A problem of dating
biography divine nature of the Holy Spirit—gave Gregory both personal and doctrinal reasons to subsequently exclude Eustathius from all accounts of his family's past.
Basil remarks in letter 231 that Gregory was now ÍperÒriÒw, i.e. 'beyond the border'. If this means outside Demosthenes' jurisdiction, as seems likely in the context, then Gregory had passed not merely beyond the province of Cappadocia, but out of the Pontic civil diocese altogether. One can only conjecture where he might have gone.
That he went south at any rate, is clear, which explains why he was never anywhere near the north to visit Annisa at this period. St Thecla's monastery in Seleucia of Isauria is a possibility, whither
Gregory Nazianzen had withdrawn at the same period. One might also wonder about Sannabodae—see Gregory Nazianzen letter 238.
The documentation is too scanty for us to be sure except for two things: Gregory was in some way kept out of general view and political reach, and Basil was able to maintain ready contact with him.
This period of enforced seclusion, of lying low, was surely a providential preparation for the years of Gregory's strenuous activity to come. He had the opportunity to steep himself more deeply in the Scriptures and in prayer and it is worth noting Daniélou's suggestion62 that his commentary on the inscriptions of the psalms, and on the sixth psalm, and perhaps on Ecclesiastes where he mentions that the Arian faithlessness that presently prevails,63 might be dated to this period.
A problem of dating The notes prefacing Gregory's letter 1 tell of a controversy among scholars concerning the authorship of that letter that fluctuated from one side to the other for some decades and was finally resolved in the early 1980s. Another major controversy affecting Gregory's chronology began in the late 1980s and only now seems to be reaching some kind of settlement. It concerns the dating of the return of the exiled Neo-nicene bishops, Basil's death and of the council of Antioch nine months later.
62 'Chronologie', 162.
63 See May, 'Die Chronologie', 56–57.
biography
Building on the work of recent scholars,64 Pierre Maraval argued a case65 for redating these events, after reassessment of the evidences that Valens himself recalled the exiles. He recapitulated his arguments in the Lettres, 18–23, with most of the bibliography on p. 19, n. 1.
The new chronology proposed was as follows: Basil died in August 377, Valens repealed the sentences of exile in September–October
377, he then departed Antioch (autumn 377), Gregory returned to Nyssa at the end of 377, the council of Antioch took place after Easter 378, probably in May, Gregory left Antioch to return to Cappadocia in June 378 and reached Pontus in July, Macrina's death took place on 19 July66 378, Gregory returned to Nyssa in August
378 and spent more than a year in Nyssa dealing with the incursions of the heretics before the summons to Ibora. Dating for the events in Sebasteia is not very forthcoming, presumably early in 380.67 Other consequences follow for Basil's and Gregory's chronology. On the datum of eight full years for Basil's episcopate, Basil's election would have to be backdated to 369. The great famine was backdated likewise to 368, and Emmelia's death likewise.
This hypothesis from such a specialist in the field caused some ripples among scholars. The consternation and doubt can be seen in the appendix on the topic in Rousseau's 1994 book Basil of Caesarea.68 He concluded 'Obscurities and suppositions abound; and one has to retain the feeling that an earlier date for Basil's death is by no means finally established'.
Not as yet informed of the subsequent debate, I found myself unable to concur with such an early re-dating. Jerome's credentials as a contemporary historian in the area being very considerable, I 64 Alan Booth, 'The Chronology of Jerome's early years', Phoenix 35 (1981),
237–259, who redated Basil's death to 14 June 377 (pp. 237–239); Rochelle Snee, 'Valen's Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda', Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 26 (1986), 395–456, who argued that Valens left Antioch in Autumn of 377, recalling the exiles before he did so.
65 'La date de la mort de Basile de Césarée', Revue des Études Augustiniennes 34
(1988), 25–38.
66 This is Macrina's feast-day in all the menologies and synaxaries. The date is confirmed, Maraval considers, by the fact that in VSM 21 (GNO 8.1, 391, Maraval
202) Gregory rests in the shade of the trailing vines, which is of course incompatible with a date in December, as in Diekamp's reckoning.
67 On these latter events see Lettres, 28–31.
68 Phillip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley: California University Press, 1994),
'Appendix III The Date of Basil's Death and of the Hexaemeron', 360–363.
biography gave and give full weight to his unique testimony for Basil that he died imperante Gratiano, i.e. in the reign of Gratian.69 Since he is consistent in recording the emperors of either the western or eastern
Roman empire for each entry according to whether the person died in the western or eastern empire, this detail means only one thing:
Basil died in the interval when Gratian was sole ruler of the empire, i.e. between the death of Valens on 9 August 378 and the appointment of Theodosius as Augustus of the East on January 19, 379.
Moreover, inspection of the text in the Chronicle of Edessa, which was the cornerstone for an early dating of the return of the exiles, showed that it was by no means unambiguous.70 A translation of the relevant entries is as follows: '32. In the year 689, in the month
Adar [= March 378], Mar Barses, bishop of Edessa, departed from the world. 33. And on the twenty-seventh day in the month Kanun
Qdim [= 27 December] of the same year, the orthodox came in and recovered the church of Edessa. 34. And in those days Mar
Eulogius became bishop in the year that Theodosius the Great became king . . .'.
As a sample of chronology it is odd that the chronicler would report Barses' death in March 378, backtrack to December 377 for the return of the exiles, and then leap forward to 379 after Theodosius became Emperor. Thus the phrase 'of the same year' after Kanun
Qdim is anomalous. If it means the same Seleucid year, the qualifying addition would seem superfluous, but if the Chronicler in fact means the Roman year, in keeping with his recording the entry after Adar 689, then the date is 27 December 378. An early scholar,
Hailler argued71 that 'of the same year' was interpolated and that the orthodox bishops returned after Gratian's edict in the late summer of 378.
Further doubts arise from the rather strained efforts necessary to explain away a wide range of data supporting a later chronology.
For example, not one but two pieces of evidence concerning Eulogius, 69 De Viris Illustribus 116.
70 Chronicon Edessenum CSCO 1, ed. I. Guidi (Louvain, 1903) pp. 5–6. See Maraval,
La date, 29, n.24. The Chronicle of Edessa is a late document, written shortly after 540. It uses the Seleucid era, reckoned from October 1, 312 BC. The Christian era is derived by subtracting 311 from a Seleucid year except for the months
October–December, in which case 312 is subtracted.
71 L. Hallier, Untersuchungen über die Edessenische Chronik, Texte und Untersuchungen
9.1 (Leipzig, 1892), p. 102.
biography
bishop of Edessa must be reinterpreted: first that he did not become bishop till the reign of Theodosius, as the Chronicle of Edessa quoted above states, and second that he was a participant in the council of Neo-nicene bishops at Antioch.72
In an admirable exercise of scholarly collaboration, Maraval invited Pouchet, an expert in Basil's letters, to look into the question. In 1992 Pouchet published a major essay73 in which he re-examined the internal evidence of Basil's letters, and argued in detail that his letter 48 to Eusebius of Samosata contains enough data of itself to establish that Basil was elected bishop of Caesarea in September 370, at about the same time as Demophilus was elected the (Homoian) bishop of Constantinople.74 Eight full years of episcopacy and no more75 lead thence to a date in late September 378 for Basil's death.
Pouchet does not engage with the issue of the early recall of the exiles, but emphasises the reasons for delay between the occasion of Valens' recall of the exiles, and their effective return to their intruded sees. He speaks in terms of first an 'amnesty' by Valens and then the 'effective recall' by Gratian. He dates Basil's letter 268 to Eusebius of Samosata in Thrace, to late April or the beginning of May 378, noting that though Basil does not mention explicitly the recall of the exiles, one can perceive clearly, in the first half of the letter, an unusual confidence in Eusebius' liberation and return.
Pouchet agrees with Maraval that Gregory's Encomium76 is concerned with the establishment of Basil's memorial day on 1 January
72 Fragments of the letter from Damasus of Rome, Ea, gratia, Illud sane, Non nobis, preserve the names of seven participants: Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata,
Pelagius of Laodicaea, Zenon of Tyre, Eulogius of Edessa, Bematius of Malle, Diodorus of Tarsus. Most of these had been Basil's correspondents. See Maraval,
La date, 38 n. 16.
73 Pouchet, J.-R., 'La date de l'election épisopale de saint Basile et celle de sa mort', Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 87 (1992), 5–33.
74 In this Pouchet was not advancing something new. He notes on p. 14 many authors of the last three centuries who noted the synchronicity of Basil's and Demophilus' elections. He cites Tillemont to say: Tillemont: 'We do not see any other means of understanding letter 254 (i.e. 48 Benedictine) of Saint Basil . . . without placing his election in 370.'
75 The evidence for this is Gregory Nazianzen's Epigram 10b, and Gregory of Nyssa,
VSM 16.2 (GNO 8.1, 385, Maraval' edition, 88), where Gregory says 'Eight years having passed after this [his election], at the ninth year' [t" §nãtƒ §niaut"] he died. Since this latter phrase lacks a qualifying phrase typically used elsewhere by Gregory, such as 'or a little more', it means the ninth year has advanced but little.
76 GNO 10.1, In Basilium Fratrem (Eulogy for his brother Basil), GNO 10.1, 109–34.
biography and that it does not necessarily imply that it was the actual day of his death. Among all the reasons Gregory gives for holding this celebration on this day, he does not mention that it was the anniversary of Basil's death, surely a prime consideration if such were the case. Martyrs were commemorated on the day of their confession, and Basil did not die a martyr. Indeed he must have been one of the first non-martyrs to receive a canonical feast-day.
But why a delay of more than three months between the death of Basil and his liturgical commemoration? Pouchet answers this by rehearsing the fact that there was as yet no inviolable norm with regard to choosing this day or that, specially for the novel situation of a non-martyr saint. He proposes two reasons for the time-lag:
Basil died not long after the local celebration of the martyr Eupsychius (5/7 September) and the autumn synod at Caesarea that followed.
He conjectures that Helladius, Basil's successor, would not have wished to fuse the popular feast of a local martyr and the synod of the church at Caesarea with the commemoration of his predecessor in a period already overcharged for himself and his clergy. Better to reserve it for a holiday period not far off. Secondly, a reason already proposed, the establishment of a feast day on January 1, along with the preceding feasts of Christmas, Apostles and Martyrs, would help to displace the licentiousness of pagan celebrations of the kalends of January.
Pouchet takes into full account the liturgical evidence for Macrina's death on 19 July, and Gregory's description in the VSM77 of his sitting outside in the shade of the trellis vines on the eve of her death, which renders a date in November or December quite impossible.
Again with Maraval, Gregory's statement78 that the bishops broke up their meeting before the year had passed by must refer not to the Roman year but the local Seleucid year of Antioch which began on October 1. Pouchet's proposed chronology is as follows:
Basil's election as bishop ......................................mid September 370
Basil's death ............................................................20 September 378
Beginning of the council of Antioch ..............................21 May 379 End of the council ............................................................21 June 379
77 VSM 21.2, GNO 8.1, 389, Maraval, 200.
78 VSM 17.1, GNO 8.1, 386, Maraval, 190.
biography
Gregory leaves Antioch for Cappadocia ........................22 June 379 Gregory arrives in Cappadocia ..........................................7 July 379
Gregory leaves for Annisa in Pontus..................................8 July 379 He arrives in Annisa..........................................................18 July 379
Macrina's death ..................................................................19 July 379
In 1997, T. D. Barnes published a talk given in Oxford in 1995, in which he also reassessed the date of the return of the exiles and of Basil's death.79 A useful contribution to the debate was his reconsideration of the date of Valens' departure from Antioch. The detailed narrative of Ammianus Marcellinus' Res Gestae 31 makes it clear that Valens spent the winter of 377/8 in Antioch. The other sources, primarily Jerome,80 with Rufinus81 and Socrates dependent on him, show that he must have departed Antioch in the Spring of 378, i.e. late in April or in May 378, and this must prevail against Snee's attempt to date it to Autumn 377. Valens went 'with haste' to Constantinople. Basil's letter 268 to Eusebius of Samosata was written after this departure. Basil remarks that he hears that Valens and his court is passing by. Barnes thinks this was through Caesarea itself.
Barnes maintains the long received dating of Basil's death: 1
January 379.82 But any fresh argument supporting this traditional date is unfortunately lacking. He fails to respond to Pouchet's and Maraval's arguments in significant ways. For example, he does not 79 T. D. Barnes, 'The Collapse of the Homoeans in the East', Studia Patristica 29
(1997), 3–16.
80 Jerome, Chronicle A.D. 378. Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Hieronymi chronicon, in Die
Griechischen Christichen Shriftsteller der Ersten Jahrhunderte, Eusebius' Werke siebenter band, hrsg von Rudolf Helm, (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984), 249.
81 Church History 11.13: Tum vero Valentis bella, quae ecclesiis inferebat, in hostem coepta converti, seraque paenitentia episcopos et presbyteros relaxari exiliis ac de metallis resolvi monachos iubet ('But then Valens began to direct his warfare away from the Churches to the enemy, and in a late repentance [same phrase as in Jerome] ordered the bishops and priests to be set free from exile and the monks released from the mines'),
Eusebius Werke 2.2, Die Kirchengeschichte, ed. E. Schwartz & Th. Mommsen (Vienna:
Akademie Verlag, 1908), 1019–1020. Rufinus immediately goes on to describe Valens' being besieged in the hut on the battlefield, so the 'late repentance' more naturally precedes that event than a supposed departure from Antioch almost a year earlier. It is perhaps not generally realized that Rufinus had his own credentials as a contemporary historian. He was very likely present in Antioch and Edessa in the year 378. See my 'Edessa to Casino: the passage of Basil's Asketikon to the West', Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002), 247–259.
82 Prudent Maran assembled all of Tillemont's reasons for a date of 1 Jan 379 in chapter 13 of his Vita Basilii PG 29 lvii–lix.
biography engage with Pouchet's study of letter 48, and enters into no discussion of Gregory's Encomium as evidence for the date of Basil's death and not just his memorial day.83 The issues concerning Gregory of Nyssa's journeys and Macrina's death are ignored.
The main points of Barnes' chronology are as follows:
Basil's death ..........................................................................1 Jan 379
Council of Antioch........................................................September 379
Journey to Annisa and Macrina's death ....................November 379 Maraval himself published a summary article in 2004 reviewing the whole question.84 He had long retracted his earlier position, and did so again here, putting on record his essential agreement with Pouchet's argumentation. He gives a more realistic interpretation of the 'passing by' of Valens and his army or court in Basil's letter 268. He asks whether it was necessarily through Caesarea, given that it was in haste, but rather to the south-west through Sasima, Nazianzus and Coloneia.
Pouchet's solution of the evidence is soundly and untendentiously argued. More than that, it is elegant, most of the pieces falling into place naturally and without strain. One might only amend it by gratefully accepting Barnes' restatement of the case for dating Valens' departure from Antioch to Spring 378. It would have been good to find cogent fresh argument supporting the long received dating of Basil's death, but, with all the best will possible in that direction, it must be conceded that Pouchet's chronology most satisfactorily and comprehensively answers all the major issues concerning the date of Basil's election as bishop, his final correspondence, the Neo-nicene council of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa's journeys and the date of Macrina's death.
If we do accept Pouchet's arguments for re-dating Basil's death, we can at least be thankful that it is far less drastic than Maraval's
83 Barnes remarks on Maraval's argument that Gregory's homily was the source of the subsequent tradition: 'That could be theoretically correct, but it sounds suspiciously like special pleading. If Basil was alive in the summer of 378, while the liturgical and hagiographical evidence points to 1 January as the day of his death, then the obvious inference is the traditional one, viz., that Basil died on 1 January
379' (Barnes, op. cit., p. 12.). That is the extent of the response.
84 'Retour sur quelques dates concernant Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de Nysse',
Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 99 (2004), 153–157.