see Jones (1964) II 830–34. Constantius was notorious for allowing bishops to use this system when attending councils and is criticised for this practice at Amm.

21.16.18.

77 The term 'Hellenes' here translates οἱ Ἕλληνες, which is also sometimes translated as 'Greeks', 'pagans' or 'gentiles' when it appears in Christian literature. See Johnson (2012) on the semantic range of this term during late antiquity.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

to allow the bishops to return to their churches, as the council decided, since he himself had expelled them.78 The most pious Constans had also written to his brother in support of the bishops. 3 When these staggeringly reckless men saw the envoys in Antioch, they devised a plan together.

Stephen alone undertook the deed, since he is suited to such tasks.79 Even though it was the most holy season of Easter, they hired a public prostitute, stripped her naked and sent her in at night to the bishop Euphrates.80 4

At first the prostitute, thinking that a young man had called for her, went along readily. After they had brought her to the room, however, she saw that the man was asleep and unaware of what was happening, and then she saw and recognised the features of an old man and the appearance of a bishop. She immediately called out and complained about this outrageous treatment. They had expected her to keep quiet and then make a false allegation against the bishop. 5 When day came, the story spread quickly and the whole city gathered together. Representatives from the palace were troubled and amazed by the reported story, and so decided that it should not be hushed up. There was an investigation and the pimp gave evidence against the men who had collected the prostitute, and then they in turn gave evidence against Stephen: for they were actually his clerics. Stephen was deposed and Leontius the eunuch was made bishop in his place to ensure that the Arian heresy would not be without a leader.81

21.1 Then the emperor Constantius felt his conscience to be pricked a little, and he came to himself and, on the basis of what they did to Euphrates,

78 The council referred to here is the 'western' group at Serdica in 343, while the emperor is Constantius II. Vincentius first appears in the historical record as a presbyter at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and he went on to become bishop of Capua in 341 or 342. He acted as a representative of Liberius of Rome in 353, but eventually agreed to subscribe against Athanasius: see Ath. Apol. Const. 27; Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.VII.5–6; PCBE

II.2 2303–5 (Vincentius 1). On Euphrates, bishop of Cologne, see PCBE IV.1 668 (Eufratas).

The term 'metropolis' refers to the most important city in a province.

79 For Stephen of Antioch, a leading figure among the 'easterners' at Serdica, see 17.3 above.

80 These events took place at Easter 344, when these two representatives of the 'westerners' at Serdica had arrived in Antioch.

81 On the eunuch Leontius, who was bishop of Antioch at the time that this text was written, see 4.2 above. A fuller, if perhaps rather more fictionalised, version of this episode can be found in Theod. HE 2.9–10. For discussion of these events, including the reasonable conclusion that Stephen was deposed at the council held in Antioch in 344 that wrote the 'Long Creed', see Barnes (1993) 87–8. Athanasius may be making a pun when remarking that an ἀπόκοπος (eunuch) had become an ἐπίσκοπος (bishop).

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

decided that these men's attacks against the others were also of the same sort. He gave orders for the immediate release of the presbyters and deacons who were exiled from Alexandria to Armenia and also wrote a public letter to Alexandria to say that the Athanasian clerics and laity were not to be persecuted any longer.82 2 Then, after Gregory died about ten months later, he summoned Athanasius with great honour, and wrote to him in a friendly manner not once or twice, but three times, urging him to take heart and come to him.83 Constantius also sent a presbyter and a deacon to reinforce

Athanasius' confidence and get him to return. He thought that I was neglecting to return because I was afraid after what had happened earlier.84

3 In addition, he wrote to his brother Constans so that he would also urge me to return. He affirmed that he had been awaiting Athanasius for a whole year and that he would never permit any innovation or ordination to occur while he was keeping the churches for Athanasius the bishop.

22.1 After he [Constantius] had written and urged him through many others (for he also got his comites Polemius, Datianus, Bardio,

Thalassius, Taurus and Florentius to write, since Athanasius trusted them more),85 Athanasius gave the matter over entirely to God, who had

82 This must have taken place in late summer 344, since Gregory, the rival bishop of Alexandria, died on 26 June 345: see Festal Index 18. This text, which survives only in Syriac, is translated into English at Robertson (1892) 503–6. There is a critical edition of the text and a French translation in Martin (1985) 224–77.

83 These three letters, written while Athanasius was at Aquileia, are preserved at Ath.

Apol. c. Ar. 51. There Athanasius presents Constantius' actions as a response to the events at the Council of Serdica in 343. The fifth-century ecclesiastical historians portray Constantius as relenting after a threat of military action by Constans: see Introduction p. 9 and Soc. HE

2.22–3; Soz. HE 3.20.1–3; Theod. HE 2.8.53–5; Rufinus, HE 10.20; Philostorgius 3.12, as well as the reconstruction of events at Barnes (1993) 89–91.

84 On a few occasions, such as here and also 7.1 and 18.2, Athanasius slips into the first person, although he usually describes himself in the third person, as he does in most of the rest of this chapter.

85 Polemius is assumed to be the same man who had been consul in 338: see PLRE I 710 (Polemius 4). Datianus was a close adviser of Constantius II and became consul in 358: see PLRE I 243–4 (Datianus 1). Bardio was a court eunuch: see PLRE I 147–8 (Bardio).

Thalassius acted as an envoy from Constantius to Constans in 346 and later became

Praetorian Prefect of the East: see PLRE I 886 (Thalassius 1). Taurus had a very successful career under Constantius II, becoming Praetorian Prefect of Italy and Africa in the mid-350s and then consul in 361, although he was exiled under Julian: see PLRE I 879–80 (Taurus 3).

Florentius went on to be Praetorian Prefect of Gaul during Julian's time as caesar, staying loyal to Constantius when Julian rebelled and becoming Taurus' colleague in the consulship of 361, before being condemned in absentia under Julian: see PLRE I 365 (Florentius 10).

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

pricked Constantius' conscience to this end, and so went to him with his companions.86 Constantius welcomed him affectionately and allowed him to return to his homeland and churches. He also wrote to the local officials in each place and told them to make sure the routes were open, as he had previously instructed them to keep them guarded.87 2 The bishop bitterly lamented his sufferings and the hostile things that Constantius had written.

He also asked that his enemies should not be allowed to repeat their slanders after his departure, and said 'Summon them, if you wish (for they can stand here on our account), and we will convict them'. The emperor did not do this, but he did order that all the slanderous writings against Athanasius should be destroyed and erased, and declared that he would not put up with slanders any more in the future and that his resolve was firm and unchangeable. 3 He did not simply say this, but also confirmed his words with oaths, calling on God to act as a witness to them. In fact, he encouraged Athanasius with many other statements and exhorted him to be confident, as well as writing these words to the bishops and local officials:

23.1 The victor Constantius the Great, Augustus, to the bishops and clerics of the catholic Church.

23.2 The most venerable Athanasius has not been abandoned by God's grace … {The text is given below in the sixty-fifth book and is completely identical to this.}88 23.3 Another letter Constantius to the people of Alexandria.

Keeping watch for your welfare in all respects … {The text comes likewise in the same sixty-fifth book and is not reproduced here because there are no differences.}89

86 This meeting with Constantius took place at Antioch: Ath. Apol. Const. 5; Soz. HE

3.20.4.

87 See chapter 19.3 above.

88 For the text of this letter, see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 54.2–5. This letter includes the instruction to rescind all earlier rulings against Athanasius. Opitz's text does not include a chapter 23.2, but goes straight from 23.1 to 23.3, so I have inserted this number to fill the gap.

89 For the text of this letter, see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 55. Here Constantius instructs the people of Alexandria to receive Athanasius and not to engage in factional strife.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

Another letter The victor Constantius Augustus to Nestorius, Prefect of Egypt.90

It is acknowledged that a previous command was given by us with the consequence that certain letters can be found that are damaging to the reputation of the most venerable bishop Athanasius, and these exist in the register of your sanctity.91 We therefore wish that your prudence, which has been tested and proved by us, send to our court all the letters that exist in your register concerning the aforesaid individual, in accordance with this our order.

24.1 This is what he wrote after the death of Constans, of blessed memory.

It was originally written in Latin and has been translated into Greek:92

24.2 The victor Constantius Augustus to Athanasius.

It will not have escaped your intelligence that it was always my prayer that everything might turn out agreeably for my late brother Constans. Your prudence will also be able to infer how great was my grief when I learned that he had been murdered by extremely irreligious men. 3 Since there are certain people in this present time, this time of mourning, who are trying to frighten you, I have therefore deemed it appropriate that this letter be sent to your fortitude, and I urge you, as befits a bishop, to teach the laity the things that are proper for divine worship and, with them, to devote your time to leading them in the customary prayers, without giving credence to idle rumours, whatever they may be. 4 For it is fixed in our soul that, in accordance with your resolution, you will continue to be bishop in your own place. May divine providence preserve you for many years, most beloved father.

90 A different letter to Nestorius, including the instruction to destroy orders that are hostile to Athanasius, can be found at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 56.2–3. Nestorius was Prefect of Egypt from 345 to 352: see PLRE I 625–6 (Nestorius 1).

91 The phrase 'your sanctity' is an example of the elevated forms of address used in exchanges between late Roman officials. See also the phrase 'your prudence' in the following sentence and a number of similar examples in the next letter. More generally, these two letters display the very formal and stilted tone of imperial correspondence, which stands in sharp contrast to the style of Athanasius' own narrative.

92 The term 'of blessed memory' here is used, like 'late' in English, to denote that Constans had died, since he had been killed in 350 after the usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul. This letter can also be found at Ath. Apol. Const. 23.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

25.1 After these events took place, they said farewell and embarked on their journey:93 friends were overjoyed to see a friend, but of the rest, some were put to shame when they saw him, others were afraid to speak and hid themselves, while others again repented because of what they had written against the bishop. 2 For example, all the bishops of Palestine

(apart from about two or three and the ones who were under suspicion) welcomed Athanasius warmly and embraced communion with him, to the extent of writing and offering as their defence that they had written their earlier statements not of their own free choice but under compulsion.94 3 It is unnecessary to speak of the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas, as well as the laity in those regions and in Alexandria: they all hurried together and were filled with indescribable joy, not only because they were recovering their own people alive, contrary to their expectation, but also because they were being rescued from the heretics as though from tyrants and raging dogs.95 The congregations were filled with joy in their assemblies as they roused each other towards virtue. 4 How many single women, formerly prepared to be married, remained as virgins for Christ! How many young men, seeing the example of others, adopted the monastic life! How many fathers gave encouragement to their children! How many were also asked by their children not to prevent them from taking up the ascetic life in Christ! How many wives persuaded their husbands, and how many were persuaded by their husbands, to give themselves to prayer, as the apostle said!96 How many widows, and how many orphans, who had previously been hungry and naked, went away both fed and clothed through the great generosity of the laity! 5 And overall, their desire for virtue was so great that one would believe every household and every home to be a church because of its inhabitants' love of goodness and prayers to God. There was a profound and marvellous peace in the churches, with bishops writing from everywhere and receiving from Athanasius the usual letters of peace.97

93 The narrative has now returned to Athanasius' journey back to Egypt in 346, after he was recalled from exile by Constantius.

94 A council was held at Jerusalem and a letter written to the clergy of Egypt and the Libyas: see Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 57.

95 Athanasius entered Alexandria on 21 October 346: see Festal Index 18. In this passage

Athanasius engages in the rhetorical practice of praeteritio/paraleipsis, in which an author states that they will not discuss a particular topic, thereby creating a means of introducing it into the piece, often at length.

96 1 Corinthians 7.5.

97 The 'letters of peace' referred to here are statements that the author accepts the recipient into communion.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

26.1 Moreover, Ursacius and Valens, as though they were being whipped by conscience, had a change of heart and wrote a friendly and peaceful letter to the bishop himself, despite not having received a letter from him.98

Then they went up to Rome, repented and confessed that everything they had done and said against him was mere lies and false accusations.99 2

This was not all they did; they also anathematised the Arian heresy and handed over a written statement of their recantation. They wrote this letter to Bishop Julius in Latin, and it has been translated into Greek. A copy was sent to us in Latin by Paul, bishop of Trier.100

26.3 Translation from the Latin Ursacius and Valens to our lord the most blessed father Julius.

Since it has been established that we previously [laid] many terrible [charges] … {The text is given below in the sixty-eighth book and is totally identical.}101

26.4 Translation from the Latin Bishops Ursacius and Valens to our lord and brother, Bishop

Athanasius.

An opportunity was given to us through our brother and fellow priest … {The text is given below in the same sixty-eighth book and is completely identical.}102 26.5 After writing these letters, they subscribed the letters of peace from Peter and Irenaeus, the presbyters of Athanasius, and Ammonius the layman, who were passing through, although Athanasius had not written to them through those men.103

98 They were the bishops of Singidunum and Mursa respectively: see chapter 17.3 above.

99 This took place in Rome in 347: see Introduction p. 9 and Barnes (1993) 97.

100 This must be an erroneous reference to Paulinus, bishop of Trier, who was exiled in 353/4 at the Council of Arles: see PCBE IV.2 1443–4 (Paulinus 1).

101 This letter is preserved at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 58.1–4. The original Latin text can be found at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.6. In this document the two bishops rejected Arius, stated that all the accusations against Athanasius were false and declared that they wished to have communion with him.

102 This letter is preserved at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 58.5. The original Latin text can be found at Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. B.II.8. This brief letter by Ursacius and Valens asks Athanasius to accept that they are in communion with the Church and to write back to them.

103 Peter, Irenaeus and Ammonius are not mentioned elsewhere.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

27.1 Who was not astonished when they witnessed this and the great peace in the churches? Who did not rejoice when they saw the unanimity of so many bishops? Who did not praise the Lord when they beheld the happiness of the congregations in the assemblies? How many enemies recanted! How many former slanderers gave excuses! How many people who had formerly hated Athanasius now loved him! How many people who had written against him now recanted! 2 Many people who had been with the Arians not by choice but by compulsion now came at night, apologised and anathematised the heresy. They asked for forgiveness because, although they had appeared outwardly to side with the Arians because of their plots and slanders, inwardly they had been together with Athanasius and always on his side. Yes, believe me.

28.1 When they heard and saw all this, the heirs of the opinion and impiety of the Eusebians were greatly ashamed. They were Leontius the eunuch, who should not even have been admitted to communion as a layman, because he castrated himself so that he might be free to sleep with a certain Eustolium, who acts as his wife, even though she is called a virgin; and also George, Acacius, Theodore and Narcissus, who had been deposed at the council.104 2 Then they saw the harmony and peace towards Athanasius of more than 400 bishops, from great Rome and the whole of Italy, Calabria, Apulia, Campania, Bruttia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, and from all of Africa and from the Gauls, Britain and the Spains, including the great confessor Ossius, and from the Pannonias,

Noricum, Siscia, Dalmatia, Dardania, Dacia, Moesia, Macedonia and Thessaly, and from all of Achaea, Crete, Cyprus and Lycia and most of the bishops from Palestine, and Isauria, Egypt, the Thebaid and all Libya and the Pentapolis.105 3 When they saw this, they were seized by envy and fear; by envy because of the communion of so many bishops, and by fear in case the men they had deceived were to join in unanimity with so many bishops, because then their heresy would be made an example of and defeated and proscribed everywhere.

104 Leontius had become bishop of Antioch in 344: see chapter 20.5 above. The other bishops had been deposed by the 'westerners' at Serdica in 343: see chapter 17.3 above.

105 In some cases, such as the Gauls, Spains and Pannonias, there was more than one province with the same name at this time, hence the use of plurals here. For Ossius, bishop of Cordoba, see chapter 15.3 above, as well as chapters 42–5 below.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

29.1 Firstly they persuaded Ursacius and Valens to change their minds and, like dogs, to return to their own vomit and, like pigs, to wallow again in the former mire of their impiety.106 They also persuaded them to invent an excuse for their recantation and to say that they had done it because they were afraid of the most pious Constans.107 Yet even if Ursacius and Valens were afraid, they should not have abandoned those men, if they really had confidence in their actions. 2 But since it was all a lie and they were not actually afraid, how are they not worthy of total condemnation?

For there was no soldier present, nor had any palatini or notarii been sent out, as happens now, and nor did they write in the emperor's presence or after having been summoned by anyone.108 In fact they willingly went up to Rome themselves and, in the church, where there was nothing to fear from outside, but there is only fear of God and every man has a free choice, they wrote a recantation on their own initiative. And even though they became

Arians for a second time and once again contrived such a disgraceful excuse, they still did not feel embarrassed.

30.1 Next they went together to the emperor Constantius and appealed to him, saying: 'When we made our first appeal, we were not believed. For when you were summoning Athanasius, we said that by calling him to court you were expelling our heresy. He has been against it from the beginning and never stops anathematising it. 2 In fact he has already succeeded in this by writing hostile letters against us and sending them everywhere. Most people are now in communion with him, while some of our supposed allies have gone over to his side and others are about to: we've been left on our own. We're afraid that our heresy will be discovered and then we and you will be labelled as heretics. If this happens, watch out or we'll get lumped together with the Manichaeans.109 Start persecuting again and protect the 106 For the images of a dog returning to its vomit and a pig wallowing in a mire, see 2 Peter

2.22, as well as Proverbs 26.11 for the dog.

107 Barnes (1993) 99 dates Ursacius and Valens' change of heart to 350/1. Constans had been killed by the forces of the usurper Magnentius in early 350, leaving Constantius as the last surviving son of Constantine I.

108 On the imperial officials known as notarii and palatini, see the Glossary.

109 The Manichaeans were a religious group founded in Persia in the third century by the prophet Mani. They were condemned by the Tetrarchy before the Great Persecution and were often criticised by Christians and treated as heretics. Lyman (1993) 53–8 provides a discussion of Athanasius' creation of heretical genealogies for his theological opponents, including labelling them as successors to the Manichaeans. For a selection of Manichaean writings, see Gardner and Lieu (2004).

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

heresy: you are its emperor.'110 3 These were their villainous words. As Constantius was travelling along and hurrying to face Magnentius,111 he observed the communion of the bishops with Athanasius and, like a man set alight by fire, he changed his mind and did not remember his oaths, as well as forgetting what he had written and disregarding his duty to his brother.112

For, in fact, when he wrote to him and also when he spoke to Athanasius, Constantius swore on oath that he would only act in accordance with the wishes of the laity and the bishop. 4 Nonetheless, his enthusiasm for impiety suddenly made him forget all this. We should not be surprised that, despite writing many letters and swearing many oaths, Constantius still changed for the worse, since Pharaoh, the former tyrant of Egypt, having made promises many times and so attained respite from his trials, changed his mind, until in the end he was destroyed along with his adherents.113

31.1 At first he started forcing people in every city to change their minds; then, after he came to Arles and Milan, he did what the heretics advised and suggested (or, rather, they were given the authority and so did all this themselves and attacked everyone).114 2 At once the prefect here

[Alexandria] received orders and letters stating that from now on the grain would be taken away from Athanasius and given to those who followed the beliefs of Arius, and that everyone had free rein to abuse Athanasius' associates if they wanted. There were also threats against the local officials

110 For Athanasius' tendency to create unrealistic dialogue for his opponents, see n. 4 to chapter 1.1 above.

111 Magnentius had rebelled against Constans in Gaul in 350 and quickly killed him and took control of the western part of the empire. Constantius started his march westwards in late 350 and first engaged Magnentius' forces in the following year. It took until 353 for the usurpation to be suppressed completely, with Magnentius committing suicide in August of that year. See PLRE I 532 (Magnentius), as well as Barnes (1993) 105–6 and Hunt (1998)

10–11, 14–22 for succinct accounts of these events.

112 For Constantius' oaths when he addressed Athanasius, see chapter 22.3 above.

113 For Pharaoh's repeated changes of heart about letting the Israelites leave Egypt, see

Exodus 7–14.

114 These are the Councils of Arles and Milan, which took place in 353/4 and 355 respectively: see Introduction pp. 10–11. It appears that bishops were being asked to subscribe to a document that included the condemnation of Athanasius, but also incorporated other condemnations and a creed, although in the following chapters Athanasius presents

Constantius' campaign as directed primarily against him. For a reconstruction of these events, making significant use of this passage, see Barnes (1993) 109–18. Barnes makes the plausible suggestion that the document that the bishops had to sign was the letter issued by the Council of Sirmium in 351.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

if they did not join together with the Arians. This was the prelude to what was done later through the dux Syrianus.115 3 Orders were sent again to the outlying districts, and notarii and palatini were dispatched to each city with threats against the bishops and local officials. The officials were told to apply pressure and the bishops had to hold communion with the Arians and write against Athanasius or else themselves suffer the penalty of exile. The laity who followed them were threatened with chains, violence, beatings and confiscation of their property. 4 This order was not neglected: the envoys were accompanied by the clerics of Ursacius and Valens to urge them on and report unco-operative officials to the emperor.116 They also allowed other heresies, as little sisters of their own, to blaspheme against the Lord, and they only plotted against the Christians and could not stand to hear pious words about Christ. For that reason, how many bishops, in the words of Scripture, were brought before governors and kings and heard from the officials: 5 'Either subscribe or withdraw from the churches, for the emperor has given orders for you to be deposed.'117 How many were treated violently by these men in every city to stop them censuring them as friends of the bishops! 6 Moreover, instructions were sent to the decuriones in each city, and they were threatened with financial penalties if each of them did not force the bishop of his own city to subscribe.118 Every place and every city was completely filled with fear and upheaval, with bishops being dragged away and officials witnessing the groans and lamentations of the laity.

32.1 While the deployed palatini were doing this, those astonishing men were confident in their authority and acted very zealously. They summoned some bishops to the emperor, and dealt with others via letters, inventing allegations against them. They thought that the first group would be cowed by the presence of Constantius, and the others by the messengers and threats, and that, out of fear of the false charges, they would abandon their correct and pious beliefs. 2 Through a mixture of threats and promises,

115 Syrianus' outrages appear in the appeal of the people of Alexandria in chapter 81 below and are also described in Ath. Apol. Const. 22–5 and De fuga 24, as well as Soc. HE

2.11 and Lucifer, De Ath. II 22. For Syrianus' career in general, see PLRE I 872 (Syrianus).

116 On these two bishops, see chapters 17.3 and 26.1 above.

117 The scriptural quotation is from Matthew 10.18.

118 The decuriones, also sometimes referred to as curiales, were members of the town councils: see Jones (1964) II 737–57. As mentioned in n. 114, the bishops appear to have been instructed to subscribe to the decisions of the Council of Sirmium from 351.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

the emperor forced a great number of bishops to say: 'We are no longer in communion with Athanasius.' The ones who travelled to his presence were not permitted to see him, nor were they allowed to rest or even to leave their own houses, until they either subscribed or, if they refused, were exiled. 3 He did this because he saw that everyone hated the heresy, and for this particular reason he compelled so many to be added to a few.119

He was anxious to gather together a mass of names because of his hatred towards the bishop and to make the Arian impiety look better, because he himself is its leader. He thinks that he will be able to twist the truth in the same way as he does men, for he does not see or recognise that the Sadducees and the Herodians, after taking the Pharisees onboard, could not conceal the truth.120 4 Instead, it is made brighter every day because of this.

These men have shouted out We have no king but Caesar and, possessing the judgement of Pilate, they are equally bereft of any sense of shame, expecting that soon they themselves will be left naked like the partridge, when they see their own protector dying.121

33.1 If it is shameful that some of the bishops changed their minds wholly through fear in these circumstances, then to force and compel the unwilling is much more shameful and is the action of people who have no confidence in their beliefs. 2 The Devil, because he possesses no truth, attacks in this way with axe and stone-cutter and breaks down the doors of those who will not let him in;122 but the Saviour is so mild that he teaches if any man will come after me and the one wishing to be my disciple,123 and when he comes to each person he does not use force, but instead knocks and says

Open to me, my sister, my bride.124 When they open he enters, but when 119 Athanasius is here referring to compelling many bishops to subscribe to a document that had originally been issued by only a small number.

120 These three Jewish groups are depicted as working together to try to entrap Jesus at Matthew 22.15–46. The force of this comparison is detrimental to Constantius and the 'Arians', but also exalts Athanasius and his allies as suffering like Jesus. The comparison with the Gospel account continues in the following sentences.

121 The statement attributed to Athanasius' enemies is taken from John 19.15, where the Jewish chief priests give this answer to Pilate during the trial of Christ. The comparison with a partridge alludes to Jeremiah 17.11, where this bird is castigated for gathering the eggs of others, just like a man who gathers riches unjustly, only to lose them later.

122 For the reference to the axe and stone-cutter, see Psalms 74.6 (73.6 LXX).

123 Matthew 16.24; cf. Luke 14.27. Athanasius' point here is that Christ's teaching was that people should choose freely to follow him.

124 Song of Songs 5.2.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

they hesitate and are unwilling, he departs. 3 For the truth is proclaimed not with swords and javelins and soldiers, but by persuasion and advice.

What sort of persuasion is it when there is fear of the emperor? Or what sort of advice, where anyone who rejects it receives exile and death? 4 When

David was king and had his enemy in his power, and his soldiers wanted to kill this man, he prevented them not by his power, but, as Scripture says, by persuading them with arguments and not allowing them to rise up and kill

Saul.125 5 But this man [Constantius] has no arguments and so he compels everyone through his power, revealing to all that their [the Arians'] wisdom is not in accordance with God, but is merely human, and that those who follow the beliefs of Arius truly have no king but Caesar. 6 With his help, the enemies of Christ do whatever they want; they thought that he would enable them to plot against many people and they did not perceive that they were creating many confessors, including the devout men and good bishops who have recently performed a magnificent confession, Paulinus, bishop of Trier, the metropolis of the Gauls, Lucifer, bishop of the metropolis of Sardinia, Eusebius of Vercelli in Italy and Dionysius of Milan, which is the metropolis of Italy.126 7 The emperor summoned them and ordered them to subscribe against Athanasius and be in communion with the heretics.

When they were amazed at this novel practice and said that it was not an ecclesiastical canon, he immediately replied: 'Whatever I want, let that be deemed a canon. The so-called bishops of Syria allow me to speak in this way. Either obey or be exiled.'127

34.1 On hearing these words, the bishops were utterly astonished.

Stretching their hands up to God, they employed much freedom of speech towards him [Constantius] as well as arguments, teaching him that the kingdom was not his, but belonged to God, who had given it, and they told him to fear God, because he might suddenly take it away.128 They

125 For this story, see 1 Samuel 26.

126 Paulinus of Trier was exiled in 353/4 at the Council of Arles: see n. 100 to chapter 26.2 above. Lucifer of Cagliari, Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Milan were all exiled at the Council of Milan in 355: see Introduction p. 11 for more details.

127 As discussed at n. 4 to chapter 1.1 above, Athanasius frequently places unlikely statements into the mouths of his enemies. The remark about Constantius' wishes being treated as a canon has, rather surprisingly, been accepted as an accurate report by a number of historians. See Barnes (1993) 279 n. 33 for a useful list of those who have taken this view.

128 As elsewhere in this text, the phrase 'freedom of speech' translates the term παρρησία.

This fearless outspokenness in the face of tyranny was traditionally associated with philosophers, as well as being present in Christian accounts of martyrdom, and was also adopted

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

threatened him with the Day of Judgement and told him not to corrupt ecclesiastical affairs, nor to involve the Roman empire in the government of the church, nor to introduce the Arian heresy into the church of God. 2 But he neither listened, nor allowed them to say anything else, but threatened them even more, bared his weapon against them and commanded that some of them be taken away. But, like Pharaoh, he changed his mind yet again.129 3 So the holy men shook off the dust, looked up to God and did not fear the emperor's threat or surrender when the sword had been unsheathed.130 Instead they received exile as the performance of a service in their religious ministry. As they passed through each place and city, they preached the gospel, even though they were in chains. They proclaimed the pious faith and also anathematised the Arian heresy and condemned the change of heart by Ursacius and Valens.131 4 This worked against the plotters. For the greater the distance of their [the bishops'] exile, the more did hatred of those villains increase, and the exile of one set of men was a proclamation against the impiety of the other. For who, upon seeing the exiled men passing through, did not revere them as confessors; and who did not shun and loathe the others, no longer calling them simply impious, but also executioners, murderers and anything but Christians.

35.1 It would certainly have been better if, from the very beginning, Constantius had not got involved with this heresy at all; or, once he was involved, if he had not conceded so much to the impious; or, once he had conceded it, if he had stood by them only up to the point where a joint condemnation would come to them all for these actions alone. But by entangling their foolish selves in the chains of impiety, they bring down upon themselves, as is fitting, a greater condemnation. 2 Right from the start they would not leave even Liberius, bishop of Rome, alone. They extended their madness against the people of that city, and they were not ashamed even though this is an apostolic see, nor did they act cautiously because Rome is the metropolis of the Roman world, nor did they remember by some bishops in late antiquity, especially when seeking to present themselves as standing up to heresy and autocracy: see Brown (1992) 61–70, 117; Rapp (2005) especially 59–60,

75–76, 86–90, 268; Flower (2013) 25–6, 53–61, 129–30, 134–77.

129 On Pharaoh's trademark changes of heart, see n. 113 to chapter 30.4 above.

130 For the notion of shaking off dust when leaving a house or city that did not heed the word of God, see Matthew 10.14.

131 On this action by Ursacius and Valens, see chapter 29.1 above.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

that they had previously referred in writing to 'those apostolic men'.132 3 They jumbled everything together, forgot everything completely and were only concerned with their zeal for impiety. For when they saw that he

[Liberius] was orthodox, hated the Arian heresy and was keen to persuade everyone to shun and renounce it, these impious men said to themselves,

'If we persuade Liberius, we will quickly prevail over everyone.' 4 So they slandered him before the emperor. He assumed that he could use

Liberius to draw everyone over to himself quickly, so he wrote and sent a certain eunuch called Eusebius with letters and gifts, to seduce Liberius with the gifts and threaten him with the letters.133 5 The eunuch went up to Rome and first exhorted Liberius to subscribe against Athanasius and be in communion with the Arians, saying, 'This is what the emperor want and orders you to do.' Then he displayed the gifts, grasped his hands and exhorted him, saying, 'Obey the emperor and take these.'

36.1 The bishop tried to persuade him with an argument and teach him a lesson: 'How can we do this to Athanasius? How can we condemn a man who has been properly acquitted not only by one council but also by a second, which was assembled from everywhere, a man whom the Roman church has dismissed in peace?134 Who will accept us if, after we greeted him with love and held him in communion when he was present, we then turn away from him when he is absent? This is not an ecclesiastical canon, nor is this the tradition we have from the Fathers, who themselves received it from the blessed and great apostle Peter. 2 If the emperor really cares about ecclesiastical peace, if he gives orders for our writings about Athanasius to be revoked, let the actions that these men

132 The final statement must refer to an earlier document describing the bishops of Rome in this honorific fashion, although it does not appear to be one of the ones preserved in any of the works of Athanasius. Opitz's note to this passage simply reads 'Wo?' Liberius was bishop of Rome from 352 to 366.

133 Eusebius held the post of praepositus sacri cubiculi, which placed him in charge of other staff of the imperial bedchamber and so gave him the potential to be very influential with the emperor: see Jones (1964) II 566–70. Eusebius maintained this position throughout the reign of Constantius II and was involved in the fall and execution of the caesar Gallus. He was tried and executed in the Chalcedon trials that took place after the death of Constantius and the accession of Julian: see PLRE I 302–303 (Eusebius 11).

134 The first council may be the one held by Athanasius in Alexandria in 338 – see Ath.

Apol. c. Ar. 3–19; Barnes (1993), 36–40 – although it is probably more likely to be the one assembled in Rome in 341 by bishop Julius: see chapter 15.1 above. The second council is the one held at Serdica in 343: see chapter 15–18 above.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

[Athanasius' opponents] took against him also be revoked, let the actions against everyone be revoked, and then let an ecclesiastical council take place far from the palace, with the emperor not present, with no comes standing by, with no official making threats, but relying solely on the fear of God and the instructions of the apostles. In this way the ecclesiastical faith will be preserved, just as the Fathers defined it in the council at Nicaea, and those who follow the beliefs of Arius will be driven out and their heresy anathematised.135 3 Then when a judgement has been made concerning the accusations against Athanasius and anyone else, as well as those against these men, let the guilty be driven out and let the innocent speak and act freely. For those who are impious in their faith cannot be included in a council, nor can scrutiny of actions take place before scrutiny of faith. 4 All disagreement about faith must be eradicated first of all, and then an inquiry into actions can be conducted. For our Lord

Jesus Christ did not attend to the sick until they revealed and professed their faith in him. 5 This is what we learnt from the Fathers, this is what I reported to the emperor, for this is what is beneficial to him and builds up the church. Do not listen to Ursacius and Valens, since they have recanted their earlier views and their words are no longer trustworthy.136

37.1 After Bishop Liberius said this, the eunuch became distressed, not so much because the bishop had not subscribed against Athanasius, but because he himself had discovered that Liberius was hostile to the heresy.

Then, having forgotten that he was addressing a bishop, he spoke in a very threatening manner and went off with his gifts. Next he did something unlawful that was not only inappropriate for a Christian, but extremely audacious even for a eunuch. Imitating the wrongdoing of Saul, he entered the martyrion of the apostle Peter and dedicated the gifts to him.137 When he learnt about this, Liberius was very displeased with the overseer of the place for failing to prevent this, while he threw out the gifts themselves as an unfit sacrifice, thereby enraging the eunuch still further. In response,

Eusebius provoked the emperor, saying: 2 'Our concern is no longer with 135 The characteristic phrase 'those who follow the beliefs of Arius', supposedly uttered by Liberius here, also appears in Athanasius' main narrative in chapters 3.5, 33.5 and 70.3, as well as in the letter of Ossius at chapter 44.1.

136 On Ursacius and Valens' change of heart, see chapter 29.1 above.

137 The 'wrongdoing of Saul' is probably a reference to 1 Samuel 15, where the king disobeys God's instruction to kill all the Amalekites and their animals, instead bringing some cattle and sheep back as an offering. A martyrion is a shrine to a martyr.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

getting Liberius to sign, but with the fact that he is so set against the heresy that he anathematises the Arians by name.' He also roused the other eunuchs to help him, since many, or rather the entirety, of those surrounding

Constantius are eunuchs, and they control his every action so that nothing happens there without their involvement.138 3 So then the emperor wrote to Rome and once again dispatched palatini, notarii and comites with letters for the prefect. They were either to deceive Liberius with a trick, lure him away from Rome and then send him to the emperor at the imperial court, or else drive him out by force.139

38.1 Since this was the tenor of the letters, fear and intrigue sprang up throughout the whole city. How many households had threats made against them! How many people received how many instructions against Liberius!

How many bishops went into hiding when they saw these events! How many free people withdrew into the rural districts because of slanders uttered by the enemies of Christ! 2 How many ascetics were victims of plots! How many people who lived there and had made it their home were driven out! How assiduously and carefully did they guard the harbour and the entrances of the gates to stop any orthodox people entering to see Liberius! In this way, Rome also gained experience of the enemies of Christ and came to know what she had only previously heard about and not really believed: how these men destroyed the other churches city-bycity. 3 It was eunuchs who set in motion these events, along with the other actions against everyone. What is extraordinary about this plot is that the Arian heresy, which denies the Son of God, receives help from eunuchs, when they, being sterile by nature and having souls that similarly cannot produce virtue, cannot bear to hear anything about a 'Son' at all. 4 The eunuch from Ethiopia, who did not understand what he was reading, was converted by Philip, who taught him about the Saviour;140 but the eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter and they turn away when the Father reveals the Son, raging against those who say that the Son of God is genuine and defending this heresy of eunuchs which claims that 138 Accusations that powerful people were controlled by eunuchs were not limited to Christian invective: see, for example, Hopkins (1963) esp. 78–80; Long (1996) 97–102; Kelly

(2004) 222–4. See also Amm. 21.16.16 for specific criticism of Constantius II for being under the influence of his eunuchs.

139 The verb 'διώκω' is here translated as 'drive out', rather than 'persecute', as is the case in chapter 38.2 below.

140 Acts 8.27–39.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

there is no genuine and true Son from the Father.141 5 For this reason, the law prevents them from being admitted into an ecclesiastical council, but nonetheless Constantius has now given them authority over ecclesiastical judgements, and whatever seems right to them, Constantius decides upon it, while his so-called 'bishops' play along. Oh, who would be the historian of these men? Who would transmit these events to another generation? Who, on hearing this, would believe that eunuchs, who are scarcely entrusted with domestic duties (for their kind are fond of pleasure and they care about nothing except that which nature has removed from them), are now in charge of ecclesiastical matters and that Constantius, being under their control, has plotted against everyone and exiled Liberius?

39.1 It was when Constantius was writing many letters to Rome, threatening, sending messengers and plotting, that persecution also took place in Alexandria.142 2 Liberius was dragged before the emperor and addressed him with much freedom of speech, saying 'Stop persecuting

Christians.143 Do not try to use us to introduce impiety into the church. We are prepared to endure anything rather than be called Ariomaniacs.144 We are Christians; do not force us to become enemies of Christ. 3 We also offer you this advice: Do not fight against the one who has given this empire to you. Do not act impiously against him instead of giving thanks. Do not persecute those who believe in him. Do not find yourself also hearing the words, It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.145 But would that you did hear them, so that you might also be converted as the holy Paul was! 4 See,

141 'The confession of Peter' probably refers to Matthew 16.16, where the apostle Peter calls Christ 'the Son of the living God', while the reference to the Father revealing the Son describes the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism at Matthew 3.17. For the beliefs of the 'Arians' and their representation by opponents, see Introduction pp. 2–3.

142 This refers to the start of the attempts to drive Athanasius out of Alexandria in 355–6, including those that are related from chapter 47 onwards. On these events, see Introduction p. 12 and Barnes (1993) 118–19.

143 A supposed transcript of the conversation between Constantius and Liberius is provided at Theod. HE 2.16.

144 The term 'Ariomaniacs' is employed as a pejorative term for the 'Arians' on many occasions in the writings of Athanasius, as well as appearing in Latin in letters written by Eusebius of Vercelli during his exile: Eus. Verc. Ep. 2, at 3.1, 5.2, 6.5, 7.2, 8.1 and 11.2, as well as Ep. 3.2.1. English translations of these letters can be found at Flower (2013) 242–51.

The name of 'Ariomaniacs' for a group of heretics also appears as the title of chapter 69 of Epiphanius' Panarion.

145 These words were uttered by Christ when he appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus: see Acts 9.5 (repeated by Saul/Paul at Acts 26.14).

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

we are here, we have come before they could invent some allegation.146 For this reason we have hurried here, knowing that exile awaits us from you, in order that, before we can suffer a false accusation, it might be clearly demonstrated to everyone that all the others have also suffered in the same way as we have, that the allegations made against them were invented by their enemies and that those men deal in nothing except slander and lies.'

40.1 By speaking in this way at this time, Liberius received admiration from everyone. But, instead of replying, Constantius simply gave the order and exiled each of them separately, just as he had done in the earlier cases.147

He himself came up with this method of exile, so that in his punishments he might be even more savage than the tyrants and persecutors before him. 2

For in the earlier persecution, Maximian gave orders for many confessors to be exiled together and so consoled them with each other's company and lightened the punishment.148 But this man is more savage than he was: he

[Constantius] separated men who spoke out and became confessors together and he divided those men who are bound together in the faith. He did this so that when they die they will not see each other, because he thought that separation of the body would also break the connection of the soul, or that when they had been separated from each other they would forget their agreement and unanimity. He does not realise that, although each man might be alone, he still has with him the Lord, whom they confessed when they were all together and who (as he did with the prophet Elisha) will ensure that the companions of each of them will be more numerous than the soldiers of Constantius.149 3 Evil is truly blind. They thought that they could hurt the confessors by separating them from each other, but instead they did great harm to themselves. In fact, if they [the confessors]

146 This claim by Liberius seems to be at odds with Athanasius' earlier statement that the bishop had been dragged before the emperor.

147 This is the first mention here of people accompanying Liberius and suffering exile alongside him.

148 This emperor could be the either Maximian, the co-Augustus of Diocletian in the Tetrarchy, or Galerius, their junior colleague who was also known by the name 'Maximianus'.

Galerius is usually assigned a greater role in instigating the persecution of Christians, but there is also a reference to persecution taking place under Constantius' grandfather

Maximian in chapters 44.1 and 64.2 below, which makes it possible that the former is meant here. On this question generally in presentations of the Great Persecution at this time, see n. 39 to Hilary, In Const. 7 on p. 121 below.

149 The reference is to the help that Elisha received from God when faced with the armies of the Syrian king in 2 Kings 6.16.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

had remained together and all gone to the same location, the pollution of the impious would only have become known from that one place; but, by separating them, they [the Arians] have caused their own impious heresy and wickedness to spread everywhere and be recognised in every place.

41.1 Who could hear about their actions in this matter and not realise that they are anything but Christians? For when Lucifer and his companions also made their confession of faith, Liberius sent the presbyter Eutropius and the deacon Hilarius to the emperor with a letter. They exiled the presbyter immediately, but they stripped the deacon Hilarius, flogged his back and then exiled him, exclaiming to him, 'Why did you not oppose

Liberius rather than bringing a letter from him?'150 Ursacius, Valens and their accompanying eunuchs did this.151 2 As he was being flogged, the deacon praised the Lord, remembering that he said, I gave my back to the smiters.152 His attackers laughed and jeered at him, and were not ashamed of abusing a Levite.153 Their mocking behaviour was entirely appropriate to them, but he endured and praised God. It is the lot of Christians to receive a beating, but flogging Christians is the shameless activity of Pilate and Caiaphas.154 3 In this way they first tried to corrupt the Roman church and also wanted to introduce impiety into it; the exiled Liberius gave way two years later and subscribed because he was frightened by the threat of death. But this reveals both their violent behaviour and also Liberius' hatred of the heresy and his vote for Athanasius, when he still had a free choice. 4 Statements produced under torture and against a person's original judgement express the wishes not of the intimidated, but of the torturers.

150 This must refer to the Council of Milan in 355, when Lucifer of Cagliari was exiled along with the presbyter Pancratius, the deacon Hilarius and the bishops Dionysius of Milan and Eusebius of Vercelli. See Introduction p. 11. After Hilarius returned from exile, he apparently displayed the same rigorist attitude as Lucifer towards former 'Arians' and so was criticised as a 'Luciferian' by Jerome: see PCBE II.1 985–6 (Hilarius 1). The name

'Eutropius' here must be an error, as the presbyter who accompanied Lucifer and Hilarius is attested elsewhere as being named Pancratius: see Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.VII.6.2;

Lucifer, De regibus 5.46; PCBE II.2 1581–2 (Pancratius 1).

151 On the bishops Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa, see above, especially chapter 17.3, 26.1–5 and 29.1.

152 Isaiah 50.6.

153 The Levites were the priestly tribe of Israel. In Christian usage, 'Levite' gradually came to be employed as a synonym for deacon: see Souter s.v. levita; Lampe s.v. λευίτης.

154 Pilate and Caiaphas are, respectively, the Roman prefect and the Jewish High Priest who treat Jesus violently in the Gospel narratives.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

These men tried everything for the sake of their heresy. But in every church, men keep to the faith that they learned and wait for their teachers; they have rejected the Christ-fighting heresy and all avoid it like a snake.

42.1 Despite having committed so many crimes of this sort, the impious regarded themselves as having achieved nothing so long as the great

Ossius still remained untouched by their wickedness. And so they made plans to extend their madness to reach such a great old man. They were not ashamed, even though he was the father of bishops; they did not act cautiously, even though he was a confessor; they did not respect the length of his episcopacy, where he had remained for sixty years and more, but instead they showed contempt towards everything and only cared for their heresy, as men who were truly fearing not God nor regarding man.155 2

They went to Constantius and once again spoke in this way: 'We have done everything and exiled the Roman bishop, and we also exiled a great many other bishops before him and filled everywhere with fear. But these great deeds of yours are pointless and achieve nothing for us while Ossius remains. So long as he is amongst his own people and all the others are in their own churches, he can turn everyone against us through his reasoning and faith. 3 He leads councils and gains a hearing everywhere through his writings.156 He also established the faith at Nicaea and proclaimed the Arians to be heretics everywhere. If he remains, the exile of the others is useless, for our heresy will be routed. So start persecuting and show no mercy, even though he is extremely old. Our heresy does not know to respect even the grey hair of old men.'157

43.1 When he heard this, the emperor did not delay because he knew this man and his ability, even in his great age. The emperor wrote and gave him orders to come to him, at the same time when he was starting to put

Liberius to the test as well. When he [Ossius] had arrived, Constantius requested and urged him to subscribe against us and enter into communion with the Arians, saying the same things that he had used to try to deceive the others. 2 After listening to this with displeasure and becoming distressed that Constantius had said such a thing at all, the old man rebuked him and,

155 Luke 18.2.

156 As well as presiding at the Council of Nicaea in 325, Ossius was also the leader of the 'western' delegates at Serdica in 343: see Barnes (1993) 73.

157 This speech is another excellent example of Athanasius presenting his enemies as acknowledging their own heresy and making terrible, immoral statements.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

after having gained his permission, left for his homeland and church. When the heretics complained and spurred him [Constantius] on again (and he also had the eunuchs making suggestions and spurring him on even more), the emperor wrote again with a threat. 3 Despite his maltreatment, Ossius was not moved by fear of the plot, but, resolute in his purpose, he built his house of faith upon the rock and he spoke very freely against the heresy, regarding the threats in the letters as nothing more than raindrops and gusts of wind.158 4 Constantius actually wrote to him on many occasions, sometimes flattering him by calling him 'Father', sometimes threatening him, naming the other exiles and saying, 'Are you the only one still against the heresy? Yield and subscribe against Athanasius. For the man who subscribes against him will assuredly adopt Arianism with us.' Yet Ossius was not intimidated: he endured these abuses and wrote back these words.

I have read the letter and it has been appended at the end.159

44.1 I first became a confessor when a persecution arose under your grandfather Maximian.160 If you persecute me, I stand ready now also to suffer absolutely anything rather than to spill innocent blood and betray the truth, and I do not approve of you writing such letters and issuing threats. Stop writing in this manner and do not follow the beliefs of Arius,161 and do not listen to the easterners or trust Ursacius and Valens and their associates. They do not make these claims because of Athanasius, but rather to help their own heresy. Trust me, Constantius; I am old enough to be your grandfather.162 2 I was at the council in Serdica, when you and your brother

Constans, of blessed memory, assembled all of us.163 By myself I addressed the enemies of Athanasius after they came into the church where I was staying, and I told them that they should say if they had anything against him. I encouraged them to have no fear and not to expect anything other than a fair judgement about everything. 3 I did this not once, but a second time as well, urging them to come to me alone if they did not want to go before 158 For the parable of the wise man who built his house upon the rock, see Matthew 7.24–5.

159 In fact, the letter appears here at chapter 44 in the transmitted text, rather than at the end.

160 On the presentation of Maximian, the Tetrarchic emperor and father of Constantius' mother Fausta, as a persecutor, see n. 148 to chapter 40.2 above.

161 On the phrase 'follow the beliefs of Arius', see n. 135 to chapter 36.2 above.

162 Here Ossius offers himself as an alternative, pious grandfather figure for Constantius, replacing the persecutor Maximian.

163 This is the Council of Serdica in 343.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

the whole council. I also promised again that, if Athanasius were found guilty, he would be completely rejected by us, but if he were found innocent and convicted them of being false accusers, then, if they still rejected him,

I would persuade him to come with me to the Spains.164 Athanasius agreed to this and did not oppose it, but they rejected it because they were not confident of success. 4 After you sent letters summoning him, Athanasius came to your court again and requested that his enemies, who were present there in Antioch, be sent for, either all at once or individually. He did this so that they might either convict him or be convicted, and might either demonstrate while he was present that he was the sort of man they claimed or else not slander him in his absence. You did not put up with him saying this, and they also rejected it. 5 Why do you listen to the men who speak ill of him? How do you put up with Valens and Ursacius, when they have recanted and confessed in writing that their accusation was false?165 Despite their allegations, they confessed this without any compulsion, without any soldiers looming over them and without your brother's knowledge (for the kinds of things that happen now did not happen under him – may it never be!). They went up to Rome willingly and wrote in the presence of the bishop and presbyters. They had also previously written a friendly and peaceful letter to Athanasius. If they complain about violence, then they recognise that it is evil, and you do not approve of it either. 6 So stop using force and do not write or send comites. Release those who have been exiled, lest, with you accusing them of violence, those men [the Arians] use greater violence against them. For what of this kind was ever done under Constans? What bishop was exiled? When was he [Constans] at the centre of an ecclesiastical trial? What palatinus of his ever forced people to subscribe against anyone and so gave Valens and his associates the opportunity to make such an allegation? Stop, I beg you, and remember that you are a mortal man; fear the Day of Judgement and keep yourself pure for it. 7 Do not involve yourself in ecclesiastical matters and do not give us instructions, but learn about these things from us instead. God gave the empire to you; he entrusted church affairs to us. And just as a man who usurps your empire opposes God, since he [God] established your rule, so you ought to be afraid in case, by appropriating church affairs to yourself, you become guilty of a great crime. It has been written, Render unto Caesar the things which are

164 This is a reference to the multiple late Roman provinces of Hispania on the Iberian peninsula.

165 For the episode when the two bishops retracted their accusations against Athanasius, see chapter 26 above.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.166 Therefore we are not permitted to rule on earth, and you, emperor, do not have the authority to burn incense.167 8 I am writing this out of concern for your salvation; now here is what I think about your orders: I do not agree with the Arians, and I anathematise their heresy; nor do I subscribe against Athanasius, whom we absolved from blame, as did the Roman church and the whole council.168

Moreover, when you saw this, you sent for Athanasius and let him return to his homeland and church with honour. 9 So what is the pretext for such a great change of heart? He had the same enemies then as now. As for the slanders that they whisper now (for they don't utter them in his presence), they also babbled on about these things before you sent for Athanasius.

They spread these claims when they came to the council; but then, after I demanded it, as I said earlier, they could not provide any proof. If they had, they would not have run away so shamefully. 10 Who persuaded you to forget your own letters and words after such a long time? Stop obeying evil men, or you will make yourself guilty through this relationship with them.

For you comply with them here, but in the Judgement you will make your defence alone.169 11 They want you to help them harm their personal enemy, and they want you to become the assistant of their own wickedness, so that they can use you to implant their abominable heresy into the church.170 It is not wise to fall into manifest danger for the gratification of others. Stop, I appeal to you, and trust in me, Constantius. For these are things that it is proper for me to write and for you to heed.

45.1 The old man, the truly holy Ossius, was like Abraham.171 He believed and wrote these things, but the other man [Constantius] did not refrain from his plotting, nor did he stop looking for a pretext to attack him. He kept on making terrible threats against Ossius, intending either to change his mind

166 Matthew 22.21.

167 This is a reference to 2 Chronicles 26.16–21, where King Uzziah usurped the position of the priests by burning incense as an offering to God, resulting in him being punished with leprosy. This passage is also used in Lucifer's criticism of Constantius at De non parc. 6.

168 This is the 'western' Council of Serdica in 343, where Ossius was in attendance.

169 The point being made here is that, unless Constantius dissociates himself from the Arians now, he will be found equally complicit with them in the Last Judgement and he will not be able to argue that he was merely following their lead.

170 The word translated as 'assistant' here is διάκονος, which is also the term for a deacon.

171 After the text of Ossius' letter Athanasius has now returned to his narrative. Here and in 45.2 Athanasius puns on the name Ὅσιος, which is both an alternative version of the name

'Ossius' and also a Greek word meaning 'holy'.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

by force or else exile him if he did not comply. 2 Just as the ministers and satraps of Babylon sought a pretext and did not find one against Daniel except concerning the laws of his God,172 so too these current satraps of impiety could not concoct any pretext against the old man except his hatred of heresy, because the truly holy Ossius and his blameless life were well known to everyone. 3 So they slandered him, not in the way that Daniel was slandered to Darius (for Darius listened unwillingly to the accusations against Daniel), but rather as Jezebel slandered Naboth and as the Jews did to Herod,173 saying, 'Not only does he not subscribe against Athanasius, but he also condemns us for that man's sake and hates our heresy so much that he writes to other people and says that he would rather suffer death than become a traitor to the truth. He says that it is because of the heresy that "our beloved Athanasius" is persecuted and that Liberius, bishop of the Romans, and all the others are the victims of plots against them.' 4 When the champion of impiety, the emperor of heresy, Constantius, heard this, and especially when he discovered that there were others in the Spains who held the same views as Ossius, he tried to get them to subscribe. When he could not force them, he sent for Ossius. Instead of exiling him, he kept him in Sirmium for a whole year. This godless man revered neither God nor his own father's respect for Ossius; this unholy man did not respect his

[Ossius'] old age (for then he was a hundred years old); this heartless man felt no shame.174 5 He disregarded all this out of impiety, since he was a new Ahab and another Belshazzar of our own times.175 He was so violent towards the old man and placed him in such narrow confinement that he

[Ossius] broke and reluctantly agreed to enter into communion with Valens and Ursacius and their associates, although he still would not subscribe against Athanasius. But even so the old man was not negligent: when he was about to die, as though making a will, he testified to the violence that he had been subjected to, anathematised the Arian heresy and encouraged everybody to reject it.176

172 Daniel 6.5.

173 For these two biblical parallels, see 1 Kings 21.1–16; Luke 23.10.

174 The description of Constantius as ἀνόσιος ('unholy') is another pun on the name

Ὅσιος, with Constantius here being described as the opposite of the venerable old bishop.

175 For the Old Testament impious characters of Ahab, king of Israel, and Belshazzar, king of Babylon, see 1 Kings 16.29–22.40 and Daniel 5 respectively. Both suffered violent deaths that could be seen as divine retribution for their actions.

176 Ossius probably died in late 357, fairly soon after subscribing to the theological statement known as the 'Blasphemy of Simium' and shortly before Athanasius composed the Historia Arianorum: see Barnes (1993) 126. On the 'Blasphemy', see Introduction p. 12.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

46.1 Upon seeing all this – or even just hearing about it – who is not astonished and will not himself cry out to the Lord and say wilt thou wipe out Israel?177 Who, when they perceive this, will not himself justifiably call out and say A terrible and fearful thing has been committed in the land and Heaven is astonished at this and the earth is horribly afraid even more?178 The fathers of the congregations and the teachers of the faith are being removed and impious men are being brought into the churches. 2

When Liberius bishop of Rome was exiled, as was the great Ossius, the father of bishops, was there anyone who [saw him suffering in this way, or] saw so many bishops exiled from Spain and other regions, but still did not observe, even if he was not very perceptive, that the accusations against Athanasius and the others are false allegations, all packed with malice and slander?179 It is for this reason that they put up with all their sufferings, for they recognised that the plot arose from the slander of those men. 3

For what formal charge was there against Liberius? Or what accusation was there against the old man Ossius? Who would have spoken falsely against Paulinus, Lucifer, Dionysius and Eusebius? What fault could be used to accuse the other exiled bishops, presbyters and deacons? There was none – may it never be! – since these plots did not proceed by means of formal charges, nor was each man exiled because of an official accusation.

In reality, this is a rebellion of impiety against piety; this is both zeal for the Arian heresy and a prelude to the coming of the Antichrist, with Constantius preparing the way for him.

47.1 Once he had accomplished all he wanted in the churches of Italy and the other regions, and after he had exiled some people and used force against others, and had instilled fear everywhere, Constantius then turned his anger towards Alexandria, like some form of plague. 2 This arose through the malicious cunning of the enemies of Christ. In order to give the appearance of a formal subscription by many bishops and to prevent the persecuted Athanasius from complaining to any bishop, they moved swiftly and instilled fear everywhere.180 The idiots kept this up as a support

177 Ezekiel 11.13, 9.8.

178 Jeremiah 5.30, 2.12.

179 Opitz believes that the section in square brackets represents an interpolation from a marginal gloss.

180 Athanasius had been condemned by the hostile Council of Sirmium in 351, while the Councils of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355 were asked to assent to this condemnation, possibly along with the theological formula approved at Sirmium. See chapters 28–34 above

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

for their plot, since they did not realise that what they were displaying publicly was not a reasoned decision by bishops but rather the violence that they themselves had inflicted. Nor did they realise that, even if Athanasius' brethren were to abandon him, or his friends and companions were to keep their distance from him and no one could be found to sympathise with his plight and comfort him, more than anything else it is instead refuge in God that suffices for him. 3 For the persecuted Elijah was alone, and God was all and in all for the holy one.181 And the Saviour, who was alone, abandoned and plotted against by his enemies, has given us this model for imitation, so that, if we find ourselves persecuted and abandoned by men, we may not lose heart, but instead may retain hope in him and not abandon the truth.182 Although it may seem to be under threat initially, the truth will be recognised eventually, even by its persecutors.

48.1 So they [the heretics] spurred the emperor on and he began by writing a threatening letter and sending it to the dux and the soldiers.

The notarii Diogenes and Hilarius and the palatini with them were the envoys.183 Very terrible and savage deeds were committed against the church; these were briefly related a little earlier and are known by everyone from the appeals that the laity made. These can be found appended to the end of this text.184 2 When Syrianus had performed these actions and after such terrible events had taken place, including outrages against virgins,

Constantius gave his approval to these and similar crimes. Then he wrote again to the council and people of Alexandria, inciting the young men to all come together and either persecute Athanasius or at least recognise for Athanasius' tendentious account of these events, emphasising both the unwillingness of other bishops (including Lucifer) to condemn him and also the importance of Athanasius as the most vehement opponent of heresy. Athanasius warned other bishops not to subscribe to the decisions of Sirmium in his Ad Ep. Aeg. 5–6. On this series of events, see Barnes (1993)

109–20 and Introduction pp. 10–11.

181 For the story of Elijah's persecution by Ahab and Jezebel, during which he fled to the desert and was supported by God, see 1 Kings 19. This episode suits Athanasius' self-presentation very well.

182 On Athanasius' deployment of imitation of biblical models and use of the term τύπος for a 'model', see Ernest (2004) 183–268; Flower (2013) especially 178–207. Athanasius devoted his De fuga to arguing that his retreat from Alexandria was not an act of cowardice but the proper action of a persecuted Christian. Chapters 11–22 of the De fuga expand on the theme of flight as biblical re-enactment touched upon here.

183 For Diogenes, see PLRE I 255 (Diogenes 2). For Hilarius, see PLRE I 434 (Hilarius 2).

184 This account of the actions of the dux Syrianus is appended to the end of the text as the 'second appeal' in chapter 81 below.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

that they were his enemies.185 3 In fact, before these instructions reached them, Athanasius withdrew after Syrianus entered the church, recalling the words of Scripture: But hide for a little while, until the anger has passed.186

A certain Heraclius, who held the rank of comes, was the bearer of this message, paving the way for a certain George, a spy despatched by the emperor.187 For no one sent by him could be a bishop (may it never be!), as is shown by his actions and the preliminaries to his arrival.188

49.1 Then he [Heraclius] displayed the message publicly and revealed the great shame of its author. For although he [Constantius] could not come up with a plausible pretext for his change of heart when the great Ossius wrote to him, he now invented one that brought much more disrepute to him and his advisors. 2 For he said, 'Showing respect for love towards my brother of divine and pious memory, for a while I put up with the return of this man [Athanasius] to you.'189 This reveals both that he lied in his proclamation and also that he was ungrateful towards his brother after his death. Then Constantius calls him worthy 'of divine and pious memory', which he certainly is, and says that he [Constantius] <shows respect for> his command and 'love', as he himself says. Nonetheless, even if he only acquiesced on account of Constans, of blessed memory, he ought to have acted in a manner not unworthy of his brother, by becoming heir to his opinion just as to his empire.

50.1 But, when he wanted to demand his rights, he deposed Vetranio, saying 'Who receives the inheritance after the death of brothers?'190 In 185 The 'council' referred to here is the city council, or boule, of Alexandria, rather than an ecclesiastical council.

186 Isaiah 26.20. Syrianus entered the church on the night of the 8/9 February 356, causing

Athanasius to flee: see chapter 81 below.

187 For Heraclius, see PLRE I 418–9 (Heraclius 3). For Athanasius' play on the similarity between the Greek words for 'bishop' and 'spy', see n. 15 on chapter 3.4 above.

188 On the actions of George, the rival bishop who arrived in Alexandria to replace

Athanasius in 357, see De fuga 6–7 and Apol. Const. 28. The phrase 'preliminaries to his arrival' echoes the description of Constantius preparing the way for the Antichrist at the end of chapter 46.3.

189 The brother is the emperor Constans, who died in 350.

190 Vetranio, the former magister peditum of Constans in the Balkans, had been proclaimed emperor there after the murder of Constans by the usurper Magnentius. Constantius soon forced Vetranio to abdicate in his favour. On these events, see Hunt (1998) 15–17. The reference to 'brothers' here must include both Constans and also the emperor Constantine II,

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

contrast, because of this abominable heresy of the enemies of Christ, he does not recognise rights, but instead acts in an unworthy manner towards his brothers. Because of this heresy he showed no concern for maintaining his father's wishes intact. Instead he pretends to preserve it in order to please the impious, but, in order to cause distress to everyone else, he does not accept that he should maintain respect for his father. 2 For after he

[Athanasius] had been falsely accused by the Eusebians, he [Constantine I] sent the bishop to Gaul for a while because of the savagery of the plotters. He rejected the Eusebians' request to send them the bishop, and he hindered their desires and frustrated their attempts with a terrifying threat.

Constantine [II], of blessed memory, Constantius' brother, made this clear after his father's death, as is demonstrated by his letter.191

51.1 If Constantius wanted to maintain his father's policies, as he claims, how come he sent first Gregory and now George, this devourer of the treasury?192 Or why is he keen to bring the Arians, whom Constantine labelled 'Porphyrians', into the church and, after becoming their leader, why does he exile others?193 Even if his father gave an audience to Arius, nonetheless when Arius committed perjury and burst he lost Constantine's benevolence.194 In fact, when he learned about this he then condemned him as a heretic. 2 How is it that, although he [Constantius] claims to respect who had been killed in 340. After Constans' death in 350 Constantius was the last surviving son of Constantine I and thus could claim to be heir to the whole empire.

191 Athanasius is here providing a relatively positive account of his first exile, in 335, on the orders of Constantine I. The letter of Constantine II referred to here, which supports this interpretation of these events, is preserved in Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 87.4–7. On the circumstances surrounding this event, including the fact that no bishop was appointed to replace Athanasius at this time, see Barnes (1993) 24–5. Constantine II had died in 340 in a civil war with his brother Constans: see Hunt (1998) 5. For the term 'the Eusebians', see n. 2 to chapter 1.1 above.

192 On Gregory 'the Cappadocian', an earlier rival claimant to the Alexandrian see, see n. 39 to chapter 9.3 above. On claims that George 'the Cappadocian', the 'Arian' bishop of the city at the time that this text was written, misused public funds and was involved in various business dealings, see Barnes (1993) 284 n. 6. The fact that both of Athanasius' episcopal rivals were referred to as 'the Cappadocian' and had quite similar names creates substantial potential for confusion.

193 In a letter, preserved at Soc. HE 1.9, Constantine had labelled the Arians as 'Porphyrians' because they were said to be imitating the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry in their impiety.

194 On the circumstances of Arius' death in 336, see Introduction p. 6 and also n. 57 to Lucifer, Moriundum 4 at p. 153 below.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

ecclesiastical rules, he has contrived to do everything in contravention of them? For what canon says that a bishop is sent from the palace? Or what canon says that soldiers attack churches? Or who has handed down that comites and senseless eunuchs should rule over church matters and that the decisions of so-called 'bishops' are to be proclaimed by an edict? He falsifies everything for the sake of his unholy heresy. Against his father's wishes, he sent Philagrius to be prefect of Egypt for a second time and so created the current situation.195 3 Nor does he speak the truth for his brother's sake. For after Constans' death he wrote to the bishop not once, not twice, but three times.196 Yet again he promised that he would not change his mind, and even encouraged Athanasius to be confident that he would not be troubled by anyone and could remain in his church with complete freedom from anxiety. 4 With Asterius the comes and Palladius the notarius as his envoys, he also sent orders to Felicissimus, who was dux at that time, and to Nestorius the prefect, to prevent Philip the prefect or anyone else from daring to plot against Athanasius.197

52.1 For this reason, when Diogenes arrived and Syrianus lay in ambush for us, they and we and the people demanded to see the emperor's letters.

Since it has been written, Let no falsehood be spoken by the king from his mouth, we thought that the king, once he had made a promise, would not lie or change his mind.198 2 If he acquiesced on account of his brother, how come he wrote again after Constans' death? And if he wrote then on account of Constans' memory, why did he completely disregard him later by persecuting Athanasius and writing letters in which he used the judgement of bishops as a pretext, when he was actually doing whatever he

195 On Philagrius and his previous stint as Prefect of Egypt, see n. 30 to chapter 7.5 above.

196 See chapter 21.2 above.

197 As well as holding the rank of comes, Asterius also had the military position of dux

Armeniae: see PLRE I 119 (Asterius 3). Palladius went on to hold the important administrative post of magister officiorum under the caesar Gallus and, like a number of other officials from Constantius' regime, was tried at Chalcedon in 361, although he was not executed, instead being exiled to Britain: see PLRE I 658–9 (Palladius 4). Papyrological evidence indicates that Flavius Felicissimus had held the post of dux Aegypti since 347: see

PLRE I 331 (Felicissimus 3). On Nestorius, Prefect of Egypt, see n. 90 to chapter 23.3 above.

On the Praetorian Prefect Philip, see n. 32 to chapter 7.6 above.

198 This quotation is from a passage in the Septuagint version of Proverbs, at the end of chapter 24. On Diogenes, see n. 183 to chapter 48.1 above. On Syrianus, see n. 115 on chapter

31.2 above.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

liked? He did not escape detection, however, and proof of his villainy was at hand. 3 For if a judgement is made by bishops, what interest does the emperor have in it? If a threat comes from the emperor, what need is there then of the so-called 'bishops'? When since the dawn of time have such things ever been heard of? When has a judgement of the church received its authority from the emperor or, actually, when was his verdict recognised

[by the Church]? Many councils have taken place before this, and there have been many decisions by the church, but the fathers never prevailed on the emperor about them, nor did the emperor meddle in church affairs. 4 The apostle Paul had friends in the household of Caesar and he sent greetings from them when he wrote to the Philippians, but he did not invite them to be partners in making decisions.199 5 Now a new wonder has appeared, the invention of the Arian heresy. The heretics and the emperor Constantius have united for this purpose: he, with the bishops as a pretext, can do whatever he wants with authority and can persecute without being called a persecutor, while they, with the power of the emperor, can plot against whomsoever they wish. For they want to plot against anyone who is not impious like them. 6 Someone might think that this was a comedy written for these people to perform on the stage, with the so-called 'bishops' acting out roles and Constantius being the producer for their performance; once again he makes promises, as Herod did to the daughter of Herodias, and once again they dance their slanders to bring about the exile and death of those who are pious towards the Lord.200

53.1 Who have they not harmed with their slanders? Who have the enemies of Christ not plotted against? Who has not been exiled by Constantius after being accused by these men? When has he not listened to them with pleasure? And, incredibly, what opponent of theirs has he ever given an audience to, rather than admitting those men to say whatever they might say? What church now worships Christ with freedom? If it is pious, it is in danger; if it plays along with him, it lives in fear. 2 As far as he could, he has filled everything with pretence and impiety. If anyone

199 See Philippians 4.22.

200 This passage employs not only the concept of pretence through acting, but also the idea of re-enactment, in which Constantius becomes Herod, while the 'Arian' bishops act out the role of Salome, who bewitched the emperor with her dancing and thus brought about the execution of John the Baptist: see Matthew 14.6–11; Mark 6.22–8. I have kept the literal (and pleasingly vivid) phrase 'dance their slanders' in the translation to reflect the direct equation of the bishops with Salome.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

anywhere is pious and loves Christ (and in every place there are many people who resemble the prophets and the great Elijah), they go into hiding if they can find a trustworthy man like Obadiah and either head off into a cave or cracks in the earth, or else spend their time wandering around the deserts.201 3 These idiots utter the same sorts of slanders as Jezebel concocted against Naboth and the Jews did against the Saviour.202 Then

Constantius, the protector of the heresy, who wants to change the truth just as Ahab changed the vineyard into a garden of herbs, carries out their wishes, since what he has heard from them is what he himself wants.203

54.1 So, as I said above, he exiled the true bishops, because they did not act impiously as he wanted, and then he sent the comes Heraclius against Athanasius. Heraclius displayed the edicts publicly and announced the emperor's orders that, unless they obeyed his letter, the bread would be taken away, the idols would be overturned and many of the decuriones and others of the population would most certainly be imprisoned.204 2 As he made these threats, he was not ashamed to say publicly in a loud voice, 'The emperor dismisses Athanasius and has ordered that the churches be handed over to the Arians.'205 3 Everyone was astounded by this, turning to each other and saying, 'Has Constantius become a heretic?' Although he should have been blushing with embarrassment, Heraclius instead compelled the city councillors and the common pagan wardens of the idols to subscribe to these decisions and to agree to receive whomever bishop the emperor chose to send. 4 Constantius was certainly obeying the canons of the church when he caused this to happen!206 For he demanded written statements not from the church but from the agora, and not from the congregations but from the temple wardens. He realised that he was not sending him [George] as a bishop to Christians but rather as a troublemaker to the men who had subscribed.

201 See 1 Kings 18.3–4, where Obadiah hid fifty prophets in a cave to protect them from Ahab and Jezebel. In the following chapter, Elijah himself fled into the desert to avoid persecution.

202 These two biblical examples of slander also appear in chapter 45.2 above.

203 For Ahab's desire to turn Naboth's vineyard into a garden of herbs, see 1 Kings 21.1.

204 On the comes Heraclius, see chapter 48.3 above. Decuriones were members of the city council. The threats are clearly presented as being directed towards the whole population of Alexandria, including pagans.

205 Constantius would not, of course, have referred to these men as 'the Arians'.

206 This line contains heavy sarcasm.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

55.1 So the Hellenes subscribed, as though they were buying the safety of their idols by doing so, as did some members of the guilds, albeit unwillingly, because of Heraclius' threats, just as if it were a governor or some other official who was being sent. For, being Hellenes, what were they going to do other than what the emperor wanted? 2 In contrast, after the congregation had assembled in the Great Church (as it was the fourth day of the week), on the next day the comes Heraclius took with him Cataphronius the Prefect of Egypt, Faustinus the rationalis and Bithynus the heretic.207 They raised a mob of common young men and idol-worshippers and told them that the emperor has given orders to attack the church and throw stones at the congregation. 3 As the dismissal [at the end of the service] had taken place by this point, most of the congregation had already departed, but there were a few women still present when these orders were put into effect. It was a pitiable sight: a few who had just come from prayer were sitting down when these naked young men attacked them with stones and clubs. These godless men threw stones at some of them and they also beat the holy bodies of the virgins, dragged off their veils and uncovered their heads; when the women resisted, these wretches kicked them. 4 And these things are terrible, very terrible indeed; but what happened afterwards was even more terrible, and harder to endure than any outrage; for, because they knew about the revered status of the virgins and the purity of their ears, and also that they could endure stones and swords more than foul language, they attacked them with words of this sort. The Arians suggested this idea to the young men, and laughed while these things were being said and done. When the holy virgins and the other revered women fled from these shouts, as they would from the 207 Not much more is known of Cataphronius, who was Prefect of Egypt from 356 to 357: see PLRE I 186 (Cataphronius 1). The rationalis rei priuatae was an important financial official and was in charge of imperial property in Egypt and its revenue: see Jones (1964) I 412–14; Kelly (2004) 202. Faustinus went on to become Prefect of Egypt in 359–361, during which time he is reported to have continued to seek out Athanasius, who was in hiding until after the death of Constantius: see PLRE I 326–7 (Faustinus 2). Bithynus is not mentioned elsewhere. The so-called 'Great Church' had been created within the large Caesareum complex, which had been begun at the end of the Ptolemaic period and consisted of numerous buildings, porticoes and gardens. It had been handed over to Gregory 'the Cappadocian' by Constantius II, although the bishop did not live to see the church's construction completed.

See Epiphanius, Panarion 69.2.2–3; Haas (1997) 26, 210–11. In Apol. Const. 14–15,

Athanasius defended himself against the charge of having used this church before it had been completed. The church is also mentioned in chapter 74.2 below. Barnes (1993) 119 dates this attack to June 356.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

bites of asps, the enemies of Christ gave assistance to the young men and maybe even joined them in shouting. For they were delighted by the obscene language that they were yelling.

56.1 In order to complete their orders (for they were keen to do this and had been commanded to by both the comes and the rationalis), they then seized the stalls, the throne, the altar table (which was wooden) and the church curtains, as well as whatever else they could, carried them outside, set fire to them in front of the entrance in the great main street and threw on frankincense.208 2 Oh, who could hear this and not weep? He might even stop up his ears,209 so as not to experience someone else relating it, thinking it harmful even to hear about such an event. They also praised their idols and said, 'Constantius has become a Hellene and the Arians have given their approval to our beliefs'. These men do not have any scruple about acting out Hellenism, so long as it helps their heresy. 3 They even attempted to sacrifice a heifer that was used in irrigating the garden areas at the Caesareum, and they would have done this if it had not been female.210

For they said that they are not allowed to sacrifice these animals.211

57.1 The impious Arians went along with the Hellenes in doing this because they thought that it would harm and injure us. But divine justice212 convicted them of wickedness and provided a great and remarkable sign, thereby revealing clearly to everyone that, just as these men are rashly insulting none other than the Lord with their impiety, so by committing these crimes they tried to harm him again. And there is even clearer proof of this from the amazing thing that happened: 2 a young man from this shameless mob ran in and dared to sit down on the throne.213 When he had

208 The great main street referred to here is probably the central east-west arterial road through the centre of Alexandria, also known as the Via Canopica: see RE I 1383; Haas

(1997) 29–32, 81–90. The accusation that frankincense was thrown onto the flames is presumably part of the claim by Athanasius that this attack on the church was turning into a 'pagan' ritual, as he continues to argue in the rest of this chapter.

209 Possibly an allusion to Isaiah 33.15.

210 On the large Caesareum complex, where the Great Church had been built, see n. 207 to chapter 55.2 above, as well as chapter 74.2.

211 This Egyptian taboo against sacrificing cows, which were sacred to Isis, is mentioned at Herodotus 2.41.

212 Other interventions by 'divine justice' have already been described in chapters 7.6 and 14.4 above.

213 This is a reference to the episcopal throne in the church.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

sat down, this wretch hummed a filthy tune through his nostrils. Then, after he stood up, he used force to detach the throne and pull it towards himself, unaware that he was bringing down justice on himself. 3 For the earlier inhabitants of Azotus dared to touch the ark, although they were not even permitted to look at it, and were immediately annihilated by it, having first had their backsides destroyed by excruciating pain;214 in the same way, this wretch, when he dared simply to pull the throne, brought down upon himself the thing that he was pulling. Just as if justice itself were driving the wood into him, he struck his own belly and, instead of detaching the throne, he detached his own entrails with the blow, and so the throne took away his life, rather than being taken away by him. 4 In fact, as Scripture states about Judas, he poured out his innards and, after falling to the ground, he was carried off and died a day later.215 And another man entered with branches and he waved them about like a Hellene and made jokes. He was immediately blinded and could no longer see or know where in the world he was. He was about to fall over, but his companions took him by the hand and he left supported by them. The reckless man recovered with difficulty the next day and he could not recall either his actions or his affliction.

58.1 When they saw this, the Hellenes were afraid and did not dare to do anything more. But the Arians were still not ashamed and, like the Jews who saw the signs, these faithless men did not believe. Instead, they were hardened like Pharaoh and they kept their hopes somewhere below, in the emperor and his eunuchs.216 2 They allowed the Hellenes, or, rather, the more contemptible Hellenes, to do the things related above. They got

Faustinus to play along with this and incite the Hellenes; he was called the rationalis, but in fact he was base in his behaviour and shameless in his soul.217 The Arians decided to do the same things themselves, so that, just as they modelled their heresy on other heresies, so they might also

214 See 1 Samuel 5.6.

215 Acts 1.18. This comparison with Judas is also used by Athanasius when recounting the death of Arius in his De morte Arii. See Introduction p. 6.

216 The hardening of Pharaoh's heart occurs on a number of occasions in Exodus 7–14.

The sub-divisions of this chapter are misnumbered in Opitz's edition, with the final three parts being numbered as 3, 3 and 4. I have amended these to 3, 4 and 5.

217 On Faustinus and the title rationalis, see n. 207 to chapter 55.2 above. Athanasius is here punning on the word καθολικός, which is the Greek version of the title rationalis, but which also means 'universal' and 'orthodox' in Christian contexts. In Athanasius' judgement, the rationalis Faustinus is far from orthodox.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

share their wickedness with the more shameless people. 3 I have already described what they got those men to do, but surely the wrongs that they committed themselves exceed all wickedness and surpass the evil of any executioner! What house did they not plunder? What household did they not despoil under the pretext of carrying out a search? What garden did they not trample and what tomb did they not open? The hunt for Athanasius was a pretext; their real desire was to plunder and despoil everyone they met. 4 How many people's houses were sealed? How many people had the contents of their lodgings distributed to the soldiers who were helping them? Who did not experience their wicked behaviour? Who, having met them, did not then hide himself in the agora? Who did not leave his home because of these men and spend the night in the desert? Who, while endeavouring to guard his possessions from these men, did not lose most of them? 5 Who, despite never having been to sea, did not choose to take to it and risk its dangers rather than to watch these men issuing their threats?

Many people changed house and moved from alley to alley and even from the city to the suburbs. How many people paid over how many fines or, if they did not have the money, borrowed it from others, just so that they might escape from their plots?

59.1 They made themselves terrifying to everyone and behaved arrogantly towards all, always referring to the emperor and using the terror of him in their threats. They also had assistants in their wickedness: the dux Sebastian, a Manichaean and a shameless young man, and the prefect, the comes and the one who claims to be rationalis.218 2 In fact, when many virgins condemned their impiety and acknowledged the truth, these men took them from their houses. They also committed outrages against others as they walked along the street and got their gang of young men to uncover the virgins' heads. And the women who were with them were also given licence to maltreat anyone they wished. 3 The revered and faithful women turned aside and gave way to them on the road; but these women, like maenads and furies, thought themselves unlucky if they could not do wrong and they were miserable on any day when they could not commit

218 The unnamed officials are Heraclius, Cataphronius and Faustinus: see 55.2 above. The comment about the rationalis Faustinus is another use of the double meaning of καθολικός.

Sebastian held the office of dux Aegypti from 356 to 358, after which he went on to have a long military career, eventually becoming magister peditum in 378, shortly before his death at the battle of Adrianople: see PLRE I 812–13 (Sebastianus 2). On the Manichaeans, see n. 109 to chapter 30.2 above.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

evil.219 In fact, they were so wild and vindictive to everyone that they were universally called executioners, murderers, lawless, troublemakers, evil-doers and anything but Christians.

60.1 Furthermore, they imitated the Scythians and seized Eutychius the subdeacon, a man who served the church well, and they caused his back to be flogged with ox-hide whips and left him almost dead.220 Then they asked for him to be sent to the mines, and not just to any mines, but to the ones at Phaeno, where even a condemned murderer can scarcely survive for a few days.221 2 And the extraordinary thing was that they would not even allow him a few hours to be treated for his injuries. Instead, they had him sent away immediately, saying 'If this happens, everyone will be frightened and will then join us.' Not much later, he was unable to reach the mines because of the pain of his injuries and died on the road. 3 When he met his end, he rejoiced and obtained the glory of martyrdom; but the impious men felt no shame even then and, as Scripture says, having innards without mercy and having planned this, they did something else diabolical.222 For when the people tried to intercede for Eutychius and were pleading with them on his behalf, they had four respectable and free men taken into custody, including Hermias, who used to wash beggars. These men were beaten very violently and thrown into prison by the dux. 4 But the Arians were more savage then Scythians, and when they saw that these men had not 219 Furies were terrifying avenging female deities that punished men, while maenads were female followers of Dionysus and were famous for their out-of-control behaviour. Haas

(1997) 284 describes this passage as containing 'some measure of hyperbole on the part of the patriarch', but nonetheless regards it as evidence that worshippers of Dionysus were involved in this incident. It does, however, seem more likely that Athanasius' mention of 'maenads and furies' is merely a way of describing the women as raving and destructive, rather than a specific reference to the involvement of these actual religious adherents.

220 The Scythians lived in lands to the north of the Black Sea and the Persian empire. Ever since Herodotus, they were a by-word in Greek literature for fierce and savage behaviour.

221 Phaeno in Palestine was the location of remote copper mines to which criminals might be sent: see Barrington Atlas Map 70 G4; http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/697726. The use of Phaeno for this purpose is mentioned in the Tetrarchic letter against the Manicheans

(Collatio 15.3.7) and it was also a place of exile for Christians during the Great Persecution: see Eus. Mart. Pal. 7.2–3, 13.1; Epiphanius, Panarion 68.3.6. For discussion of the evidence for Phaeno, as well as the suggestion that some people sent there during the Great Persecution enjoyed more liberty (and so may have had a greater chance of survival than Athanasius suggests here), see Millar (1984) 140–41. On the punishment of being condemned to the mines more generally, see n. 35 to Lucifer, Moriundum 3 at p. 148 below.

222 See Proverbs 12.10.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

died from their injuries, they complained and uttered threats, saying 'We're writing to the eunuchs to say that you're not flogging people in the way we want.'223 When he [Sebastian] heard this, he became frightened and was forced to beat the men a second time. 5 As they were being beaten, these men knew why they were being beaten and who had spoken against them, and yet they said nothing other than 'We are being beaten because we defend the truth, but we refuse to be in communion with heretics. Beat us more, as you wish, and God will judge you for it.' The impious men wanted them to be in danger of actually dying in the prison, but the people of God saw an opportunity and interceded on their behalf. After seven days or more, they were released.

61.1 Those men [the Arians] were distressed by this and tried to do something even more savage and unholy, something that seemed savage to everyone, but which was entirely in keeping with their Christ-fighting heresy. For the Lord instructed us to remember the poor, saying Sell what you have and give alms and I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. For inasmuch as you have done it unto one of these little ones, you have done it unto me.224 2 But these men are actually opposed to Christ and they have dared to act against his will in this matter.

For after the dux had handed the churches over to the Arians, the needy and the widows could no longer spend time in them. They then sat down in places marked out by those clerics who had been entrusted with the widows. When they [the Arians] saw the brothers feeding the widows and looking after them eagerly, they persecuted the women by beating them on their feet and they also made accusations to the dux against those who were caring for them. 3 This they did with the help of a certain soldier called

Dynamius, but Sebastian also approved.225 For there is no compassion among Manichaeans, and showing compassion to a poor man is something they detest.226 And so there appeared a new ground for complaint and a new court was now contrived by them for the first time: one could be tried for kindness, a compassionate person was accused, a beneficiary of kindness was beaten. They preferred a poor man to go hungry rather than

223 Having set up the 'Arians' as being like the Scythians, Athanasius now claims that they surpass these paradigmatically savage people in their savagery. He makes a similar comparison between his enemies and the 'pagans' at 64.1 below.

224 Luke 12.33; Matthew 25.35, 40.

225 Dynamius appears again in chapter 81.10 below, but he is not mentioned elsewhere.

226 On the Manichaeans, see n. 109 to chapter 30.2 above.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

be provided for by a compassionate volunteer. 4 These men are new Jews, who have learned this from the ancient Jews. For when the Jews of old saw that the man who had been blind from birth could now see and that the man who had been paralysed long before was now healthy, they accused the Lord because he had done these good deeds, and they condemned the healed men as transgressors.227

62.1 Who was not amazed at these events? Who did not denounce the heresy and its supporters? Who did not recognise that the Arians are more ferocious than wild animals? For these blood-stained men did not profit from this as they had planned, but instead they made everybody hate them even more. They thought that their plotting and terror would force some people to become heretics and join up with them. 2 But they got the opposite result instead. The people who were suffering endured this treatment as martyrdom, and refused to abandon or renounce their piety towards Christ; and people outside who witnessed this, and even the Hellenes who saw it, all denounced the Arians as antichrists and executioners. Human beings love the poor and are sympathetic to them.

But these men have even lost human reason. If they were suffering, they would have prayed for help from others; but they would not allow others to be helped, and they wielded the oppressive authority of the officials, particularly the dux.

63.1 They even committed crimes against the presbyters and deacons; they got the dux and the officials to banish them; they used soldiers to drive their relatives from their homes, while the strategos Gorgonius also beat them; and (which is the crueller than anything else) they violently snatched the loaves from these men and from those who had already died.228 It is impossible to put all this into words because their savagery surpasses the very power of language. 2 How might someone think of a way to describe this? For whatever they described first, they would then discover that the second set of events was more terrible, and the next ones even more terrible still. All the irreligious actions of these men have been full of murder and impiety. They are so wicked in their desires and so wily in their behaviour that they attempt to deceive people with a promise of patronage or a 227 For these stories, see John 9.1–41; Matthew 9.1–8.

228 The two men who held the title of strategos of the city of Alexandria had responsibilities for maintaining law and order: see Haas (1997) 76. Gorgonius is otherwise unknown.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

payment of money. Because they cannot gain support through reasonable and honourable means, they do this to create a false appearance and trick the unwary.

64.1 Who would still call these men gentiles even, let alone Christians?229

Who would interpret their behaviour as human rather than bestial because of the savagery and ferocity of their actions? In fact they are more wicked than executioners and more reckless than the other heresies. And they are vastly inferior to the Hellenes and also very different from them.230 2 For I heard from our fathers – and I believe that their story is trustworthy

– that in the beginning, when persecution arose under Maximian, the grandfather of Constantius, Hellenes hid our Christian brothers when they were being hunted down.231 And the Hellenes themselves often lost money and suffered imprisonment, purely to avoid betraying these fugitives.

They protected those who sought refuge with them as they would have protected themselves, and they wanted to face danger in their place. 3

But now these extraordinary men, these inventors of a new heresy, do the complete opposite, and are recognisable from nothing other than their plotting against others. They have appointed themselves executioners, they seek to betray everyone and they plot against those who conceal others, regarding both the concealers and the concealed as their enemies.

In this way they are murderers and evil-doers who have imitated the wickedness of Judas.232

65.1 It is impossible to adequately describe their evil deeds, except to say only that, as I write and seek to recount their wicked actions, it occurs to me to consider whether this heresy is not the fourth daughter of the horse-leach in Proverbs, since after so many injustices and so many murders it has not said It is enough.233 For it still acts insolently. It goes around hunting

229 The term 'gentile' here translates the Greek word ἐθνικός.

230 Having linked the Arians with 'pagans' and their practices elsewhere in the text,

Athanasius here strengthens his rhetorical denunciation of his enemies by presenting them as surpassing the impiety of the impious.

231 On the presentation of Maximian, the Tetrarchic emperor and maternal grandfather of Constantius, as a persecutor, see n. 148 to chapter 40.2 above. Athanasius is here referring to the 'Great Persecution' in the early fourth century.

232 Opitz here prints the verb ἐξήλωσαν, which does not make sense in this context.

Presumably, instead of ξ, Opitz meant to print ζ (as Migne does in PG), giving the verb

'imitated'.

233 See Proverbs 30.15.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

down people that it has not yet found, while it is eager to inflict yet more hurt on those it has already harmed. 2 Look! After the night attack, after all the evils that followed, after the persecution under Heraclius, they still continue uttering slanders before the emperor.234 Because they are impious, they are confident that they will get a hearing so that a worse punishment than exile may be imposed and then those who will not convert to their impieties may be done away with. 3 Because they were now so confident,

Secundus, that most utterly evil man from Pentapolis, and Stephanus, his fellow conspirator, realised that, if they ever did any harm, they had their heresy as a defence.235 When they saw a presbyter in Barca who refused to obey them, a man who was also called Secundus (he had the same name, but not the same faith as the heretic), they kicked him to death.236 While he was being killed, he imitated the holy one by saying, 'Let no one avenge me before judges. I have the Lord to avenge me, and for him I suffer this at the hands of these men.' But they neither showed mercy to him as he spoke nor did they feel ashamed because of the time of year: for they kicked and killed this man during Lent itself.

66.1 O new heresy, totally clothed in the Devil in its impiety and its behaviour! This evil is a new invention. If some people seemed to have thoughts about it before, they hid them and were not discovered to be holding these beliefs. 2 But Eusebius and Arius went out from their lair like serpents and spat out the venom of this impiety.237 Arius had the audacity to commit open blasphemy, while Eusebius gave it patronage.

But he could not support the heresy until he found the emperor to act as its protector, as I said above. 3 Our fathers held an ecumenical council, where 300 bishops, more or less, came together, condemned the Arian heresy and unanimously declared it to be alien and foreign to the ecclesiastical faith; but when its protectors saw that they were now in disgrace and had no reasonable arguments, they devised another route and tried

234 On the comes Heraclius, see chapter 48.3 above. There is no number to denote chapter

65.2 in Opitz's edition, but the spacing of the text makes it clear that it should fall at this point.

235 Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais, is also criticised by Athanasius at Ad Ep. Aeg. 7.3. 19.8;

De synodis 12.3. He was one of the two Libyan bishops who were exiled at the Council of Nicaea in 325: Urk. 23.5. The Libyan Stephanus is also mentioned at Ath. De synodis 12.3.

236 Nothing more is known about this presbyter. Barca was a city in Pentapolis, not far from Ptolemais.

237 As above, this is Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

to vindicate it using external authority.238 At this point, someone might marvel at their novel and wicked behaviour that surpasses other heresies.

4 For the madness of the other heretical inventions consisted in persuasive words that trick the unwary. The Hellenes, as the apostle said, attack with elevated and persuasive words and plausible sophisms, while the Jews, who abandoned the divine scriptures, conduct their wrangling from now on in fables and endless genealogies, as the apostle said.239 Along with them the Manichaeans and Valentinians and the others corrupt the divine scriptures and invent fables from their own false texts.240 5 But the Arians are more daring than other heresies and have proved that these others are their little sisters. For they are more impious than the others, as I have said, and they compete with all of them, especially the Jews, in their wickedness. For just as they [the Jews], when they could not refute Paul using their false claims, led him at once to the military commander and the governor, so these men, who invent even more than they did, have relied solely on the authority of officials.241 Anyone who merely answers them back is dragged before the governor or the general.

67.1 When other heresies are convicted with evidence by the truth itself, they do not say anything further, because they have been put to shame by the refutations. In contrast, whenever this new and abominable heresy of theirs is overturned by arguments, whenever it collapses, shamed by the truth itself, then, because it cannot persuade people through reasoned argument, it tries to compel them through violence, beatings and prison sentences, thereby revealing that it is anything but pious towards God.

2 For it is characteristic of piety not to force people, but to persuade them, 238 The concept of an 'ecumenical' or 'worldwide' council began with presentations of the Council of Nicaea from the late 330s onwards, but Athanasius was very keen to use this term in order to present Nicaea as more authoritative than other councils: see Chadwick

(1972). The number of bishops who attended Nicaea in 325 is uncertain, although the earliest estimates are around 250–300. Hilary, In Const. 27 gives the figure of 318, which was also the number of Abraham's servants in Genesis 14.14. The acceptance of this number became standard by the late fourth century: see Hanson (1988) 155–6.

239 The first of these references may be an allusion to 1 Corinthians 2.1. The second is a quotation from 1 Timothy 1.4.

240 On the Manichaeans, see n. 109 to chapter 30.2 above. On Valentinus, a secondcentury theologian often referred to as a 'Gnostic' by his opponents, see Iren. Haer. 1.1–9,

1.11; Hippol. Haer. 6.21, 6.29–37, 10.13; Epiphanius, Panarion 31; Markschies (1992);

Brakke (2010) 99–105, 115–19.

241 For this story, see Acts 21–25.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

as we said.242 For the Lord himself did not force people; instead he gave them a choice, saying to everyone, If any man wishes to come after me,243 and to his disciples, Do you also wish to go away?244 But this heresy is utterly alien to piety. 3 What could it do except be hostile to the Saviour, when it has enrolled Constantius as the Christ-fighting leader of impiety, as the Antichrist himself? At first he was eager to help the heresy by competing with Saul in savagery. For when the priests had given provisions to David, Saul gave the order and had all 305 of them done away with; but when everyone flees from the heresy and when the sound faith in the Lord is confessed, Constantius does away with a council of a whole 300 bishops.245 He exiles the bishops themselves, while he stops the congregations from assembling, in order to prevent them from practising piety and praying to God. 4 As Saul obliterated Nob, the city of the priests, so this man has become even more evil and has handed over the churches to the impious; and just as that man [Saul] preferred the accuser Doeg to the true priests, persecuted David and listened to the Ziphites, so this man prefers heretics to the pious, continues to persecute people who flee from him and listens to his eunuchs, who slander the orthodox.246 He cannot see that whatever he does or writes for the Arian heresy constitutes an attack on the Saviour.

68.1 Ahab did not treat the priests of God in the way that this man has dared to treat the bishops. After Naboth had been murdered, that man [Ahab] actually felt compunction, and when he saw Elijah, he was frightened;247 but this man [Constantius] neither respected Ossius, despite his great age, nor, after exiling so many bishops, did he go numb or feel compunction, but, as another Pharaoh, he is afflicted and hardened all the 242 See chapter 33.1–4 above.

243 Matthew 16.24.

244 John 6.67.

245 The story about Saul and David is from 1 Samuel 22.10–18 and there are more references to it in the next part of this chapter. The figure of 305 priests (as opposed to eighty-five) is found in the Septuagint version of 1 Samuel 22.18. On the number of bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325, see n. 238 to chapter 66.3 above. Athanasius clearly found the similarity in the two numbers to be very useful for his argument that Constantius is a new

Saul.

246 Doeg and the city of Nob appear in 1 Samuel 22.9–19, with the quotation coming from verse 19. Saul listens to the Ziphites at 1 Samuel 23.19, 26.1.

247 1 Kings 20.27 LXX.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

more, and invents worse crimes on a daily basis.248 2 Here is an extraordinary example of his wickedness: after the bishops were exiled, some other people received sentences on charges of murder or sedition or theft, according to the nature of the offence. After a few months he released these men in response to a request, as Pilate released Barabbas,249 but he did not let the servants of Christ go, and instead he became an imperishable evil towards them and punished them even more pitilessly in their exile.250 He was friendly to the first group of men because of their bad character, but hostile to the orthodox because of their piety towards Christ. 3 Has it not been clearly revealed to all from this that the Jews, who once asked for Barabbas and crucified the Lord, were the same as these men who now join

Constantius in fighting against Christ? He is probably more vicious that Pilate. For while he [Pilate] recognised the injustice and washed his hands, this man gnashes his teeth even more and exiles the blessed.251

69.1 Why is it amazing if, having strayed into impiety, he is so savage towards the bishops, since he did not spare his own family as a human being would? He murdered his uncles; he did away with his cousins; he showed no mercy to his father-in-law, even though he had married his daughter, or to his suffering relatives, and he has always been a breaker of oaths towards all.252 He has even dared to be impious towards his brother [Constans]: although he pretends to construct a memorial to him, he has actually

248 For the treatment of Ossius, see chapters 42–5 above. For comparisons between Constantius and Pharaoh, including the repeated occasions when Pharaoh's heart was hardened, see also chapters 30.4, 34.2 and 58.1 above.

249 See Matthew 27.16–26; Mark 15.7–15; Luke 23.18; John 18.40.

250 This may be a reference to changes that were made in the locations where exiled bishops were held. At In Const. 11 Hilary states that Constantius kept moving Paulinus of Trier around while he was in exile. Eusebius of Vercelli was also sent first to Scythopolis in Palestine, then to Cappadocia and finally to the Thebaid in Egypt: see PCBE II.1 693

(Eusebius 1). On Lucifer's movements during exile, see Introduction p. 32. The phrase

'imperishable evil' is used in Homer, Odyssey 12.118 to describe the monster Scylla.

251 On the gnashing of teeth as a biblical characteristic of villains, see n. 264 to chapter

72.5 below.

252 Athanasius here assigns to Constantius the blame for the dynastic massacre of 337, in which many of the male relatives of Constantine I were killed shortly after this emperor's death, leaving his sons Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans as joint rulers of the empire. The 'uncles' mentioned here were two half-brothers of Constantine I, named

Flavius Dalmatius and Julius Constantius, the latter of whom was also the father-in-law of Constantius II. A number of cousins of Constantius II were killed, including Flavius

Dalmatius' two sons (Dalmatius and Hannibalianus), Julius Constantius' eldest son and four

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

handed over Constans' fiancée Olympias to barbarians [to be married], even though Constans had protected her until his death and brought her up to be his own wife.253 2 He also tried to set aside Constans' wishes, despite professing to be his heir, and he writes the sorts of things that anyone with even the slightest sense would be ashamed of. In reviewing all his letters,

I discover that he does not have his own wits in accordance with nature, but instead he is driven solely by people who make suggestions, having no mind of his own whatsoever. For Solomon says, If a ruler hearkens to injustice, all his servants are wicked, and by his actions this man reveals that he himself is unjust and his associates are wicked.254

70.1 Because he is this sort of man and delights in the company of such people, when could he ever believe in anything just or rational? He is a man shackled by the wickedness of his associates, who enchant him, or, rather, trample his brain under their heels. For this reason he writes, and writing he repents, and repenting he becomes angry, and then he goes back to lamenting; not knowing what to do, he reveals his witless soul. 2 Because he is like this, one should more properly pity him, since, although he has a free appearance and name, he is the slave of men who drag him around for their own pleasure in impiety. In fact, because he wishes to yield his stupidity and folly to others, as Scripture has said, he has handed himself over to condemnation, as something to be destroyed in the coming judgement of fire.255 He is already doing their bidding and giving his approval to their plotting against the bishops and to their authority over the churches. 3 See now that he has once again disrupted all the churches in Alexandria and in Egypt and Libya! And he has openly given orders that the bishops of the catholic church and of piety should be expelled from the churches, and that all these should be handed over to those who follow the beliefs of Arius.

4 The general started to implement this. Then the bishops were chained up others whose names are not known. A number of other high-ranking officials were also executed at the same time. On these events, see Barnes (1993) 34–5; Burgess (2008).

253 Constantius was apparently engaged at this time in the construction of a tomb for his brother, who had been killed by the usurper Magnentius in 350. This monument has sometimes been identified with a mausoleum at Centcelles, near the Spanish city of Tarragona. For discussion of this structure, see Johnson (2009) 129–39. Olympias was the daughter of the Praetorian Prefect Ablabius (who also died in the massacre of 337) and was given in marriage to Arsaces, king of Armenia: see Amm. 20.11.3; PLRE I 642 (Olympias 1).

254 Proverbs 29.12.

255 This is not a direct quotation from Scripture, but may be an allusion to Proverbs

7.22 LXX.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

and the presbyters and monks were clapped in irons. They were beaten until they were almost dead and then escorted away. Everything everywhere has been thrown into chaos. The whole of Egypt and Libya is in danger, and the congregations are finding it hard to endure this lawless command and are watching this preparation for the Antichrist and seeing their property being seized from them and handed over to the heretics.

71.1 When has such great lawlessness ever been heard of before? When has anything so evil ever happened during persecution? The earlier persecutors were Hellenes, but they did not bring their idols into the churches. Zenobia was a Jewess and championed Paul of Samosata, but she did not hand the churches over to the Jews to be used as synagogues.256

This is a new abomination. This is not simply a persecution: it is more than a persecution – it is the prelude and preparation for the Antichrist. 2

Let us accept that they invented false allegations to use against Athanasius and the other bishops they exiled; what has this got to do with their new activity? What pretext have they got to use against all Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis? They are no longer just plotting against individuals, so that they can tell lies against them; now they have started to attack everyone at once, so that, whenever they want to invent an accusation, all are condemned. 3

Evil has blinded their intellect in these matters and they have not hesitated to demand the expulsion of all the bishops. They thereby reveal that, in the case of Athanasius and the other bishops who were exiled, they invented false allegations for no other reason than to aid the blood-stained heresy of the Christ-fighting Arians. This is no longer a secret, but is now completely obvious to everyone. 4 For he gave an order for Athanasius to be expelled from the city, while he handed the churches over to those men. Athanasius' presbyters and deacons, who were ordained by Peter and Alexander, are expelled and banished, while, at the same time, the true Arians have got possession of the churches. These are men who are not under suspicion for any external reasons but ones who, along with Arius himself, were expelled by Bishop Alexander at the beginning because of their heresy: in Upper Libya, Secundus; in Alexandria, Euzoius the Chananaian, Julius,

256 Zenobia was queen of Palmyra, ruling for her son after her husband's death in 267.

She gradually increased the territory that Palmyra controlled, including taking over Egypt in 270, but was defeated by the emperor Aurelian two years later. On Paul of Samosata, a third-century bishop of Antioch who was deposed for his beliefs and came to be regarded as a heretic, see Introduction n. 68. For the modern debate about whether Zenobia really was a patron of Paul, see Potter (2014) 631 n. 31.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

Ammon, Marcus, Irenaeus, Zosimus and Serapion surnamed Pelycon; and in Libya, Sisinnius and the young men who join him in impiety.257

72.1 The general Sebastian wrote to the praepositi and the military authorities in every place.258 This led to the true bishops being persecuted and the impious being brought in to replace them. 2 They exiled bishops who had grown old in their office and had been in the episcopacy for many years, having been appointed by Bishop Alexander: they banished

Ammonius, Hermes, Anagamphus and Marcus to the Upper Oasis and Muis, Psenosiris, Neilammon, Plenes, Marcus and Athenodorus to Ammoniaca for no other reason than to finish them off by the journey through the desert.259 3 They showed no pity to the sick, and they drove these men along when they moved off with difficulty because of their infirmity. They therefore had to be carried in litters, and, because of their illness, materials were brought along for their burial. One of them actually died, but they would not allow his body to be released to his own people. 4 For this reason they also exiled Bishop Dracontius to the deserts around Clysma, and they exiled Philo to Babylon, Adelphius to Psinabla

257 Peter was bishop of Alexandria from around the start of the fourth century until his execution in 311. Alexander was the immediate predecessor of Athanasius, occupying the see from 313 to 328. On Secundus of Ptolemais, see chapter 65.3 above. Euzoius and Julius are both named by Alexander of Alexandria as deacons who had joined Arius in heresy: see Urk.

4b. Euzoius went on to become bishop of Antioch in 360: see Ath. De synodis 31.3. Ammon is probably the same figure named by Athanasius in Ep. Enc. 7.6 as being the secretary of Gregory 'the Cappadocian', the 'Arian' bishop of Alexandria. Opitz (n. ad loc.) suggests that he may be identical with the deacon Parammon deposed by Alexander for agreeing with Arius: see Urk. 4a. No Marcus is listed in Urk. 4a or 4b, but Irenaeus, Zosimus and Serapion are all deacons deposed by Alexander in Urk. 4a. Sisinnius is otherwise unknown.

258 On the dux Sebastian, see chapter 59.1 above. The praepositi were commanding officers of military units: see Jones (1964) II 640. Athanasius uses a Greek transliteration of the Latin term here.

259 All of these bishops appear in the list of exiles given by Athanasius at De fuga 7.4.

Ammonius is probably the bishop of Pachnamunis who appears as a signatory to the Tomus ad Antiochenos in 362. He is also a signatory to the 'western' letter from Serdica in 343 at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 49.3, as are Anagamphus, Muis, Psenosiris and Neilammon. The two

Marci are probably the bishops of Zygra and Philae, who signed the Tomus ad Antiochenos.

Athanasius' Festal Letter for 347 provides the details that Neilammon was bishop of Latopolis, while Psenosiris may also be the figure named as bishop of Coptos in the same letter. The 'Upper Oasis' is probably the so-called 'Greater Oasis', which was in southern

Egypt, while Ammoniaca was the city of Ammon at the Siwa Oasis: see Barrington Atlas

Map 73 C4; http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/716520. As Athanasius states, travel to either of these locations would have involved a journey through the desert.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

in the Thebaid and the presbyters Hierax and Dioscorus to Soene.260 They banished Ammonius, Agathus, Agathodaimon, Apollonius, Eulogius,

Apollo, Paphnutius, Gaius and Flavius, very old bishops, and Dioscorus, Ammonius, Heracleides and Psais, also bishops.261 5 They transferred some people to public service; they persecuted others, wishing to do away with them, and robbed many more.262 They also exiled forty members of the laity and some virgins who had previously stood firm through fire.263

They beat them with blows from rods made from palm trees. After five days, some of them died, while others had to be operated on because of the spines stuck in their limbs, which caused them tortures worse than death.

And here is something that is even more shocking to everyone in their right mind, but is characteristic of these impious men: when the women were being beaten and were calling out to Christ, these men gnashed their

260 All of these figures appear in the list of exiles given by Athanasius at De fuga

7.4. Dracontius was bishop of Hermupolis Parva and was a signatory of the Tomus ad

Antiochenos, as well as the recipient of an extant letter by Athanasius. His place of exile was near Clysma at the northern end of the Gulf of Suez (Barrington Atlas Map 74 H5; http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/727101) and is referred to as castrum Thaubastum in Jerome,

Vita Hilarionis 20. Philo may be one of the two Egyptian bishops of that name who were signatories to the 'western' letter from Serdica in 343 at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 49.3. The fortress of Babylon on the Nile is also mentioned in Jerome, Vita Hilarionis 20.10: see Barrington

Atlas Map 74 E4; http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/727082. Adelphius is described as 'bishop of Onuphis in Lychni' in the signatures to the Tomus ad Antiochenos. Hierax and Dioscorus appear in a list of presbyters from the Mareotis at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 75.6. Soene is probably

Syene in the far south of Egypt: see Barrington Atlas Map 80 Inset; http://pleiades.stoa.org/ places/786123.

261 As at De fuga 7.4, two bishops named Ammonius are mentioned here, one of whom may be the bishop of Pachnamunis just mentioned in chapter 72.2. Agathus also appears at De fuga 7.4 and is also called bishop 'of Phragonis and part of Helearchia in Egypt' in the signatures of the Tomus ad Antiochenos, where Agathodaimon, Paphnutius and Gaius are also listed as bishops of Schedia, Sais and Paratonium respectively. Apollonius, Paphnutius,

Gaius, Dioscorus, Heracleides and Psais may be the Egyptian bishops of those names listed as having signed the 'western' letter from Serdica in 343 at Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 49.3.

262 The phrase 'public service' here refers to the system of 'liturgies', which were financially onerous obligations placed on members of city councils. In the later Roman empire, wealthier citizens frequently sought immunities from these burdens, including by entering the imperial bureaucracy or the Christian clergy: see Jones (1964) II 734–57; Kelly (2004) 146–7. 'Public service' is a translation of the Greek term λειτουργία, which Opitz prints here. This would suggest that Athanasius is here referring to clergy losing their exemptions from performing liturgies. The PG text of Migne has λιθουργία here, which is rendered into English as 'work in the stone-quarries' in Atkinson's translation in Robertson (1892).

263 This mistreatment of virgins is also described by Athanasius at De fuga 6.6.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

teeth against them even more.264 6 They would not even hand the bodies of the departed over to their nearest and dearest for burial. Instead, they hid them, in the hope that their murders might avoid detection. But they failed in this: the whole city saw and everyone turned away from them as executioners, as evil-doers and robbers. What is more, they overturned monasteries, tried to throw monks into fire and plundered houses; they entered the homes of free people and then robbed and despoiled the items placed there by the bishop; they beat widows on the soles of their feet and prevented almsgiving.

73.1 Such are the wicked deeds of the Arians. Who will not shiver when they hear about the other godless crimes that they attempted? They caused very old, long-standing bishops to be exiled, and in their place they appointed young, shameless men and Hellenes who had not even been catechumens (since they thought it was a good idea to promote them straightaway), as well as others who had been married twice and people accused of even greater offences.265 They appointed them because of their wealth and political power, and then, after these men had given them gold, the Arians sent them out as though from an auction-room and called them bishops. 2 Then an even more terrible disaster befell the congregations: when they [the congregations] turned away from these men for being hired servants of the Arians and completely alien to themselves, they were flogged, arrested and imprisoned by the general. Being a Manichaean, he did this eagerly, so that they would not request their own [bishops], but would instead accept those they had rejected, men who were performing the same games that they previously played among their idols.266

74.1 Could anyone see or hear about these things, or witness the arrogance of the impious and such great injustice, and not groan, if he

264 See also chapter 68.3 above for this image of Constantius gnashing his teeth against the righteous. This activity is often attributed to enemies and villains in the Bible: see Job

16.9 (16.10 LXX); Psalms 35.16 (34.16 LXX), 37.12 (36.12 LXX); Lamentations 2.16; Mark

9.18; Acts 7.54.

265 Catechumens were people who were receiving instruction in Christianity in preparation for baptism. The instruction that a bishop should be the husband of one wife is based on 1 Timothy 3.2.

266 On the Manichaean dux Sebastian, see chapter 59.1 above. At the end of the sentence

Athanasius is being dismissive of traditional 'pagan' worship by referring to it as 'playing games'.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

himself were just? For in the places of the impious, just men groan.267

Now that this has happened and their impiety has become so utterly shameless, who still dares to say that this Costyllius is a Christian and not rather the likeness of the Antichrist?268 For what marks of the Antichrist are absent? How will he [the Antichrist] not be thought to be this man

[Constantius] in every respect, and how would this man not be assumed to be the same as him?269 2 Have the Arians and Hellenes not had sacrifices carried out in the Great Church in the Caesareum and blasphemies uttered against Christ, as though by his command?270 Does the vision of Daniel not identify the Antichrist in this way, saying that he will make war with the saints and prevail against them and will surpass in evils all those before him; and he shall subdue three kings and he shall speak words against the most High, and think to change times and laws?271 3 Who has ever attempted to do these things except Constantius? For he is the kind of person that the Antichrist would be: he speaks words against the most High when he supports this impious heresy and he makes war against the saints by exiling bishops, even though he possesses authority only for a short time and for his own destruction. 4 He has surpassed his predecessors in evil, because he has contrived a new form of persecution.

After he deposed the three kings Vetranio, Magnentius and Gallus, he immediately gave support to impiety.272 And, like a giant, he has in his arrogance dared to rise up against the most High.273 5 He has thought to change laws by annulling the instruction that the Lord gave through the apostles, changing the customs of the church and himself devising a new form of appointments: from other places and fifty stopping posts

267 Proverbs 28.28 LXX.

268 Costyllius is a diminutive form of the name Constantius. Athanasius uses it again at chapter 80.1 below.

269 A rather difficult sentence that seeks to express the similarity between Constantius and the Antichrist.

270 On the Great Church in the Caesareum in Alexandria, see n. 207 to chapter 55.2 above.

271 Daniel 7.21; 7.24–5.

272 On Vetranio, who was emperor for only a short time in 350, see chapter 50.1 above. On the usurper Magnentius, who ruled in the West from 350 until his death in 353, see n. 111 to chapter 30.3 above. Gallus was a cousin of Constantius who survived the massacre of 337.

He was raised to the rank of caesar in 351 and married Constantius' sister Constantina, but fell out of favour and was removed and executed three years later: see PLRE I 224–5

(Constantius 4).

273 Although giants are mentioned in Genesis 6.4 just before God decides to flood the earth, Athanasius' description fits better with the Giants of classical mythology, who waged war against the Olympian gods.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

away, he sends bishops to unwilling congregations, accompanied by soldiers; instead of a letter of introduction to the congregations, they bring threats and letters to the officials.274 This was how he sent Gregory from Cappadocia to Alexandria, and also summoned Germinius from Cyzicus to Sirmium and dispatched Cecropius from Laodicea to Nicomedia.275

75.1 Constantius also sent Auxentius – a troublemaker, not a Christian – from Cappadocia to Milan. After he exiled Dionysius, the bishop there and a reverent man, because of his piety towards Christ, he gave orders for Auxentius to take his place, even though he did not yet know the Roman language or anything except how to be impious.276 Now once again he has ordered George, a Cappadocian who was an official at the treasury in Constantinople, where he appropriated everything and then ran away, to come into Alexandria with a military procession and the authority of the general.277 2 Then, when he found Epictetus, a new convert and an insolent young man, he was very fond of him, because he saw that he was ready to do evil, and he made use of him to plot against selected bishops.278 For Epictetus is ready to do anything the emperor wants. In fact, Constantius

274 The stopping posts mentioned here refer to lodgings where people would rest at the end of a day's journey. Athanasius' point is therefore that bishops are not only being imposed on communities from outside, but are also figures who have come from far distant locations, as they take so long to reach their new sees. As these lodgings were often part of the empire's cursus publicus system for official communications, Athanasius may also be emphasising his claim that these bishops are imposed by the imperial authorities. On these stopping places, see Jones (1964) II 831–4; Leyerle (2009) 117–18; Sotinel (2009) 130–32. Opitz (1935–41)

224 interprets the figure of fifty stopping points as a specific reference to George's journey from Cappadocia to Alexandria.

275 On Gregory 'the Cappadocian', see chapter 9.3 above. Germinius became bishop of Sirmium in 351 and features as a heretical villain in the dialogue known as the Altercatio

Heracliani cum Germinio: see PCBE III 430 (Germinios); Simonetti (1967); Hanson (1988)

528–9; Williams (1996); Flower (2013) 1–6, 230–37. Cecropius is included by Hilary of Poitiers in his list of heretical bishops who attended the Council of Sirmium: see Adu. Val. et

Ursac. B.VII.9; PCBE III 574 (Kékropios). Both bishops are criticised by Athanasius at Ad

Ep. Aeg. 7.4–5.

276 Auxentius became bishop of Milan in 355, after the exile of Dionysius, and held the see until his death in 374, when he was succeeded by Ambrose. In the mid-360s Hilary of Poitiers made an unsuccessful attempt to unseat him by appealing to the emperor Valentinian I, as recounted in Hilary's Contra Auxentium. See PCBE II.1 238–41 (Auxentius 1); McLynn

(1994) 13–43; (1997); Williams (1995) 76–83, 102–27; (1997); Kaufman (1997); Durst

(1998); Flower (2013) 207–17, 252–60. The 'Roman language' here is Latin.

277 On the bishop George, see chapters 48.3 and 51.1 above, as well as Introduction p. 12.

278 Epictetus was bishop of Centumcellae in Italy from the middle of the 350s and

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

has used this underling to do something extraordinary in Rome, something that accurately resembles the Antichrist's perversity. 3 He prepared the palace instead of a church; he made three of his eunuchs attend instead of a congregation; and then he compelled three malicious spies (for who would call them bishops!) to 'ordain' a certain Felix, a man worthy of them, as bishop in the palace.279 All the congregations saw this transgression by the heretics and would not allow them to enter the churches, but instead withdrew far away from them.

76.1 What of the Antichrist's actions has this man omitted? What would the Antichrist do, when he comes, beyond what that this man has done? When he comes, how will he not find the way ready for deceit and prepared for him in advance by this man? Once again he [Constantius] transfers trials to himself in the palace, instead of in the churches. 2 And he directs them himself. Astonishingly, whenever he observes that the prosecutors are at a loss, he takes up the prosecution himself, so that the wronged parties cannot present a defence because of his violence. 3 He also acted in this way in the proceedings against Athanasius: he saw the freedom of speech employed by the bishops Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius and Dionysius; and he also saw that, on the basis of Ursacius and Valens' recantation, these four bishops refuted Athanasius' opponents and advised that Valens and his associates were not to be trusted, because they had already changed their minds about what they were now saying. At this,

Constantius immediately stood up and said 'I am now the prosecutor of Athanasius and so you are to believe whatever they say because of me'.280

4 Then they said, 'How can you be a prosecutor when the accused man is absent? If you are a prosecutor but he is absent, he cannot be judged. was treated as a functionary of Constantius by pro-Nicene authors, including Lucifer at Moriundum 7.4–5: see PCBE II.1 634–6 (Epictetus 2); Barnes (1993) 274–5 n. 28.

279 For Athanasius' play on the similarity between the Greek words for 'bishop' and 'spy', see n. 15 on chapter 3.4 above. The archdeacon Felix was made bishop of Rome after Liberius was sent into exile, with Acacius of Caesarea acting as another of the three bishops who consecrated him: see Jerome, De uiris illustr. 98; PCBE II.1 770–71 (Felix 7); Barnes

(1993) 118.

280 On the exile of these bishops at the Councils of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355, see chapter 33.6 above. For the change of mind by Ursacius and Valens, see chapter 29.1 above.

The dialogue between Constantius and the four bishops in this chapter is almost certainly a rhetorical invention by Athanasius, not only because Paulinus was tried and exiled on a different occasion to the other three but also because the speakers, especially Constantius, make statements that perfectly accord with Athanasius' narrative of events.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

This is not a Roman trial, where your word as emperor would be accepted: it is a decision concerning a bishop.281 This judgement has to be fair to both the prosecutor and the defendant. And how can you prosecute him?

You could not have had dealings with him when he was so far away. If you speak merely from hearsay, you ought to trust what he says; but if you do not trust him, but trust those men instead, it is clear that they are making these claims for your benefit and accusing Athanasius to please you.' 5 He heard this and regarded their statement, accurate though it was, as outrageous. So he exiled them and was also moved to be even more ferocious towards Athanasius: he wrote to say that Athanasius should suffer what he has now suffered, that the churches should be handed over to the Arians and that they should be allowed to do whatever they wanted.

77.1 Such actions are terrible, and beyond terrible, but this behaviour is nevertheless appropriate for someone who is assuming the attributes of the Antichrist. Who could see him ruling over the supposed bishops and presiding over ecclesiastical trials and then not say that this was what

Daniel called the abomination of desolation?282 After clothing himself in Christianity, he enters the holy places, stands in them and makes the churches desolate, annulling their canons and using force to make his own ideas prevail. 2 Who still dares to say that the present time is peaceful for Christians and not rather a persecution? And it is a persecution the like of which has never occurred before and will probably never be perpetrated by anyone else, except the son of lawlessness, who is already revealed by the enemies of Christ, who create an image of him in themselves.283 This heresy is utterly shameless; it is spread out like the poison of an adder, as is written in Proverbs, and it teaches people to oppose the Saviour.284 It is therefore absolutely right for us to be sober, since otherwise this heresy might somehow be that falling away after which the Antichrist will be revealed, with Constantius evidently being his precursor.285 3 For why does

281 'Roman' here is used to mean a 'secular' case, in which the emperor would be the highest authority.

282 Matthew 24.15, quoting Daniel 9.27 or 12.11.

283 The phrase 'son of lawlessness' seems to be a conflation of the neighbouring phrases 'man of lawlessness' and 'son of perdition' in 2 Thessalonians 2.3. This claim that Constantius' actions represent an unprecedented persecution also appear at Hilary, In Const.

284 Proverbs 23.32.

285 This 'falling away' or 'apostasy' is predicted as a precursor to the Antichrist in 2

Thessalonians 2.3.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

he rage against the pious in this way? Why does he champion this as his personal heresy and say that whoever refuses to follow the madness of Arius is his personal enemy, while happily accepting statements from the enemies of Christ and dishonouring so many and such great councils? Why has he given orders for the churches to be handed over to the Arians? Has he not done all this so that when the Antichrist comes, he [the Antichrist] may discover how to enter the churches and accept the man who has prepared these places for him? 4 For the aged bishops, from the time of Alexander and (before him) the time of Achillas and (back before him) the time of Peter, have been driven out; and they have been replaced by men who were nominated by these followers of the soldiers.286 They nominated men who promised to follow their beliefs.

78.1 This was an easy task for the Melitians.287 Most of them, or, rather, all of them have not had a pious education nor have they come to know the sound faith in Christ or what Christianity actually is or what scriptures we Christians have.288 Some of these men have come from worshipping idols, while others have come from the council chamber and high office just to get patronage and a miserable exemption from public service.289 They gave bribes of money to the Melitians who preceded them, and so came to this [place in the episcopacy] even before they had received instruction as catechumens.290 And even when they do seem to have received instruction, what sort of instruction do Melitians get? They certainly did not appear to have received instruction, since they arrived at once and were called bishops immediately, like children taking names. 2 Being people of this sort, they regarded this matter as unimportant and saw no difference between piety and impiety. So they quickly and readily went from being Melitians to being Arians. And if the emperor were to order anything else, they are ready to switch again to that. Their ignorance of piety quickly brings them down to the habitual recklessness that they learned from the beginning.

286 On Peter and Alexander, earlier bishops of Alexandria, see n. 257 to chapter 71.4 above. Achillas was bishop of Alexandria after Peter and before Alexander, holding the see from 311 to 313.

287 On the Melitian schismatics, see n. 14 to chapter 3.2 above.

288 The phrase 'sound faith' may be an allusion to the idea of being 'sound in the faith' from Titus 1.13.

289 On the exemption from the system of liturgies and public service that came with clerical office, see n. 262 to chapter 72.5 above.

290 Catechumens were people who were in training about Christianity in preparation for baptism.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

3 They do not care if they are carried about with every wind and wave,291 so long as they are exempt from public service and enjoy the patronage of men. It would probably not bother them to switch back again to their earlier way of life, which they had when they were Hellenes. 4 In fact, being, by character, easily led, they treat the church like the government of a town council and believe in worshipping images like the gentiles. This is how, through coming into the worthy name of the Saviour, they have defiled the whole of Egypt, simply by causing the Arian heresy to be spoken of there.292 5 The freedom to express orthodoxy still remained intact only in Egypt, and so the impious were eager to introduce malice there as well – or rather it was not them, but the Devil. He roused them so that his herald, the Antichrist, could arrive and discover that the churches in Egypt had become his and that the Melitians had already been instructed in his ideas, as well as finding his own form already present in them.

79.1 These were the results of the wicked command of Constantius. There was an eagerness for martyrdom among the congregations and, even more, there was a hatred of this most impious heresy. But there was also grief for the churches and groaning from everyone as they cried out to the Lord,

'Spare your people, O Lord, and give not your heritage to reproach with your enemies, but hurry to rescue us from the hands of the lawless.293 For behold, they have not spared your servants, and they are preparing the way for the Antichrist.' 2 The Melitians will never stand against him, nor will they be concerned about the truth or think it wrong to renounce Christ. These are men who have certainly not come to the word sincerely, and they take on different forms in each situation like a chameleon and are mercenaries for anyone who wants to employ them. They have no desire for the truth; in its place they prefer momentary pleasure, and they merely say, Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.294 3 This is the disposition and faithless attitude of hypocrites.295 In contrast, the faithful servants of the Saviour

291 Ephesians 4.14.

292 For the term 'worthy name', see James 2.7.

293 The phrase 'spare your people, O Lord, and give not your heritage to reproach' is taken from Joel 2.17. Elsewhere, Athanasius presents bishop Alexander of Constantinople as uttering a variation on these words as a prayer to prevent Arius from being readmitted to communion, resulting in Arius' sudden and grisly death: see Ath. De morte Arii 3.2.

294 1 Corinthians 15.32.

295 I have omitted the words πικριτιανῶν ἀντὶ Μελιτιανῶν, placed in square brackets by Opitz, who regarded them as a corrupt gloss on the preceding word 'hypocrites' (which can also mean 'actors').

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

and the true bishops hold their faith sincerely, and they are living not for themselves but for the Lord. These men are faithful and pious towards our

Lord Jesus Christ and they recognise, as I said before, that the allegations against the truth are false and have clearly been fabricated to help the Arian heresy. After Ursacius and Valens recanted, the faithful came to understand that false accusations had been concocted against Athanasius to get him out of the way and to bring the impiety of the enemies of Christ into the churches. When these defenders and heralds of the truth saw this, they chose to allow themselves to be abused and exiled rather than to subscribe against Athanasius and enter communion with the Ariomaniacs.296 4 They have not forgotten what they had taught, but instead they recognise that there is great disgrace for traitors, while the kingdom of heaven awaits those who are confessors of the truth. Nothing good will come to those who are faint-hearted and afraid of Constantius; but just as a calm harbour comes to sailors after a storm, just as a crown comes to athletes after the competition, so a great and eternal joy and gladness will come in heaven to those who have endured afflictions here. It will be the same as Joseph received after his afflictions; the same as the great Daniel received after the temptations and the many plots of the members of the royal court; the same as Paul now has, receiving his crown from the Saviour; the same as the people of God everywhere were looking forward to, when they saw these events and did not weaken in their resolve, but were instead strengthened in their faith and increased their eagerness even more.297 5 They have been reassured about the false accusations and the impiety of the heretics, and so they condemn the persecutor and join with the persecuted in resolve and unity of mind, so that they themselves may receive the crown of confession.

80.1 Someone could certainly say a lot against this abominable and Christ-fighting heresy, and could also offer extensive proof that the actions of Constantius are a prelude for the Antichrist. For, as the prophet said,

296 On the term 'Ariomaniacs', see n. 144 to chapter 39.2 above.

297 Joseph: Genesis 41. 38–46; Daniel: Daniel 6. Paul was believed to have died as a martyr under Nero and so received the 'crown' of martyrdom, just as athletes received crowns for their victories, as is mentioned in the preceding sentence. For a crown or garland of triumph as the achievement of the martyr, see, for example, Acts of Marian and James 11.9;

Martyrdom of Montanus and Lucius 2.1, 4.6, 14.5; Acts of Maximilian 3.2 (see Musurillo

(1972) for editions and translations of these texts). On athletic imagery in martyr literature more generally, see, for example, Castelli (2004) 117–18, 151–2.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

from the feet even unto the head there is no soundness in it,298 and it has been filled with all filth and all impiety. So one must flee from even hearing about it, as one would from the vomit of a dog or the venom of dragons, and it is clear that Costyllius bears the image of the adversary.299 2 So that my argument does not become too long, it is good to be satisfied with divine

Scripture and for everyone to obey its command concerning both other heresies and this one in particular. This is what it commands: Depart, depart, go out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go out of the midst of them; set yourselves apart, you that bear the vessels of the Lord.300 3 This is a sufficient instruction for everyone. So if someone has been deceived by them, he should depart, as though from Sodom, and not turn back to them, lest he suffer the fate of the wife of Lot; but if someone has remained pure from this impious heresy from the beginning, he should have pride in the Lord, saying, we have not stretched out our hands to a strange god, nor worshipped the works of our own hands, nor served the creature more than you, the creator of all things, God, through your Word, the only-begotten

Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom to you the Father and with the Word in the Holy Spirit there is glory and power for ever and ever.301 Amen.

4 {This is the complete work composed against Constantius by the father Bishop Athanasius to the monks everywhere, concerning the actions of the Arians under Constantius.}302 The second appeal303 81.1 The congregation of the catholic church in Alexandria, which is

298 Isaiah 1.6.

299 For Costyllius as a diminutive form of Constantius, see chapter 74.1 above. For the concept of a dog returning to its vomit, see Proverbs 26.11; 2 Peter 2.22. The 'venom of dragons' appears at Deuteronomy 32.33.

300 Isaiah 52.11.

301 For the story of the destruction of Sodom and the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, see Genesis 19.1–26. The quotations are from Psalms 44.20 (43.20 LXX);

Jeremiah 1.16; Romans 1.25.

302 This manuscript comment, as well as the placement of the text directly after the Epistula ad monachos, is the basis for the assumption that this work was primarily intended for a monastic audience. On this issue, see Introduction p. 25.

303 This text, which describes events at Alexandria in February 356, has already been mentioned at chapter 48.1 above.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

under the most venerable bishop Athanasius, makes this appeal publicly through the people who have subscribed in order.

2 We have already made an appeal about the nocturnal attack that we and the Lord's house suffered, even though there was no need for an appeal about things that the whole city perceived and perceives; for the bodies of the victims have been discovered and exhibited publicly, and the weapons and the bows and arrows in the Lord's house have proclaimed the transgression. 3 After the appeal, the clarissimus dux Syrianus has forced everyone to come to terms with him, as though there has been no uproar and no one has died.304 This is significant proof that these events did not take place in accordance with the will of the most philanthropic augustus Constantius. 4 For, if Syrianus had acted in obedience to a command, he would not have been frightened when things turned out like this. Moreover, after we went to him and requested that he neither commit violence nor deny what had happened, he gave orders for us Christians to be beaten with clubs, and so revealed by these actions that a war had been waged against the church at night. 5 We now, therefore, make an appeal concerning these events, and some of us are already about to travel to the most pious augustus. By almighty God and for the salvation of the most pious augustus Constantius, we adjure Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, and the curiosi to report everything to the piety of the augustus and the authority of the clarissimi prefects.305 We also adjure all the captains of ships to publicise it everywhere and to report it to the ears of the most pious augustus and to the prefects and the officials in every place so that it may become known that a war has taken place against the churches, and that, in the time of the augustus Constantius, Syrianus has caused virgins and many others to become martyrs. 6 For, at the beginning of the fifth day before the Ides of February, that is the fourteenth day of the month of Mechir, we were keeping a vigil in the Lord's house and 304 On the dux Syrianus, see n. 115 on chapter 31.2 above. The title clarissimus denoted a person of senatorial rank in the later Roman empire, although it was gradually extended to more and more imperial officials, especially from the second half of the fourth century onwards, meaning that it lost some of its earlier prestige: see Jones (1964) I 143, II 527–30.

305 Maximus was Prefect of Egypt from 355 to 356: see PLRE I 582 (Maximus 13). For the imperial officials known as curiosi, see the Glossary. The prefects mentioned are the Praetorian Prefects, distinguished here from ordinary governors such as the Prefect of Egypt, and often referred to as clarissimi et illustres at this time, although the title clarissimus would later be extended to all provincial governors: see Jones (1964) I 143, 379.

ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

devoting ourselves to prayers (for the assembly on the day of preparation was about to take place).306 Suddenly around midnight the clarissimus dux Syrianus attacked us and the church with many legions of soldiers carrying weapons, naked swords, spears and other military equipment and with helmets on their heads. While we were actually at prayer and the reading was taking place, they broke down the doors and, as soon as the doors had been opened by the force of the crowd, he gave the order.

Some of them fired arrows, others raised war-cries, and a crash of arms erupted and the swords were illuminated by the light from the lamps. 7

Following this, virgins were killed and many people were trampled and crushed against each other when the soldiers attacked, and men were struck by arrows and died. Some of the soldiers turned to looting and also stripped the virgins, because the women's fear that some of them might simply be touched was greater than their fear of death. 8 While the bishop sat on his throne urging everyone to pray, the dux directed the attack, accompanied by Hilarius the notarius, whose actions were made clear by their result: the bishop was dragged down and almost torn apart.307

He was seriously paralysed and became like a dead man; and we do not know where they carried him off to out of sight, for they were eager to kill him. 9 When those men saw that many people had been killed, they ordered the soldiers to hide the bodies of the dead. The most holy virgins who had died were left behind and were buried in tombs, with the pride of having become martyrs in the time of the most pious Constantius. The deacons in the Lord's house were beaten up and shut in. But this was not the end of the matter. After this happened, anyone who wanted to do so proceeded to break down any door he chose, opened it, searched around and looted the contents, and they entered the places which not even all

Christians are allowed to enter. 10 Gorgonius, the strategos of the city, knows about these things, for he was there.308 Substantial proof of this warlike attack can be found in the weapons, spears and swords of the attackers that were left in the Lord's house. They have remained hung up in the church until now, so that those men cannot deny what happened.

He has very frequently sent Dynamius from the garrison and also the strategos, because he wants to remove the weapons, but we will not allow it until everyone knows what happened.309 11 If there really is a command

306 The date is 9 February 356. The 'day of preparation' is Friday.

307 On Hilarius the notarius, see chapter 48.1 above.

308 On Gorgonius, see chapter 63.1 above.

309 On Dynamius, see chapter 61.3 above.

IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II

that we should be persecuted, we are all ready to become martyrs; but if this is not the command of the augustus we request that Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, and all the decuriones should request him to stop making these attacks.310 12 We also request that this petition of ours be referred up, so that they do not try to impose any other bishop here. For we stand firm even unto death and we long for the most venerable bishop

Athanasius. God gave him to us from the beginning, in accordance with the succession of our fathers, and the most pious augustus Constantius himself sent him with letters and oaths.311 13 For we have faith that, if his piety [Constantius] learns about what has happened, he will be extremely angry about it and will also do nothing contrary to his oaths, but will once again give orders that our bishop Athanasius should remain with us.

14 Written on the seventeenth day of Mechir, which is the day before the Ides of February, in the consulship of those who will have been appointed after the consulship of the clarissimi Arbitio and Collianus.312

310 On decuriones, who were members of the town council, see n. 118 to chapter 31.6 above.

311 See chapters 21–4 above.

312 The date is 12 February 356. The name 'Collianus' is a corruption of Lollianus, who was consul alongside Arbitio in 355. On the title clarissimus, see n. 304 to chapter 81.3 above. It would appear that the names of the consuls for 356 had not reached the authors before they wrote this appeal. This way of referring to the year 356 also appears at Historia acephala 1.10, although the consuls for 356 are named shortly afterwards at 2.1. Atkinson's translation in Robertson (1892) incorrectly assumes that the consuls are the addressees of the petition, since their names appear in the dative. The dative was, however, often used in Greek translations of the regular ablative absolute construction employed in Latin consular dating formulae: see Adams (2003) 504.

↑ Back to top