1 REASSESSING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN LATE ANTIQUITY: PHILOSTORGIUS ON RELIGION AND EMPIRE By ANNA LANKINA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014
2 2014 Anna Lankina
3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been writing these acknowledgments in my head for seven years. Now that it is time to put them down on paper I feel overwh elmed by the sheer number of individuals and institutions stored away in the notes of my mind. In the end, it is impossible to write a dissertation or complete a graduate program without the help of lots of people. They will not all be thanked here; there is not enough time and space to mention them all and some, sadly, have been forgotten. Nevertheless, as I reflect on the years of my graduate career I find that the most important gift and value I obtained from the entire experience was the people; the peo ple who were a witness to my life during this time and whom it was a joy to get to know. First, I would like to thank those who helped me succeed in graduate school from afar. I will never forget the lessons I learned in academic rigor from the departments of History, Classics, and English at Hillsdale College. In particular, I will always be grateful to professors Harold Siegel, Lorna Holmes, Lucy Moye, Mark Kalthoff, Joseph Garnjobst, and Gavin Weaire for supporting me and giving me a head start in my gra duate career with their excellent teaching. My family remained far away all around the world during my pursuit of the PhD. I am grateful to my entire family for their various kinds of support, without which I would not have been able to attend or complete this program. My ever faithful mother, Natasha Lankina unfailingly cheered me on and made numerous sacrifices to ensure my academic success. During the writing stage of my project, my father, Vladimir Lankin encouraged me with stories of writing his own di ssertation on a typewriter in a smoke filled Soviet kitchen. My sister, Rada Lankina consistently provided all kinds of support, in particular a welcoming place to stay during a research trip to D.C. My sister Tomila
4 ed as a source of inspiration and healthy visits got me through the difficult times and reminded me about life outside graduate school. I would also like to thank Marilee Ha rris and her family for their unceasing support and for being a home away from home. My research and writing have been generously supported by various institutions at the University of Florida: the Department of History, The Center for the Humanities and the Public Sphere, the Graduate School, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Graduate Student Council, and the Office of Research. I also had the opportunity to complete my research as a Reader at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, an d I am thankful to the community of scholars there. In particular, my dissertation greatly benefited from insights gained through conversations with Scott Fitzgerald Johnson. I would also like to thank everyone involved in all the conferences I have had th e pleasure of attending over the years. I am thankful to all those who offered constructive criticism, intellectual stimulation, and spirited conversation. I would especially like to thank my conference friend and colleague Joseph Reidy for his shared inte collaborate. I would like to extend my wholehearted gratitude to the entire community of the University of Florida Department of History, its faculty, graduate students, staf f, and undergraduate students. This place is truly special and I have been blessed to be a part of a department which fosters a collegial, encouraging, and scholarly environment. Over the years, numerous friends and colleagues have offered their support an d commented
5 on my research and writing. Specifically, Alana Lord, Chris Bonura, Robert McEachnie, and Diana Reigelsperger have been with me throughout my graduate journey. I could not have written the dissertation without our countless conversations about graduate necessary setting for accountability, encouragement, and feedback, but I woul d like to especially thank Rebecca Devlin, Reid Weber, Andrew Welton, Tim Fritz, Rob Taber, and Chris Woolley. Penultimately, I would like to express enormous gratitude to the faculty who were involved in my project. My committee members Dr. Andrea Sterk, Dr. Nina Caputo, Dr. Bonnie Effros, Dr. Stuart Finkel, Dr. Kostas Kapparis all offered excellent critiques and suggestions throughout my graduate career. I would also like to thank them for an excellent dissertation defense conversation. I would like to e specially thank Dr. Caputo for her revisions and thoughtful comments on the dissertation. I am grateful to Dr. Florin Curta who has helped me throughout my time in the program; his revisions were especially valuable at a crucial stage of the project. F inally, I would like to thank three people who helped me the most. Each under standing were exactly what I needed as a graduate student and as a person. My husband Conway Carter witnessed perhaps some of the worst moments of my graduate career and created some of the best moments. He was there for me throughout my dissertation journ ey from late night writing sessions to conference presentations
6 around the country. Through it all, his encouragement, support, enduring patience, and humor continuously revealed him to be the amazing man that he is. Finally, I am overwhelmed with gratitud e to my advisor Dr. Andrea Sterk. In every way she is everything an advisor ought to be. She has spent countless hours editing and revising this dissertation, improving significantly both the style and the content. She has always been supportive, even when I faced seemingly unconquerable challenges as a graduate student. She was always available for guidance, conversation, and advice on my graduate studies and my academic career. She has worked tirelessly and faithfully to improve this project and to help m e become a better writer and scholar. I would
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Philostorgius and His Ecclesiastical History ................................ ............................ 11 Historiographic Overview ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 ................................ ....................... 27 Methodology and Approach ................................ ................................ .................... 31 2 PHI LOSTORGIUS AND HISTORY WRITING IN LATE ANTIQUITY ...................... 38 In the Wake of Momigliano: Approaches to Late Antique Historiography ............... 38 Phil ostorgius and the Fifth Century Church Historians ................................ ........... 50 Philostorgius and the Writing of His History ................................ ............................ 54 3 IN THE WAKE OF NICAEA: REAS SESSING HEROES AND VILLAINS ............... 61 ................................ ................................ ...................... 61 Emperors, Empire, and Bishops ................................ ................................ ............. 63 Nicaea and its Aftermath ................................ ................................ ......................... 66 The Accession of Athanasius ................................ ................................ .................. 73 The Arian Controversy during the reign o f Constantius ................................ .......... 79 History ................................ .. 86 4 SPREADING THE FAITH: PHILOSTORGIUS ON MISSION AND MISSIONARIES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 88 The Missions of Theophilus and Ulfila in Non Nicene Memory ............................... 88 Interpreting The Non Nicene Narrative: History and Memory ................................ 90 Connecting the Missions of Theophilus and Ulfila ................................ .................. 94 Representation versus Reality ................................ ................................ .............. 100 .............................. 104 Nicene vs. Non Nicene Accounts of Missionaries ................................ ................. 111 5 EMPERORS AND BISHOPS: LEADERSHIP FOR THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE .... 124 ................................ ............................ 124 Emperors and Divine Approval ................................ ................................ ............. 130 Godly Bishops ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 133
8 On the Cooperation between Bishops and Emperors ................................ ........... 135 The Challenge of Cooperation: The Case of Caesar Gallus ................................ 139 Bishops and Emperors in Conflict ................................ ................................ ......... 143 The Role of Women ................................ ................................ .............................. 153 Julian the Apostate ................................ ................................ ............................... 155 The Deaths of Emperors ................................ ................................ ....................... 157 Theories of Church and State ................................ ................................ ............... 161 6 CONTEXT OF EMPIRE ................................ ................................ ........................ 167 Barbarians ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 167 Pagans ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 180 Jews ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 185 ................................ ................................ ............................ 187 7 THEORY OF HISTORY ................................ ................................ ........................ 188 Geography and Ethnography ................................ ................................ ................ 188 The Battle between Saints and Demons ................................ ............................... 193 Apocalyptic Imagery ................................ ................................ .............................. 200 8 CONCLUSION: COMP ETING HISTORIOGRAPHICAL VOICES: PHILOSTORGIUS RECONSIDERED ................................ ................................ ... 215 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 222 Primary Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 222 Secondary Sources ................................ ................................ .............................. 224 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 235
9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the Uni versity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy REASSESSING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN LATE ANTIQUITY: PHILOSTORGIUS ON RELIGION AND EMPIRE By Anna Lankina August 2014 Chair: Andrea Sterk Major : History Rarely do historians have access to the voices of religious minorities. In the later Roman Empire sources pertaining to such groups were targeted for systematic destruction. The fifth century Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius the subject of my dissertation, is an unusual example of a surviving minority source, a perspective from Although scholars have mined his work for raw data on events between 320 and 425, in c ontrast attention. This relative neglect is partially due to the fact that his History survives only in the form of an epitome by the ninth century scholar and patriarc h, Photius, who simultaneously preserved the work yet derided it as heresy and fabrication. While the secondhand nature of the text complicates its interpretation, the Ecclesiastical History enables us to access the beliefs and activities of a minority rel igious community which was largely erased from the historical record. Unfortunately, few scholars have shown interest in this suppressed community, and even fewer have taken into account
10 Until now there has been no major st udy of Philostorgius in English In contrast to much modern scholarship, which treats his History as little more than heretical polemic my dissertation examines Philostorgius as a historian in his own right. Eschewing the facile heresy/orthodoxy dichotom y as a model for the history of Christianity, I show how Philostorgius presented religion and empire as interconnected categories throughout his History His treatment of heresy, mission, natural history, emperors and bishops, pagans, Jews, and barbarians which I analyze in different chapters of the dissertation displays a distinctive theology of history that informs his entire work I argue that his interpretation of events deserve s a place in our understanding of intellectual and cultural developments in early Byzantium as a whole and in the history of history writing in particular. I argue further that Philostorgius presented an account of Christianization that was distinct from the narrative of other church historians. Unlike his contemporaries he emphas ized the trans regional connections between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean including historical details that we know from his account alone. Thus, his history forms a crucial part of the narrative as well as the process of Christianization in late antiquity, as he participated in an intellectual contest with other fifth century writers over the nature of the Roman Empire, its past, and its future.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Philostorgius and His Ecclesiastical History Diverse yet true the things of which it tells. Philostorgius Ecclesiastical History 1 With this epigram, Philostorgius, the educated Eunomian layman from Cappadocia, introduced his Ecclesiastical History signaling to the reader both his connection with the classical tradition and the centrality of the Christian faith to his narrative. 2 word allude to Herodotus, whose excursus into geography and natural history clearly 3 While the epigram and title of the history The History of Philostorgius, the Eunomian from Cappadocia were designed to in troduce the reader to the historian and the nature of his history, few readers have approached it 4 History writing in the ancient world was never meant 1 Philip R. Amidon translation, introduction, and notes, Philostorgius: Church History (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1. And in the critical edition, Joseph Bidez, Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte: Mit dem Leben des Lucian von Antiochien und den Fragmenten eines arianischen Histor iographen (3rd ed.; rev. by Friedhelm Winkelmann; GCS; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981) xcix ci. And in the new translation, Philostorge Histoire Ecclsiastique Greek text revised by Jospeh Bidez (GCS); translated by douard Des Places; introduction, revi sion, notes and index by Bruno Bleckmann, Doris Meyer, and Jean Marc Prieur, Sources Chrtiennes 564 (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 2013), 131. 2 intriguing suggestion in Warren Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), 127, that Philostorgius was a physician. 3 Amidon, Philostorgius 2, n. 1; Philostorgius, 3.7. On the influence of Herodotus on the ethnographic digressi ons of Philostorgius see Anthony Kaldellis, Ethnography after Antiquity: Foreign Land and Peoples in Byzantine Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 60 62. 4 See below for examples of the typical approach. For an argument that Philostorgius was behind the epigrams and the title see Amidon, Philostorgius 1, n. 1; Bidez, xcix ci; Philostorge Des Places, Bleckmann, Meyer, Prieur, 130 131, n. 1 3. In this title cited in the Palatine Anthology 9.193 194, the work is referred to as just a history, not an ecclesastical history. Photius, however, refers to it as an
12 to be the straightforward recording of facts, just as many modern hi storians recognize the limitations of the academic discipline due to the selective perspective that accompanies any interpretive framework. But just as modern historians view history as the meaningful interpretation of events, so ancient historians perceiv ed history as explaining the world around them, both as it was and as it should be. Philostorgius chose to contribute to an ancient genre by building on established precedents and conventions. Yet he was also writing in a post Constantinian world during t he development of what scholars refer to as the new genre of ecclesiastical history. Classicists and historians agree that Eusebius of Caesarea not only wrote the first church history but also had the greatest impact on subsequent history writing in Late A ntiquity. 5 The ecclesiastical historians of the fifth century, writing between 400 and 450, are viewed as the Latin West and Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theod oret in the Greek east. In the last several decades, these church historians have received increased attention from scholars and been the subjects of several excellent studies. 6 Contributing fresh ecclesastical history twice. Bidez argued that the title from the Palatine Anthology comes from Philostorgius himself because it refers to him as a Eunomian in contrast to references to him as an Arian. It seems to me that the mystery of how Philostorgius titled his work is unsolvable. 5 Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquit y, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. ed. Gabriele Marasco ( Leiden: Brill, 2003 ), 38 39. Theresa Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church and State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997), 79; in History and Historians in Late Antiquity ed. B. Croke and A. M. Emmett (Rushcutters Bay: Pergamon Press, 1983), 6; Arnaldo Momigliano The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century ed. Arnaldo Momigliano (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 91. 6 Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople ; Theresa Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man (Ann Arbor: University of M ichigan Press, 2002); Franoise Thelamon, Paens et Chrtiens ( Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,
13 assessments of the goals and perspectives of these ecclesia stical historians, such studies are essential starting points for any study of these crucial and frequently cited sources for late antiquity. Our better understanding of the goals and methods of ecclesiastical historians allows us not only to use them more effectively as sources, but also to discover new aspects of late antique perspectives on empire and religion. This Ecclesiastical History will show that his particular view of empire and religion as intertwined entities and as a r evelation of the divine will stemmed from his Eunomian theology and contrasted with the perspectives of other ecclesiastical historians of his era. Until now, scholars have not accorded Philostorgius the same attention as the other fifth century continua tors of Eusebius, even though the publication of his history predates those of his Greek counterparts, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. This relative neglect is partially due to the fact that his work survives only in the form of an epitome by the ninth c entury scholar and patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, and in other fragments. The purposeful and systematic eradication of any works associated typical problem of limited survival of sources from antiquity. For example, the theological treatises of Eunomius, one of the founding figures of this Christian community with which Philostorgius identified, were ordered to be burned. Thus, while the secondhand nature of Philostorgi Ecclesiastical History also offers exciting possibilities. Specifically, Philostorgius gives us access to 1981); Glenn F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Th eodoret, and Evagrius 2 nd ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986); For a study of a sixth century historian see, Pauline Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus: The Church Historian (Louvain: Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 1981).
14 the beliefs and activities of a minority religious community that was largely erased from the historical record. Ironically, his relative neglect among scholars also stems from his allegiance to tradition of ecclesiastical historiography. Similar to the views associ ated with the early fourth century heretic ehensible. 7 and political events between 320 and 425 as a source for this period, especially for the history of the Goths and for the Arian controversy, few take into account his view of history and Christianity. In order to use his narrative most effectively as a source and to gain access to his Eunomian point of view, one must understand the context in which the work was written and the underlying goals of his history Ecclesiastical History begins with faith was to his identity, scholars have unfairly overemphasized and misrepresen ted his reasons. In the first place, Philostorgius would not have identified himself as an Arian and would have even found such a categorization offensive. He expli citly identifies himself as a Eunomian in the title of his history, as Josef Bidez already made perfectly 7 Philostorgius, 2.3. On Eun Richard Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
15 clear in his definitive edition of the Ecclesiastical History in 1913. 8 Secondly, only employed and inevitably project this interpretive framework onto an assessment of 9 In modern scholarship Philostorgius is v iewed as a source comparable to the other ecclesiastical historians of the fifth century, but mainly in opposition to their orthodox perspective, and thus as more polemical and partisan. Scholars also commonly portray Philostorgius as writing primarily fro m a losing point of view, relegating him to an enfeebled voice amid the ruins of his world, one of the 10 These representations of Philostorgius appear to ignore the vast scho larship over the last several decades that has seriously challenged the heresy/orthodoxy dichotomy as a model for the study of Christianity in late antiquity. In other words, to imply that cal than that of his Nicene counterparts is to perpetuate the views and propaganda of rulers like Theodosius II and most of all modern standards of historiography, Philostorgius was no more polemical or p artisan than the other ecclesiastical historians of the fifth century. 8 Bidez, xcix. 9 Gabriele Marasco, torgius and Gelasiu n Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. ed. Gabriele Marasco ( Leiden: Brill, 2003 ), 258. Similarly, see his more recent book, Gabriele Marasco, Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico e cclesiastico del V secolo ( Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 2005), 13. See also Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians 126. And the designation Giving the Heretic a Voice: Philostorgius of Borissus and Gree k Ecclesiastical Historiography, Athenaeum 89 (2001): 516. 10 Kaldellis, 70.
16 Clearly, neat categories of orthodox and heretical historiography are misleading. Furthermore, if we are going to judge ecclesiastical historians by notions of heresy and orthodoxy, le t us bear in mind that Rufinus was accused of Origenism, Socrates was a historian Eusebius was himself reputed to be an Arian sympathizer 11 Also, any comparisons of Philostorgi us to other ecclesiastical historians must acknowledge that he wrote before Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. These historians, who supported Nicaea, purposefully wrote their ecclesiastical histories, at least in part, to counter the narratives written fro m an anti Nicene perspective, including that of Philostorgius. 12 antiquity. Just like other church historians, Philostorgius was influenced by the work of Eusebius. His work constitutes an integral part of ecclesiastical history writing and was not merely a response to the Nicene mainstream. By viewing Philostorgius within the development of late antique historiography as a whole, one can better appreciate his appro aches to questions of religion and empire as distinct from those of the other ecclesiastical historians. His divergences were due not only to his ecclesiastical allegiance but also to his own view of history. What did Philostorgius desire that his readers take away from his Ecclesiastical History ? How did he want his fellow Eunomian Christians and other educated readers of the Roman 11 Rufinus: Peter Van Deun, in Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. ed. Gabriele Marasco (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 161. Socrates: Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople 26 27; Peter Constantinople (381 Journal of Early Christian Stu dies 18 (2010): 428, n. 11. Theodoret: Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus 28. Eusebius: Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians 25 26. 12 Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople 55; Alanna Nobbs, Ecclesiastical H Tradition and Traditions. Prudentia suppl 1994, 198 207; G. W. Trompf, Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive Justice (London: Continuum, 2000) 214.
17 Empire to view the Christian past? These are some of the questions guiding this inquiry into and the Eunomian memory of the past. While recent scholarship has challenged the overly simple dichotomy of heresy versus orthodoxy and 13 these advances have had a limited effect o n treatments of ecclesiastical history. Specifically, numerous fine works on Arianism in the past generation have added nuance to our understanding of the religious disputes of the fourth and fifth centuries and to Arian theology in particular but these n ewer perspectives have not been integrated into ecclesiastical historiography. 14 Although f the interconnectedness of religion and e mpire were in many ways representative of historians in late antiquity his goal to reclaim the memory of Christian history for his faith community reflected his distinctive Eunomian per spective. This dissertation assess es an examination of central themes in his ecclesiastical history. It concludes th at Philostorgius viewed religion and empire as intertwined in the tradition of classical 13 Most recently, see Eduard Iricinschi and Holger M. Zellentin, eds., Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity ( Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) ; David M. Gwynn, Susanne Bangert, and Luke Lavan, eds., Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2010), which also incorporates archaeology into the discussion; and Richard L Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World ed. G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). Reflecting the new sensitivity to variants of Christianity, T he Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2: Constantine to c.600 ed. Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), Part I, 9 148, treats regional developments in four chapters on diverse regional 14 controversy see first of all R. P. C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy, 318 381 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) ; Le wis Ayres Nicaea and its Legacy: an Approach to Fourth century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004); Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition ( London : Darton, Longman, and Todd 1987); Timothy D. Barnes Athanasius and Constanti us: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993) A History of Neo Arianism (Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979); and especially important for Eunomianism, Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (2000).
18 thought. Yet he also embraced Christian conceptions of the central role of the Christian s theology of history was distinct from the other ecclesiastical historians as it incorporated apocalyptic literature and Eunomian theology which emphasized the knowability of aim the memory of the Christian past for his faith community, a perspective distinct from the Nicene narrative, this study will bring fresh insights to the study of ecclesiastical and late view of religion and empire deserves a place in our overall understanding of intellectual and cultural developments in late antiquity, as the development of the genre of ecclesiastical history comes into better focus when viewed as an exchange between the various participants rather than a repetitive continuation of Eusebius. Historiographic Overview To be sure, assessments of Philostorgius have much deeper roots than modern century epitomizer, Patriarch Pho tius of Constantinople. In his entry on Philostorgius in the Bibliotheca a massive work briefly summarizing and reviewing over two hundred works from antiquity to his own day the p atriarch writes, ians. It exalts all those of Arian sympathies, and heaps scorn on the orthodox, so that his history is not so much a history as it is a eulogy of the heretics, and undisguised criticism and 15 15 Photius, Bibliotheca codex 40. The cri Bibliotheca is Rene Henry, ed. and trans., Photius: Bibliotheque (9 vols.; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1959 1991). Codex 40 is in 1:23 25.
19 challenging as Photius regularly inserted his own editorial remarks into the text, but thankfully they are rather easy to discern. While it i s important to acknowledge that the fourth and fifth centuries, he was also writing history and expressing his view of the world. Thus, as the deconstruction of the her esy/orthodoxy dichotomy has contributed to a better understanding of power relations in the political and religious struggles of late antiquity and the Middle Ages, it should also inform our assessment of ecclesiastical history. As the study of late antiqu ity has flourished in recent decades, scholarly attention to the writing of history in antiquity has significantly increased as well. At first, reading the histories to reconstruct the events of late antiquity was sufficient, but subsequently, understandin g the perspectives of the historians became an essential starting point. Thus, for example, in the past generation at least six important studies have examined the historian Ammianus Marcellinus. 16 The notion of the importance of texts as part of the proces ses that they describe has also contributed to the rise in studies of history writing in late antiquity. The church historians of the fifth century have perhaps not garnered as much attention from scholars as authors considered to be writing in the classic al tradition because they have been perceived simply as continuators of Eusebius and as monolithic in their style and aims. Nevertheless, with the foundation 16 Robert M. Frakes, review of Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian by Gavin Kelly, Jo urnal of Late Antiquity 2 (2009): 172 180. E. A. Thompson, The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947); John Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989); Timothy D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998); Guy Sabbah, La Mthode d'Ammien Marcellin: Recherches sur la Construction du Discours Historique dans les Res Gestae (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978); Klaus Rosen, Ammianus Marcellinus (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982).
20 in the Four late antiquity have appeared. 17 On the one hand, this more recent scholarship on the writing of history in antiquity makes a very stark distinction between the genres of classica l and ecclesiastical historiography, yet on the other hand it strives to break down this simplistic categorization. 18 While focusing on the church history of Philostorgius, this study will help demonstrate that distinctions between genres were not as rigidl y fixed as once thought. 19 The early fifth century ecclesiastical history of the Latin writer Rufinus and the mid fifth century Greek ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret all embraced the theological formulations of Nicaea and thus t heir histories have enjoyed long lasting popularity. These historians frequently have been lumped together as versions of the same historical narrative as they provided accounts of a similar time period and event s and followed the model of Eusebius of Caes area. 20 This tendency to amalgamate their histories dates back to the sixth century Latin translation and compilation of their works by Epiphanius Scholasticus under the direction of the Roman 17 Momigliano, ; Gabriele Marasco, ed. Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Brian Croke and A. M. Emmett, eds. History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay: Pergamon Press, 1983); Graeme Clarke, ed. Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay: Australian Nati onal University Press, 1990 ). Peter Liddel and Andrew Fear, eds. Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal Historiography (London: Duckworth, 2010). 18 See especially the discussion in Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople 89 105. 19 See Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople 99 105; Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, ed., Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 1 8. 20 Greek an d Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. ed. Gabriele Marasco (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 219.
21 statesman and writer Cassiodorus. 21 Known as the Tripartite Hist ory, this conflation became the standard work of ecclesiastical history for centuries in the Latin Middle Ages 22 Although this tendency to conflate the three works persists more recent reevaluations of the historians have emphasized the differences betwee n them and assessed the individual contributions of each one to late antique historiography. 23 on Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoret is particularly important in this regard 24 Moreover, in Socrates of Constantinople Urbainczyk emphas izes the individuality of Socrates and provides a model for my own study of Philostorgius. Her book is not a biography or an attempt to reconstruct the events in the understandi ng of the appropriate relationship between church and state. 25 Through comparison with these other fifth century historians, this study of Philostorgius will also contribute to this new emphasis on treating these writers as authors in their own right. Moreo ver, it will argue for a reevaluation of these histories as individual voices competing for definitions of the past. 21 The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity ed. Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, (Oxford: Oxford University Pre ss, 2013), 426. 22 Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople 1. 23 Some promising work has been done toward a more critical reading of ecclesiastical historians. As a starting point see, David Rohrbacher, The Historians of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge, 20 02); Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians For extensive studies see note six above and for an analysis Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive Justice Also, Hartmut Leppin, Von Konstantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II: das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret (G ttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1996). 24 Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constant inople ; idem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus ; Historia 46 (1997): 355 373; idem, Advice in Socrates and Sozomen i n The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in L ate Antiquity ed. Mary Whitby ( Leiden: Brill, 1998 ), 299 320. 25 See below for specific aspects of her approach that are applicable to the study of Philostorgius.
22 more successful the narratives of his competitors were, bot h those whose histories he was continuing and those who were responding to him whether the earlier work of Rufinus or the later histor the accounts of historians who supported the decisions of the Council of Nicaea have long supplanted any dissenting voices. Their theological allegiance to Nicaea ensured that their version of events would not only serve as the dominant narrative during th eir own time period but also for subsequent generations, down to the present day. Approaching these histories as part of the same context in which a number of ecclesiastical histories appeared in the fifth century I will compare the pro Nicene representat ions of the past with the History of Philostorgius. Such a comparative analysis provide s both a more nuanced treatment of the history of the period covered by all these historians and a more accurate picture of post Eusebian historiography as a sphere of c ompetitive exchange rather than a linear progression The extensive literature on the Arian controversy and subsequent ecclesio political disputes leading up to the Council of Chalcedon has contributed greatly to our understanding of that complex time per iod. It has also added much needed nuance to Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution is essential for understanding the Eunomian part of this story. Although Vaggione uses Philostorgius extensively as a source, his main focus is Eunomius himself, and he
23 26 Heresiological labels developed during the heat of controversy and se rved to characterize opponents as inherently negative; they drew clear lines between groups that in reality were still trying to understand how Christianity and the new Christian empire fit into history. Although these labels obscured much more than clarif ied the actual complexity and diversity of religious life in Late Antiquity, they have proven popular and persist in modern scholarship. 27 been pervasive enough to warrant a thorou gh reconsideration of the assumptions that pervade our understanding of the late antique ecclesiastical historians as a whole. While Eunomianism translate this appreciation into a study of the historian based almost exclusively on such 28 Indeed, as already mentioned, the extensive away from an uncritical acceptance of these categories. In light of this recent scholarship, then, one does not expect such statements as appear in Gabriele 26 Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus 286, 360 362. 27 Some modern attempts to solve this problem m ay contribute to the problem, terms such as neo Arian or semi Arian. 28 While Marasco, ct serves to perpetuate them church historians. See, fo r example, Argov 514 515.
24 29 The implication is that the work of the other ecclesiastical historians was somehow free of polemic or promotion of a particular cause. Josef Bidez produced the sole critical edition of the history, with extensive introduction and notes. This excellent edition went through three revised editions (the final one by Winkelmann) and is the essential foundation for any study of Philostorgius. English translation of the History provide valuable i nformation and insight. There has until now been no major study of Philostorgius in English. The recent Italian monograph by Gabriele Marasco is the only study published in a modern European language. 30 Unfortunately, the problematic assumptions that serve as the foundation for this study undermine an otherwise admirable undertaking. The secondary literature on Philostorgius is predominantly characterized by short treatments in chapters and articles, reinforcing the view that he is peripheral to the narrat ive of late antique history writing. For example, while Philostorgius is included in The Early Byzantine Historians he does not appear as a separate Historians of Late Antiquity and is in fact only mentioned o nce. 31 These compilations reveal the accumulation of small assumptions about Philostorgius and his history that contribute to a picture of a radical heretic, partisan 29 Marasco, 257 284. Also, Marasco, Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo passim. See more on this issue in Chapter 3. 30 Marasco, Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo According to Michael Whitby in his review of Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo The Classical Review 57 (2007): 89, M 31 Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians 126 134; Rohrbacher, Historians of Late Antiquity 76.
25 polemicist, and a man on the losing side of history. 32 But there are also several very good articles, which are unfortunately very limited in scope. 33 In addition to providing an introduction to Philostorgius and an overview of his work, Alanna Nobbs rightly highlights the importance of assessing the historian within the context of the other eccl esiastical historians of the fifth century while keeping in mind that he preceded most of them. She also briefly argues that Philostorgius stands out among the other ecclesiastical historians as he gives more attention to events in the West and to secular history. Hartmut Leppin makes a very important contribution by briefly examining mem ber of the persecuted Eunomian group, serves as an interesting counterbalance to the views of Nicene historians. Finally, the scholarship on Philostorgius has recently benefited from an important collection of articles based on a 2006 conference devoted ex clusively to the Eunomian historian, which explores new directions and possibilities for study. 34 Philostorgius has also received attention in several larger studies incorporating the ecclesiastical historian into broader arguments on late antique history w riting. Thus, 32 See examples above at n. 9, n 28. Also, see Michael Whitby, review of Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo The Classical Review 57 (2007): 89 90. 33 Ecclesiastical Hi Tyndale Bulletin 42.2 (1991): 271 281; n Reading the Past in Late Antiquity ed. G. Clarke (Rushcutters Bay : Australian National University Press, 1990 ) Se e below in the section on Photius and the text for a discussion of 497 524. Hartmut Leppin, eretical Historiography: Philostorgius i n Studia Patristica 34 (2001). 34 Doris Meyer, ed., Philostorge et l'historiographie de l'antiquit tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011). See also my review in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2012.12.34.
26 Narratives of Retributive Justice which examines the logic of retribution in Christian narratives of the past. 35 Trompf also provides a valuable Th e Past is Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography Thomas Ferguson includes a significant discussion of Philostorgius and also serves as an important source of inspiration for this project. 36 While my analysis of Philostorgius does not always foll conclusions, it builds on his commitment to view late antique history not through our own modern standards of history writing, but rather to examine the goals and perspectives of late antique historians and writers themselves. I also find his concept of heresiological terminology our sources preserve evidence of distinctive theological traditions centered on particular texts and ecclesial leaders that were s ustained by communities of believers. 37 History reveals that one of the main purposes of the work was to contribute to the preservation of his faith community as the text includes numerous discussions of the martyr Lucian, whom he viewed as the original theological teacher of his coreligionists, including Eunomius himself. 38 While Ferguson may at times overemphasize the evidence for the coherence of faith communities, the concept serves as a better alternative to heresiologic al 35 Trompf, Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive J ustice 187 212. 36 Thomas Ferguson The Past is Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 125 164. 37 Ferguson, 7 9. 38 Ferguson, 130 131; 132 138.
27 his Ecclesiastical History Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia includes a brief chapter on Philostorgius and also mov es away from viewing the historian through the lens of heresy, 39 his rather superficial treatment of the Philostorgius almost seems to play the role of another heretical f igure from Cappadocia to accompany Eunomius as the counterbalance to the famous orthodox bishops of the same province. The preceding review of scholarship on Philostorgius and late antique history writing highlights the need for a study that approaches him as a historian in his own right and his history as an equal player in the development of the genre of ecclesiastical the Arian historian as a liar, frequently treated h im on a rudimentary level, and has not considered his ecclesiastical history within the broader context of this rising new genre. Photius (c.810 c.893) the patriarch of Constantinople is famous for his proli fic literary output and revival of learning in ninth centruy Constantinople. 40 Apparently, in books each, totaling the twelve books of the history. Photius preserved t he text twice first briefly in his Bibliotheca and then extensively in an epitome of the History The 39 Raymond Van Dam Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia (Phi ladelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 157 161. 40 For more on Photius see Warren Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1980).
2 8 Bibliotheca is an enormous compilation of a variety of ancient sources that Photius had read. 41 Each entry in the Bibliotheca provides some basic informati on on the author and nature of the work, with some entries going into more detail and a summary of the text. This fascinating and extremely valuable work preserves information about numerous Philostorgius is brief in comparison to the epitome mentioning only the general characteristics and themes of the work. 42 part of his preparation for a series of sermons on the Arian co ntroversy. 43 She also rightly points out that the detailed portions of the epitome reveal as much about On the other hand, the selections with more detail seem to quote Philostorgi us more directly. 44 One orthodox doctrine and truthfulness in the history. Thus, a critical reading of the source has to account for any potential distortion or censorship on the part of Photius; thankfully, the patriarch appears to have been 45 History is somewhat uncharacteristic of the patriarch because as far as we know he did not make any similar ex tensive summaries 41 For more see Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius 42 Rene Henry, ed. and trans., Photius: Bibliotheque (9 vols.; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1959 1991). Codex 40 is in 1:23 25. 43 read the history to include an entry on Philostorgius in his Bibliotheca a collection of descriptions and excerpts of works that Photius had read. The epitome of the Ecclesiastical History is separate from this work. 44 255. 45 Amidon, Philos torgius xxiii.
29 of any other works. This may not mean anything, but this fact along with other Argov concludes that it is possible to argue that Photius was not the au thor of the epitome but only of the entry in the Bibliotheca 46 Additionally, he argues for a later date argument and concluded that the author of the Bibliotheca entry and of the epitome are the same Photius. 47 leads to certain limitations of analysis, but the existence of other fragments helps to redress this problem. The author of the pre ni nth century Artemii Passio borrowed extensively from Philostorgius. 48 Scholars believe that the author of the Artemii Passio was either John of Rhodes or John the Monk. Nothing is known about either of them, but scholars argue that the text itself should be dated to the eighth or ninth century. More recently Bonifatius Kotter has argued in favor of John of Damascus (ca. 655 ca.750). 49 A text of uncertain authorship, the Artemii Passio is a hagiography of the martyr Artemius during the reign of Emperor Julian the Apostate (360s). The author of the passion used an earlier account of the martyrdom of Artemius and added 46 Argov, 497 524 47 Philostorge et l'historiographie de l'antiquit tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtssc hreibung ed. Doris Meyer ( Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011), 45, for an argument against Argov. 48 The translation with notes of the Artemii Passio by Mark Vernes is in From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views: A Source History ed. Samue l N. C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat, (London: Routledge, 1996); the critical edition is in Bonifatius Kotter, ed., Opera homiletica et hagiographica (vol. 5 of Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos ; PTS 29; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 185 245. 49 Kotter, 1 85 245.
30 of the later martyrdom, Artemius had acquired the r eputation of a Christian martyr defying the pagan emperor Julian. The Nicene author of the text apparently noticed community but decided to use the history anyway, with very feeble attempts at glossing over unorthodoxy. The Artemii Passio is potentially the earliest extant source to have History The martyrdom account is the second most extensive source for the reconstruction of the Histo ry after the epitome. The remainder of the sources that contain fragments of Philostorgius did not borrow as extensively but are still crucial for access to the text. First, an anonymous ninth to eleventh century Life of Constantine made liberal use of Phi 50 The primary purpose of this text was to provide a hagiographical depiction of the emperor Constantine from the perspective of a Byzantine readership. But apparently the author was interested in incorporating late ancient sources, and th e text shows extensive reliance on numerous church historians and even pagan ones. The tenth century Suda (author unknown) also frequently cited Philostorgius as a source. 51 This text is a Byzantine encyclopedia and dictionary of sorts with around 30,000 en tries describing the meaning and origin of terms. It preserves or mentions countless literary and historical works from antiquity and the early Byzantine period, with many references to texts and authors that are not attested anywhere else. Additionally, t he tenth century Palatine Anthology an extensive collection of ancient and Byzantine epigrams, draws 50 Life of Constantine : Hans Byzantion 9 (1934): 535 93. Translation in From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views: A Source History ed. Samuel N. C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat 51 Suda: Suidae Lexicon Ed. Ada Adler. 5 vols. ( Leipzig: Teubner, 1928 1938 )
31 52 Finally, the twelfth century work on theology and orthodoxy by Niketas Choniates contains fragments as part of its discussion of the history and nature of earlier heresies. This work refers to Philostorgius as a heretic and explicitly cites him. 53 Fortunately, Josef Bidez has compiled all of the relevant fragments together with the material preserved by Photius in a single narrative by placing the fragments thought to be from the same part of Philostorgius in the same section. 54 Some of these fragments provide additional information not contained in ome are more significant as they confirm that Photius is summarizing the text accurately. Methodology and Approach primarily as a study of his Ecclesiastical History In partic ular I examine the thought of Philostorgius on the interconnectedness of religion and empire, focusing on the themes of heresy, Christianization, emperors and bishops, pagans and barbarians, and theology of history. Additionally, I study how his perspectiv e on religion and empire fits Socrates of 52 Palatine Anthology Book IX in Greek Anthology, Collection des Universits de France, vol. 7, text by 53 Niketas Choniates, Dogmatike Panoplia See Alicia Simpson, Niketas Choniates: A Historiographical Study ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 36 50, for a brief discussion of the Dogmatike Panoplia It does not have a critical edi own time. 54 I have discussed the most extensive fragments. There are also a few shorter ones, such as in Simeon Metaphrastes, Martyrium Arethae See Bidez, xii cv, for a comp rehensive analysis of the fragments and manuscript tradition and
32 Constantinople John of Ephesus serve in part as models. 55 Urbainczyk places Socrates in his historical context to illuminate his concerns and purposes for writing the ecclesiastical history. She also analyzes the content of the history to reveal Socrates understanding of the role of history and his view of church and state in particular. Van Ginkel similarly explores John of Ephes time and history to explicate why he recorded events in the ways he did. He point of view, he nevertheless remained pro Byzantine. Both Urbainczyk and Van Ginkel rightly emphasize the importance of understanding the purpose and view of the ecclesiastical historians before using them as sources for the narrative of events they cover. Similarly, my approach to Philostorgius shows how his Eunomian worldview shaped his perception of religion and empire as inherently interconnected categories that revealed the will of God in human history. My study also brings to light this unique theology of history while emphasizing that it was one of many voices vying for t he Christian past during the fifth century. Comparison to other fifth century ecclesiastical historians is an important aspect of my approach, but studying Philostorgius on his own terms is the starting point and main focus. Juxtaposing various elements of Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret will enable readers to see more clearly ecclesiastical history and his distinctive contributions. In order to place Philostorgius back into his historical context it is necessary to look at other sources for the fifth 55 Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople ; Jan J. Van Ginkel, John of Ephesus: A M onophysite Historian in Sixth century Byzantium (Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 1995).
33 century. To understand better the Eunomian community to which Philostorgius belonged, the works of Eunomius and his detractors are valua ble. 56 Additionally, the draconian anti heretical legislation of the Theodosian Code is essential to understanding the political and religious climate during which Philostorgius wrote. 57 Two main threads run through the dissertation as a whole. First, the t heme of religion and empire is woven into each of the chapters bringing cohesion to the study as himself through historical events was central to his Ecclesiastical History I also show one of his primary concerns in the work Chapter 2 discuss es the historiography on ecclesiastical history in late antiquity and how Philostorgius fits in to it, em phasizing his place as one of the first if often neglected, continuators of Eusebius. Additionally, this chapter provide s an overview of the other church historians in question Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret and introduce s compari sons with Phil ostorgius that will be developed more fully in subsequent chapters. Chapter 3 covers the Trinitarian disputes of the fourth century, including the ecclesio political strife following Nicaea for so many years. representation of the actors and events of the se theological and ecclesiastical controversies reflects his particular vision of Christian history. His representation of the heroes and enemies of Christianity is central both to his own project on behalf of his 56 Richard Vaggione, Eunomius, The Extant Works: Text and Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). 57 The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Consti tutions Translated with commentary, glossary, and bibliography by Clyde Pharr (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952). Codex Theodosianus Ed. Theodore Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, Theodosiani Libri XVI I.2 ( Berlin: Weidmann, , 1962).
34 faith communit y and to his problematic legacy as the more polemical historian. This of the same or closely related events As mis Nicene reconstruction of true Christian history, Chapter 4 examines his representation of mission specifically the missions of Theophilus the Indian and Ulfila the Goth a Christian past in which divinely inspired bishops and wonder working missionaries actively participated in the ecclesio political events of the Roman Empire that served as with his Eunomian theology and had a distinctive understanding of Christianization as needing the sponsorship of the emperor yet not succeeding without divinely inspired bishops. His perspective will contribute to a broader understanding of the processes of Christianization in late antiquity. Chapter 5 r s. W Philostorgius w as working within a similar framework that brought Christianity and the Roman Empire together. Philostorgius emphasized the central role of bishops and emperors in the history of the one true faith. The Eunomian bishops valued celibacy, wonder working, as well as an active engagement in and recognition of imperial affairs. For Philostorgius, bishops played such a significant role in imperial and ecclesiastical events because they were representatives of God on earth working within the arena in which God act s out His will
35 and displeasure the imperial court and the elite of the East Roman Empire. Similarly, emperors figure prominently in the Ecclesiastical History Philostorgius does not minimize the role of emperors in church affairs, but rather shows that im perial action on behalf of the orthodox Eunomians the Empire. Chapter 6 explore s a series of questions in the Christian Roman Empire. For example does Philostorgius necessarily associate barbarians with polytheism? Does he differentiate between Arian and pagan barbarians? Clearly, Philostorgius did differentiate between pagans and b arbarians as, 58 How do barbarians and/or pagans fit into the Roman Empire and the working out of century? In order to evaluate his views of Jews and their role in a Christian Empire, I and his account of C hapter 7 explore s and seeing God through nature, history, war, and even the lives of emperors. According and his will. His knowledge of apocalyptic literature and his apocalyptic view of t he 58 Philostorg
36 world contributed to his increasing pessimism and the negative omens that appear in the second half of his history. Additionally, the digressions into geography and natural history reflect his views on how the empire fits into Christian history. Chapte r 8 provides more conclusive comparisons between Philostorgius and the Nicene historians, which is woven into my analysis throughout the study. It also whole. This chapter equal place alongside the other church historians as he continued and built upon the innovations of Eusebius. Finally, this chapter also summarizes his perspective on history and discusses th e wider implications of such a close study for the history of history writing in late antiquity. This study will provide a much needed assessment of one of the most important sources for the fourth and fifth centuries, both for the history of Christianity and culture Ecclesiastical History not only preserves valuable information on specific events, places, and people not documented elsewhere, but more importantly gives us access to the pe rspective of in part successfully to extirpate from history. The Cappadocian was a historian in his most of wh ich he preceded anyway and his discussions of events in the West, digressions into natural history and geography, and dynamic narrative secure his place in late antique ine what the world looked like before Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret had written their
37 histories and become authoritative; before the policies of staunchly Nicene emperors had contributed to the fading away of the Eunomian faith community; before Philost orgius and his history had been labeled by posterity as little more than Arian polemic. This approach will not only enable us to better understand his history and thereby more effectively interpret it as a source, but it will also provide fresh perspective s on late antique history and historiography as a whole.
38 CHAPTER 2 PHILOSTORGIUS AND HISTORY WRITING IN LATE ANTIQUITY Prior to 1970 late antique history writing remained notably understudied, but since then a vast variety of studies has appeared. 1 It is not the goal of this chapter to provide a definitive synthesis of this historiography but rather, in keeping with the focus of this study, to consider history writing from roughly the beginning of the fourth through the end of the fifth century. By explor ing some specific problems and questions which have been most characteristic of the scholarship on this topic I hope to provide the Ecclesiastical History In the Wake of Momigliano: Approaches to Late Antique Historiography A good place to begin this discussion is to identify the trends in scholarship that have had the most significant impact on subsequent historiography. The voice of Arnaldo Momigliano still dominates the conversatio n, even while historians have reassessed a number of his specific conclusions. 2 Momigliano expressed his foundational arguments on late antique historiography in a series of essays during the subject, but rather a 1 A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography vol. 2, ed. John Marincola (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007 ), 580. 2 The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography Sather Classical Lectures, 54 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), [ 1961 1962] ; Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Chicago: University of le (320 550 Rivista Storica Italiana (1969) 81: 286 203.
39 will also note some potential pitfalls associated with the domi nance of his interpretive framework for the field. writing diverged, focusing on developments in the fourth century and the changes that occurred over time within the two traditions. 3 According to his schema, Christian historiography offered a new perspective and paradigm as it emphasized the role of divine providence in history, beginning primarily w ith the works of Eusebius, although he acknowledges the precedent set by Julius Africanus. Momigliano also argues that Christians appropriated old classical pagan history for new Christian purposes. During this period, pagan historiography took the form of brief summaries. He concludes that church history was the most significant development in historiography for centuries. It did not really supplant the classical tradition of history writing, which continued but did not engage with Christianity. In sum, Mo migliano posits a stark distinction between pagan and Christian as his foundational assumption in order to characterize historiography during the fourth century. In an essay focusing exclusively on church history, Momigliano seeks to trace the development of ecclesiastical history as a genre, specifically in terms of its influence on modern historiography. 4 He focuses on Eusebius as the founder of the genre while acknowledging that his work did have some important precedents. Here too Momigliano stresses t 3 99. 4 152.
40 noted that his followers continued this practice, which served as a marker of difference from political historians. He describes how Eusebius viewed Christian history as universal an d so related the success of the Christian church with the success of the Roman Empire and simultaneously separated traditional political history from church history; in so doing he created a narrative in which persecution and heresy replaced political even ts. Throughout his historiographical works Momigliano emphasizes 5 In his tinuators he argues that the legalization of Christianity made it difficult for them fully to follow Eusebius, since the merging of church and state made it difficult to write exclusively about church history. Momigliano implies that the fact that none of the successors became authoritative signifies that they were not as successful as Eusebius. Ultimately, the close joining of the Christian church and the a Universal Ch history tended to embrace all the events of mankind and was therefore permanently in 6 I would suggest that perhaps the fact that history inspired such a variety of continuators signifies that the genre never really had a set distinctive character. Momigliano asserts that classical historians did not present religion as a driving force in 5 6
41 human events, but instead focused on politics and contemporary events. 7 Religious the encroachment of religion into the pagan histories of the period, for example in the work of Ammianus Marcellinus. 8 Additionally, he asserts that classical Roman historians on the rare occasion when they did mention religion expressed their approval by the use of the word religio and disapproval by the use of superstitio. 9 For example, they might use these categories to distinguish between the beliefs and practices of the upper and lower classes. This traditional distinction changed and became democratized in response to Christianity, as pagan authors found themselves confronted by Christianity and their appeals to miracles, the power of which pagans had to counter with what would normally have been considered superstitio. 10 In 11 Th ese three articles summarize the main ideas that Momigliano contributed to the study of late antique historiography, all of which have had a lasting impact. In many ways, Momigliano is himself a kind of Eusebius. For the next several decades, a series of h is own continuators largely followed the general flow and main points of his characterizations of late antique historiography. Nevertheless, his essays necessarily lacked a significant amount of detail as they were designed to make broad claims and argumen ts in the form of reflections as much as essays, two of which were originally 7 8 9 Also 145. 10 11
42 lectures. Additionally, the entire field of late antiquity has changed dramatically since he began to explore its historians in the early 1960s. Thus, many of his foundational as sumptions and frameworks have since come to be challenged, modified, and expanded. new interest in late antique historiography emerged resulting in a series of conferences and e dited collections on the subject. 12 Particularly important among these new studies was the publication of the volume History and Historians in Late Antiquity edited by Anti late antiquity over time. 13 They expressly based their brief summary on the work of Momigliano. Perhaps even more than Momigliano, they also maintained a division between his toriography in the east and in the west Roman Empire. Similarly, they separated out works in the tradition of classical historiography, church history, and chronicles. At the time they commented on the lack of a major work synthesizing the topic; this stil remains one of the few attempts at a survey of the subject as a whole. It marks the beginning of a proliferation of diverse works on late antique historiography from that point forward. 12 Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett, eds. History and Historians in Late Antiquity 1983; C. J. Holdsworth and T. P. Wiseman, eds. The Inheritance of Historiography, 350 900 (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1986). 13 Croke and Emmet
43 The work of Herv Inglebert was also foundational for understanding the nature of late antique conceptions of the past. 14 In his Les Romains Chrtiens face l'Histoire de Rome Inglebert examines Christian attitudes toward the Roman Empire from the third study examines the question of how Christian writers understood and appropriated the Roman past, author by author. Inglebert sees the legalization of Christianity as a turning point in a contest between Christians and pagans. He seeks to explain how Christians integrated their culture into Roman culture while attempting to maintain an awareness of the fluid nature of both of these categories. Eusebius is at the heart and center of his study as the founder of the notion that Roman history, universal history, and salvation the notion that the empire and Christianity were providentially linked was established as a r eigning paradigm. Augustine, however, presented a challenge to this Eusebian perspective. As Inglebert 15 Nevertheless, the influence of Eusebius on conceptions of the past had a lasting effe ct on the west. More recently, diverse studies of history writing in late antiquity have proliferated, though they necessarily build on Momigliano and operate within some of the parameters he set. These studies have pushed the historiography of late antiq uity into a narrative of its own considered as part of historiography more broadly conceived. For example, the 14 Herv Inglebert, Mediterraneo Antico 4 (2001): 559 584; Interpretatio Christiana: Les mutations des saviors (cosmographie, g 630 apres J. C.) (Paris: Institut d'tudes Augustiniennes, 2001); Les Romains Chrtiens face l'Histoire de Rome: Histoire, Christianisme et Romanits en Occident dans l'Antiquit tardive (IIIe Ve sicles) (Paris: Institut d'tudes Augustiniennes, 1996). 15 Inglebert, Les Romains Chrtiens face l'Histoire de Rome 421.
44 essays collected in Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal History (2010) deal with the concept of universal history from antiquity to the modern period. The volume includes three essays on late antique historiography demonstrating the new recognition of late 16 One of the challenges of the study of history writing in late antiquity is t he need for it to be included in the wider picture of ancient historiography, not as simply outside of it and trying to live up to it. For example, Brian Croke contributed a summary essay as the conclusion to a two volume collection on classical historiogr aphy. 17 In this essay, Croke used genre as an organizing principle, discussing in turn church history, chronicle, and secular history in the classical tradition. This classification is one of the major characteristics of any discussion of the topic; late an tique historians are always held to the standard of classical historians and are divided up between the historians who did or did not follow in this tradition. But Croke admits that this model does not necessarily provide an accurate description of the rea be misleading. The historiographical tradition had not become fossilized. Rather, it posed for each author the challenge of being creative within an authoritative tradition 18 Overall, Croke celebrates the development of a variety of forms of history writing during this period and comments 16 Liddel and Fear, eds. Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal Historiography ; Peter Van Nuffelen, and Early Byzantine Chronicles and the Formation of Islamic Universal Histor 17 18
45 on the stran ge abrupt end of these genres all around the same time with the late sixth century church historian Evagrius and the seventh century classicizing historian Theophylact Simocatta and world chronicle Chronicon Paschale 19 Moreover, he asserts that scholars ha d come to view chronicles as equal participants in the story and not just as simplified records for the less educated. He concludes that late antiquity witnessed innovations in historiography, that genres were more flexible than scholars have previously be lieved, and that late antique writers were experimenting with the history writing conventions of the past. 20 As the entire field of late antiquity grew the topic of history writing became a prominent feature of scholarship on the period. These more recent assessments share many similar characteristics to the older studies discussed above the focus on Eusebius, division between genres, division between east and west, and the comparison of diverse histories to the gold standard of the classics. One particular example demonstrates the problems associated with these assumptions. In an essay in Philip Rousseau Companion to Late Antiquity David Woods surveys the developments and main features of history writing during this period. 21 He employs rigid categories and begins with the assumption that classical historiography is superior to late antique, providing a fairly conventional narrative which focuses on Eusebius, the birth of church history, and the triumph of the genre of chronicle as a symptom of 19 It remains a mystery why all these genres ended around the same time. Croke comments that they had disasters, arab invasions, the deterioration of education, and the blending of secular and sacred spheres as possible explanations, 571 572. 20 580. 21 David Woods, A Companion to Late Antiquity ed. Philip Rousseau and Jutta Raithel ( Chichester/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2009), 357 371.
46 not a period of great innovation. Such innovations as did occur were forced by social 22 This sentiment is problematic for several reasons. First, it is difficult to imagine any innovations that occur assumes that late antique historiographers should have done a better job of following the ir classical models because, after all, they were clearly superior. Simultaneously he expects late Roman writers to innovate but characterizes the innovations of church 23 Inter est in late antique historiography has also reached a new level resulting in a fresh batch of edited collections on the topic. 24 The volume Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D had the potential to offer a much need ed comprehensive overview. 25 However, although the volume features several excellent contributions, overall there are too many problems for this volume to serve as a helpful reliable overview. 26 Alongside edited collections, several single authored monogr aphs address the topic through chapters treating individual authors, for example, The 22 Woods, Late Antique Historiography: A Brief His 23 24 Marasco, ed. Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. ; Dariusz Continuity and Change: Studies in Late Antique Historiography ( Krakw: Jagiellonian University Press, 2007). 25 26 informative review by R. W. Burgess, Review of Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004. 03. 49.
47 Historians of Late Antiquity The Early Byzantine Historians 27 These studies partially fill the need for a reliable overview of t he topic. Both of these studies show the diversity of late antique historiography as they cover a broad range of writers and serve as a good general introduction to the individual historians they cover. Despite such contributions to the study of late antiq ue historiography, however, a comprehensive study of the topic is still lacking. Additionally, these works perpetuate secular histories, church histories, and chronicles. F ortunately, the past decade has also seen the appearance of a number of important specialized works devoted to specific questions in late antique historiography as well as studies of other kinds of texts dealing with the past such as hagiographies, inscrip tions, and sermons. 28 As they expand our knowledge of details and exceptions, these studies are integral to all efforts to move the study of late antique historiography past some of the pitfalls historians have encountered following in the footsteps of Mom igliano. Some of these works study lesser known non Christian and fragmentary historians, such as Olympiodorus and Eunapius. 29 valuable study The Past is Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography directly 27 Rohrbacher, Historians of Late Antiquity (2002); Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (2007). 28 Ferguson The Past is Prologue (2005); Charles W. Hedrick, History and Silence: The Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity ( Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000); Trompf, Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive Justice (2000). 29 R. C. Blockley, Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus vol. 1 (Liverpool, Great Britain: Francis Cairns, 1981); Pawel Janiszewski, The Missing Link: Greek Pagan Historiography in the Second Half of the Third Century and in the Fourth Century AD trans. Dorota Dzierzbicka ( Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation, 2006).
48 engages with similar issues as my own study. 30 Ferguson focuses on Christian historians and avoids the heresiological categories typical of the scholarship on history writing. Most recently, Brian Croke has once again written an overview of the topic in an essay on his toriography in the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity where he examines it by development over time emphasizing the idea that there was much diversity in the approaches to the past while still maintaining a large degree of cultural unity. 31 He argues that as history writing changed over time it shifted from being a minor preoccupation of the elite to a major preoccupation of a larger segment of society due to the Christian vision of the importance of history as part of providence. Croke also suggests that pre vious scholarship has overemphasized the divisions between certain categories like Christian and pagan. The above review of the scholarship on late antique historiography is not meant to be comprehensive but only to point to the main developments and the p romise and problems in the field. Overall, the field owes an enormous debt to Momigliano, whose observations laid the foundation for future work and clearly expressed the importance of the topic. It has also come a long way as there are now numerous works on the topic, which marks a major change since the situation around 1970. The main interpretive issues and opportunities for further research concern the use of rigid divisions and categories, which in some cases are employed openly, and in other cases app ear in the 30 Ferguson The Past is Prologue Philostorgius. 31 436.
49 Christian histories or secular and church histories, between histories and chronicles, and between east and west or Greek and Roman, with almost no attention to t he important Syriac and Armenian historical writings of the same period. Many scholars, whether overtly or purposefully or not, assume that pagan/secular histories are somehow superior to Christian/church ones. Even if an assumption about the superiority o f one over another is not present, the division remains and it always hinges on the role of Eusebius. While it is clear that Eusebius was creative and had an enormous influence, the narrative which overemphasizes the turning point of Eusebius sets up an im possible standard for his continuators. This narrative claims that Eusebius invented a genre and then measures all subsequent church histories to that standard, even though they were written within different contexts; they never measure up because Eusebius is so unique. Also, the pagan/secular histories are frequently measured against the standard of classical historiography. On the one hand, this presupposes a static and monolithic canon of classical historiography, which is not tenable; and on the other h and, of course, this raises the question of what it achieves to measure late antique authors against the standards of Herodotus, Thucydies, or Tacitus? Clearly, these writers had a significant influence on late antique historians, but the fact that their l ater counterparts wrote history differently does not mean they should be judged as lesser. In some cases, these divisions and assumptions do serve to push the discussion in illuminating or productive directions, but often they lead to absurd conclusions su ch as the notion that church history was not being creative because it was a product of its social context.
50 In light of these considerations I propose a different mode of inquiry based on a different set of questions. Why were people writing so much hist ory at the same time in the same place? Why were they writing about the same events? Who was their audience? What did they think they were trying to achieve? How can we evaluate the impact of Christianity on historiography without perpetuating the stereoty pes that classical was better and Eusebius is king? With these questions in mind and by analyzing in great depth the work of a particular historian, we can more clearly see its perspective and its distinctiveness while at the same time evaluate the nature of its contribution to history writing and the reading elite of late antiquity. This in turn allows for a different picture of late antique historiography and of history writing as a dynamic process. We see historians struggling to define what they were wr iting about and arguing with each other as historians not just as polemicists or pagans or Christians. History noting how his work has traditionally fit or not into the broader historiography of history writi ng since the work of Momigliano can contribute to a reassessment of the traditional narrative of late antique historiography as a whole. Philostorgius and the Fifth Century Church Historians To begin this reexamination of late antique history writing, it i s necessary to bring Philostorgius back into dialogue with other ecclesiastical historians of the fifth century. 32 The Nicene writer Rufinus of Aquileia (345 410/411) translated and continued the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. 33 ion and continuation 32 I completely believe, however, that there is a need for a study of the church historians in conversation 33 For Rufinus see Thelamon ;
51 enjoyed immediate success and exerted a lasting influence in the medieval west as the definitive account of early Church history. Published in 402 or 403, the work not only in 395, but also contains numerous free translations, paraphrases, and corrections of the original. 34 Philostorgius Nicene and responded to Rufinus accordingly in his own ecclesiastical history. 35 Amidon even history. 36 have also been noted by scholars. 37 The three other ecclesiastical historians of the fifth century Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret are usually treated together and referred to as the synoptical church historians in the secondary litera ture. More recently, historians have begun to acknowledge these historians as individual scholars and to highlight and analyze their Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977), 372 429; Van Deu in the Latin Ecclesiastical History Journal of Early Christian Studies 16 (2008): 143 164; and Philip R. Amidon, trans., The Church His tory of Rufinus of Aquileia Books 10 and 11 (New York: Oxford University Ecclesiastical History is in Eduard Schwartz and Theodore Mommsen, eds. Eusebius Werke (GCS; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999). 34 More re cently, Mark Humphries has argued for viewing the Latin version as a thematically unified whole see, Humphries, 150 151; Amidon, Rufinus xvi xvii; Rohrbacher, 100 101; and Van Deun, 162. 35 Passages in whic h Philostorgius most clearly responds to Rufinus (though he does not mention him by name): 2.11, 3.4. 36 Amidon, Philostorgius xxiii. 37 Amidon, Philostorgius 40, n. 8; Wolf Liebes chuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends, and Pupils ed. John Drinkwater and Benet Salway ( London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2007), 129; Marasco, 262; and see the discussion in Chapter 4.
52 differences in approach. 38 common, the three so Church historians are individual authors with divergent views, whose works illustrate the intellectual richness of the Theodosian age." 39 Comparable to the ambiguity surrounding Philostorgius, the known facts concerning the life of Socrates [Scholasticus] of Constantinople (c. 380 after 439) are few, and all of them derive from his Ecclesiastical History completed shortly after 439. 40 There is some controversy concerning his religious affiliation, specifically whether or not he was a member of the Novatian sect. 41 His history covers events between the reign of Constantine and 439 and, significantly for the purposes of this study, includes passages Ecclesiastical History as a source. 42 38 Church History 79 (2010): 287 Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople 39 40 or an argument for a date between 439 and 443, see Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople 20. Despite the suggestive Historians (I): Socrates, Sozomen Socrates of Constantinople 13 14. But see Chesnut, 175 177. 41 Hartmut Leppin at one time dissented from the majority opinion and argued that Socrates was not a Novatian, but later retracted his doubts. Whether or not Socrates was a Novatian, he certainly presented 450 C.E.): The Loca Socrates of Constantinople 28. Unlike 42 Trompf, 214, n. 4; 231 232; Trompf, focusing on the themes o f his study, compares passages covering the same events in Philostorgius and Socrates to make this argument; for example, on the earthquake at Nicomedia (Philostorgius, 4.10; Socrates, 2.39). While Trompf does not argue that Socrates (unlike Sozomen) used Philostorgius extensively, he does provide enough examples to prove his point. See also 281, who suggests that resent, served as a challenge to Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret as a narrative that needed to be responded to and superceded. She cites Nicene vision of the past.
53 Socrates Ecclesiastical History served as a valuable source for the next church historian, Sozomen (c.380 c.446), who composed his work before 450. Going as far than that of Soc rates. 43 extracting useful materials from the Philostorgian narrative." 44 Sozomen also includes and modifies Socr significantly longer version of the events surrounding Ulfila not only reveals his views on mission, but also provides evidence on how Ulfila acquired his missionary reputation. Much more is kno wn about the final historian under consideration Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393 c.460) since he wrote numerous other works in addition to his Ecclesiastical History and supported Nestorius during the Nestorian controversy. 45 As a result, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 posthumously condemned several 46 Ecclesiastical History was composed sometime between 444 and 450and covered events between 323 and 428. 47 While Theodoret also used and modified the wor k of Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen, his 43 44 Trompf description of the earthquake at Nicomedia, Amidon, Philostorgi us Nicene historiography. 45 Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus 25. 46 47 a composition date between 441/2 449.
54 representation of Ulfila and his role in the missionary narrative differ significantly from their portrayal of the Gothic bishop. 48 diffe rent from one another. Like Philostorgius, however, they all sought to continue the legacy of church history left by Eusebius, including his emphasis on the providential spread of the Christian faith. Additionally, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret included a wealth of evidence that reveals their view of the critical events of the Roman Empire and serves as a valuable source for examining the accounts of Philostorgius. The divergent ways in which all of these writers presented the same events in particular m erits careful attention. 49 Philostorgius and the Writing of His History Learning as much as possible about Philostorgius is essential to incorporating is crucial becau se he has left scholars so little factual information about himself. From his own history we know that he was born in the village of Borissus in Cappadocia father Anysius served as a presbyter for a Nicene congregation. Philostorgius relates leading to the conversion o f her entire side of the family. 50 48 Trompf, 215. See discussion in Chapter 4. 49 135. 50 Philostorgius, 9.9.
55 As a young man around the age of 20, Philostorgius traveled to Constantinople. 51 While he does not relate the reasons for his travel to the city, Philostorgius emphasizes that he met Eunomius there and expresses his admirat ion and enthusiastic impressions of the man. He also marveled at the sights and sounds of Constantinople and satisfied his intellectual curiosity at the rich libraries of the capital city. 52 In addition to the Ecclesiastical History he also wrote the now l ost works of polemic against Porphyry and a eulogy of Eunomius. 53 Finally, Philostorgius shows a broader outlook on the world than do other ecclesiastical historians and provides more extensive coverage of events in the West Roman Empire. Unfortunately, thi s is the extent of the few facts one can confidently affirm about him. However, a quick overview of the world Philostorgius inhabited may provide some more insight into why and how he came to write his Ecclesiastical History As one living and writing in a n empire that had embraced the Nicene vision of the past as well as the ecclesiastical policies of Theodosius the Great, Philostorgius must have had little hope that his views would find a wide readership. Nevertheless, he may have found encouragement in t he founding of the new university in Constantinople by 54 51 Philostorgius, 10.6. 52 Philostorgius xviii. 53 Philostorg ius, 3.21, 10.10. 54 Amidon, Philostorgius Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity ed. Christopher Kelly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 29 30. Even if orgius still should be viewed within the context of an environment in Constantinople claiming to promote learning, just as Socrates, Sozomen, Olympiodorus and others are.
56 Additionally, Alanna Nobbs argues that Philostorgius may have reasonably expected pagans to read his work because h e used such sources as Olympiodorus and strayed from the Eusebian model of church history by including a significant number of geographical and ethnographic digressions as well as extensively narrating secular and political events. 55 The reign of Theodosius II is typically associated with the Theodosian law code, the beginnings of the Christological controversies, and the threat of Huns sacking Constantinople. If he continued to live in the imperial capital, Philostorgius would have had firsthand knowledge o f imperial policy and current affairs. He would have known that imperial legislation increasingly concerned itself with the eradication of heresy and the creation of a unified Christian Empire. As Fergus Millar shows, heterodox belief appeared as the most dangerous internal threat to the well being of the given by outsiders to endless Christian subgroups alleged to be guilty of false belief haunt the pages of contemporary Chr istian writers, just as they do the pronouncements 56 within the empire through a closer reading of the Ecclesiastical History He was indeed writing as a kind of lone warrior for his faith, paralleling his fascination with the Maccabees. In fact, he apparently began his history with the account of this faithful minority of Jews who stood in opposition to Hellenism and the threat of polytheism that 55 56 Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empir e: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408 450) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 130.
57 came with it. 57 It seems clear how Philostorgius must have felt about imperial edicts that stripped various civil rights from the Eunomians. 58 In his efforts to stem the tide of heresy, the emperor employed such rhetoric as this from a decree of 423: We command to be enforce d the provisions which were established by the sainted grandfather and father of Our Clemency concerning all heretics whose name and false doctrines We execrate, namely, the Eunomians, the Arians, the Macedonians, and all of the others whose sects it disgu sts Us to insert in Our most pious sanction, all of whom have different names but the same perfidy. All of them shall know that if they persist in the aforesaid madness, they shall be subject to the penalty which has been threatened. 59 Emotional rhetoric as ide, it is striking how the imperial edict refers to a multitude of names for the sects, as Philostorgius has shown that using the appropriate designation Nicene Christians continued to use the effective tool of grouping them all together and treating them as identical as part of a deliberate government strategy in the battle for doctrinal unity in the Empire. 60 It is less clear what Philostorgius thought about another theological cont roversy arising during his own lifetime the Christological debates surrounding Nestorius. became Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, an event that rapidly led to the Counci l of 57 Amidon, Philostorgius xix; Philostorgius, 1.1. 58 Eunomians are mentioned seventeen times in laws dealing with heretics promulgated between 381 423. Theodosian Code Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity ed. Christopher Kelly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 188, n. 55. 59 CTh 16. 5.60. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions Translated with commentary, glossary, and bibliography by Clyde Pharr (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), 462. See discussion in Millar, 150 151. 60 Millar, 150 152, 159. See Flower, 172 194, for an argument that a law of 428 ( CTh 16.5.65) catalogues heretics as part of the rhetoric of the imposition of orthodoxy in a similar fashion to the heresiologies of Epiphanius and Augustine.
58 Ephesus in 431. 61 Therefore, Philostorgius may have witnessed these events while writing his history. But even if he had concluded and published the work before the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy, he would still have been aware of the imperial d edication to eradicating all non Nicene forms of belief. Millar writes that the imperial felt it was his duty to enforce. Even though Theodosius preferred to utilize t he powers of rhetoric and persuasion to accomplish his goals, educated non Nicene Christians such as Philostorgius would still be facing the negation of any legitimacy of their faith community. 62 multiplicity of heresies and schisms still threatening the Church. Yet simultaneously, the Theodosian Empire had already witnessed the triumph of Nicene Christianity and the subsequent strict imposition of orthodoxy. What perspective did Philostorgius have on these two seemingly incompatible realities? Did he look to a memory of a non Nicene past in the context of fighting to reclaim something that was already irrevocably lost? Or did he write with hope precisely because he found himself amid a sea of Chris tianities? Whatever the case, the vitriolic anti Eunomian rhetoric of the Theodosian court would certainly have led Philostorgius to reflect on the nature and therefore the history of his own faith community. Additionally, during the reign of Theodosius II one not only finds an Ecclesiastical History written by Philostorgius but also by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. On the one hand, it may only appear that this era witnessed a boom in the writing of 61 Amidon, xix; McLynn dates the Ecclesiasti cal History 62 Millar, 157.
59 ecclesiastical history because of a peculiarity in t he survival of the sources. But, on the other hand, such a proliferation appears to be more than mere coincidence. Hartmut evealing the diversity of possible political and religious affinities even during the Theodosian age. 63 Others see it as part of a wider development in the fifth century of being especially preoccupied with seeking to define and preserve the past. 64 As Philo storgius wrote from a non Nicene perspective, after Theodoret composed their histories, his work stands in an interesting and unique position within this historiography. 65 A ought to be the first place historians would look both for developments in historiography and for shifts in the relation between religion and empire; but this has not been the case. Leppin argues that the main adversaries in the other three ecclesiastical histories enemy is the Gnostic with dangerous pagan messages and idolatry hiding behind the 66 While Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret had clearly accepted paganism but not yet heresy as an accomplished fact, Philostorgius perceived the 63 64 Kelly, 63. 65 66 Philostorgius xx.
60 world from a different perspective. By looking back to the past and the memory of his non Nicene community, Philostorgius could represent his own present struggles as a continuing fight against the forces of Gnostics and pagans threatening the true monotheistic faith. an era of the official establishment of Nicene orthodoxy as well as the continued diversity of religious belief during the same period. Perhaps Philostorgius thought that his faith had a chance if Christians still continued to debate the nature of true Christianity in his lifetime and to vie for the support of the emperor.
61 CHAPTER 3 IN THE WAKE OF NICAEA: REASSESSING HE ROES AND VILLAINS This chapter will only deal with events leading up to the C ouncil of Nicaea through 361 as the end of the reign of Constantius marks a turning point in 1 Relating the true origins and issu 2 An unfortunate use of imprecise terminology and even more importantly of interpretations clearly privileging the Nicene point of view persists in the secondary literature on both late antique histories and their historians. This phenomenon is surprising in light of all the scholarship that has problematized the histories of the past, which presented a teleological narrative of triumphant Nicene Christia nity. 3 These works have not only rightly pointed out that the heretics did not view themselves as such, but have also shown that the conclusion to the Nicene controversy was not foregone and was actually riddled with tendentious moments until a t least the end of the fourth century. For example, what reason would a Christian living during the reign of a non Nicene emperor have to imagine the eventual establishment of Nicene Christianity as orthodox? A more objective stance would require a movemen t away from privileging Nicene sources as well as a commitment to an analysis that does not perpetuate the 1 Also see Carlos R. Galvo Sobrinho, Doctrine and Power: Theological Controversy and Christian Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 201 3), 9, for how this period was distinct in the Arian Controversy. 2 representation of events and only address the historical veracity of those events as part of my examination of how scho lars have used his History in the past. 3 Also, Van Dam, Becoming Christian provides a valuable discussion on the subject, 8 45. I do not, influent
62 polemic of such figures as Athanasius of Alexandria and Theodosius II but instead approach also has the advantage of revealing the actual richness and diversity of religious life in Late Antiquity, which is otherwise obscured by the problematic dichotomy of In lig ht of recent scholarship, then, one does not expect such statements as 4 Such an affirmation reveals t because it implies that Philostorgius followed Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, when in fact he wrote before them; indeed Marasco himself acknowledges this fact. Similarly, Mara 5 Again, the implication is that the work of the other ecclesiastical historians was somehow fr ee of polemic and promotion of a particular cause. Also, Marasco uses the Christianity without any qualification or definition of terms. 6 Philostorgius himself would 4 259. See also, Marasco, Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo 23. 5 Marasco, 259; Marasco, Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo 96. 6 257 284; Marasc o, Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo 13.
63 not have t aken kindly to being referred to as an Arian, and as noted earlier, he explicitly expressed his preference for the term Eunomian at the beginning of his history. 7 Thomas Ferguson provides a much more useful and insightful analysis of Philostorgius by placi ng him back into his context as an ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century who sought to reclaim the past for his faith community, just as other Nicene historians such as Rufinus were reconstructing the past. 8 Thus, Ferguson rightly emphasizes the im workers and ascetics within the non Nicene figures as well as their interpreter, Philostorgius, from centuries of privileging Nicene hi storiography. Emperors, Empire, and Bishops Writing during the reign of Theodosius II (408 450), Philostorgius describes the reign of Constantius existing in a world very different from his own harsh reality since it was still full of opportunities for Eun omian Christianity. By his time, this world was already beginning to vanish into the past, Nicene Christianity had already been 9 As the ecclesio political events described in Philo storgius occurred during the reigns of Constantine and Constantius, some context is in order. The imperial policy of Constantius II, his missions, and the distinctive features of his reign are particularly important for assessing the major developments of the Arian controversy in the middle 7 Philostorgius, Title, The History of Philostorgius, the Eunomian from Cappadocia Amidon, Philostorgius 1, n. 1 8 Ferguson, 125 163. 9
64 decades of the fourth century Following the death of Constantine in 337, the Roman Empire fell to three of his sons Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans. Predictably, the territorial division of the e mpire into arenas of power for each brother did not ensure a peaceful coexistence, and thus, through a combination of chance and military success, Constantius became sole ruler in 350. His reputation has been overshadowed to this day by the successful rhetoric of hi s opponents, such as 10 Scholars have since acknowledged the daunting challenges the emperor faced and pointed out the approval of his rule amon g respected members of the Christian leadership such as Cyril of Jerusalem. 11 From the very beginning of his reign, Constantius engaged in political struggles with both his brothers and usurpers of the throne such as Magnentius. Constantius also waged conti nuous war with the Persian Empire for twelve years and dealt with military emergencies along the Rhine and Danube frontiers. And, finally, he actively sought a solution to the doctrinal controversy that had threatened the unity of the e mpire since the Coun cil of Nicaea. Fortunately, Constantius had inherited certain imperial policies and approaches from his father Constantine that governed his approach to all his challenges. According to Timothy Barnes inside and 12 Thus, the emperor participated in numerous c hurch councils and even introduced the concept of an empire wide, 10 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius 106. 11 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius 106 107. 12 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius 120.
65 enforceable definition of orthodoxy. The multiple councils of Sirmium (357 359) resulted in the Homoean creed which affirmed the likeness of the Son to the Father instead of the homoousios (same substance) formulation of Nicaea and prohibited the use of ousia (substance) terminology. Although this attempted compromise failed to accomplish the g principle just as energetically outside the Roman Empire, not only sending Theophilus the Indian with a mission to Himyar in South Arabia but also attempting to influence the consecration of a bishop in the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum. 13 interconnection between ec clesiastical and imperial struggles for power within the Empire. A telling example occurred early in his reign, when his brother Constans threatened to begin a civil war if Constantius did not recall the bishop Athanasius from exile. While it is tempting t o view this intertwined relationship as an expression of imperial domination over the c hurch, one must take into account the limited success of Emperor Constantius and the bish the fourth century a Roman emperor did not enjoy complete control over Egypt, where a 14 The reign of Theodosius I (37 9 395) along with the legally binding Nicene pronouncements 13 Philostorgius, 3.4; Letter of Constantius to the Rulers of Aksum Quoted by Athanasius, Apology to Const antius 31. In Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church, AD 337 461 ed. J. Stevenson. 2nd. ed. rev. W. H. C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1989). 14 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius 168.
66 of the Council of Constantinople in 381 brought this distinct Constantinian period of Christian history to a close. Nicaea and its Aftermath While Philostorgius does not explicitly state that he seeks to respond to the Aquileia (345 410/411), certain key passages strongly indicate that this is the case. 15 Philostorgius begins the narrative of the Arian controvers y with the story of the election of Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328) to show that no sudden preaching of unsound doctrine by Arius (c. 250 c. 336) caused the controversy, as Rufinus presented it. 16 While Rufinus also mentions the election of Alexander, he e mphasizes that the a presbyter of Alexandria named Arius, a man religious in appearance and aspect rather than in virtue, but shamefully desirous of glory, praise, and novelties, began to propose certain impious doctrines regard ing the faith of Christ, 17 Philostorgius, however, uniquely out of the historians, reports that when the s ee of Alexandria became vacant following the death of Achillas of Alexandria in 313, the votes fell i n favor of the Alexandrian 18 By presenting Arius as the legitimate prelate of Alexandria who simultaneously favored Alexander, Philostorgius exonerates Arius by characterizing him as uncontentious and as a prominent member of the Alexandri an clergy. He shifts the 15 For example, see Philostorgiu s, 3.4 and Rufinus, 10.9, 10.10. 16 Rufinus, 10.1. 17 Rufinus, 10.1. 18 Philostorgius, 1.3.
67 emphasis away from Arius as the main originator of the controversy and sets the stage for what he perceives as the true version of events. The beginning of the trouble occurred, according to Philostorgius, through a presbyter second in rank to Arius, who 19 From a polemical po int of view, Philostorgius of the conflict on Alexander or allowing Arius to take credit. Instead, he deemphasized the role of both Arius and Alexander by introducing th is troublemaking presbyter. His emphasis is rather on the construction of the dangerous new term homoousios as the fundamental issue at stake. Both the story of the election of Alexander of Alexandria and of the origins of the controversy reveal Philostorg non Nicene formulations of faith, but also to shift the focal point of the narrative away from Arius as the leading player Subsequent passages demonstrate that the Cappadocian historian viewed the trajectory of events quit e differently from Rufinus. 20 In his representation of the calling of the Nicene Council, Philostorgius continued to stress that this new consubstantial language lay at the heart of the matter and brought strife to the Church. His account shows that once th e conflict had erupted, Alexander rigorously defended the righteousness of his position both theologically and how Alexander traveled to Nicomedia and schemed with Ossiu s of Cordova (c.257 359) behind the scenes to ensure that the consubstantial terminology be adopted by a 19 Philostorgius, 1.4. For more on the presbyter see, Ferguson, 134; Amidon, Philostorgius 8, n. 6. 20 Rufinus covers these events in 10.1 10.27.
68 council and that Arius face excommunication. 21 Alexander was effective in persuading r as they had taken a longer route to collect evidence of support from other bishops in the region. 22 Thus, Philostorgius portrays Arius as representing a broad section of the clergy, while Alexander simply made every effort for his own position to succeed. Rufinus on the other hand explicitly states that the leading members of the Council approached it seriously and carefully, directing attention to its legality. 23 Philostorgius shows that, in his view, the entire legitimacy of the Council of Nicaea was unde rmined by the private machinations of a few individuals. Clearly, from his anti Nicene perspective, it was essential for his account to condemn the conciliar decrees of Nicaea and vindicate Arius and his sympathizers. But his account also contends that the trouble arose through the conspiracy of Alexander with Ossius. Additionally, Arius does not feature as prominently if Photius is epitomizing correctly A rius is almost invisible at the Council and following his exile only appears twice more and not in the most favorable light. 24 who belonged to the school of Lucian the Martyr (d. 312) and their role in the controversy. 25 Therefore, Philostorgius did not only write to defend Arius and others who opposed Nicaea, but to express his view that the history of the Church followed a 21 Philostorgius, 1.7. 22 Philostorgius, 1.7a. 23 Rufinus, 10.5. 24 Discussed below. 25 Whether real or imaginary; what matters is that Philostorgius represents the continuity of his faith community from Lucian to Eunomius to himself. The constructed memory of this school of theolog y and holiness shapes his identity.
69 different plan from the one made popular by Rufinus, with differen t continuities, turning points, and moments of crisis. did not represent them simply as one dimensional characters, as scholars imply in their assessments of his text. Rather, similarly to other late antique historians, he portrayed them as human beings whose actions we re related to the will of God. The Council concluded with the subscription of the creed by all the delegates, except three Arius, Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theo nas of Marmarica. Philostorgius provides two explanations for this embarrassing outcome for the anti Nicene party. He contends that other prominent Arian leaders such as Eusebius of Nicomedia subscribed the creed deceitfully, by writing so carelessly that those in charge could not see the difference between homoousios and homoiousios. 26 He then states that they subscribed without advised them to do so. 27 While these passages attempted to explain, if not excuse the fact that these Arian supporters had signed the Nicene creed, Philostorgius also A s Secundus was departing for exile Philostorgius relates, he pro claimed to Eusebius of Nicomedia: Eusebius was exiled three months later. 28 His inclusion of t his prophecy exp resses the ecclesiastical 26 Philostorgius, 1.9. 27 Philostorgius, 1.9. 28 Philostorgius, 1.10.
70 known and is revealed in nature a s well as the lives of bishops and emperors. Clearly, the fear of imperial authority did not only apply to the supporters of Arius, as B ishop Alexander acted in a similar way according to Philostorgius. He claims that Constantine had a change of heart when he learned of the bishops who subscribed dishonestly and so recalled Secundus and wrote letters in support of the terminology of the fear of the emperor had waned, Alexander returned to his again repudiated Arius. 29 realization that Eusebius and his associates were untruthful to demonstrate that divine anger followed such behaviour. Apparently, Eusebius and his fel low opponents to Nicaea were one day happily discussing theology and the next move for their party when a terrible earthquake and darkness overcame just the location of their meeting. 30 in the Ecclesiastical History company and led to their immediate repentance. They confessed to Constantine who angrily banished them for their deception, just as Secundus had prophesied. 31 It is interesting that the emperor here serves as the instrument of divine wrath. This episode serves as an example of the need for honest cooperation between emperor and bishop earth. 29 Philostorgius, 2.1. 30 Philostorgius, 2.1a. 31 Philostorgius, 2.1b.
71 sailing, grinding, traveling, and so on, set them to the music he thought suitable to each, and through the pleasure given by the music stole away the simpler folk for his own 32 ceeded d him for insisting that God is unknowable and incomprehensible. 33 es sence and will could be known just as He is known as fundamentally ingenerate. Thus, despite the Arian label so frequently attached to Philostorgius, ultimately Arius does not belong to his understanding of his own faith community. In contrast to his repr esentation of Arius, Philostorgius reserves high praise for other opponents to Nicaea, specifically the disciples of the scholar and martyr Lucian. unknowability and only S ecundus of Ptolemais, Theonas of Marmarica, Eusebius of Nicomedia and other disciples of the martyr Lucian preserved their faith. T hroughout the history Philostorgius continuously extols the merits of the members of this theological school. For example, he disciple of the martyr Lucian conspicuous above all for his virtue, on account of which 34 32 Philostorgius, 2.2. 33 Philostorgius, 2.3. 34 Philostorgius, 1.8a; see also 2.14
72 and his virtuous chara opponents of Nicaea contributes to his overall narrative of this faith community. The entire s tructure of the first two books of the Ecclesiastical History further illumin es He begins the history with a discussion of the book of Maccabees revealing his special interest i n the story of a beleaguered minority fighting for the true faith. 35 His explicit claim to be following the history of Eusebius of Caesarea signals to the reader that he is writing a history of the c hurch and his immediate criticism of the founding church h c hurch. 36 His retelling will was evident in portents and the lives of emperors. 37 Following Alexand mother to Crispus) not to leave the reader in any doubt about the error of Constant ecclesiastical decisions. 38 The historian then reports how Constantine showed favor to even greater act of allowing Eusebius of Nicomedia and company to return from ex ile. 39 This section on Ulfila may more appropriately belong during the reign of Constantius, 35 Philostorgius, 1.1, 1.1a. 36 Philostorgius, 1.2. 37 Philostorgius, 1.6, 1.6a. 38 Philostorgius, 2.4, 2.4a, 2.4b. 39 Philostorgius, 2.5. Recall of exiles: Philostorgius, 2.7, 2.7a
73 n arrative, God showed his pleasure by granting Constantine the prosperity and divine guidance to found Constantinople itself. 40 The emperor also founded another city, Helenopolis, for his mother Helena the martyr Lucian had been borne to his burial by a dolphin after his death by 41 In the end, however, when Constantine approved the election of cause Thus, in Philos by his own brothers. 42 God gave Constantine great grace though the sign of the cross and every chance thereafter, but in the end his failure to see the threat posed by Nicaea led to his demis e. The Accession of Athanasius One of the key events in the Arian controversy for Philostorgius as well as other historians was the accession of Athanasius to the see of Alexandria (328 AD). 43 Additionally, Philostorgius directly links the disputed electio n to the subsequent Council of Tyre (335 AD), another famous and important moment in the controversy. 44 The 40 Philost orgius, 2.9, 2.9a. 41 Philostorgius, 2.12, 2.12a. 42 Philostorgius, 2.16, 2.16a. 43 Philostorgius, 2.11, 2.11a; Socrates, 1.23.3; Rufinus, 10.15. 44 It is possible that Photius omits something and that Philostorgius did not intend for one event to immediately follow the other (Amidon, Philostorgius 27, n. 34), but I think he did intend to link them perhaps because Rufinus records both events as one following the other. For the council of Tyre, Philostorgius, 2.11; Rufinus, 10.17 18; Socrates, 1.28 32; Sozomen, 2.25; Theodoret, 1.29 31.
74 account. 45 ers significantly from other accounts and in some cases provides some details that do not occur in any derogatory editorial remarks which he inserts intermittently at certain points of the epitome. Photius begins the narrative of the election of Athanasius with the phrase in order to mark an especially contentious point of difference from the traditional Nicene narrative the unflattering portrayal of Athanasius, known as the father of orthodoxy. 46 But thankfully the patriarch was not so offended that he failed to record this alternate version. to e lect his successor but after some time went by the bishops had not yet come to a consensus. At that point, Athanasius forced his way into a church, sealed the doors so that two bishops inside could not leave, and demanded to be ordained. These bishops app 47 The other bishops in the city obviously protested but Athanasius had already obtained his position and t hen further secured it by forging a letter in his support purport edly from representatives of the city and then sending it to E mperor Constantine, who of course happily approved. 45 Scholars have previously used this passage in two distinct ways, either as evidence to show that treated as either especial ly wrong because it is biased or as having special access to the truth because it is from the opposing side. Again, I think it is more profitable to look at what Philostorgius was doing in this passage and the History as a whole. For an argument to prove t account see, Gonzalo Fernndez Hernndez, Gerin 3 (1985): 211 229. 46 Philostorgius, 2.11. 47 Philostorgius, 2.11.
75 n which of course did not include any negative details about the bishop, but also hardly directly mentioned the event at all. Rufinus begins by simply asserting that Athanasius received the position after B ishop Alexander had died and then inserts a brief discussion of how all the heretical bishops were threatened by Athanasius proven ability to see through their perpetual deceit and therefore were always looking for lies to discredit him. Rufinus follows up this vague accusation with a flashback recount ing destined for the episcopate. In the story, B ishop Alexander watched young boys playing church on the seashore and discovered that the young Athanasius was playing the role of b Athanasius then received an education and was brought up in the church, set apart like was going to 48 his childhood was clearly intended to make an apologetic appointmen consequent silence regarding account of Philostorgius is often held up as the most obvious example of polemic as he is the only one to relate this particular version of events, although there are other sources suggesting irregularities 49 Whatever actually 48 Rufinus, 10.15. 49 This account i s also used to discredit Athanasius.
76 happened, Philostorgius presents Athanasius as an illegitimate bishop because of his improp er ordination. Rufinus on the other hand does not seem to view proper e piscopal procedure as an issue since he has no problem with stating that Athanasius was appointed by Alexander even though this event occurred after the Council of Nicaea (a source o f authority for Rufinus) which st ipulated that all bishops had to be elected or approved by the other bishops in the province. 50 It is important to note these details to illustrate how firmly the Nicene narrative is ingrained as foundation al for what actual ly happened and as the account more or less free of polemic. and demanded that the bishop defend himself at the Council of Tyre. Athanasius of course did not wish to go and when he finally showed up he did not present himself at betrayed her licentiousness, and loosed her upon Eusebius, who was supposed to be president of the synod the 51 a more satisfying explanation in terms of the literary appeal for the presence of the prostitute at the synod. 52 woman to testify that the bishop had raped her (interestingly, she is quoted as saying resent but silent during her testimony to the council and when 50 Canon 4. 51 Philostorgius, 2.11. 52 Amidon, Philostorgius 28, n. 35.
77 really thinks it was he who assaulted her. Of course, because she has no idea which one of the bishops is Ath anasius she says that the presbyter was her attacker and the plot of malicious schismatics and heretics is foiled. 53 given by our champion of falsehood of the way in which the plot was uncovered is the same as the one given by the orthodox of how the tart hired to 54 version of events cent ers on the idea that Athanasius had no regard for proper ecclesiastical procedure ; he was therefore trying to avoid the council examining the previous charges against him but ended up adding slander to the list of grievances. 55 The charges against Athanasiu s only continued to pile up. Photius records the detail that the bishop was accused of imprisoning and torturing to death the confessor Callinicus, B ishop of Pelusium. 56 Photius summarizes the other charges in a way that would only make sense to people fami only that, but the hand of Arsenius was produced at this time, and the business of the Mareotis and Ischyras and the sacred cup was brought up, and other matters of the 57 Rufinus provides a fuller ac count of the famous Arsenius story. According to 53 Rufinus, 10.18. 54 admitting that the assembled names the wrong man. When asked by Eusebius of Caeserea whether or not her attacker was one of the to charge men did not instruct the prostitute which man she was supposed to be accusing. 55 Philostorgius, 2.11. 56 Philostorgius or Photius report that Callinicus was dead when he was not in fact. 57 Philostorgius, 2.11.
78 Rufinus, Arsenius enemies decided to use this situation to plot against him. They presented a severed human arm to the assembled clergy and claimed that the bishop had chopped of transpiring so Athanasius brought him out alive and w ell just at the moment when his and so the entire assembly was in an uproar. 58 Philostorgius must have recounted the accusations but it is n ot clear whether or not he even mentioned the stories exonerating Athanasius. According to Philostorgius, Athanasius attempted to defend himself by claiming that all these accusations were in response to the bishops resentment that he had refused ordinat ion from them. 59 enough for the council as having committed the deeds and is forced to flee. In order to explain that cellent evidence in his favor failed to convince the assembly, Rufinus claims that people began to shout out that Athanasius was using sorcery at the meeting and the C ouncil of Tyre show that the writers used literary construction to express competing views of the righteousness of the events and people involved. They also both reveal important assumptions and views of both authors on the nature of the church. 58 Rufinus, 10.16 10.18. 59 Philostorgius, 2.11. refer to the bishop in fact refusing to receive ordi nation from bishops whom he viewed as schismatics or heretics, Philostorgius 26, n. 31.
79 Again, it unreliable stems primarily from the epitomizer who concluded this section with the statement, Athanasiu 60 The Arian Controversy during the reign of Constantius till more detailed and substantial in many parts than C ouncil of Ariminum (359 A.D.) and hardly any events between that council and the death of Constantius. Perhaps he did this on pu rpose as many of the events did in fact involve such heteroousian figures as Aetius, Enunomis, and Constantius ; perhaps Rufinus deliberately did not cover these in depth and therefore Philostorgius saw himself as correcting an imbalance and inaccuracy. Con controversy for Philostorgius He sees this period as a time of potential for the Eunomian community and ultimately of turmoil and disappointment. The introduction of Athanasius serves as a transition point in the narrative as he features prominently in all his nefariousness during the reign of both Constantine and Constantius. Philostorgius claims that when Constantine had died and the bishops he had exiled were allowed to return, Athan the ship to the church and resumed the throne, having no regard for those who had 60 Philostorgius, 2.11.
80 61 Once again Philostorgius focuses on how Athanasius and other bad figures consist ently ignore proper procedure and regard for association with the right people. Philostorgius also suggests that only the worst people would associate with Athanasius thereby demonstrating illegitimacy. After returning from yet another exile, Athanasius went on a campaign to garner support for his pro Nicene position. Philostorgius hyperbolically claims that no one would agree with the bishop, then proceeds to describe the people who did in fact agree with him. He (or Photius) names two only pe ople who chose to side with the bishop and concludes that 62 of the language of seduction here suggests people of the correctnes s of his doctrine in contrast to the abilities of Aetius and Eunomius which are described soon after. The two named men who side d with Athanasius are described as the worst kind of characters. First, Aetius, B ishop of Palestine (not the friend of Eunomius ) apparently thought that siding with Athanasius would divert public attention away from allegations of sexual impropriety on his part. putrefied and swarmed with worm 63 This is an example of the is also meant to reveal what kind of people Athanasius associated with. It also illustrates a repeated theme throu ghout the narrative namely that the people who supported the 61 Philostorgius, 2.18. 62 Philostorgius, 3.12. 63 Philostorgius, 3.12.
81 cause of Nicaea rarely if ever supported it for doctrinal reasons, but rather for immoral or expedient reasons. Second, Maximus, B ishop of Jerusalem also took the side of Athanasius even though 64 In this case, Philostorgius seems to express shock that someone who was a confessor for the faith could support Athanasius. The implication is that M aximus must be defective in character in some way and that Athanasius is not directly present in the extant narrative after this episode. Philostorgius introduces Aetius (n ot the one who just died) at this point in the narrative as a hero of his faith community and provides evidence to contrast him with the lawless Athanasius. Throughout the narrative of the Arian controversy, Philostorgius contrasts the behavior and abiliti es of exceptional figures such as Aetius and Eunomius, with the incompetent, cowardly, and wicked actions of figures such as Athanasius, Basil of Ancyra, and Acacius. Thus, after demonstrating that Athanasius associates with questionable bishops, Aetius is shown to associate only with the right people who are on the side of the true faith. Philostorgius relates that when Aetius came to Antioch he witnessed that the divisions within the community between the various parties only went consubstantialist doctrine, still they shared with them in prayers, hymns, deliberations, 65 Aetius then insisted that this was u nacceptable and that there should not be any association with anyone not 64 Philostorgius, 3.12. 65 Philostorgius, 3.14.
82 firmly against the Nicene party. 66 Philostorgius presents Aetius as the one who is intelligent and brave enough to draw distinction s necessary to maintain doctrinal pur i ty, unlike othe r bishops who make choices out of expedience and other motivations. From credibility in contrast to those who made compromises. The church historian perceived compromis e in such important matters as tantamount to succumbing to heresy and polytheism. resourcefulness, and his intellectual abilities. But more importantly for the Arian controversy, show that he had learned from those who had been part of the same faith community. 67 martyr Luci an of Antioch and his disciples. 68 Aetius accepted the ordination into the diaconate from his teacher refused to be ordained bishop by others who associated with homoousians. 69 This shows that Aetiu s only associated with people who were not potential heretics and that he was willing to stand up for his beliefs even if it was not necessarily in his best interests to do so 66 This seemed to have caused a split in the Arian party. 67 Philostorgius, 3.15 17. He also practiced goldsmithing and medicine. 68 Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Antony of Tarsus, Leontius of Antioch. For a detailed mmunity focused on Lucian of Antioch see Ferguson, Past is Prologue 69 Philostorgius, 3.15, 3.17, 3.19. Secundus and Serras are the bishops with questionable integrity. This view. See Van Nuffelen, leadership.
83 Philostorgius claims that Aetius was so brilliant and skilled in rhetoric tha t the envy and jealousy of others pursued him wherever he went. Even though Aetius clearly had the intellectual abilities and all the right teachers, he still experienced a serious setback early on in his career: And a Borborian engaged him in debate conce rning his own doctrine and utterly defeated him, at which he sank so low in spirits that he thought life not worth living, since he had seen falsehood prevail over truth. But when Aetius was in this mood, a vision came to him...that dissipated his dejectio n and showed him in signs the invincibility of the wisdom that would now be his. From then on it was given to Aetius to be defeated by no one in debate. 70 This episode is meant to mark the moment when Aetius is given a sign of divine favor. Since a Borboria n was a member of an antinomian Gnostic sect and the next person whom Aetius beats in debate was a Manichaean the passage signifies that, for Philostorgius, the real focus of the Arian controversy and subsequent events was a battle between the forces of e vil polytheism (whether Gnosticism or homoousianism) and the worship of the one true God. 71 When he first introduces Eunomius into the narrative, Philostorgius emphasizes the connection between Eunomius and Aetius and claims that Eunomius heard about Aetius 72 Eunomius was also the kind of man of faith who learned from the right teachers and refused to cooperate with those whose theology wa s questionable. For example, Eunomius refuses ordination to the diaconate until he is 70 Philostorgius, 3.15. He then goes on to defeat people in debate, 3.15, 3.16. 71 Amidon, Philostorgius 54, n. 57. 72 P hilostorgius, 3.20.
84 assured 73 Philostorgius also stresses that the fact that Aetius and Eunomius had obtained a high degree of education from the right teachers which allowed them to sort out all theological debates better than anyone else. 74 The historian does not hide his admiration for Eunomius. But he also reveals that he viewed righteous bishops as possessing necessary qualities, such as erudition and integrity, to lead the church and the fight against the forces of polythei sm. Philostorgius seemingly interrupts the narrative about the Arian controversy to relate political events in the reign of Constantius, including events surrounding the understand ing of church history as everything was interconnected, the focus here is on the direct events of the Arian controversy which resume around the time of the death of appoi nted bishop. Apparently this bishop was sympathetic to Arianism, then to homoiousianism, but was then convinced to join the heteroousians. Photius finds Eudoxius as mild an d decent in his manner and in every respect capable, shows himself 75 In other words, Photius does not appreciate that Philostorgius characterized this person both positively and 73 Philostorgius, 4.5, Eudoxius. Eunomius does the same thing later when he was made bishop. Philostorgius claims Eunomius said he insisted that Aetius be released soon before accepting the episcopacy, 5.3. 74 Philostorgius, 3.20a. He cla what this means precisely. 75 Philostorgius, 4.4.
85 negatively, as thoug h it is somehow unfair. It is likely that Philostorgius referred to Eudoxius with a portrait of his father, Caesarius. This man, who had the reputation for sexual imp ropriety, managed to overcome his weakness and face martyrdom with courage. In the end, he was redeemed from his moral failings because he stood up for his faith. It appears that Philostorgius inserted this story in contrast to the character of Eudoxius w ho shows himself to be incapable of standing up for his beliefs. Philostorgius did not simply characterize people in one way and he also seemed to have little tolerance for Christian leaders who did not have the bravery to stand up for what they believed i n. 76 In addition to all of the discussions about correct theology on the relationship between the Father and the Son, Philostorgius also includes discussions of other differences of doctrine and practice. He claims that Flavian of Antioch was the first to the Holy 77 The historian presented this as evidence that the Nicene position was a deviation just as the Nicene historians present Arianism as a deviation. Additionally, Eunomius taught his followers other doctrines he deemed important that Photius finds referred to the Son as the servant of the Father and the Holy Spirit as the servant of the 76 Philostorgius, 4.4, 4.4a. 77 Philostorgius, 3.13.
86 Son. 78 about bishops like Eunomius who were taught by the right teachers to maintain adherence to a longlasting faith community. Photius, on the other hand, describes pr omoting these doctrines. Philostorgius may have quoted some sermons which described these teachings of Eunomius and his followers because Photius comments verbosity and impure language render them decidedly disagreeable, ridiculous, and untidy and give evidence of the darkness, perplexity, and madness of the soul [that 79 It is important to point out commentary i n the Ecclesiastical History as they have helped shape subsequent interpretations of the text. History As the complexity of the narrative demonstrates the Cappadocian historian did not write a simplis matter. Philostorgius was writing to present an accurate narrative of the true church in T he preservation of the correct memory of his faith community as always remained central to the purpose of his history, but he he used the memory of such heretics as Arius to express his views on the right relation ship between church and state, and his particular theology of history. From the 78 Philostorgius, 6.2. 79 Philostorgius, 6.2.
87 perspective of Philostorgius, such figures as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Lucian the Martyr, Aetius, and Eunomius deserved a prominent place in his history because they served to hi ghlight moments of success for his own Eunomian faith community in comparison to his view of the world after the reign of Theodosius I. By exalting these bishops as men the Roman Empire, Philostorgius offered a non Nicene interpretation of the events surrounding the dispute between Arius and Alexander These events were part of the larger story of compet ing histories in late antiquity
88 CHAPTER 4 S PREADING THE FAITH: PHI LOSTORGIUS ON MISSION AND MISSIONARIES Philostorgius is often cited by modern historians for his accounts of otherwise little known missiona ry activity in late antiquity, namely the missions of Ulfila and Theophilus the Indian. This chapter will examine hi s representation of mission more broadly and assess how these Christianization narratives fit into his History and reveal his views on religion and empire In addition to focusing on the important figures, Theophilus and Ulfila, I will also analyze other i nstances of conversion in the text. Finally, as the mission narratives occur as direct parallels in other ecclesiastical Sozomen, and Theodoret. This comparison will illuminate various perspectives on mission and offer some insight into the development of apostolic status for the bishop Ulfila. The Missions of Theophilus and Ulfila in Non Nicene Memory For example, his to the Kingdom of Himyar (modern day Yemen) offers one of the first references to Christianity in South Arabia. 80 The historian begins the story with the assertion that E mperor Constantius II (337 361) sent an embassy to the Himyarites and continues with a brief ethno geogr aphic as well as the extent of the support that the emperor provided. Philostorgius then tells his readers that upon reaching the Himyarites, Theophilus, as one of the leaders of the 80 See Irfan Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1984), 87 93, for a discussion of the uncertain nature of the other sources describing Christianity in South Arabia, including the stories of Bartholomew and Pantaenus. His contention that
89 81 82 The ruler of Himyar then built three churches, using his own resources instead of the funds that Constantius had supplied for the embassy and Theophilus consecrated and decorated the churches to the best of his ability. Philostorgius also includes in his History He begins the account in the fourth century with the story of a persecution of Gothic Christians for their faith and the exodus of a large number of them under the leadership of Ulfila into Roman territory. 83 Th e historian then jumps back in time to explain how the Goths had turned to Christianity in the first place through the agency of Roman captives from Christians had converte d their Gothic captors upon arrival in Gothic territory somewhere beyond the Danube. Philostorgius then moves forward in time and explains that Ulfila had been consecrated the first bishop of the Goths by Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 341) during an embassy to the Roman Empire on which he had been sent by a Gothic ruler. 84 81 Philostorgius, 3.4. 82 Philostorgius, 3.4. 83 s, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Jordanes. Philostorgius places these events during the reign of Constantine I. This Ecclesiastical History See McLy and suggestions for resolving them. 84 The immediate cause for this embassy is a source of some contention among scholars. See full discussion below. For Eusebius of Nicomedia see, Irish Theological Quarterly 43 (1976): 3 23.
90 just for them, and translated all of the Scriptures into their language, except for the books of Kings, sin ce these contain the history of the wars and the nation was warlike 85 Philostorgius then resumes his initial narrative and states that the Roman emperor allowed the Christian Goths to settle in Moes ia. Interpreting The Non Nicene Narrative : History and Memory In interpreting the sources for these non Nicene missions one encounters three perplexing and unsatisfying scholarly tendencies. To begin with, scholars drawing from the dominant Nicene accoun ts have missed an entire aspect of the Christianization of Nicene account of Philostorgius, historians have for the most part overlooked him completely, yet the connection betwe en Theophilus and Ulfila form the core of the major missionary seen against the backgrou 86 Yet even recent scholarly treatments of these missions have overlooked this important connection. Secondly, scholars have frequently failed to distinguish between representations of these missions and the actual conversion of Goths and Himyarites (if any). Irfan Shahid, for example, clearly takes Philostorgius too much at his word when crowned with 85 Philostorgius, 2.5. 86 Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae vol. 3, ed. Derek Baker (Lou vain, 1970), 11.
91 87 While the mission may have been successful, there is simply not enough evidence, epigraphic or literary, to make such a bold claim. 88 Shahid argues that the lack of epigraphic evidence does not prove that Christianity did not spread in South Arabia in the fourth century. 89 A change in the phraseology of the inscriptions in South Arabia during the fourth century did occur, with a shift from references to multiple deities to appeals to a si ngle divinity which has led some scholars to conclude the Christianization of this region began toward the middle of monotheism, one cannot safely state whether this reflected the spread of Judaism or Christianity. 90 More soberly, Amidon points out the difficulty of discerning the degree to uence was restored in South Arabia seven years after the mission. 91 While acknowledging the shift from references to a multiplicity of gods in favor of monotheistic statements, Robert Hoyland and Garth Fowden als o affirm that in South Arabia, Christianity did not acquire a visible presence until the mid fifth century. 92 Scholars have, however, pointed out the importance of the distinction between event and 87 Shahid, 96. 88 Garth Fowden, Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993) 110. 89 Shahid, 102 104. 90 Robert Hoyland, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to th e Coming of Islam (London: Routledge, 2001 ), 146 147. 91 Amidon, Philostorgius 41, n. 9. 92 Hoyland, 147; Fowden, 112.
92 narrative for other conversion accounts and the importance of the representation of be treated as neutral evidence for a process that happened, as it were, outside 93 Similarly, Philostorgius presents Ulfila and Theophilus as missionary figures to preserve a non Nicene vision of the past. Clearly, Philostorgius wants his readers to t ake into account the significance of a 94 He emphasizes the importance of good character, orthodoxy, gifts, miracles, and church building for the success of mission. 95 Sign ificantly, Philostorgius does not include any of these elements in his account of Ulfila. While Ulfila later acquired the reputation as the which has traditional ly been read as a missionary account, does not once refer to Ulfila converting anyone. This reputation has led modern scholars to claim, for example, that his leadersh 96 role in the Christianization of the later Roman Empire but should rather define that role better by paying closer attention to what the text actually says. In fact, Philostorgius 93 Peter Brown, tiquity: The Case of Augustine, i n The Past before Us: the Challenge of Histori ographies of LateAntiquity ed. Carole Straw and Richard Lim (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004 ), 107. 94 Philostorgius, 3.4. 95 Philostorgius, 3.4 6. 96 Van Dam, 15.
93 g ives credit only to the Cappadocian captives, not to Ulfila, for the conversion of the Gothic people. He would naturally do so as this would ensure a conversion by members of his own Cappadocian non Nicene coreligionists; at the same time, he may have had 97 a third disconcerting tendency in int erpreting these non Nicene sources brings us back History as a whole. Both the modern narrative of these missionary events and the treatment of these accounts in Philostorgius 98 Fortunately, more recent historians of the Arian controversy have moved the scholarship forward in this regard emphasizing instead the extent to which the ecclesiastical histori ans of late antiquity constructed and represented the past while the doctrinal reality on the ground was much less clear cut than they would have readers believe. Thus, in evaluating the role of mission in non Nicene memory, and particularly its function i History one must challenge a consensus that fails to connect the two missions, overestimates their success, and perpetuates Arian stereotypes. In reassessing these accounts, I will attempt to redress this problematic consensus. 97 131. 98
94 Connectin g the Missions of Theophilus and Ulfila Scholars have rarely connected the missions of Theophilus and Ulfila because they have failed to recognize that such missions were integral to the ecclesio political policy of Constantius II as well as to the non Nic ene reconstruction of the past. A description of the lives of the missionaries Theophilus and Ulfila will reveal the interconnected nature of their careers and missions. While any certain reconstruction of the lives of Theophilus and Ulfila proves challeng ing, one may safely affirm that both these Christian leaders acquired and still survive in any other sources, but Philostorgius presents a Eunomian leader with a prominent but undefined role in a non Nicene community that enjoyed some degree of success within the church court circle of Constantius II. 99 his own separately but belonged to all in common and might freely visit all the churches as th ough they were his own, the emperor bestowing every mark of the highest honor 100 At a young age, under circumstances that remain unknown, he was sent as a hostage to Constantinople from his native island of Diva. 101 According to Philosto rgius, Theophilus did not allow his time in Constantinople to go to waste and 102 Subsequently, he emerged as a monk bishop 99 Philostorgius, 3.6, 3.6a, 4.1. 100 Philostorgius, 3.6a. 101 ay also explain some personal traits he displayed throughout his career, a certain self 97. 102 Philostorgius, 3.4.
95 with 103 Upon his return to Constantinople, Theophilus did not acquire a n episcopal see, but around 362 he took up a Eunomian leadership p church. 104 He also suffered banishment twice in his life due to his close association with a contender fo brother, Gallus. 105 The chronology of these events has yet to be determined definitively. It appears, however, that Constantius banished Theophilus for a variety of political reasons yet favored him in general and so recalled him twice. While the evidence is inconclusive, it seems that he remained in Antioch as a Eunomian bishop until his death. 106 Even fewer details can be related about the life of Ulfila despite the fact that the Goth gained more fame than Theophilus a nd his work is described in several sources besides Philostorgius 107 important sources, as Auxentius knew Ulfila and viewed him as his spiritual father. 108 On the other hand, the account also presents numer ous problems as Auxentius wrote to 103 Philostorgius, 3.4. Scholars agree that the mission occurred in the 350s and give the tentative exact date of 356. Amidon, Philostorgius 40; Shahid, 86; Gonzalo Fernndez Hernndez, Klio 71 (1989): 361. 104 Philostorgius, 8.2; Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus 278 279. 105 Philostorgius, 4.1, 4.7 8. 106 Philostorgius, 9.18; Theophilus was still in Antioch around 380. Vaggione suggests that Theophilus was succeeded by Julian of Cilicia during this time, Eunomius of Cyzicus 318 319. 107 Auxentius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Jordanes. 108 Auxentius of Durostorum, Letter on the Life, Faith and Death of Ulfila trans. Peter Heather and John Matthews in The Goths in the Fourth Century (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1991). Critic al edition: Roger Gryson, Sources Chrtiennes 267 (Paris: Cerf, 1980).
96 present his mentor in a certain light. Ulfila was the descendant of Christians living in the Roman province of Cappadocia who were captured in their native village of Sadagolthina and taken beyond the Danube into Gothia d uring the infamous Gothic raids of the mid third century. 109 Although he does not attribute any conversions to Ulfila, Philostorgius emphasizes the continuity of Christian resolve between his ong of captives, in associating with the barbarians, converted not a few of them to the faith and brought 110 He was born in 311, raised in a Christian family, and reached the office of lector in the Church in Gothia. 111 The question of whether or not Ulfila subscribed to a non Nicene form of Christianity from the beginning of his adult life remains unsolvable and hopeless ly misguided as it fails to address adequately the importance of the representation of Ulfila within both the Nicene and non Nicene sources. 112 Regardless, he subscribed to a non Nicene homoean creed in 360 and, as far as the sources indicate, remained true to this confession for the remainder of his life. 113 109 Philostorgius, 2.5; E. A. Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth Publishers, 2008) xiii, 81; Frend Early Church, 180 Heather and John Matthews, The Goths in t he Fourth Century (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1991), 134, n. 21. 110 Philostorgius, 2.5. 111 Auxentius, 35; Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila xiv. 112 The Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996): 373 386. 113 He died in 383 at the Conference of Sects that he was attending as a delegate of the homoean party. 127; Amidon, Phil ostorgius 20, n. 15.
97 The dates of such critical events in like his consecration remain highly contentious and unresolved due to the chronological problems that the sources present. 114 He may have been a part of the embassies which the Goths sent to bishop in 336 during the Council of Constantinople. 115 Moreover, he may have traveled as part of a delegation to ensure the continuity of political relationships. 116 For the purposes of this argument it is sufficient to state that Ulfila traveled to Constantinople as a member of an embassy and was of the Christians in the lands of the 117 He apparently received imperial support for this mission beyond the Danube frontier, suffered persecution and banishment in Gothia, and found protection for himself and his followers within the boundaries of t he Roman Empire in Moesia. 118 Philostorgius 119 It is most likely during this period 114 in From Eusebius to Augustine: Selected Papers, 1982 1993 (Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1994), for 336 as a consecration date; Siva n for 337; Amidon (20 21, n. 15) for 336; Heather and Matthews for a terminus ante quem of 341; See also Peter Heather, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27 (1986): 289 318, for an argument to recon cile all of the various sources for the conversion of the Goths I favor the analysis (inconclusive as it is) of Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila xiv 135, as both focus less on reconstructin g the exact chronology and more on the reasons why the sources represented Ulfila as they did. 115 45; Amidon, Philostorgius 20, n. 15. 116 Sivan, 381. 117 Philostorgius, 2.5. 118 Auxentius, 36, 37; Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila 96 98. 119 Philostorgius, 2.5. It would be interesting to explore whether or not Philostorgius or Constantius Life of Constantine S ee Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus 193, for the argument that this description by Philostorgius is an example of the wonder working, virtuous bishop, who is well connected at court, the
98 that he completed all of his t ranslation work on the Gothic Bible. 120 As a participant in the ecclesiastical politics of the time, Ulfila most certainly signed the homoean creed of Constantinople in 360. 121 He died in Constantinople in 383 in the midst of the Conference of Sects, which had been convened by Theodosius to resolve the theological dissent following the Council of Constantinople in 381. 122 Ulfila had become ones for fear that they might be confu 123 Thus, the known activities of Ulfila the Goth reveal a man involved in ministry to Christian communities among the Gothic people as well as in the highly charged ecclesiastical disputes of his time. H owever, t hose writing about him chose to emphasiz e his role in the Christianization of the Goths T he Nicene historians sought to make sense of the stubborn Arianism of the Goths during their own lifetime, and the non Nicene writers striv ed a specific vision of Christian hist ory. Despite their differences, Ulfila and Theophilus are clearly linked together as part For example, Philostorgius emphasizes the importance of appropriate and orthodox consecration prior to embarking on a mission. He relates that the non Nicene bishop kind of bishop with which members of the Eunomian circle identified the mselves. Nonetheless, the reference to Moses is significant, especially as coming from an emperor about a bishop. For more on the The Prop aganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity ed. Mary Whitby (Leiden: Brill, 1998). 120 Amidon, Philostorgius 21. 121 122 Theodosius intended to do so through open debate, but instead decided that a leadi ng member of 123 Auxentius, 39.
99 Eusebius of Nicomedia consecrated both Theophilus the Indian and Ulfila prior to their ed the ranks of 124 This is significant as Photius, in one of his editorial remarks, dolefully relates that Philostorgius held Eusebius of 125 It follows that Philostorgius chose to emphasize the relationship and continuity of faith between Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theophilus, and Ulfila, because it ensured the success of the mission and foreshadowed the occurrence of events that advanced God Further evidence to suggest that Philostorgius represented the importance of the connection between these two men is found in Book II in which he mentions 126 Moreover, as the no n Nicene missionaries are connected through their consecrator, they are similarly connected through their non Nicene patron, Constantius II; for the emperor served as the impetus behind both of these missions. 127 sent an embassy to the people called of old Sabaeans and now known as 124 Philostorgius, 3.4; C onsecration of Ulfila, Philostorgius, 2.5. 125 Philostorgius, 1.9b. 126 Philostorgius, 2.6. The historian could have delayed mention of Theophilus until the fuller treatment he gives him in 3.4 127 involved (2.5). It suffices to mention that while this question is highly controversial, it was likely Constantius II who the region of Moesia,
100 128 Thus, it is safe to state that all of these figures shared a common role in Representation versus Reality In their assessment of the missions of both Theophilus the Indian and Ulfila, historians have frequently taken the sources at face value and simply restated the supposed course of events. A striking example of this rather widespread approach 129 W. H. C. language. 130 These prove to be examples of extremely strong and problematic assertions when one considers the fact that Christianity was not established among the Himyarites to any substantial degree during this period. 131 Similarly, Fernandez claims, ions of Ulfila and Theophilus, Eusebius wanted to give the 132 It is not clear that the Church of Constantinople or Eusebius of Nicomedia ever had any such goals. Philostorgius certainly doe 128 Philostorgius continues to describe the Himyarites as descendants from Abraham through Keturah and the loc 129 Fernndez, 361 130 Constantius II (337 361): Mission Monasticism L'Eglise et l'Empire au IVe sicle: sept exposs suivis de discussions ed. Friedrich Vittinghoff and Albrecht Dihle (Genve: Fondation Hardt, 1989), 82. 131 Fowden 110. 132 Fernndez, 362.
101 whole period of the Roman Empire not a single example is known of a man who was appointed bishop with the specific ta sk of going beyond the frontier to a wholly pagan region in order to convert the barbarians living there. If there was no Christian 133 And indeed, onsecration to an imperial or personal goal to 134 Auxentius gives the ister to existing Christians suffering from a lack of capable Christian leadership. In the same way, Philostorgius explains that in addition to granted to build a church for the Romans who traveled there and for whoever of the 135 While presenting an account of a mission, Philostorgius leaves other clues suggesting that Theophilus was needed more for his ministry among existing Chris tians than for a conversion effort among the people of Himyar. The missionary bishop succeeded in inspiring the Himyarite king to build three churches. In his concluding remarks on the success of the mission, Philostorgius writes He put up one of the chur ches in the capital itself of the whole nation, called Tapharon. Another was located in what was the Roman market center, toward the outer ocean. The place is called Aden, and it is where voyagers from Roman territory were accustomed to put in. The third 133 Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila xvii. See also, Ralph Barbarian Bishops and Speculum 72 (1997): 667. 134 Auxentius, 35. 135 Philostorgius, 3.4.
102 c hurch was in the other part of the country, where there is a well known Persian market center at the mouth of the Persian Gulf there 136 Clearly, in addition to the fact that all three churches were built in areas of commerce and thus point to the presence o f resident aliens, Philostorgius himself points out the importance of these locations for visiting Roman merchants and other travelers. So, while subsequent readers have interpreted this text as a straightforward account of the conversion of an entire peop le, Philostorgius suggests that Theophilus had successfully completed his mission when he had built churches for resident alien Christians. Evidently, Christianization occurs in a more complex manner than the written narrative of the event of mission would seem to indicate. 137 Rather, the mission narratives which Philostorgius presented serve specific purposes in the work and history. It follows that the missions of Theophilus and Ulfila are connected through their non Nicene consecrator and through the non Nicene emperor who initiated their adventures. In addition, while Ulfila certainly very early on acquired the reputation of an apostle to the Goths, he was not sent by eithe r Constantius or Eusebius on a mission to barbarians, but rather to minister to existing Christian communities beyond the Danube limited degree since other aspects of Ulfi theological alignments in the politics of Constantinople. This is not to say that Ulfila did not play a role in conversion or act as a missionary, but it is to say that our sources tell 136 Philostorgius, 3.4. 137 For more on the relatio nship between chronicle and event see Ian Wood, The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe, 400 1050 (New York: Longman, 2001) 25.
103 us next to nothing about what Ulfila actually did and more about what Philostorgius thought was important in his portrayal of him. Similarly, Constantius II did not send Theophilus the Indian on a religious mission but rather on a diplomatic one a mission that also involved mini stry towards Christians already living in South Arabia. Ironically, in South Arabia while U lfila had a lasting impact on the Goths, especially in light of the eventual adoption of non somewhat misle Christianity long before the mission of Ulfilas, or their entry into the Roman Empire in 138 the Goths had not yet conve 139 It is important to keep in mind that Philostorgius chose to represent Ulfila and Th eophilus in a particular manner and that his account can tell us much about what Philostorgius thought mission was and the purpose it served in his narrative. The historian included the mission accounts in part to illustrate the importance of the 138 throug h the Gothic Bible, 7 various Germanic peoples, we have no evidence for supposing that Roman missionaries played any a n The Conflict be tween Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century ed. Arnaldo M omigliano ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963 ), 76. 139 Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila 93.
104 missionar y figure in the Eunomian community. As a more lucid picture emerges of the ways in which mission played a central role in his understanding of the past, it is also possible to evaluate the broader implications of his narrative for the broader history of mi ssion in late antiquity. Christian history becomes evident if one looks closely at the context of the mission accounts in the entire Ecclesiastical History The function of the mission/conversion stories within the narrative as a whole reveal not only what Philostorgius thought of mission, but even how he perceived the world around him. For Philostorgius, the age when missionary activity flourished and resulted in the conversion of countless pagans had by his own lifetime passed into the realm of memory. Certain common features appear within these mission stories and reveal what was important to Philostorgius. Th Three sections deal with related issues of conversion or proselytism but do not quite fit within the category of mission narratives for this study. Constantine does indeed convert, but he is only one person and is so closely tied up with the Eusebian model to make it difficult to assess how Philostorgius Philostorgius also records Arius convincing people to come over to his side through This, however, is not a The conversion of large numbers of
105 foreign pagans only occurs within the accounts of Ulfila, Theophilus, and Agapetus, a wonder w orking confessor and bishop. 140 It is possible that Photius only recorded ones of particular interest, but the fact that all three accounts occur in books two and three of the history during the reigns of Constantine and Constantius suggests that Philostorgi silence about mission for the remainder of the text is not accidental. These missionaries appear in the story somewhat out of chronological order, suggesting a deliberate construction of the stories into a single whole on the part of Philostorgius. He mentions Ulfila first mission and several sections later relates the story of the bishop Agapetus. Such the first half of the Ecclesiastical History The c onfessor Agapetus, an unwilling soldier during the reign of Licinius, became famous for his wonder working and 141 he was eventually consecrated Bishop of Synnada. Withi n this shared context, the emperors perform other acts of piety right before or after the missions. Both Constantine and Constantius build magnificent churches as well as enable these three holy men to participate in missionary and evangelizing activity. Besides the chronological disorder that characterizes these narratives, all three accounts share a focus on the theme of suffering. Examples abound: t he trials of when compelled to flee i nto the Roman Empire to avoid persecution; Theophilus as a hostage and exile, 140 Agapetus was a former soldier turned wo nder working presbyter during the reign of Constantine. Philostorgius, 2.5, 2.8, 2.6, 3.4. 141 Philostorgius, 2.8.
106 suffering at the hands of imperials authority under Licinius and a confessor (one who suffered persecution for the faith but not mar tyrdom). The trials of these individuals highlight their marginal status in society on the one hand, and the fortitude of their character on the other This fortitude enabled them not only to overcome adverse circumstances but also to become pivotal figure s within the story of the Christianization of the Roman world. Philostorgius emphasizes the trials of these men as well as the clear sign of distinction that they all obtained as all of them also obtain e piscopal office. All three have lowly origins. Ulfil a was a Goth and descendant of captives, Agapetus was a soldier on the verge of execution, and Theophilus was a hostage from a foreign land. Yet all of them, through their faith and service to God, were able to perform miracles, participate in the conversi on of many people, and become bishops, close to the imperial court. From his point of view, God showed favor toward these men because they overcame their circumstances and contributed to the spread of right Christian worship. In particular Philostorgius fr equently mentions the respect and high status that Theophilus possessed within the Eunomian community. divine favor, while the negative ones such as earthquakes serve as si warning and disapproval. 142 While miracles only occur within the missions of Theophilus missions. The miracles served as signs of divine approval for the mission enterprise as well as a vindication of the suffering of the missionary heroes. One brief 142 Trompf, 196 212.
107 working ability of thi s hero of the faith: He spouts a lot of nonsense about his fellow sectarian Agapetus, the former soldier who was ordained presbyter by those of like mind with him and later became bishop of Synnada. He says that he raised the dead and expelled and eliminat ed many other calamities, and worked other marvels as well, and caused many of the pagans to convert to Christianity. 143 Agapetus apparently was also known for moving mountains and rivers out of the way. Indeed, he was so holy that he was able to raise the d ead. As Photius provides exactly what Philostorgius wanted to communicate through this story. But given that Photius mentions that Philostorgius spoke of Agapetus at length befor e the discussion of the between the reinstatement of the exiled Arian bishops and the building and beautification of Constantinople he connects the well being of the empire and therefore divine favor, with the performance of miracles and the conversion of pagans. working abilities in the section is section directly follows a discussion of how Constantius took good care of his e mpire by building churches, transferring relics and attempting permanently to oust the Nicene Athanasius from his beyond Roman borders by sending Theophilus as an ambassador to the Kingdom of 143 Philostorgius, 2.8, 2.8a.
108 construction of churches for the Christians already re sident there. He provided ample finest breed of horses from Cappadocia conveyed on ships designed as cavalry transports, as well as many other gifts calculated to strike wonder at their 144 Thus, Constantius sought to bedazzle the people and the ruler of Himyar with Roman wealth and technological super iority. According to Philostorgius, however, this seemingly foolproof plan did not work out. Theophilus and the embassy showed up with gifts and splendor but the king did ter 145 marvelous works showed on more than one occasion how invincible the Christian faith as a result, si 146 agree to build the aforementioned c hurches for Christians living in Himyar. Moreover, construct ion of the churches. 147 Thus, Theophilus was able to convert the king through his God giving ability had failed. It would be nice to know which miracles specifically Theophilus performed in 144 Philostorgius, 3.4. 145 Philostorgius, 3.4. 146 Philostorgius, 3.4. 147 Philostorgius, 3.4.
109 H imyar a fit of hysterics and also, like Agapetus, could raise the dead; specifically, he brought a dead Jewish woman back to life. 148 Clearly, Theophilus stands out as playing a remarkable role in Christian history as a whole, but it is also clear that Philostorgius connected miracles with the conversion of pagans. lso reveals the role Philostorgius expected bishops to play within the unfolding of Christian history. While Roman emperors play a large part in the ecclesiastical history, time and time again Philostorgius emphasizes the agency of bishops to work for a be tter Christian world. In the story of Ulfila, Philostorgius consecration of the Gothic bishop. Once Ulfila becomes a bishop he is able to minister to the Goths through his transla tion of scripture. Also, the emperor recognizes the ing 149 The narratives concerning Theophilus and Ulfila do not elide the missions or in the political and diplomatic concerns at stake. Rather the two elements of the triumph of true Christianity and imperial goals Constantius singled him out and honored him by appointing him to this mission. Simultaneously, Constantius, despite his sumptuous display of wealth and power, cannot achieve the conversion of the King of Himyar without the wonders worked by 148 Philos torgius, 4.7, 3.6. 149 Philostorgius, 2.5.
110 Theophilus. Philostorgius twice stresses ho success of the mission and even the subsequent construction of churches. 150 empowered Constantius was blessed through the activities of such holy b ishops as Theophilus and Nicene mission Philostorgius emphasizes the role of suffering, miracles, and the agency of bishops connected to the imperial court in order to reve al the kind of men God favors and acts through in Christian history. From the perspective of Philostorgius, such figures as Agapetus, Ulfila, and Theophilus deserved a prominent place in his history as missionaries because they served to highlight moments of success for his own Eunomian faith in comparison to his apocalyptic view of the world after the reign of Theodosius I. By exalting these d beyond the Roman Empire, Philostorgius offered his vision of mission as part of the larger story of Christianization in Late Antiquity. While the reigning narratives of fourth century missionary history are those recounted by the major fifth century Gree k and Latin Nicene ecclesiastical historians, only the three Greek Nicene histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret treat the mission of Ulfila. These histories were all composed subsequent to the work of the non Nicene historian, Philostorgius. The ot her major Nicene historian, Rufinus of Aquileia, writing his Latin account prior to Philostorgius, does not mention Ulfila at all. Moreover, 150 Philostorgius, 3.4, 3.4a, 3.4b.
111 none of the Nicene church histories includes any account of Theophilus, leaving Philostorgius as the only witness to his missionary activity. Nicene vs. Non Nicene Accounts of Missionaries According to Philostorgius, Ulfila did not set out on a mission to evangelize the Goths, but rather served them as a bishop. How then did Ulfila acquire the persistent reputation of Apostle to the Goths and the main agent of Gothic conversion? Possibly, the answer lies in the portrayal of Ulfila in other Nicene sources that would have left a more lasting legacy than non Nicene ones. A close analysis of the Nicene sources will demons trate that Ulfila did not always possess this missionary reputation. Nonetheless, portrayal in modern day historiography as the missionary who converted the Goths to Aria nism. The case of Ulfila serves as only one example of the need to reexamine the reveal the ways in which Rufinus and Philostorgius valued different facets of Christian ization and presented differing roles for bishops and emperors in the process. An analysis of mission in the Nicene sources challenges widely held assumptions about the process of Christianization in Late Antiquity. Apart from Philostorgius, none of the o ther ecclesiastical historians include the story to revise the non of the Christianization of Aksum and Iberia (Georgia) and, possibly, gives Ulfila a larger role in his narrative because Rufinus leaves him out completely. 151 151
112 source of comparison with the acc ount of Theophilus, as Philostorgius is clearly responding to Rufinus with his narrative of the mission to Himyar. 152 In addition to trade in the Red Sea and Indian Oce an, and thus a comparison can provide valuable insight on this dimension of the Christianization process deliberately skews his chronology to make the events take place during the reign of Constantine rather than Constantius. 153 Nevertheless, his narrative still shows his idea of how conversion of foreign kingdoms occurred or ought to have occurred. ount stands out as strikingly Theophilus is chosen by the emperor himself to embark on the embassy for the purpose the beg inning of Christianity in Aksum occurs when a Roman traveling on the Red Sea is shipwrecked, everybody on board is killed, and only two young boys are spared. These boys now captives grow into valuable members of the royal court at Aksum. As an adult, Frum entius takes the initiative to take care of Roman merchant Christians living in and traveling to Aksum. 154 In this case, Philostorgius records a similar situation with Theophilus attending to the resident aliens in Himyar. 155 Philostorgius may simply be follow ing Rufinus or more likely reflecting the 152 Amidon, Philostorgius 40, n. 8. 153 As suggested by Thelamon, Paens et Chrtiens au IVe Sicle 62. 154 Rufinus, 10.9, 10.10. 155 Philost orgius, 3.4.
113 reality of the spread of Christianity in these areas through trade. But the representation representation reflects not onl y his response to Rufinus, but also his view of what role next to one another, Rufinu s moves from his account of the Christianization of Aksum this mission also took place during the reign of Constantine, w ho is delighted at the end of the story to hear of the conversion of this foreign kingdom. 156 As Philostorgius does not seem to be directly the narratives relating to Ak sum and Himyar follow s 157 an accidental missionary, as he finds himself in Aksum not by his own will and certainly lus. On the other hand, Frumentius displays remarkable initiative as the one who begins attending to the needs God put it into his mind and heart to begin making careful inquiries if there were any Christi ans among the Roman merchants, and to give them extensive rights, which he urged them to use, to build places of assembly in each location, in which they might gather for prayer in the Roman 156 Rufinus, 10.11. 157 Parallels between the stories are possible, however, as the story of the female captive in Iberia and on captives s ee Andrea Sterk, Church History 79 (2010): 1 39.
114 158 Again, this passage reveals the theme occurring in the work of both Rufinus and Philostorgius concerning the importance of trade in the spread of Christianity in this region. The passage also emphasizes the apostolic character of Frumentius, evident ke care of Roman Christians. Additionally, upon being allowed to leave Aksum, Frumentius is the one to travel to Athanasius in Alexandria and report on the spread of Christianity in Aksum in contrast to his brother Aedesius, who travels home to Tyre. 159 Ruf inus clearly highlights Philostorgius similarly presents Theophilus as taking the initiative in the mission narrative. Before he is even sent on the mission, Theophilus takes advantage of his status as a hostage at the Roman court to embrace a life of virtue, orthodoxy, and celibacy. 160 Then, upon his arrival in Himyar, Theophilus even though he is only one of the leaders of the embassy attempts to persuade the king to convert to Christianity and succeeds through his performance of miracles. 161 Philostorgius shows that Theophilus not only exhibited initiative similar to that of Frumentius, but also had full imperial support as well as miraculous powers Philostorgius does not explicitly say that God inspired Theophilus to take initiative during his mission, as Rufinus relates about 158 Rufinus, 10.9. 159 prsents comme ap Antichit altoadriatiche 160 Philostorgius, 3.4. 161 Philostorgius, 3.4.
115 with the way Philostorgius const therefore the lack or abundance of divine gifts do not need to be explicitly stated because they are evident in the lives of such men as Theophilus. In keeping with his understanding of the Eunomian community, Philostorgius represents Theophilus as God showed his divine favor by giving them eloquence and the ability to perform miracles. D ivine favor was also evident inas much as these men were close to the imperial court and enjoyed the support and praise of the emperor himself. Philostorgius viewed this close connection to the imperial court as positive for members of the Eunomian community as it reflected their active e ngagement in the affairs of the world. Philostorgius further revises Rufinus by recounting that Theophilus not only established relations with one foreign kingdom, as did Frumentius, but after his mission in Himyar Theophilus traveled further H e corrected certain Christian practices and confirmed the orthodoxy of Christian teaching in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean arena of trade. 162 This comparison of the representations of Rufinus and Philostorgius reveals not only how these historians perceived mission, but the role in the Christianization of foreign peoples, but Philostorgius gives the emperor a greater role than does Rufinus becaus characteristics. Unlike Theophilus, Ulfila played a role in the representation of the past from the Nicene perspective. Scholars have frequently expressed surprise and commented on 162 Philostorgius, 3.5. Amidon Philostorgius 42, n. 13.
116 Ulfila appear ance in the hi stories of Socrates and Sozomen at all, and, moreover in a favorable light. 163 Auxentius, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen clearly shows the limitations of these sources for any certain reconstructio n of the life of Ulfila. Nevertheless, McLynn provides a valuable perspective on these sources and a refreshing analysis of why they represented Ulfila as they did as opposed to attempting to reconcile the sources or argue for the reliability of one over t he other. 164 B uild ing on his analysis and adding nuance to his argument, I will attempt to elaborate on the reasons the historians represented Ulfila as they d id and specifically consider how this relates to the legacy of Ulfila as a missionary/apostle. As Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret all to varying degree s followed and used Rufinus, it is significant that they include any mention of Ulfila at all since Rufinus completely omits him from his narrative. By examining the context of the accounts of Ulfila in the their Ecclesiastical Histories we can better see the ways in which the se Nicene historian s viewed Ulfila and Christianization in general. Socrates and Sozomen reques t for the consecration of the holy man Moses as bishop of her land in exchange for peace with the Romans ( By contrast, Theodoret places the story of Mavia a little earlier than the story of Ulfila ) Rufinus as far as we know is the first to record this story of Queen Mavia and Moses, but he does not place the account in the context of the other conversion narratives that appear in his History 165 Why does Socrates include the 163 164 discrepancies in the evidence for the conversion of the Goths. 165 Rufinus, 11.6.
117 account of Ulfila at all, and why does he insert it right before the account of M avia? How Socrates first briefly mentions Ulfila at the end of a description of the Council of gave his assent, 166 Although it may not be completely clear why Socrates chooses to mention Ulfila at this particular that Ulfila had been a Nicene Christian prior to signing the creed of this council. Why would Socrates be concerned with whether or not Ulfila was a non Nicene Christian? The answer lies in the next passage in which Socrates includes Ulfila in the context of the Christia nization of the Goths. 167 Socrates differs from Philostorgius placing the Fritigern in the second half of the fourth century. He claims that the Goths converted to Christianity after Fritigern accepted the faith of E mperor Valens because the emperor had helped him defeat Athanaric. Socrates then states that this is the reason that the Goths are Arians down to his own day. Then, almost as if it had happened earlier or independentl y of the political deal between Fritigern and Valens, he introduces Ulfila as Scriptures into their own language, [and] undertook to instruct these barbarians in the Di 168 He then continues to describe how Ulfila labored not only with the 166 Socra inserted Ulfila at this point in his text. 167 Socrates, 4.33. 168 Socrates, 4.33.
118 Goths owing allegiance to Fritigern but also with the followers of Athanaric. This, of course, led to the persecution and martyrdom of the Arian Christians. He then conclude s this account with the observation that the martyrdoms indicate that the Goths 169 Like Philostorgius, Socrates does not explicitly attribute any conversions to Ulfila. Instead, he uses hi s A comparison of this story of the Gothic conversion with a similar attempt to Valen Arianism had the potential to offer him security on the Danube frontier, but according to Socrates it led to the opposite of his intentions a war with the Goths resulting in his Socrates narrates the story of the Saracen Queen Mavia. 170 This account has also been interpreted as a Christianization account by scholars, although Rufinus and possibly even Socrates did not intend it in this way. 171 The story tells of how Queen Mavia was willing to make peace with the Romans and cease raiding the frontier only on the condition that the holy man Moses be made bishop of her people. He was dragged ag ainst his will from the desert to be consecrated by the bishop of Alexandria. Moses refused because he would not accept consecration from the Arian bishop of Alexandria Lucius who had been persecuting monks and Nicene Christians. Moses was then consecrat ed by Nicene Christians in exile in the desert and Mavia made peace with the 169 Socrates, 4.33. 170 Socrates, 4.36. 171 Amidon, Rufinus 68, n. 7.
119 entered into with the Romans that she gave her daughter in marriage to Victor the commander in c 172 Thus, Socrates presents the conversion of Roman Empire, but the consecration of a bishop for Mavia as bringing lasting success and leading to peace Only the promotion of true Nicene Christianity could lead to any kind of political gain, while encouragement of non Nicene Christianity caused the death of Valens. Ulfila does not fit into this simple dichotomy. On the one hand he is part of the story th at ends with the ill fated conversion of the Goths to Arianism. On the other been an Arian allowed the historian to present Ulfila, and by extension the Arian Gothic mar tyrs, as authentic soldiers for Christ. 173 This tension in his account demonstrates his broader narrative of Christianization. account of Ulfila and the conversion of the Goths. He also presents it much more explicitly as a narrative describing the conversion of the Goths to Arianism, despite the fact that his account also presents difficult chronological problems. 174 He recounts that Ulfi la already a bishop was appointed to go on an embassy on behalf of the Goths who were fleeing from the Huns. He t hen follows the similar story of Athanaric and Fritigern and the subsequent conversion of the Goths to Arianism. Here Sozomen interjects wit h a comment: 172 Socrates, 4.36. 173 174 133.
120 reason that can be advanced to account for the Goths having retained, even to the 175 He then outlines the role that he views Ulfila must have played in the conversion of the Goths to Arianism. He argues that Ulfila must not have abandoned Nicaea when he signed the creed at the council of Constantinople needed to for the purposes of negotiating assistance from the Roman Empire. Then he suggests that the Goths listened to Ulfila because he had already been a good bishop for them by translating the Bible and leading a life of virtue. As Ulfila had stood by them even thro ugh the time of persecution, the Goths obviously follow ed wherever he led. Although force and main reason for description of Ulfila. McLynn persuasively argues that Sozomen is trying to reconcile the conflicting evidence that he has in front of him. This is why on the one hand he argues that Ulfila was a virtuous bishop and diminishes his connection to Arianism, while simulta neously presenting him as the main reason the Goths converted to Arianism. account to give credit for the conversion of the followers of Athanaric to Ulfila. 176 This expa reputation as the leading figure for the conversion of the Goths to Arian Christianity. Ulfila. 177 McLynn asserts that just as Socrates and Sozomen use Ulfila for their own 175 Sozomen, 6.37. 176 Sozomen, 6.37. 177 Theodoret, 4.33.
121 purposes, Theodoret does the same ; yet in doing so, he presents a completely unrealistic portrait of Ulfila. Theodoret describes the familiar story of Valens and the Gothic leaders needing to come to an agreement and relates that when the emperor Eudoxius encountered some resistance they appealed to Ulfila. with which he baited hi s proposals Eudoxius succeeded in inducing him to persuade the barbarians to embrace communion with the emperor, so Ulphilas won them over on the plea that the quarrel between the different parties was really one of personal rivalry and involved no differe 178 McLynn does not go any further in his analysis of by bribery as unrealistic. While he rightly notes how negatively Theodoret portrays Ulfila, McLy nn fails to notice the evident and surprising theme common to all three versions of this story, namely, that the Goths did not really convert to Arianism. Either they converted in simplicity of mind and thus remained true to Christ, or they did not embrace the full version of Arianism, and/ or the bishop who had convinced them to embrace it was not a real Arian either. Arianism stand out as striking witnesses to the Nicene hist the historians had no need to present any account of Ulfila and the Christianization of the Goths. But they did. While all three authors adapted the story to fit the particula r needs or goals of their ecclesiastical histor ies all of the accounts share a common element. Namely, all three 178 Theodoret, 4.33.
122 are concerned with the question of how the Goths became Arians and likewise display evidence for prior acquaintance with Christianity on the p art of the Goths, as confirmed by Philostorgius and Auxentius as well McLynn argues that Socrates and Sozomen incorporated Ulfila into their accounts because the Gothic bishop had likely received an extravagant funeral when he happened to die in Constanti nople and thus represented a figure worthy of note This is possible, and McLynn presents a very compelling argument. Whether the answer to the puzzle lies in the funeral or not, Ulfila had clearly acquired a positive reputation in fifth century Constantin ople, and the historians were influenced by it Due to the largely positive representation of the bishop by Nicene as well as non Nicene authors, Ulfila later acquired the status of apostle to the Goths Yet in their accounts of Ulfila the Nicene ecclesia stical historians do not present an intentional mission or missionary with positive results but rather a more gradual and uncertain process of Christianization. Their accounts present imperial politics, translation of scripture, and martyrdom as the essen tial features of this process, rather than the agency of one man. Philostorgius presents Ulfila in a very similar way to his Nicene counterparts but also adds the story that the other historians are lacking because they do not want to include possible evi Nicene background from the very beginning of his life His unique account incorporates and the initial contacts and individual conversions that led to the spread of Christianity among t he Goths. Additionally, the Nicene writers paint a picture in which bishops and emperors do not necessarily act harmoniously in the process of Christianization, while It is to the
123 im portant relationship and collaboration between emperors and bishops that we now turn.
124 CHAPTER 5 EMPERORS AND BISHOPS: LEADERSHIP FOR THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE Although Philostorgius made few explicit statements about appropriate relations between bishops and emperors, 1 imperial leadership is a major concern throughout his Ecclesiastical History By including countless examples of the activities of bishops and emperors, he revealed his understanding of their respective roles. Of course, for Philostorgius the modern distinction between church and state would have been nonsensical; he condemned emperors favoring the Nicene Creed because he believed that an empire should explicitly foster the right approach to the divine i n order to ensure Romans of his time. The categories of empire and religion were inextricably intertwined, but the exact nature and implications of that interconnectednes s varied depending on is important for several reasons. First, he was writing at a critical juncture in the evolution of relations between imperial and ecclesiastica l authority. The Theodosian establishment of 381 had officially declared the Roman Empire a Nicene Christian state, yet the consequences of that pronouncement for Christians, pagans, and Jews were still being worked out, with even more Christian strife on the horizon. 2 Second, 1 One occurs in Philostorgius, 7.6a, a fragment from the Suda drawing on Philostorgius, and the other in Philostorgius, 8.8a, a fragment from the Artemii Passio Both advocate a separation of church and state. It is difficult to ascertain whether or not the statements on church and state relations are an accurate representation of the words of Philostorgius. Of course, Philostorgius may have included other statements that the epitomizer Photius did not preserve. See the concluding section in this chapter for a more detailed examination of the role of these statements in assessing Philostorgiu state. 2 As his History was published between 425 and 433, Philostorgius may have witnessed the events of the Nestorian controversy while writing. But even if he had concluded and published the work before the
125 of how he viewed imperial interference in religious affairs, particularly in light of specific anti Eunomian legislation. 3 A close study of Philos relationship between bishops and emperors will show the kind of cooperative leadership he deemed proper for a Christian Roman Empire. church his not question the necessity of the Roman Empire as the world order. 4 Leppin rightly observes that Philostorgius in many ways agreed with other ecclesiastical historians in his cha racterization of emperors and bishops. 5 The church historians tended to agree in their convictions that Roman emperors were legitimate, that good emperors were the 6 Yet Leppin finds i t odd for Philostorgius to have a similar understanding of the Empire to that of the Nicene historians. If one considers, however, that Philostorgius believed that his faith was legitimate, his support for the empire makes more sense. Should not the intere sts of true religion to go hand in hand with imperial ideology? Moreover, Philostorgius saw numerous signs that God revealed his will in history and the diverse effects the outbreak of the contro versy, he would still have been aware of the imperial dedication to eradicating all non Nicene forms of belief. 3 CTh 16.5.34. 4 124. Unlike the focus of this chapter (the relationship between bishops and emperors), will refer to his article frequently in this chapter. 5 Leppin base s his comparison on his study of the political thought of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, Leppin, Von Konstantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II: das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret 6 Leppin, Heretical Hi storiography, 122 123.
126 decisions of emperors had on the Roman Empire. When righteous leaders cooperated wi th each other fortunate events occurred for the individual emperor and the empire as a whole, and when wicked leaders connived against each other the consequences were bishops Nicene church historian Theodoret, who similarly rejected imperial church policy in his support of Nestorius. 7 Perhaps this is so. But it is also the case that Philostorgius viewed emperors as possessing legitimate spiritual authority in their own right, unlike Theodoret who viewed holy men as the main sources of spiritual authority. Leppin also rightly asserts that bishops are exceptionally strong and independent in account. in 8 However, the assumptions that form the foundation of his analysis are problematic. we must not fo rget that the work of Philostorgius is not, in fact, a history of the Christian church ; it is, however, in the beginning a history of the Arian church and then the Eunomian chur ch, the story of which is the focus so that in the last part of the book, foll owing the decline of the Eunomians, the author focuses almost exclusively on political and military events 9 While Philostorgius clearly had a unique perspective on the events of the Roman Empire, this di chotomy between a history of the Christian church a nd of an 7 Leppin, 123. 8 Gabriele Marasco, Philostorge et l'historiographie de l'antiquit tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung ed. Doris Me yer ( Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011) 265 274. 9 Marasco, 265. My translation from the French.
127 Arian/Eunomian c hurch presents several problems. First, it assumes that all parties at the time knew that Eunomian or other non Nicene forms of Christianity would not survive This is not the case. at is the Christian church and who writes its history ? He completely ignores P own claim to be writing ecclesiastical history. Moreover he wrote about a variety of events and topics throughout his history, not just in the second half; for ex ample, in the first half, he discusses the location of paradise at great length 10 approach un supported by the eviden c e, but it is also not very helpful for assessing ry culture of the fifth century. His assumptions inevitably lead to the unimaginative conclusion that Philostorgius only supported imperial intervention in church affairs when it was to the Eunomian advantage: I n conclusion Philostorgius attitude regard ing the relationship between church and state confirms the essential characteristic of his work, which was a history of the Eunomian church, from its origins when it was linked to the Arian heresy to its decline after the time of Theodosius: this approach fully conditioned the thinking of Philostorgius, which on the one hand supported the idea of the absolute independence of the church from a state doctrine now hostile to Eunomianism and on the other approved unconditionally of the action s of Eunomian bis hops who sought the support of the emperors by all means necessary 11 12 First, the separation of these two categories is anachronistic, and 10 Philostorgius, 3.10. 11 Marasco, 273. My translation from the French. 12
128 empire as do the other church historians. Additionally, Leppin acknowledges the without explana tion, that it is a perspective that Philostorgius should not share. 13 This interpretation of the evidence is flawed on several levels. Philostorgius and the other ecclesiastical historians wrote during a similar enough time that they shared similar aims and the same elite readership. 14 Of course they viewed the empire similarly. from resigned to the Nicene empire. 15 These kinds of conclusions are inevitable if one assumes that Philostorgius inhabited a separate cultural and literary space from that of the other historians, Christian or otherwise. This was not the case, however; they wrote during the same period, had similar education, lived in the same cities, and shared t he same interests history, Christianity, empire. 16 Leppin states that he expected Philostorgius to view imperial rule differently from the Nicene historians since Philostorgius was a Eunomian, part of a minority religious group rejected by the empire. Since he discovered that 13 because he did not despise the empire even though it persecuted Novatians? 14 Croke, 15 See Chapter 7 for a more detailed discussion of omens and portents. 16 Croke, 417.
129 17 Rather than judge Philostorgius for inhabiting the same cultural space as the Nicene historians or assessing how he measures up to these historians History reflects his own distinctive theology of history, whic h was at the same time part of a broader literary culture of history writing in late antiquity. between bishops and emperors. While Philostorgius clearly championed those emper ors supporting his coreligionists and expressed hostility to their opponents, the details of numerous interactions between bishops and emperors reveal that he had a more complex view of this relationship than most scholars have suggested. On the contrary, Philostorgius stresses the importance of imperial intervention in church affairs even though this often led to negative consequences for the Eunomian community and the Empire as a whole 18 Furthermore, Philostorgiu s never claims to separate the Eunomi a n or any other Christian community from the state 19 H e approved of the bishops who sought imperial support because he believed in a cooperative relationship between bishop and emperor. Moreover, his categorization of rulers is not limited simply Gallus, the pagan emperor Julian, and the role of imperial women. T o understand views on the relationship between bishops and emperors i t is essential to recognize his use of signs of divine approval and disapproval ; 17 18 For example, see the story of the caesar Gallus trusting bishops (Philostorgius, 3.27). Leppin notes this 19 Except for the two statements mentioned above and discussed at the end of this chapter (Philostorgius, 7.6a, 8.8a).
130 knowable. 20 Indeed, to Philostorgius, all the events and lives in the Ecclesiastical History are signs pointing to Go signs and omens as an indication of his view of church and state. I will first briefly his representation of the positive intertwined relationship between bishop and emperor, both outside and within the empire. Next, I will focus on the more negative or problematic examples of this relationship, for bishops frequently deceive each other and trick emperors. I will con such actions and of wrong belief the tragic demise of these emperors. Ultimately this ideal relationship, his assumptions about the actual relationship, and his representation of events in terms of those expectations. Emperors and Divine Approval History presents divine favor for emperors differently from divine favor for bishops, highlighting their distinct roles in the leadership of the Christian Roman Empire. The first emperor to appear in the history, Constantine the Great, plays the role of a very good emperor who received exceptional divine favor. After all, God gives him the grace to see the error of paganism and personally guides him on at least two occasions. First, he shows him the famous sign in the sky. Philostorgius writes that, 20 Amidon, Philostorgius xvi, xviii. Omens are essential to access what Philostorgius thinks about almost any top detail in Chapter 7. I will limit my discussion of the relevant events in the Arian controversy, as they are the focus of Chapter 3.
131 was the victory over Maxentius, in which the sign of the cross appeared in the east extending to a great distance and formed of brilliant radiance. It was encircled by stars 21 In this i nstance, God both made his will known and gave special favor to divine intervention and raises the question of how the emperor will act in response. Finally, a divin e force guides Constantine during the building of Constantinople. When someone asks Constantine how much longer he is going to be walking to outline the 22 This account of the founding of Constantinople emphasizes both the great extent of The historian stresses that Constantius received special grace from the very beginning of his re ign by drawing parallels between success with descriptions Constantine embarked on an impressive building program; so did Constantius. building accomplishments, Photius writes that Philostorgius 23 Philostorgius also relates that the church was built in conjunction with the erection 21 Philostorgius, 1.6. The word they are marked in bold in the critical edition indicating that they are contained in more than one fragment. Note the emphasis on the supernatural nature of the event. See Chapter 7 for more on this sign. 22 Philostorgius, 1.9. choice as suggested by overlap from several fragments. 23 Philostorgius, 3.2.
132 Andrew from Achaia... [Constantius] also brought over the evangelist Luke from Achaia and Timothy from Eph 24 Thus, Philostorgius marks the auspiciousness of notes the parallel with the deeds of his father Constantine. A nd most significantly, just as Constantine received a sign in th e sky on the occasion of his victory over a usurper, so did Constantius. 25 According to Philostorgius the emperor won an initial battle against the usurper Constantius, then, was victori ous over the usurper, and at that very time the sign of the cross appeared; it was enormous, and its stunning rays outshone the daylight. It appeared in Jerusalem most visibly around the third hour of the day, on the Feast called Pentecost. That God sent i mage was seen extending from the place called Calvary all the way to the Mount of Olives, with a great rainbow completely encircling it like a crown. The rainbow signified the goodwill of the one crucified and taken up, while the crown represented the empe 26 The usurper had regrouped following his initial defeat, but when his men saw leading to a complete victory. Thus, not only did God communicate his favor of Constantius through th is sign, but he Constantius receives the same sign as Constantine did including the detail of a rainbow encircling the sign. The example of Constantius highlights the kind of imagery Phil ostorgius uses to communicate signs of divine favor for emperors. 24 Philostorgius, 3.2a. 25 Constantine: Philostorgius, 1.6, 2.5, 2.9; Constantius: Philostorgius, 3.2, 3.4, 3.26. 26 Philostorgius, 3.26.
133 Godly Bishops Philostorgius clearly envisioned the role of bishops as leaders of the Christian Roman Empire differently from that of emperors. 27 Whereas God commends emperors through external signs like celestial phenomena or military victories, divine approval of bishops is revealed in their internal character and corresponding behavior. Bishops act virtuously, display great learning, and perform miracles. Additionally, the qualities which s how that bishops possess divine favor can be divided into two categories. First, there are the bishops who are primarily known for their wonder working and exceptionally virtuous lifestyle. Then there are the bishops who are mainly known for their eruditio n and eloquence. Those who stand out for exemplifying these evidences of divine approbation in the history are, according to Photius, the bishops Aetius, Eunomius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theophilus the Indian. Photius makes this distinction in the epit ome and explains the distinction in his entry on Philostorgius in the Bibliotheca exalts especially Aetius and Eunomius for their teaching...and likewise Eusebius of t 28 intellectual abilities showing how this divine gift allows him to fight against the forces of polytheism. 29 l wisdom (beyond his natural intellectual capacity) was given to him by God in a vision. 30 27 In this chapter, I treat Aetius and Eunomius solely as bishops because they were consecrated as bishops and because Philostorgius clearly represents them as church leaders who are part of the relationship between church and state. For the argument that Aetius and Eunomius were outside of the 425 451. 28 Photius, Bibliotheca codex 40; Philost orgius, 1.9b, 3.20a, 3.4b, 8.2; Amidon, Philostorgius 16 17, n. 8. 29 Philostorgius, 3.15. 30 Philostorgius, 3.15.
134 31 Thus, the Eunomian community included Christian leaders with overlapping but distinct gifts. 32 Both attr ibutes served as signs of divine favor but fulfilled different functions in the religious life of the community. The account of Theophilus the Indian contains numerous details that illustrate the complementary qualities of exceptional virtue and wonder wor king that set these bishop s apart as divinely approved 33 a prominent role in the Eunomian community and enjoyed some degree of success within the church court circle of Constantius. 34 According to Philostorgius, Theophilus did not to the highest degree of virtue and his beliefs in accordance with orthodoxy, choosing to 35 These virtues of asceticism and Eunomia apart and prepared him for the leadership role he would fulfill later in life. Philostorgius also emphasizes that Theophilus received consecration as a deacon from Eusebius of 36 Eusebius of Nicomedia was 31 Philostorgius, 5.2. 32 The lines were not clearly drawn; there was clearly a distinction between rhetoricians and the wonder workers, but Ae tius, for example, performed miracles. 33 For much more on Theophilus see Chapter 4. 34 Passages on Theophilus in Philostorgius, 3.4 6, 3.15; 4.1, 4.7 8; 5.4; 8.2; 9.18. Gregory of Nyssa also mentions Theophilus as the one who introduced Aetius to Gallus. He also incorrectly refers to him as a member of the tribe of the Blemmyes. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 1. 47. Also, Theodoret mentions a Theophilus who refused to condemn Aetius at the Council of Constantinople of 360, Theodoret, 2.28.3. 35 Philosto rgius, 3.4. 36 Philostorgius, 1.8a, 1.9b.
135 signals his orthodoxy and piety On the Cooperation between Bishops and Emperors Beginning with the reign of Constantine, Philostorgius depicts emperors and bishops cooperating with each other. This does not mean that he always presents either the emperor or the bishops taking the lead in matters of the faith; this seems to vary with the circumstances. But he certainly assumes that both em perors and bishops will and ought to lead together in ecclesiastical affairs. Thus, when Emperor Constantine summons the bishops to Nicaea, he is acting in accordance with his role as a good Christian emperor. 37 While Constantine exemplifies his divinely a pproved role as a Christian leader in convoking this council, he also displays restraint as he waits for the bishops to come to an agreement, highlighting the necessity of god approved bishops to lead the empire together with the emperor. 38 The missions of Theophilus and Ulfila represent the two most unequivocally positive representations of the cooperation between bishop and emperor. 39 Philip the empire. 40 Therefore, in a sense these missions do not pertain to the relationship between bishops and emperors within the empire. Nevertheless, these mission narratives reveal the ideal interaction between bishops and emperors. There are other 37 Philostorgius, 1.7a. 38 Philostorgius, 1.9a. For more on this council 3. 39 I will only briefly address the role of mission for the purposes of this chapter as it is the focus of Chapter 4. 40 Amidon, Philostorgius xx.
136 examples of cooperation within the emp ire, but perhaps the fact that perfect cooperation of the history of the Christian Roman Empire. e one hand, evidence suggests that Ulfila was a homoean supporter, so he was not a direct hero of the narrative. Yet Philostorgius included a very flattering and extensive p ortrayal of Ulfila in his work, while Rufinus does not even mention Ulfila in his history. 41 Philostorgius represented the emperor as sending a mission with divine blessing. While Ulfila does not convert anyone, his relationship with the emperor and his wil lingness to go are prominent features of the account. For Philostorgius, Ulfila serves as the perfect example of a good bishop whose leadership qualities are valuable to the emperor. He serves as a leader of refugees, he takes care of them in the territory of the empire, he uses his skills as a scholar to civilize barbarians, and he provides a diplomatic service to the emperor. 42 The narrative presents a positive relationship of mutual reliance between the bishop and the emperor. While the emperor clearly po ssesses the authority to qualities to fulfill his own imperial objectives. further reveals 41 Philostorgius, 2.5; See Chapter 4 for a more extensive discussion of mission in Philostorgius and Rufinus. 42 Philostorgius, 2.5.
13 7 and emperors 43 He relates that Constantius appointed Theophilus to head an embassy to the Himyarites, the bishop performed numerous miracles, the king converted, and the 44 in this mission or the political and diplomatic concerns at stake. Rather the two elements of the triumph of true Christianity and the imperial goals complement each other. It is a ma and honored him by appointing him to this mission. On the other hand, Constantius, despite his sumptuous display of wealth and power, cannot achieve the conversion of the Ki ng of Himyar without the wonders worked by Theophilus. Philostorgius twice the subsequent construction of churches. 45 the bi working, and right belief. The imperial sponsorship of the mission only further defines Theophilus as a man of God because he has influence and recognition with the emperor himself. Simultaneously, the mission which converted a foreign ruler to Christianity and also allowed the emperor to prote ct champion of Nicaea, Athanasius, from Alexandria. Thus, the mission to Himyar presen ts 43 See Shahid, 87 93, for a discussion of the uncertain nature o f the other sources describing Christianity in South Arabia, including the stories of Bartholomew and Pantaenus. 44 Philostorgius, 3.4. 45 Philostorgius, 3.4, 3.4a, 3.4b.
138 between bishops and emperors as well as his Examples of cooperation within the Empire also feature in the Ecclesiastical History Just as Theophilus coll aborates with the emperor during his mission, the bishop also does so inside the empire. In addition to his virtues of holiness and wonder imperial court affirming that Th 46 In this passage, Philostorgius points to the recurring theme of imperial recognition of the virtue of bishops, which all the members of the religious community recognized. Philostorgius highlights that imperial greater than words can describe; 47 Indeed his apostolic status is confirmed by his ability to bring a Jewish woman back to life in Antioch. 48 working, and apostolic authority with imperial their virtues in the public arena, especially on the stage of imperial politics. The righteousness of their involvement with the imperial court was evident every time God worked a miracle through suc h men as Theophilus. Again, Philostorgius presents the 46 Philostorgius, 3.6. 47 Philostorgius, 3.6a. 48 Philostorgius, 3.6a.
139 a limitation of his authority. While the emperor clearly benefits from this relationship, the cooperation between the two does not last within the borders of the empire. Another example of imperial cooperation with bishops is an odd one as it concerns the Nicene bishop Athanasius and the resumption of his see. The episode occurs at a time when Athanasius is exiled in the west. He obtains the help of Constans, who writes a letter to Constantius asking for Athanasius to be restored to his rightful see and noting the threat of civil war if Constantius does not oblige. Philostorgius then writes had received the letter, called together the bishops to hear their advice and was told by them that it was better to avoid war with his brother than to 49 What does this episode mean? Philostorgius strongly disl ikes Athanasius, yet in this episode he seems to imply that Constantius acted rightly in allowing him to return, given the advice of the bishops and the alternative. At the same time, this action led to Athanasius being even more arrogant and destructive t han before. Clearly Constantius was trying to do the right thing but was no match for bishops like Athanasius. This episode reveals the ambiguity and The Challenge of Cooperation: The Case of Caesar Gallus Similarly complex is the case of the Caesar Gallus, cousin of Constantius and brother. Gallus plays a prominent and positive role in and Christian historians. 50 Philostorgius presents Gallus in a favorable light, extolling 49 Philostorgius, 3. 12. 50 Although Gallus only achieved the status of caesar, Philostorgius presents him as an imperial figure in the History
140 him for his consistency in matters of the faith and his support of Aetius. 51 But, his large role in the history does not correspond to his actual minor role in imperial politics. between emperors and bishops. cooperation with godly bishops, yet simultaneously laments his tragic death. The relationship between Gallus and Theophilus serves as an example of positive listening to bad advice lead to tragic events that cann ot be stopped even by the intercession of godly bishops. Thus, the story of Gallus on the one hand points to the ideal relationship between bishop and emperor, yet also reveals the flaws in leadership of the Roman Empire. Additionally, his death functions as an explanation for the reign of Constantius. of the reasons for his downfall. 52 Helmut Leppin positive characterization of Gallus in the history, astutely observing that Gallus is the only emperor in the history to remain true to his beliefs 53 He has also noticed how Philostorgius uses stories of emperors rec eiving bad advice to excuse the bad decisions of otherwise good emperors. However, these accounts not only throw light on cooperation with godly leaders. Philostorgius show ed that if emperors listened to advice 51 Philostorgius, 3.27 111 124. 52 Philostorgius, 3.27, 3.28, 4.1. 53 119.
141 from godly bishops God showed signs of his approval, but if they did not pay attention to the divine will, negative consequences would follow even for such favorites as Constantius and Gallus. The actions of Consta ntius during the events surrounding the Caesar Gallus demonstrate the risk of emperors rejecting the influence of divinely inspired bishops in the sphere of the imperial court. Simultaneously, the story of Gallus illustrates erial right belief and the perils of bad advice. Facing war on two fronts, Constantius appointed his cousin Gallus as Caesar in 351 and gave him his own sister Constantia as a wife. 54 of the heteroousian factio n, Aetius rule. Philostorgius relates that initially Gallus was misinformed about Aetius by enemy bishops and even ordered the man to be tortured. In the History Gallus did so because 55 This explanatory phrase shows that on the one hand Philostorgius expects and Yet on the other hand, even godly rulers such as Gallus can fall victim to anger and the advice of b ad bishops. This points to the importance of collaboration with godly bishops who can be recognize d by their virtue and wondrous works. Once Gallus was correctly informed about Aetius he spared him and then even had a special meeting with him. Theophilus t he Indian introduced Aetius to Gallus and the Caesar was impressed with the Christian leader. He was s o impress ed, in fact, that he appointed Aetius as a to Julian in hopes of preventing his brother 54 Philostorgius, 3.25, 3.26a. 55 Philostorgius, 3.27.
142 from falling in to apostasy. 56 Thus, Gallus benefited from the counsel of both Theophilus and Aetius and his piety in this regard benefited the whole empire: he was courageous and victorious against the Persians. 57 pproved of the killing of two imperial officials at the instigation of his wife Constantia. Constantius did not view this act as a legitimate use of the authority he had conferred upon Gallus and thus, first exiled him and then had him executed. Theophilus Philostorgius relates that the bishop traveled with Gallus on a journey to placate the emperor and even successfully interceded on the c had sent a general to enact the banishment. 58 Theoph lived, however, as Constantius recognized that the bishop was hindering him from properly punishing Gallus. So, Constantius exiled Theophilus. Yet despite erratic treatment at the hands of Emperor Constantius, his pres ence at the side of the c aesar signals that the bishop participated in important events for the history of both the Empire and the Eunomian faith. Philostorgius also indicates that Theophilus w as instrumental in the development es. Theophilus introduces Aetius to Gallus, as he witnesses and mediates the initial oaths between the Caesar and Constantius. The bishop had the power and ability to promote the virtues of friendship and good faith. Furthermore, he embodied those virtues, behalf even though the situation clearly portended to end with an expression of 56 Philostorgius, 3.27. 57 Philostorgius, 3.28. 58 Philostorgius, 4.1.
143 contentious politics of Co actions, for he survived his exile. Philostorgius places Theophilus right in the middle of conciliatory and wonde r and influence on both Gallus and Constantius, the advice of wicked men leads to the execution of Gallus. Constantius even gave a last minute order for a stay of execution, nemies at court prevented the order from reaching the executioner on time. Bishops and Emperors in Conflict Overall, tensions between bishops and emperors predominate in the epitome of the history over examples of mutual cooperation. Emperors and bishops l ive in a relationship of mutual distrust. While emperors hold a monopoly on power and frequently exile non compliant bishops, bishops simultaneously act independently and accomplish this independent activity by regularly duping the emperor. Stories of such interaction leave the impression of a constant back and forth struggle, a dramatic inversion of the harmonious relationship described above. While the events in the lives of Constantius and Theophilus communicate to the reader that both enjoyed divine fa vor, the tumultuous nature of ecclesiastical politics show the respective strengths and weaknesses of bishops and emperors as well as their need to rely on each other. They also demonstrate the tragic consequences of abandoning right belief and injuring th ose whom God has clearly marked as special representatives of His will. In the history, Constantius frequently calls councils and
144 repeatedly exiles, recalls, approves, and appoints bishops. 59 These instances establish his strength and independence in the re lationship between bishops and emperors. Yet Philostorgius also reveals his assumption about the weakness of the emperor in these interactions between imperial and ecclesiastical authority by showing how bishops manipulate emperors on a regular basis. Eith er the emperor was convinced by bishops to act in a certain way or was blatantly tricked into it. There are numerous passages in Philostorgius where bishops or other ecclesiastical fig ures seem to act completely ind epend en tly because there is no mention of the empire or the imperial court. 60 However, t here does not appear to be one type of activity in which they regularly engage by themselves and a nother type of activity in which they cooperate with the emperor. All of the seemingly independent actions of th e bishops have parallels in situations when the bishops act cooperatively with the emperor -deposing other bishops, arguing with each other, and ordaining bishops So, it is safe to assume that all of these passages recounting episcopal activity independen t of the emperor can be read in the context of possible imperial intervention. History includes an extensive section on Eunomian ordinations and division of responsibilities. It has been interpreted as the description of the actual creation of a separate Eunomian e piscopal hierarchy. 61 This can be seen as a statement of the separation of the Eunomian church not only from the existing church 59 For example, Constantius exiles Athanasius and appoints a non Nicene bishop to replace him, Philostorgius, 3.3, 4. 3. 60 See, for example, Philostorgius, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18. 61 Philostorgius, 8.2; Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus 278 436 439.
145 hierarchy but from the state. 62 If one reads the history as a whole however, it is clear that Philostor gius did not see bishops and emperors succeeding support. These Eunomian bishops who were ordaining bishops outside of the imperially supported ecclesial hierarchy, according to P hil o s torgius, were anticipating a time of greater imperi al support. Moreover, this passage highlights the separation of the Eunomian bishops from other homoean bishops, rather than from the imperial court. the Eunomian bishops independence and shows how they were providing good Christian leadership for the empire. Based on this passage, Peter Van N uffelen has argued that the bishops wanted institutional purity to be rid of members with suspect theology. Nevertheless, Philostorgi connection to the imperial court. Additionally, Van Nuffelen rightly focuses on the fact that Eunomius and Aetius exercise a high degree of centralized authority in their ordination and appointment of bishops poin maintain orthodox purity. 63 This passage also highlights the two types of Christian leaders that were part of the Empire, as it mentions the distinction between eloquence and virtuous lives. 64 It is difficult to sep arate out which bishops were known primarily for their learning and which ones for their miracle working virtue, but Photius clearly places 62 It is difficult to characterize the existing church hierarchy given the existence of Nic ene, homoean, and Eunomian factions 438. 63 439. He also argues that neither Aetius nor Eunomius perceived themselves to be part of the episcopacy at this point and therefo re the community had elected to place ecclesiastical authority outside of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. As both Aetius and Eunomius had themselves. While Van History presents Aetius and Eunomius as perfect Christian leaders alongside other bishops, such as Theophilus the Indian. 64 Philostorgius, 8.2.
146 Eunomius and Aetius into the former category. tires of heaping praise upon all of these, proclaiming their eloquence and extolling their 65 Presumably, the extensive praise that P hotius writes about reveals the bishops and what made them worthy of imperial attention. Consi dering that these bishops were supposed to be men of exceptional virtue, Philostorgius recounts a surprising number of instances of episcopal deception S eemingly o ne of the favorite tactics of bishops was to subscribe to what they did not believe in order to manipulate the emperor. 66 Philostorgius recounts that God displayed his displeasure through an earthquake for the anti Nicene bishops who falsely subscribed the Creed of Nicaea. 67 While divine wrath seems like a logical consequence aith the subsequent bizarre details of this account reveal much about the relationship between bishops and emperors. After the earthquake, the bishops repent and then confess their deception to the pro Nicene emperor. Emperor Constantine exiles them for t heir initial dishonesty. The fact that Philostorgius chose to relate a story wherein the bishops felt like they needed to make a public admission of their guilt to the emperor while risking punishment shows that good Christian leadership in accordance with 65 Philostorgius, 8.2. 66 For example, see the signers of of the subscribers to the creed of Ariminum soon repudiated it (Philostorgius, 5.1). An d finally, note the famous subscribers with careless handwriting at the Council of Nicaea (Philostorgius, 1.9c). 67 Philostorgius, 1.9, 2.1, 2.1a, 2.1b. For more on the Arian controversy, see Chapter 3.
147 involvement even if it results in the exile of such good bishops as Eusebius of Nicomedia was an appropriate outco me to a story that is really about the triumph of Other narratives of bishops tricking each other and emperors highlight the role of unorthodox bishops and the negative consequences of emperors listening to bad bishops. Oddly, Phil Constantius presents the emperor in a positive light, as the historian approved of emperors who listened to episcopal counsel The story also functions to remove some of the blame from the emperor ; his gui lt is at least partly diminished because he is prey to bad counsel. However, these numerous episodes inevitably raise questions about the repeatedly tricked on numerous occasions 68 For example, anti Eunomian bishops bring f alse but damning accusations against Eunomian leaders and Constantius falls for the deception Specifically, the homoiousian bishop Basil of Ancyra convinces Constantius that Aetius, Eudoxius, and Not on ly does Philostorgius state that the emperor was duped, but that Basil was able to deceive him the women 69 As a result the emperor banished several bishops and others handed over to the authority of those who had accused them. 70 This suggests that bishops had the authority to deal with their opponents as they saw fit which they 68 As discussed above, sometimes the lying is a tragic matter of life and death as in the example of Gallus (Philostorgius, 4.1). 69 Philostorgius, 4.8. See additional section below on the special category of the influence of women. 70 Philostorgius, 4.8.
148 exercised in this case by exiling opposing bishops. 71 Other bishops attempt to petition Constantius and tell him the truth, but Basil intercepts Eunomiu s while he is on his way to see the emperor and exiles him. Thus, there are very serious consequences when bishops lie and the emperor believes them. Frequently, the machinations of bishops were even more elaborate. For example, a fter their success in eli minating the Eunomian bishops from the scene, Basil of Ancyra and his fellow bishops held a disputation in front of the emperor in which they presented a theological pronouncement that described the relationship between the father and son as similar, but a voided any mention of substance. 72 Thus they promulgated a creed acceptable to Emperor Constantius but phrased it in such a way that it concealed their true purpose of reaffirming the consubstantialist doctrine. The creed originally promulgated at this con ference had the force of conciliar decree and imperial approval and hence bolstered their authority. O nce they had accomplished this feat of deception Philostorgius claims they traveled around with this authority to promote the consubstantialist doctrine 73 Thus, their deceitful intervention fooled the emperor, other bishops, and lay people In fact, in addition to the emperor, Philostorgius frequently presents bishops as lying to and coercing other bishops and believers. In this case, Basil and company tr aveled around persuading other simultaneously exiling any intractable bishops 74 Thus, bishops appear to be acting independently but their dependence on 71 Philostorgius, 4.8. 72 Philostorgius, 4.8. 73 Philosto rgius, 4.9. 74 Philostorgius, 4.9.
149 the emperor is evident in their need to trick him. This is a distorted version of the appropriate cooperation between bishop and emperor which Philostorgius elsewhere presents as an ideal 75 Thus, even the ostensibl y independent activity of bishops exists within the context o f imper ial cooperation. The consequences of deceitful activities reveal once again Phi l ly, such episodes point to the importance of recognizing godly bishops and paying attention to divine signs. Eventually, other bishops traveled to Constantius and informed him that Basil and his party had been promoting the consubstantialist doctrine when they had just led him to believe that they upheld the opposite. Some time had already passed before the deception, and he 76 To be sure, Constantius comes across in this episode as easily manipula ted and woefully ignorant of affairs in his own empire. Yet the passage also presents Constantius as piously and justifiably concerned about such matters. Philostorgius believes that it is right for the emperor to stay involved in matters of the church, ev en though he may make bad decisions based on bad advice. In fact, once he had learned of the deception, the emperor s response to the crisis was to return the exiles and call another two councils one in the west and one in the east 77 75 As seen in the preceding section on cooperation, especially in the mission accounts, Philostorgius, 2.5, 3.4. 76 Philostorgius, 4.9. 77 Philostorgius, 4.10.
150 Events surrounding t hese two councils emphasize that God makes his will perfectly clear A n earthquake prevents the first council in Nicomedia, Philostorgius maintains, because almost everyone connected with it was a consubstantialist, and therefore it was not representative. 78 Of course the council reconvened in another location, but Basil again managed to manipulate the proceedings and divide the council. 79 Philostorgius shows that God does send sign s and distinguishes between orthodox men of God and legitimate and illegitimat e council proceedings. Thus, he to every place. 80 Phil ostorgius is clearly maki ng a distinction between proper and improper proceedings. Basil contrived the meeting, he focused on deposing his opponents, met separately with his own party and ordained a bishop Eunomius and his followers by contrast, did not behave in such an irregul ar manner. 81 Constantius part. hen the emperor learned what had happened... Philostorgius writes, suggesting that t he emperor does not know what is happening in his own emp ire. 82 The emperor was ill informed but his response to the problem is the same 78 Philostorgius, 4.10, 4.11. 79 Philostorgius, 4.11. 80 Philostorgi us, 4.11. 81 Philostorgius, 4.10. Philostorgius also represents the second council that met in the west in Ariminum as less representative (300, rather than 400) as it professed the son to be like the father and outlawed the use of the term ousia to describ e the relationship. He also states that the pressure of the lying bishop Acacius pushed heteroousian bishops to subscribe to it (Philostorgius, 4.12). Both of these examples 82 Philostorgi us, 4.12.
151 H e calls a nother gathering of bishops this time in Constantinople to discuss and debate the matter. O nce again the historian assumes that it is appropriate for emperors to b e deeply involved in church affairs and for bishops to come when the emperor calls. But Philostorgius also affirms that the gatherings of bishops need to show legitimacy. Several examples of lying and conniving bishops suggest a fear of the emperor. Perha ps they serve as a statement about imperial power and responsibility, but they also argue for the need for upright bishops who would not bend to imperial pressure. Philostorgius relates that certain bishops yielded to the currents of the times and put the 83 In this instance he is not just ranting against his opponents but decrying former supporters of Aetius who could not see the truth or display good leadership. Given that the emperor so readily exiled opponents and dissenters, it makes sense that bishops would fear taking a stand against the theological fashion of the day; but Philostorgius laments their weakness and untruthfulness. Oftentimes, the emperor exiled bishops for being untruthful. 84 We have already seen how Constantine exiled the anti Nicene bishops who had pretended to subscribe to Nicaea. The emperor then (according to Philostorgius) adopted an anti Nicene position. 85 This leads to the remarkable situation wherein Alexander of Alexand ria subscribes to an anti Nicene creed to avoid exile while the other anti Alexander recants his subscription. 86 Thus, Philostorgius paints a picture of bishops on 83 Philostorgius, 5.1. 84 Philostorgius, 5.1, 2.1. Also for contradicting themselves, as happened to Aetius, 5.1. 85 Philostorgius, 2.1. 86 Philostorgius, 2.1.
152 both side s of the debate subscribing to statements they do not believe because of fear of the emperor. By their behavior they risked either imperial wrath for their lying later or immediate repercussions for wrong belief. Once again, these accounts of fear of the e mperor are an inversion of the appropriate relationship between bishop and emperor. Emperors and bishops may both err, but it is the duty of both to pay attention to divine signs. Unfortunately, instead, bishops and emperors are constantly duping and exili ng each other. 87 Despite all of the setbacks associated with conniving bishops, Eunomian bishops maintained their church structure over a period of time and Eunomius still single handedly appointed bishops. 88 Matters changed for the worse for the Eunomians w hen Theodosius became emperor. He exiled all Eunomian Christians from Constantinople. Philostorgius does not hide his opinion of Theodosius as an emperor. 89 His account Eu Theodosius failed to pay attention to these divine signs, failed to see the signs of righteousness in Eunomius, and therefore failed in his role as a Christian emperor. 90 His fa ilure is tragic according to Philostorgius not only for the emperor as an individual, but also for the empire as a whole. The historian does largely end his account of ecclesiastical affairs after this point in the history, but he never stops describing the 87 There are many more examples of this kind of activity of bishops tricking each other or emperors (Philostorgius, 5.1, 6.4, 9.8, 9.11). 88 Philostorgius, 9.18. 89 Philostorgius, 9.19. 90 Philostorgius, 10.9.
153 cosmic battle between good and evil that is at the heart of his history. The numerous divine omens and imperial secular affairs function to reveal the story of the Christian Roman Empire, just as much as did the stories of the bishops. Thus, Philostorg ius does not switch focus because he is resigned or interested only in his own sect, as Marasco argues, but rather because the location of the battles of the war that had always been there had shifted. The Role of Women Women play a distinctive role in th is relationship between bishops and emperors and in the history as a whole. While it is clear that women frequently appear during crucial negotiations between bishops and emperors, their precise function in the narrative remains unclear. Constantius wrongl y exiles bishops, Philostorgius explains, 91 On the one hand, this is clearly a negative statement about women being easily misguided by the bishops, ultimately resulting in the empero r being led astray. But it is also a statement revealing that women had a great deal of influence over the emperor. An examination of other instances of women involved in imperial and ecclesiastical affairs does not provide one simple answer. 92 The incredib ly multi layered story of the bishops who secretly subscribed the wrong statement at the Council of Nicaea also includes the influence of women. The sister, convinced them to do so. She was sympathetic to Arianism and apparently did 91 Philostorgius, 4.8. 92 History his mother, He lena. But these examples are outside the scope of the relationship between emperors and bishops.
154 not want them exiled, so she counseled them to lie. 93 Is Philostorgius using the one should not listen to wom incorrect, as the bishops suffer a supernatural earthquake as a result. Finally, the example again points to the close connection between bishops and the imperial court. Another imperial woman, Constanti a, was the sister of Constantius and Constans, a widow of Hannibalianus, and had been crowned Augusta by Constantine. She was later married to Gallus. Apparently she acted on her own authority, as she appointed the general Vetranio as Caesar during the usu rpation of Magnentius, and Constantius approved her action and confirmed it. 94 Her role in the story of Gallus is imperial officials. Yet she also travels ahead of Gall us to intercede on his behalf before Constantius, but she is unable to accomplish this task as she dies on the way. Listening to her does not end well for Gallus, and perhaps signals that both the Augusta and the caesar should have instead listened to good bishops. contributing to Constantius being led astray by Basil and his followers. She apparently the exiled Theophilus recalled because he was the only one who could miraculously 93 Philostorgius 12, n. 20. 94 Philostorgius, 3.22.
155 heal her. The emperor apologized to Theophilus, and the bishop cured Eusebia. 95 The relat ionship between Constantius and Theophilus was restored. Excepting this example, bishops and emperors. Julian the Apostate Julian is a problematic figure for the assessmen of church and state, because he is a pagan emperor. 96 He does, however, function in the narrative similarly to the other bad emperors, like Theodosius. Yet Philostorgius clearly presents Julian in a negative light, whereas even Theodosius possesses divine blessings. 97 behavior. 98 On the other hand, Julian had a positive relationship with Aetius and recalled him from exile, which was important and beneficial f or the Eunomian 99 Julian recalled other bishops who had been exiled for ecclesiastical reasons, but he also had a personal relationship with Aetius. 100 Moreover, Julian hated Athanasius. 101 Together, all of these contra dictory aspects of 95 Philostorgius, 4.7. Eusebia appears again much later in the History in an entry in the Suda on Leontius of Tripoli. The story concludes with a statement from Leontius to Constantius which is as close to a programmatic statement on church and state relation as any in the history (Philostorgius, 7.6a). See discussion in section below. 96 97 98 See section below. 99 Philostorgiu s, 7.5; Amidon, Philostorgius 95, n. 28. 100 Philostorgius, 6.7; Amidon, Philostorgius xxii; 83, n. 16; 95, n. 28. 101 Amidon, Philostorgius 83 84, n. 16.
156 bad as Amidon suggests when he affirms that there is no indicatio n what Philostorgius thought of Julian. 102 dealt with the paradoxical policies of this new Alexander is som 103 numerous indications of what he thought of Julian and his relationship with bishops. Julian himself definitely did not see any contradiction in being heavily involved in pre persecution that lead to widespread distress. Julian persecutes Christians mercilessly, and miracles reveal the error of his promotion of paganism. The battle is fought through contests over sacred spaces and other physical manifestations such as shrines, relics, and statues. 104 In the meantime, the Eunomian community continues much in the same way that it has been operating before. Philostorgius shows that his co religionists continued to contend with unrighteous bishops, but now had no emperor with whom to cooperate. Philostorgius demonstrates that even Julian received great grace from God in the form of his relationship with Aetius. Oddly, Philostorgius also seems to imply that credit to Aetius, because it shows his greatness that even a pagan emperor could recognize. Amidon suggests that 102 Amidon, Philostorgius 83 84, n. 16. 103 Amidon, Philostorgius 84, n. 16. 104 See Chapter 7 for more o n these omens and the reign of Julian.
157 exile as a sign, potentially in favor of Julian. 105 It see ms unlikely, however, that Philostorgius perceived this recall as a special event for the Eunomian community as they had witnessed both the exiling and recalling of bishops under every other emperor. The Deaths of Emperors God shows his will through cauti onary deaths on numerous occasions in narrative, but differ as they do not inflict public but rather individual harm. Philostorgius relates that George of Alexandria was ki lled by an angry mob at the exact moment when he was trying to force other bishops to sign a condemnation of Aetius. 106 These disapproval and provide clues to the histo very lives and deaths of emperors are signs from God. In the end, even though God gives Constantine a lot of grace, the emperor fails to make the right choices. Falling for the machinations of Alexander of Ale xandria, he supports the creed of Nicaea and banishes Arius. 107 Consequently, his family life follows his son Crispus is a retelling of the tale of Phaedra, Theseus, and Hippolytus, complete with lurid details. 108 And finally Constantine himself meets a tragic end, when he is 105 Amidon, Philostorgius xxii. 106 Philostorgius, 7.2. 107 Philostorgius, 1.9a. See Chapter 3 for details on the Arian controversy. 108 Philostorgius, 2.4, 2.4a.
158 poisoned by his own brothers. 109 Philostorgius makes his sentiment on the ultimate nt with the worship of a statue of Constantine after his death. 110 He claims that the Christians were column,... paying homage to it with lamp lighting and incense or praying to i t as to a 111 He lists the offerings to emphasize the parallel with pagan polytheism. The emperor received numerous positive divine signs, but chose to ignore them and incurred the full measure of d ivine displeasure. Philostorgius similarly assesses the fate of Constans, whom he describes as 112 Philostorgius his life in the 113 perspective, there could be no doubt of support for the fervently pro olent death at the hand of assassins. And again, even though God showed Constantius much grace by providing him with guidance from such virtuous bishops as Theophilus, the emperor turned away from God and met his ruin. Basil and his fellow conniving bishop s convinced the emperor to 109 Philostorgius, 2.16, 2.16a. 110 Philostorgius, 2.17. 111 Philo storgius, 2.17. 112 Philostorgius, 3.22a 26a. 113 Philostorgius, 3.22.
159 exile Aetius and depose him from the diaconate. 114 imperial success and his bad ecclesiastical policy. He claims that, usually was victorious in war, he suffered defeat in battle with the Persians because he had defiled his right hand with the blood of his own kin and had let himself be 115 Constantius then died on his way to suppress the usurpation of Julian, whose rise to party. 116 Describing Philostorgius intertwines the imperial iss ue of While Constantius was weighing these matters [the most recent false his way at once to Constantinople, at the same time calling a council to he reached the place called Mopsucrenae, he fell ill, and then, having received baptism from Euzoius, he departed from life and realm together, and from the co uncils that had promoted heresy. It is not surprising that Philostorgius believed that emperors who abandon Eunomians fall into apostasy and ruin. But his striking emphasis on events and the lives of individuals linked with his assumptions about the appropriate interconnected relationship between bishops and emperors demonstrates most clearly the potential of emperors to effectively support the c hurch, while also pointing to the dangers of failing to cooperate with godly bishops. 114 Philostorgius, 4.12. 115 Philostorgius, 5.4. The family reference is to Gallus. 116 Philostorgius, 6.5.
160 Philostorgius demonstrates that God clearly expressed his will and granted Constantius numerous chances. For example, when Constantius received a report that to Amblada, where he could end his life in misery because of its barbarous and y his intercession with God, broke the intolerable drought and plague gripping the region, as our heretic 117 Clearly, Constantius should have paid be tter attention to the signs. And finally, of course, the famous death of Julian shows that Philostorgius grants Julian the remarkable grace of a personal relationship with the great Aetius himself, it does not save Julian from the consequences of following the pagan gods. In the story his death is a culmination of miraculous signs, deaths, and portents. God made his will perfectly clear when it came to the reign of Juli an. The ensuing disaster was localized to Julian and his supporters unlike the negative consequences of the reign of Theodosius. The historian recounts that during an ambush in a Persian campaign a Saracen spear pierced Julian. He mentions the version of t he story that claimed his own men were responsible, but discounts it. 118 Philostorgius clearly states that the reason Julian went on this disastrous campaign in the first place was because d be 117 Philostorgius, 5.2. 118 Philostorgius, 7.15.
161 119 Thus, it makes sense that he would rail at the gods in his final hour. the blood from his wound in his hands and flung it toward the sun, saying clearl y to it, 120 death revealed the false nature of the gods and the dangers of trusting the polytheistic pantheon. Photius records that Philostorgius believed that Julian cu rsed the gods, while words, it seems that Philostorgius was aware of these other versions as well, for the passage describing the versions of other historians are marke d in the critical edition as appearing in several fragments of the ecclesiastical history. 121 According to Philostorgius, then, Julian knew he had put his trust in gods who had failed him, so his curse revealed their powerlessness rather than his anger at th e Christian God. Theories of Church and State without consideration of two explicit programmatic statements on church and state in his History Neither of the relevant passage s appears in the epitome of Photius, but rather in separate fragments -one from the tenth century Byzantine encyclopedia Suda and one from the pre ninth century Artemii Passio (an account of the legendary martyrdom of Artemius under the emperor Julian). 122 Both statements occur in the form of stories, 119 Philostorgius, 7.15. 120 Philostorgius, 7. 15. 121 Philostorgius, 7.15; Amidon, Philostorgius xxv. 122 Suda, 254, Leontius; Artemii Passio in From Constantine to Julian 224 256.
162 which must be set in their context both within these fragments and within the narrative History in order to assess their possible significance. The first passage occurs in an entry from the S uda describing the interactions of Bishop Leontius of Tripolis with Emperor Constantius and his wife Eusebia. 123 The writer of the entry remarks that Philostorgius associated the bishop with other heteroousians; thus, the editor of the Ecclesiastical History Bidez, placed this fragment mention of Leontius. 124 minded Philostorgius associates himself in his book with this Leontius as a 125 This is the only sentence in the fragment that one can be certain contains content from History It is possible that the writer continued to quote from Philostorgius after that sentence, though he more like ly moved on to another source. 126 Nevertheless, it is worth examining. Before relating the events concerning Eusebia and that the bishop had one son who from a young age d id not show any promise of having a good character. Leontius prayerfully decided to have him killed while he was still treacherous pitfalls before he committed some 127 This account sets 123 Philostorgius, 7.6a. 124 Philostorgius, 7.6. 125 Philostorgius, 7.6a. 126 A number of factors point to the remainder of the entry on Leontius not following Philostorgius. It varies in tone from the epitome. It is chronologically out of place Philostorgius mentions Leontius during the reign of Julian, but the Suda story is about the reign of Constantius. 127 Philostorgius, 7.6a.
163 According to the narrative, Bishop Leontius was the only one who stayed at home from 128 Eusebia did not take kindly to such treatment, complained to the bishop and attempted to compel him to visit her with the promise of building him a great church. Leontius responded that if t he empress wanted to build a church it would benefit her soul, but if she wanted a visit from him she would have to meet certain conditions. The bishop instructed her as follows: But if you wished to receive a visit in a way that would maintain the respect due to bishops, then when I entered, you would come down at once from your lofty throne, advance to meet me respectfully, bow your head to my hands, and request my blessings. Then I myself would again be seated while you remained standing out of respect; you would be seated when I bade you by giving the signal. If you agreed to this, I would pay you a visit. Otherwise, you could not give gifts so many or so great that we would transgress the sacred law of the priesthood by surrendering the honor due to bis hops. 129 Eusebia was predictably angered by such a reply and complained to her separation of imperial and ecclesiastical matters, but for the subordination of earthly authority to holy authority. Additionally, the story on the one hand reinforces the previous statements abo ut the inability of anyone (except Theophilus) to cure her or 128 Philostorgius, 7.6a. 129 Philostorgius, 7.6a.
164 after the conclusion to this story, the text launches into an account of a direct conflict between Consta ntius and Leontius which should be read in the context of the preceding passage about Eusebia. Continuing the entry on Leontius, the writer of the Suda relates that Constantius he 130 All the other bishops supported and find y ou taking charge of matters other than those for which you were appointed; you are to manage military and civil affairs, and here you are issuing orders to bishops 131 Constantius immediately ceased trying to authority stands out as uncharacteristic of the overall picture Philostorgius presents of the relati onship between bishops and emperors. As we have seen in other passages of the History affairs, both in the appointments or depositions of bishops and in the calling of councils and promotion of orthodoxy. Another explicit statement on the separation of church and state is found in the narrative about the church policy of Valentinian. 132 It does not occur in the epitome by 130 Philostorgius, 7.6a. 131 Philostorgius, 7.6a. 132 Philostorgius, 8 .8a. The text is corrupt after the imperial quote, which makes it very difficult to make conclusions about this passage. But the quote itself is l ikely to come from Philostorgius as Sozomen includes a very similar one (Sozomen, 6.7.1 10).
165 Photius, but only in a fragment from the Artemii Passio The w riter relates that soon asked the emperor to call a council. It is unclear who the orthodox bishops are; if the passage is quoting Philostorgius, then they are Eunomians, but the text may be from a the world, while to you the churches. I therefore have nothing to do with the latter. Hold 133 This account is really about the ecclesiastical policy of Valentinian, who was known to prefer to let church matters sort themselves 134 Additionally, the text is corrupt so it is unclear whether or not Valent inian is dealing with Nicene or non Nicene bishops and which parts come from Philostorgius. 135 Consequently, these two statements advocating the separation of episcopal and imperial authority one from a bishop, the other from an emperor stand out from Philos context of the numerous other accounts depicting cooperation between bishops and emperors. Perhaps Philostorgius did not see a contradiction. But it is interesting to note th at the only two such statements in the history occur in fragments that are not in the epitome. Although the emphasis on separate realms for church and state in these two passages are peculiar in the History the interactions between Bishop Leontius and Emp eror Constantius and between Emperor Valentinian and the bishops both accord 133 Philostorgius, 8.8a. 134 Amidon, 116, n. 23; Ambrose, Ep 75 2, 5; Sozomen, 6.7.1 10. 135 Philostorgius, 8.8a; Amidon, Philostorgius 116
166 bishops. Whether leaders are deemed good or bad, t hroughout the History Philostorgius consis tently demonstrates that the signs of divine favor and displeasure are clear ly visible. His conviction that God makes himself perfectly clear was central to his understanding of history. He not only included traditional omens such as celestial objects or e arthquakes, but even the very lives of emperors and bishops were portentous. By pointing out that certain emperors received explicit signs of divine grace and blessing, the historian showed that these emperors were on the right track in their role as Chris tian rulers. Alternatively, numerous negative signs in the lives of bishops and emperors pointed to divine discontent. history show that he believed they should be actively involved in affairs of the church, heed consequences if the emperor failed to follow the example and counsel of god inspired bishops and instead followed the lies of heretics. In contrast to several modern inter purposefully advocating for his particular memory of the past and interpretation of the present. Additionally, a careful study of his representation of emperors and bishops shows that he did not simply support imperial intervention when it was advantageous to Eunomians. Rather his History reveals a distinctive theology of history and a complex view of the interaction between religious and imperial authority.
167 CHAPTER 6 PAGANS, B CONTEXT OF EMPIRE Filled with accounts of pagans, barbarians, and Jews, Phil o storgius 's History century writer in the Christi an Roman Empire. I acknowledge that the use of the terms pagans representation. Also, these categories overlap in some cases 1 This chapter will explore focusing on his distinctions between barbarians and pagans and their roles in the narrative. Specifically, it will focus on how barbarians, pagans, and Jews fit into his understanding of the Roman Empire and the earth. Overall, the Ecclesiastical History shows that unfolding of a divine plan for the e mpire. These barbarians played key political roles, function ed as the rhetor beyond the boundar ies of the e mpire, and served as instruments of war in the divine plan for the e mpire. Barbarians Philostorgius mentions barbarians regularly throughout the history, but the majority of references occur toward the end of the narrative. In particular Books 10 12 show a definite increase in attention to barbarians This marks a shift in the focus of the History from the activities of ecclesiastical leaders to the political and military events of the empire as a whole. This shif 1 J. A. North, The Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries: Essays in Explanation ed. W. V. Harris (New York: Brill, 2005), 125 143. Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanze Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity ed. Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer (Burlington, VT: Ashgate), 1 4.
168 in the west, which stands out as other church historians do not pay much attention to events in the west. 2 Nobbs argues that the fact that he chose to include such events is a s wide ranging interests. 3 Philostorgius preferred to archaize the names of people and places, one of the several ways in which he chose to follow in the tradition of Herodotus. 4 He seemed to archaize the designation of barbarian peoples as much as possibl e. Thus, for example, he described the barbarians who entered Roman 5 people of old calle 6 Philostorgius frequently makes general statements about all barbarians, but he also shows an interest in specific people groups, naming the Scythians, Getae, Goths, Huns, Neuri, Isaurians, Himyarites, Sabaeans, Ethiopians, Indians, Mazices, and Austuriani. Finally, Philostorgius does not necessarily associate barbarians with paganism, as he can point out when the barbarian is a pagan. Other and some of the m are described as Arians in other sources. Several individual barbarians are identified as 2 The Origins of 3 She also suggests that the fact that he read Olympiodorus is part of the same tendency. Nobbs, 258, 260 262. 4 Amidon, Philostorgius 1 2, n. 1. 5 Philostorgius, 2.5. See Amidon, Philostorgius 20 n. 13 on this tendency to use classical terms as a typical feature of the age. 6 Philostorgius, 9.17. Other instances occur at 3.4, 9.17, 11.8. Numerous histori ans in late antiquity did barbarians with multiple names may have been part of the Roman tendency to list barbarian peoples for maximum rhetorical effect. R Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity ed. Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer (Burlington, VT: Ashga te, 2011), 17 32.
169 Ulfila and Theophilus and clearly possess a special status in the history and a complex identity as barbarian/Roman. sting as well as similar representations of shared characteristics with that of Rufinus, the two historians had distinct interpretations of others in relation to religi on and empire. I will focus on people Philostorgius refers to as barbarians and those who seem to be in that category from the context of the history and who might be identified as such by others in the Roman Empire in the fifth century 7 The use of barbar ians in the text can be broken down into three categories. First, the historian mentions individuals (as opposed to groups) of barbarian descent within the empire. Philostorgius shows a wide range of differentiation between various individual barbarians wh ile Rufinus seems less concerned with them in general. Second, Philostorgius and Rufinus relate stories of barbarian peoples outside the Roman Empire. These narratives are frequently labeled mission accounts and include both statements about the projection of Roman power and concerns about orthodoxy. I argue that these narratives of barbarians beyond the frontiers function as focal points for statements about the nature of orthodoxy and imperial power. Rufinus and Philostorgius both used imagined landscapes beyond the Roman Empire as appropriate spaces for contests over competing claims to true Christianity. And finally, both Philostorgius and 7 I excluded Persians from this analysis because they constitute a more complex category from the Romans, Barbarians, a nd the Transformation of the Roman World : Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity ed. Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 54 in Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World : Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity ed. Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 67 78.
170 Rufinus present barbarians as marauding hordes that function as key players in human history governed by providence. Overall, the use of barbarians in these texts not only the differences in their specific understanding of the interconnectedness of religion and empire. Two barb positive figures. The stories of Ulfila the Goth and Theophilus the Indian simultaneously demonstrate the process of individual barbarians becoming Romans and the function of mission accou nts in histories of religion and empire. O n the one hand t heir stories show that the writer did not view their origins as a barrier to the crucial role they would play in the divine plan for the empire. On the other hand, these individuals had to go throu gh a process of Romanization in order to play these critical leadership roles. While Philostorgius devotes an extensive section of his history to Ulfila, the Goth famous for converting the Goths and translating the Bible into their language 8 Rufinus does not even mention him. Does Philostorgius explicitly refer to Ulfila as a barbarian or account, Ulfila was a descendant of Cappadocians from the Roman Empire who were ca ptured during the Gothic raids of the third century. In this story, the captives are the individuals who actually convert their Gothic captors outside the territory of the Roman Empire. As their descendant, Ulfila is not only Roman, but a Cappadocian like Philostorgius himself. Additionally, the Goth clearly possesses access to Roman education as his learning and translation work are emphasized. Also, Philostorgius 8 Philostorgius, 2.5.
171 stresses that Ulfila derived his episcopal authority from his consecration by Eusebius of Nic omedia Moreover, the Gothic bishop enjoyed the blessing of the emperor himself as the orthodoxy through the bishop Eusebius and the mark of imperial approval, but he explicitly states that the Gothic bishop espoused heteroousian beliefs, which was not the c ase. 9 Philostorgius uses the story of Ulfila to make a statement about the purity of the true faith outside of the Roman Empire, but also the importance of imperial power in the promotion of this true faith. The identity of the barbarians whom Ulfila serve s as bishop is also ambiguous. They are described as refuge e s suffering persecution for their faith and as settling in the empire. These signs of right faith and Roman ness are their language, except for the books of Kings, since these contain the history of the wars and 10 Thus, although the Goths unquestionably possess right belief (while many peopl e in the empire do not), they remain barbarous. The second prominent figure of barbarian descent in the Ecclesiastical History is Theophilus the Indian. Philostorgius relates that Theophilus came to the Roman Empire as a young man as a hostage from the is land of Diva. He deliberately places Like Ulfila Theophilus is on the one hand 9 Philostorgius, 2. 5, even though Ulfila was a homoean. 10 Philostorgius, 2.5.
172 an outsider yet on the other hand he brings other outsiders into the community of the Christian Empire. Again like Ulfila he is transformed from barbarian to Roman within the living among the Romans, formed his character to the highest degree of virtue and his beliefs in accordance with orthodo 11 Theophilus acquires Roman ness through his prolonged stay in the empire, his acceptance of the correct faith, and his virtuous lifestyle. And just like Ulfila, he possesses the consecration of Eusebius of Nicomedia and t he full imperial support of Constantius who with the bishop in the flourishing of heteroousian Christianity outside the empire. Theophilus not only converts the Himyarites but journeys on to witness the flourishing of Christianity on his native island of Diva and in India. 12 Ulfila and Theophilus communicates that b arbarians could acquire Roman ness and that true faith existed among barbarian peoples outside the borders of the Roman Empire. South Arabia. Most likely, they purposefully om it the story to revise the non Nicene by side narratives of the Christianization of Aksum and Iberia (Georgia). 13 11 Philostorgius, 3.4. 12 Philostorgius, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. Philostorgius refers to the Himyarites with the archaic term Sabaeans, the n d the Ethiopians or Aksumites. 13
173 Aksum through the agency of Frumentius provides a valuable source of comparison, as Philostorgius is clearly responding to it with his narrative of the mission to Himyar. 14 rative, Theophilus is chosen by the emperor story the beginning of Christianity in Aksum occurs when a Roman is traveling on the Red Sea, is shipwrecked, everybody on boa rd is killed, and only two young boys are spared. These boys now captives grow into valuable members of the royal court at Aksum. As an adult, Frumentius takes the initiative to take care of Roman merchant Christians living in and traveling to Aksum. 15 Frum entius is an accidental missionary, as he finds himself in Aksum not by his own will, and certainly not sent by an emperor as in Frumentius travels to Athanasius in Ale xandria and reports on the spread of Christianity in Aksum. He does not go to see the emperor. Athanasius appears in the narrative to consecrate Frumentius and thereby ensure his orthodoxy. Both Philostorgius and Rufinus use mission stories to comment on i mperial orthodoxy or lack thereof. Thus, the stories of Frumentius and Theophilus display many of the same characteristics, but express different sentiments about the role of emperors beyond the borders of the Christian Empire lates the spreading of Nicene Christianity 14 Amidon, Philostorgius 40, n. 8. 15 Rufinus, 10.9, 10.10.
174 Nicene Christianity outside the empire through an imperially sponsored mission. 16 e origins of individuals in general and barbarians in particular. His inclusion of these descriptions illustrates that the perceived identities of these individuals were not fixed in the mind of the author and potentially the reader. For example, he mentio ns two military commanders explain ing that they were of Gothic origin and impl ying that it is no surprise that they turned on the Romans. 17 In another instance his explanation suggests that barbarian identity can change over generations. He describes the ge implying that Arbogast himself was not. 18 Similarly, barbarians could acquire enough Roman ness to integrate themselves into the imp erial ruling elite as in the case of Bauto 19 an ancestry in the epitome of the History She also represents the only explicit description of barbarian 20 Apparently Eudoxia inherited barbarian manners from her father but was at the same 16 For an analysis of mission from below vs. mission from above see 271 304; and 39. 17 Tribigild and Gainas. Philostorgius, 11.8. 18 Philostorgius, 11.2. 19 Philostorgius, 11.6. 20 Philostorgius, 11.6.
175 time an empress. Moreover, her barbarian manner had a direct impact on the reign of her husband. When she was treated badly by a powerful imperial eunuch, Eud oxia immediately appealed to her husband while holding their two infants in her arms. The tears and behaved in general as a woman seething with passion does with her f eminine 21 Arcadius felt sorry for her and the children and then became angry at the eunuch. Philostorgius presents this as a turning at last, in his anger and in the severity 22 Thus, Eudoxia benefited the empire through a combination of her barbaric and feminine nature. History displays an interest in the origins of barbarian individuals, Rufinus does not explicitly discuss the ancestry of any individual barbarian. Rather, he either mentions them with no indication of their origin, as in his mention of Arbogast o r, more commonly, he simply does not narrate their activities at a History does include the rather exceptional story of Bacurius, from whom Rufinus claims to have learned about the conversion of Georgia. Rufinus states that the man was the king of the Iberians (Georgians), but does not explicitly mention his barbarian nature at any point. He does, however, include him in the group of barbarians who served as rength of mind and 23 implying that this was the case 21 Philostorgius, 11.6. The eunuch is Eutropius. 22 Philostorgius, 11.6. 23 Rufinus, 11.33.
176 despite the fact that he was not a Roman. Thus, Rufinus presents Bacurius both as a barbarian and as a Roman. Philostorgius mentions barbarians more f requently and explicitly than does Rufinus, but his narrative includes similar examples of uncertainty about the extent of Roman ness of certain individuals. In these cases, it appears that Philostorgius describes the way in which these barbarians become R omans. For 24 In other words, ly fight on behalf of the Romans and implied that through his military success he became closer to being Roman. Ultimately a barbarian background always seem ed to imply the potential for treachery and violence. It is not clear whether Philostorgius viewed barbarians as more or less likely than Roman military l eaders to engage in usurping and bloodthirsty behavior, but it does seems that he correlate d such behavior with barbarian background when it did occur. For example, the interconnected stories of Tribi gild and Gainas function as examples of the barbarian misfortunes that befall the empire. Philostorgius e Roman Empire, but betrayed it and began capturing and raiding territory. The emperor sent out General betraying the Romans. Tribigild then pretended to flee from Gainas and continued to devastate Roman 24 Philostorgiu s, 11.8. It is significant that Philostorgius adds pagan to this description. The Greek is
177 territories. Philostorgius inserts this account in the middle of a longer list of other barbarian armies pillaging and slaughtering in the Roman Empire. Th us, the historian Barbarians are, of course, presented as generally prone to war and violence. The History includes a number of passing references to barbarians and their warlike nature. 25 Their tendency for war is described as natural, constant, and random. For example, Constantius returns from a routine campaign against the barbarians when 26 Moreover, barbarian desire for war is frequently the cause of a conflict, even when other factors are attested in other sources. For example, Philostorgius describes the origin of the battle of Adrianople as the fault of the Goths: the 27 Similarly, he explains that the emperor Valens died while hiding in a building because the barbarians 28 The barbarian s, headed by Fritigern, then proceeded to plunder Thrace. This unflattering portrayal of barbarians appears to be an example of the barbarians functioning in the narrative i n the role of disasters sent as an expression of divine wrath. Philostorgius genera lly attributes such misfortunes to the bad religious policies of an emperor. But as he has a more positive view of Valens compared with other historians it is unclear how this defeat fits into his 25 As in the Ulfila story discussed above, Philostorgius, 2.5. 26 Philostorgius, 4.3a. 27 Philo storgius, 9.17; Rufinus, 11:13; Socrates, 4:34 38; Sozomen, 6:37 40; Ammianus, 31:1 13; Noel Transactions of the American Philological Association 127 (1997): 129 16 8. 28 Philostorgius, 9.17.
178 view. 29 It is clear that he did not make an attempt to dimi nish the seriousness of the defeat. Both Philostorgius and Rufinus frequently associate barbarians with natural disasters. 30 Philostorgius presents barbarians in this way more frequently than Rufinus. In the Rufinus writes that he undertook the work as the bishop of Aquileia Chromatius asked him to provide a source of Goths have burst through the barriers into Italy with Alaric at their head, and a lethal 31 The Goths here are represnted as a natural disaster that can be overcome only with divine assistance. In Book 11 as a whole Philostorgius focuse s on the ongoing struggle with barbarian forces, which intensified under the reign of the pro Nicene emperor Theodosius. Philostorgius demonstrates that the reign of Theodosius led to disastrous events plaguing the empire. The historian laments the fall of Roman military might and loss of human life was so great that never did any age know the like since time 32 This account presents war with barbarians only from the s ide of an ugly loss of life and devastation to the land. He places the barbarian onslaught right in the middle 29 30 Philostorgius, 9.19. Theodosius defeats barbarians, and this is presented as an example of imperial military might. Rufinus, 10.8, on Constantine. Barbarians serve as an opportunity fo r the individual military success or failure of an emperor. 31 Rufinus, Preface. 32 Philostorgius, 11.7.
179 of a long list of natural disasters that create suffering for the people of the Roman ruin, but famine, plague, 33 Here, signs of divine displeasure at the wrong done to heteroou sians. Philostorgius then continues to list a host of other devastations wrought by barbarian armies involving two kinds of Huns, Goths, Libyans, and Isaurians. 34 He singles out the Isaurians as more treated their captives the 35 This rejection of the triumphant Nicene representation of the reign of Theodosius, affirming instead that it led to widespread death and destruction, is of course in direct response to Rufinus. Rufinus concludes his His tory with the glorious victory of Theodosius over the usurper Eugenius. He relates that the outcome of the battle did not initially seem good 36 He then explains conquered, but so that he might not appear to have conquered with the help of 37 Theodosius then prays and the battle ends in a miraculous victory. Thus the barbarians are not an appropriate instrument of divine blessing for the emperor. In 33 Philostorgius, 11.7. 34 Philostorgius, 11.8. 35 Philostorgius, 11.8. He may have had some personal knowledge in this case as the Isaurians are described as raiding Cappadocia and forcing people out of their homes. 36 Rufinus, 11.33. 37 Rufinus, 11.33.
180 divine will even if a wrathful one. Philostorgius and Rufinus reveal many of the same Roman Christian assumptions p erspectives on barbarians both with in and beyond the antiquity. The differences in their histories not only point to their separate theological beliefs, but also to their different understandings of the role of the divine in history and the nature of the intertwined relationship between religion and empire. Pagans Throughout the History paganism looms as the ever present evil force threatening the well being of the Chris tian Roman Empire and its inhabitants. 38 Philostorgius also describes paganism as demon worship or in terms of the multiplicity of gods failing their pagan worshippers. shows a high level of education in clas sical Greek learning including rhetoric, philosophy, and medicine one wonders how he defined paganism. There is evidence to suggest that he made a distinction between pagan religion and pagan learning. 39 Regardless, Pagan polytheism is the real issue at sta ke in the debates between heteroousians and everyone else whom Philostorgius identifies as Nicene and homoousian. He also recognizes and denounces Gnostic polytheism, but he views homoousianism as especially powerful because it is more hidden and disguised 40 He frequently tried to make the connections between the Nicene creed and polytheism apparent to his readers. For example, according to Amidon Philostorgius relates that Caesarea the see of Basil (one of the main opponents of Eunomius) had pagan 38 Amidon, Philostorgius xix xxiii. 39 Philostorgius, 7.4b. 40 Amidon, Philostorgius xix xx.
181 origi called Mazaca, a name derived from Mosoch, the ancestor of the Cappadocians. As 41 History is followers and the forces of paganism in world history. This is probably why Philostorgius began his History with the story of the Maccabees and the Jewish revolt against the imposition of pagan worship. 42 Photius rema rks that Philostorgius did not know the relates with such care how the wickedness of men brought the affairs of the Jews to their worst state, and how the virtue of men restored them again, and then they took 43 Interestingly, this is one of the relatively few explicit mentions of Jews in the epitome. 44 But it is clear that the historian want ed to emphasize the story about a struggle against paganism against all odds. Paganism frequently appears in the context of conversion in the narrative. One can safely state that Philostorgius did not view paganism as a benign leftover from the pre Constan tinian era on its way out of existence. On the contrary, he refers to the paganism of former times as a reminder of the seriousness of the threat. He relates numerous instances of conversion from paganism to Christianity outside of the context 41 Philostorgius, 9.12. Also Athanasius collaborates with pagans ag ainst George (Philostorgius, 7.2). On Caesarea see Amidon, Philostorgius 128, n. 23 24. For a different view see, Van Dam, 93 94. 42 Philostorgius, 1.1. Photius begins the epitome with a reference to Maccabees. 43 Philostorgius, 1.1. 44 See section below.
182 of the Chris tian Roman Empire. For example, he details the mass conversion of ancestors. 45 In addition to advocating their conversion, Philostorgius also supports defeating pagans mili tarily. When Constantius defeats a usurper in battle as a sign of divine favor, it is significant that the historian presents the usurper Magnentius as a pagan or worshipper of demons. 46 This is why even Theodosius, who is responsible for anti Eunomian poli deserves credit for his defeat of pagans. 47 Furthermore, Philostorgius continuously reminds his readers about the sacrifices others made in resistance to paganism. He also details the w ays in which pagans were bloodthirsty and treacherous. Indeed accounts of martyrs and confessors regularly occur as flashbacks throughout the History The stories which Photius preserved include a number of martyrs and confessors who suffer as a result of their refusal to sacrifice. 48 For example, during the reign of Licinius Bishop Auxentius of Mopsuestia was in the imperial service. One day as they were walking together the emperor Licinius asked Auxentius to cut down a bunch of grapes for him, and the bis hop did. But when the emperor told him to place the grapes at the feet of a statue of Dionysus he refused, and so Licinius expelled him from the imperial service. 49 Philostorgius also records instances of Christians who lapsed in the face of persecution. He even admits that 45 Philostorgius, 2.8, 1.6, 2.5. 46 Philostorgius, 3.26. Magnentius was not really a pagan. 47 Philostorgius, 11.9. 48 Lucian the Martyr, for example, Philostorgius, 2.13. 49 Philostorgius, 5.2a.
183 to the violence of the tyrants and went over to paganism but later made good their 50 It is surpri sing when Philostorgius records the lapse of members of his own faith community, but once again he affirms that he did not write a history simply extolling his coreligionists and also illustrates the seriousness of the threat of paganism. Of course the mos narrative is that of the emperor Julian. Philostorgius claims that Julian went through a process of becoming a pagan and that not even the teachings of the heteroousian leader Aetius saved him (pres umably because it was too late). 51 Gallus sent Aetius to 52 Even though Aetius failed to prevent the apostasy of Julian, they s till became friends and Julian maintained the positive relationship after becoming emperor. This friendship between the pagan emperor and the heteroousian theologian may have been a problematic aspect of the history of his church for Philostorgius, but he the reign of Julian unequivocally denounces paganism and its forces. 53 Philostorgius also took care to demonstrate that pagans were always either foolish or in error. For example, he argues that pagans were so foolish that whenever 50 Philostorgius, 2.14. 51 Philostorgius, 3.27. 52 Philostorgius, 3.2 7. 53 For more detail see Chapter 5 on Julian as emperor, section below for story about the Jewish Temple, and Chapter 7 for the battle between good
184 they saw a strange looking animal they immediately divinized it because they could not explain it. Philostorgius describes a creature known as the pan which appeared to be something in between a goat and an ape and cla ims to have seen a stuffed version of it. looked, gave it the status of a god, accustomed as they were to divinize strange 54 nsity for fables and myths applied to the sphinx (another kind of ape apparently). 55 While in these instances Philostorgius instances he points out how pagans are foolish for doing the opposite. This is the case with the his careful explanation that earthquakes are caused by divine wrath and not 56 Finally, while denigrating the falseness of paganism and its proponents, it is pos sible that Philostorgius viewed demonic powers as a real source of concern. For 57 A dditionally, Philostorgius claims that pagan oracles always gave ambiguous answers. usual [gave] ambiguous responses for the destruction of those who believed in them 54 Philostorgius, 3.11. He also mentions that the pagans did the same thing w ith the satyr, which 55 Philostorgius, 3.11. 56 Philostorgius, 12.9, 12.10. 57 Philostorgius, 8.10. See also discussion of the story about the martyr Baby las during the reign of Julian in Chapter 7.
185 and the 58 Thus even though the demons were useless they still possessed some power, even if it was limited. Jews In comparison with barbarians and pagans, Jews feature infrequently in the epitome. Still, Philostorgius may ha ve beg u n his History with an account of the Maccabean revolt. 59 He had clearly read extensively on the topic and Photius records his discussion of the reliability of the various sources. The epitome does not contain more than a brief description of the Mac cabean sources which might shed light on how Philostorgius represented Jews in this context. But it is clear that Philostorgius represents these Jews from the distant past as righteous in their fight against paganism. In the case of more recent or contempo rary Jews, the situation is quite different. Jews appear in an unfavorable light in the context of the story of the mission to Himyar. Philostorgius records that a number of Jews lived among the Himyarites and seems to suggest that some religious practice s of the pagan Himyarites were influenced by Judaism. 60 After explaining that the Himyarites are descended from Abraham, the [after birth]. They also sacrifice to the s un, the moon, and the local demons. There are 61 prevent Theophilus the Indian from converting the Himyarite royal house. 58 Philostorgius, 9.15. 59 60 See also Chapter 4. 61 Philostorgius, 3.4.
186 Oddly, the only passing reference to Jews in the epi tome also occurs in the life of Theophilus who brings a Jewish woman back to life in Antioch. 62 There is no evidence to show whether or not the healing of a Jewish woman made the event especially miraculous and no other characteristics are ascribed to the w oman. The final appearance of Jews in the history is also unflattering. It seems that they against the Christian God. According to Philostorgius, Julian decided to disprove the New Testament prophecy that the Temple in Jerusalem would never be restored. 63 So he provided funds for the Jews to rebuild the Temple. But a series of terrifying miracles 64 Some died during the construction efforts, and the supernatural events that prevented progress served as a caution not to go against divine will. Still, most of the misfortunes do not actually befall the Jews, but rather other associates of Julian. When describing the original exile of Jews from Jerusalem, Philostorgius explains that the Roman assembled in the city on the pretext of offering worship, they might cause th e Romans 65 With regard to Jews then, Philostorgius identified them as part of Christian history when he identified them in the Old Testament, but more contemporary Jews played a more passive and negative role. 62 Philostorgius, 3.6a. 63 Philostorgius, 7.9. 64 Philostorgius, 7.9, 7.9a. 65 Philostorgius, 7.11.
187 A final story poi nts to the complexity of the portrayal of the other in bishop, Euzoius who had previously supported the Eunomian group insulted hus the struggles were not about orthodoxy and faith but about discrimination in color and race [ khromos kai genos] explains. 66 This passage is especially interesting, because the rest of the text never ppearance only about his origins and character. serious detriment to his position in the empire, but this episode suggests that this might have been the case. It is not mentions earlier would always be incomplete because of some innate deficiency or if it passage that mentions skin color is when Philostorgius is describing the Syrians whom 67 In this case, the Syrians acquire this characteristic over time. Nevertheless, even though narrative, he acknowledges that others would not have necessarily viewed him in such a positive light due to his origins. 68 66 Philostorgius, 9.3. My emphasis. I am grateful to Kostas Kapparis for confirming my suspicions about how unusal this phrase is. I know of no comparable uses in this period. 67 Philostorgius, 3.6. 68 There is other evidence to Contra Eunomium 1. 47
188 CHAPTER 7 HISTORY goal to reclaim the memory of Christian history for his Eunomian community reflected his particular approach to the writing of history Similar to the views associated with the early fourth century heretic Arius, Eunomian Christiani ty Father, as only the Father can be ingenerate. It differed in simultaneously insisting that f reason and reflection upon scripture. 1 will and essence are fundamentally knowable corresponds with his approach to the events of the Roman Empire, as they pointed to divine will. In his view, the very li ves and deaths of emperors were portentous, along with all omens and signs. This chapter shrines and relics, divine signs and omens as well as apocalyptic imagery in the Hi story I hope to show that Philostorgius used a complex set of images, symbols, and theological concepts to articulate his theory of history. Geography and Ethnography Throughout out the history, Philostorgius presented Christian history as part of the s References to Old Testament books and events are interspersed throughout the narrative, but a few stand out as particular points of meaning. 2 An examination of his geographic and ethno graphic digressions in terms of their relationship to the Old 1 Amidon, Philostorgius xvi, xviii; Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus 2 52 258. 2 See also the discussion of Maccabees in Chapter 6 and of Daniel in the section below.
189 testament and other previous events of world history shows how he viewed Christian history as connected to ancient world history and that he presented divine power continually working in human h istory. Roman borders is particularly rich in ethnographic details. In addition to revealing the ount of called of old Sabaeans and now known as Himyarites. The people is desce nded from Abraham through Keturah. Their country is called Great Arabia and Fortunate Arabia by 3 In this passage, Philostorgius combined h is knowledge of world history from the Old Testament and Greek sources to explain where Himyar fit into the narrative of Christian history. He links the Himyarites to two major Old Testament figures, Abraham and Solomon. 4 Philostorgius, like other Christia n writers, linked events from the Old Testament, Greek classical histories and more recent events together to show the integrated nature of the history of God working in human history. After traveling to Himyar, Diva, and India, Theophilus then sailed to Aksum. As 3 4; Queen of Sheba: 1 Kings 10: 1 Ph ilostorgius 22, n. 20). In this passage Philostorgius also mentions that they practice circumcision, and that they are pagans sacrificing to the stars, but they are not Jews. 4
190 the geography and ethnography of the Red Sea and the region. 5 He mentions the location of the Israelites crossing of the Red Sea during their flight from the Egyptians, again connecting his narrative to the events of the Old Testament. 6 His description of the Red Sea, the Arabian peninsula, and the Persian Gulf is difficult to follow because of the state of the text and the imprecise use of geographical te rms. 7 But it seems that Philostorgius first described the Aksumites then described people who lived on the sojourn toward the east, by the outer ocean, and who are calle local people. It was Alexander the Macedonian who removed them from Syria and 8 ibe this region. 9 historian continued with the geographic theme and described the Persian gulf, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. 10 He mentions that Armenians claim that the Euphrates 11 Thus, Philostorgius integrates and interweaves allusions to Old Testament and Greek sources in his ethnographic narrative. 5 Philostorgius, 3.6. 6 Philostorgius, 3.6. 7 Amidon, Philostorgius 22, n. 18. 8 Philostorgius, 3.6. 9 Anabasis 7.19. 5. Arrian records that Alexander planned to settle the coast of the Persian Gulf. Philostorgius also included a description of the fl ora and fauna there. 10 Philostorgius, 3.7. 3.8. 11 Philostorgius, 3.8.
191 Ultimately, however, Philostorgius views scriptural sources as de finitive sources of authority on geography and history. He argues that despite what other writers claim, the Tigris and the Euphrates have their true origin in the location of paradise, as recorded in scripture. 12 The rivers begin above ground in paradise a nd then flow hidden underground before reappearing again. Philostorgius describes this phenomenon in great detail, taking care to explain that not only is this possible in accordance with om of God has fashioned the course of streams, some of them invisible and some visible, to be like veins 13 Philostorgius us es a similar approach to support his argument that paradise is located in the east, mixing appeals to natural phenomena and scripture. 14 Possibly as part of his explanation that Paradise must be in the east, excessively torrid, contains the 15 Photius summarizes this section in great detail so there is an extensive record of all the animals that Philostorgius included in his account of the wonders o f the region. A number of these he claimed to have seen himself in Constantinople. 16 A few of the animals which 12 Philostorgius, 3.9. 13 Philostorgius, 3.9; Psalm 23: 2. 14 the east. It is inter esting that Photius records these passages in greater detail. 15 Philostorgius, 3.11. 16
192 t a number of the animals are head but a crooked horn that is not very large. Its entire chin is covered with a beard. Its long throat, lifted on high, is most like a serpe 17 Philostorgius recorded that he had seen an image of this remarkable creature in Constantinople. Additionally, the historian explains that the region contains a varie ty of apes, including bear apes, lion apes, dog faced baboons, and the goat ape. Philostorgius describes these animals to show the diversity and richness of the region in the east, in the spirit of geographic digressions in other historians in antiquity. 18 He frequently claims direct knowledge to support his argument. For example, he states that the goat shut up in a wicker work cage because of its fierceness. When it d ied, its keepers stuffed it in order to give people something unusual to look at and brought it safe and 19 He also extensively discusses these creatures as part of his project to show the errors of paganism as he argues that pagans are foolish for divinizing any strange looking animals. 20 Finally, Philostorgius reported on the peoples of the east, the rivers, the location of paradise, the fruits and spices, and the animals in the east to demonstrate the connection between earth and heaven. Thus, 17 Philostorgius, 3.11. But appears to be unique to Philostorgius according to Amidon, 48, n. 34. 18 Such d igressions ultimately go back to Herodotus. Amidon, Philostorgius xxi Kaldellis, 1 10. 19 Philostorgius, 3.11. It may have been Constantine. 20 Including the Sphinx, which was also apparently an ape. See Philostorgius, 3.11 for this fascinating descriptio n of the sphinx ape. See Chapter 6 for more on this issue.
193 another sign of the linkage of earth with Paradise: they say that someone taken with a violent fever recovers at once after bathing in the 21 Therefore, Philostorgius showed that the natural world always maintained a connection to paradise and that places in the east bore the signs more due to their proximity. Finally he concludes his account of the east with the assertion that gold gro ws from the ground there, And in general the whole land toward the rising sun is far superior to the others in everyway, while Paradise, being the best and purest part of the entire east, having the freshest and fairest airs and being irrigated by the clea rest waters, obviously is incomparably superior in every respect to every land under the sun, washed as it is by the outer sea toward the rising of the sun. 22 Before the geographic digression, describing the mission of Theophilus the Indian, Philostorgius c laims that the bishop traveled from Himyar to India. Theophilus 23 It is possible, th at one of the reasons Philostorgius relates that Theophilus did not have to further east is connected to this notion of the superiority of the east and its connection to paradise. The Battle between Saints and Demo ns of relics, pagan statues, and Christian shrines as competing expressions of power of the divine. They also serve as a focal point of anxiety over appropriate and inappropriate miracles and use of physi cal 21 The Hyphasis is equated with Biblical Pishon (Philostorgius, 3.10). 22 Philostorgius, 3.11. 23 Philostorgius, 3.5.
194 objects in Christian worship. 24 For Philostorgius paganism was the main enemy that threatened Christianity in the guise of Nicaea. Yet at the same time he recognized the power of Christian physical manifestations of faith such as relics and Christian sh rines. These stories serve as descriptions of cosmic battles raging at the same time that bishops and emperors are working out their battle for the Christian empire on earth. Stories about relics and statues serve as an expression of the state of the Chris tian Roman Empire in that moment. The reign of Julian provides some of the most important examples of this battle between saints and demons in the History Philostorgius began his chapter on the reign of Julian with what was from his point of view the defi in the history of the Christian Roman Empire. He claimed that Julian seized power and through public proclamations proclaimed complete liberty to the pagans to carry out all of their projects, in that way handing over th e Christians to indescribable and unspeakable sufferings, since in every place the proponents of paganism subjected them to every kind of injury, to new sorts of torture, and to the most painful modes of death. 25 Right away, Philostorgius is emphasizing tha t Julian seized power unlawfully, as he had recounted his revolt in the preceding chapter. 26 policies in favor of the pagans allowed them to act as they wished, which was to actively persecute Christians. Thus, to Philosto rgius pagans were not only in error due to their polytheism, but prone to cruelty as well. Julian apparently had hidden his paganism 24 See Giselle de Nie, Poetics of Wonder: Testimonies of the New Christian Miracles in the Late Antique Latin World (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), for arguments that some early Christians associated miracles with pagan shrines. 25 Philostorgius, 7.1. 26
195 while still depending on Constantius, but now he was free to proclaim it and promote it etters to every place ordering that all haste and zeal 27 the battles which occur in their temples and altars reflec 28 Others even suggested that he gives Julian some kind of t of Aetius. 29 But I argue that the reign of Julian and the pagan demons he served. Philostorgius leaves no doubt that he viewed Julian and his reign as a sinister an d dangerous reminder of the threat of pagan polytheism. But while describing the very real dangers, Philostorgius also argues that ultimately Julian and his cause are doomed to failure as their power is weak. As part of his narrative of the supernatural ba reign, Philostorgius relates that in the city of Paneas there was an image of Jesus Christ at the feet of which grew an herb with healing properties. The image was thought to have been erected by the woman with a hemorr hage in the gospel accounts, after being healed by Christ. 30 Philostorgius claims that with time people had forgotten the meaning of the statue, the explanatory inscription was covered with dirt, and the herb had 27 Philostorgius, 7.1b. 28 Amidon xxii. 29 H. A. Drake, review of Philostorgius: Church History, trans. Amidon Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (2009): 160 161. 30 Philostorgius, 7.3, 7.3a, 7.3b. Statue: Eusebius, 7.18; Story about healing: Mark 5:25 34, Matthew 9:20 22, Luke 8:43 48 3.
196 disappeared. But miracles still occurred at the location, so Christians decided to figure out why. When the bottom of the statue was dug up and the truth of the entire story was disclosed and remembered, the image was moved into the sacristy of a church and honored. Philostorgius is careful to empha size that the statue was not worshipped in any way. 31 Once Julian had proclaimed that pagans were free to express themselves, to its feet, and dragged it down the mai 32 They then proceeded to tear it apart and scatter the pieces while a few onlookers managed to rescue the head, which Philostorgius claims to have seem himself. This story attests to the inhuman and mad behavior that was characteristic of p agans. Philostorgius clearly intended to make some connection between this story and his description of the fact that Paneas derived its name from the erection of a statue of Pan in it. Philostorgius records another occurrence of pagans desecrating physica l relics in Elisha and of John the Baptist from their tombs (both were buried there), mixed them together with the bones of the dumb animals, burned them together to ashe s, and 33 persecution of Christians was directly linked to their futile rituals of worship. Also, it is possible that these pagan acts of desecration of physical objects indicate that they perspective. It is clear, however, that Philostorgius emphasized that when the pagans 31 Philostorgius, 7.3. 32 Philostorgius, 7.3. 33 Philostorgius, 7.4.
197 returned to their temples and altars the result was only wickedness and depravity, not piety. Thus he alleges that pagans would arrest Christians and used them as the sacrifices on the altars. 34 Moreover, the historian leaves no doubt that these outrageous acts were not an exception but were actually directly the result of paganism, although others might argue that it was the work of especially deranged people. He maintains that the emperor Julian was pleased when he heard of such n though his 35 of Julian, his reign, and the pagans who supported it. 36 One complex story, however, best illustrates how Philostorgius viewed the battle between the followers of God and the demonic forces of paganism as well as the issues associated with interpreting the Ecclesiastical History The story begins with a flashback to the martyrdom of three young brothers and of Babylas, Bishop of A ntioch, at some point during the pre Constantinian period. 37 The Roman emperor was convinced by a demon to attempt to emperor abandoned the idea of entering the church, h 34 Philostorgius, 7.4. 35 Philostorgius, 7.4. 36 Philostorgius, 7.4; 7.4a; 7.4c; 7.7. 37 Philostorgius, 7.8, 7.8a. See Amidon, Philostorgius 98, n. 40, on the lack of information on the bishop Babylas. Philostorgius places his martyrdom either under the emperor Numerian or Decius. The boys
198 buried in nearby Daphne. 38 Significantly, Philostorgius not only mentions demons as the object of sacrifice, but as the instigators of the en tire episode from the beginning. Years later, the emperor Julian excitedly visited the shrine of Apollo at Daphne and sacrificed to the idol continuously, hoping for an oracle. When the image of Apollo remained silent Julian called in an expert to persu ade the idol through the use of magic, according to Philostorgius. These attempts also failed, and the expert reported to Julian 39 Note that there are multiple gods inhabiting a variety of statues at the location of this the utterances of the oracle. What exactly happened next is the source of some debate. According to the fragments and narra tive from the Artemii Passio the statue was destroyed by divine fire, the pagans were mortified and enraged and that was the end, was removed. In other words, one version from the oracles. Amidon points out that this discrepancy is striking since it undermines the whole point of the story a nd it does not follow the version in the anonymous Arian historian that Philostorgius was following. Amidon concludes that Photius erred in his summary and expresses his amazement that the patriarch would make such a serious error: He is here summarizing, not some minor notice in his source that he might have carelessly misread, nor some heterodoxical pronouncement that he 38 Philostorgius, 7.8a. 39 Philostorgius, 7.8a.
199 might have wanted to reduce to more orthodox proportions, but one of the most extended and dramatic narratives to meet his eyes: the di vine fire efforts were being vainly expended to make it speak and reducing to ashes this central symbol of the pagan restoration then under way. That Photius, after reading this, ca n claim that, according to Philostorgius, the sorcerer had promised, is most remarkable. 40 I agree with Amidon that these passages pose significant problems of interpretation, both in relationship between the various sources involved. I disagree, however, that Photius incorrectly summarized this portion of the History I nstead, I would suggest that Philostorgius recorded that fire destroyed the Apollo temple and that Photius correctly recorded Philostorgius as claiming that other idols began to make utterances. These predictions then turned out to be false as all demon oracles were wrong according to Philostorgius. Proposi ng that the other oracles ended up speaking would also explain the section that elaborately explains that Julian was especially hoping to hear from Apollo as opposed to all the other idols. 41 Moreover, as Amidon points out, Photius makes the claim that orac les spoke twice, which suggests that he intended to make the point he was making and Photius attests to both the destruction and the speaking s struck by lightning and burned to ashes along with its 42 Philostorgius, probably adding to or emending the account of the Arian historgiographer, presented this account to show that demons should be taken seriously 40 Amidon, Philostorgius 104, n. 54. 41 Philostorgius, 7.8a [AP 56]. 42 Philostorgius, 7.8.
200 as they do indeed exist but a lso that they are ineffectual and make wrong predictions. At critical points in the story God is the one making the decisions. Philostorgius claims that God was the one who stopped the mouth of the existing Apollo demon on purpose and that he was the one w ho allowed the later demons to speak so everyone could see how ineffectual they are. 43 The whole point is that Philostorgius shows how the battle with demons was evident in relics, shrines, and idols, how terrible pagans were, and how Julian thought that he was powerful enough to succeed against the Christians but ultimately all demonic power is limited. Apocalyptic Imagery Scholars have noted the use of apocalyptic themes and negative portents in Ecclesiastical History which demonstrates his extensive knowledge of apocalyptic literature. 44 Philip Amidon argues, however, that even though Philostorgius certainly recorded numerous disastrous portents, the historian did not apparently predict an impending end of the world. 45 Amidon also suggests th of the true faith beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire exemplify his apocalyptic worldview. 46 acrostic as in itself related to apocalyptic prophesy a s the use of acrostics was rare 43 Philostorgius, 7.8a [AP 53], 7.12. 44 Bidez, cxiii cxxi; Amidon, Philostorgius xx; xxii; 137, n. 7; Peter Van Nuffelen, Isolement et apocalypse: Philostorge et les Philostorge et l'historiographie de l'Antiquit tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung ed. Doris Meyer (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011), 307 326; Bruno Bleckmann, he Endzeiten Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen ed. Wolfram Brandes and Felicitas Schmieder (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 13 40 ; Edward Wat of Pseudo Journal of Late Antiquity 2 (2009): 79 512. 45 Amid on, Philostorgius xxii xxiii. 46 Amidon, Philostorgius xx. Philostorgius, 2.5, 2.6, 3.5.
201 during this time period and associated with Sibylline oracles. 47 Moreover, all of the scholarly interpretations of apocalyptic imagery focus on a turning point in History after which he includes more and more calamitous events for the remainder of the narrative. From this point Philostorgius recorded numerous negative omens, predicting the flood of disasters that befall the empire toward the end of the History 48 Scholars have also identified this turning point with a thematic shift to secular (as opposed to ecclesiastical) affairs and as a form of apocalyptic narrative. The shift is variably identified as occurring with the reign of Emperor Gratian, or of Theodosius I, or with the exile of Eunomius. Interprete rs have also frequently explained this turning point as an indication that Philostorgius has run out of relevant material to narrate as the heroes of his particular Christian community had lost much of their influence by this point in the history. 49 I woul d argue, however, that Philostorgius used apocalyptic imagery as part of a larger theory of history that incorporated the revelation of divine will into all aspects of the history of empire. Moreover, he incorporated similar disastrous images earlier in hi s History The ecclesiastical historian used a variety of symbols to narrate the battle between the forces of true Christianity and pagan polytheism throughout the text, not t he lives of emperors, natural disasters, wars, the actions of bishops, barbarians within and beyond the borders, and the wonders of the natural world -essence. Thus, Philostorgius did not incorporate apocalyptic imagery into h is narrative 47 Argov, 512. 48 Watts, 88 89. 49 Watts, 88 89; Amidon, Philostorgius 263.
202 simply to express his disapproval of certain imperial policies or because he had nothing better to say about the Eunomian church. Rather he used apocalyptic images in conjunction with a rich variety of symbols to tell the story of God revealin g himself throughout history. History leaves no doubt that the historian viewed strange occurrences, both positive and negative, as legitimate signs from God without a natural explanation. For example, he felt the need to explain to his aud ience that earthquakes various ways to show that earthquakes are caused neither by floods of water, nor by blasts of wind shut up within the hollows of the earth, no r even by any kind of shifting of the earth, but solely by the divine will for the correction and rebuke of sinners. He says that he maintains this because none of the elements just mentioned could cause such 50 Clearly, Philostorgius viewed natural that the historian was participating in a literary dialogue of sorts, as he was anticipating The first e situation. 51 According to the History the anti Nicene bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon had subscribed to the Creed of Nicaea in 325 but had deliberately written the subscription so carelessly that it only appeared that they had written homoousios to describe the nature of God when, in fact, they had 50 Philostorgius, 12.10. See Amidon Philostorgius 160, n. 24, on other sources for the natural causes such as Ammianus Marcellinus (17.7.11 12), listed in the same order. 51 Philostorgius, 2.1a.
203 actually written the more acceptable term homoiousios So, the emperor did not exile these anti Nicene bish three of them were sitting together in a portico of the church discussing the issues at in disagreemen t, when suddenly there was a great earthquake at the place where they were, and there alone. And intense darkness fell at about the third hour of the day, 52 Needless to say, the bishops repented and confessed to the emperor that they had only subscribed out of fear of him and were banished for their lies. 53 It is important to note that the supernatural nature of the event is emphasized through the inclusion of the element of darkness and by the fact that it only occurred in the precise location where the three bishops had gathered and nowhere else. What makes this passage so striking is that throughout the History Philostorgius admires utilized a variety of Nicaea, rather than relating through the vehicle of an earthquake that the good bishop had angered God with his deceptive behavior. Yet through this episode Philostorgius communicated the for moral leadership in the Christian Empire. Scholars at times accuse Philostorgius of simply championing the cause of his coreligionists while denigrating that of their opponents. 54 Th is example clearly shows that the historian possessed a more complex 52 Philostorgius, 2.1a. 53 Philostorgius, 2.1b. 54 For example, Marasco argues that Philostorgius 259. See discussion in Chapter 3.
204 theology of history. In this case, God was not just angry because of the Council of Nicaea but because the great men who were supposed to act as strong righteous leaders in the church fai led to act appropriately. The second earthquake in the History also occurs in the middle of the post 55 theological errors of the leadership of the Roman Empire. According to P hilostorgius, the Council of Nicomedia of 358 caused the devastating earthquake in that city that summer. Photius explicitly states that the historian connected the orthodoxy of the heretic slanderously asserts, was cancelled by an earthquake, since most of those connected 56 According to the historian, the earthquake caused the church where the bishops (including the bishop of the city) were meeting to fall on top of them. He stresses the high level of death and destruction, overthrown by earthquake and fire and the flooding of the sea, as our author says, and 57 Photius is by stressing that the earthquake had nothing to do with the pro Nicene gathering in 55 Philostorgius, 4.10. 56 Philostorgius, 4.10. This narrative a ctually relates primarily to the activities of homoiousians and homoeans, but Philostorgius (like his opponents) labeled all those against heteroousians as homoousians. 57 Philostorgius, 4.11.
205 Nicomedia and that not that many bishops died. 58 While Philostorgius was not alone in egree to which he uses such phenomena as part of his explanatory framework exceeds that of other historians. To show that it was not just a matter of taking ecclesiastical sides, the historian specifically demonstrates that the divine anger was directed at the unrepresentative nature of the council. He relates that there were only fifteen bishops at the council in Nicomedia and that when it reconvened in a different location heteroousian bishops attended it making it more representative; but unfortunately t he homoousians found a way to split that council in two. Just like the first earthquake, then, unrighteous actions and beliefs of the leadership of the Christian empire, not simp ly at the Nicene bishops. As discussed above, the reign of the emperor Julian occupies a special place in empire. 59 les and pagan worship, he particularly desired successfully to perform the rite of divination at the shrine of Apollo at Daphne. While the pagan priests were painstakingly laboring to entreat the idol to speak, fire fell from the sky and burned down the te mple and the idol along with the offerings. The fire was clearly of divine origin as it only burned down the temple. But in case there was any doubt, Philostorgius explicitly described the charred remains of e] rather clearly the mark of the fire sent by 58 Sozomen, 4.16.3 5. 59 See Chapter 5.
206 60 source that preserved fragments of his Ecclesiastical History Again, if the historian desired simply to describe the successes of his coreligionists, he would have perhaps gone easier on Julian. will is the story of the attempted rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. According to Philostorgius, Julian des ired to disprove the New Testament prophecy that not even a stone would be left of the temple in Jerusalem and therefore funded the rebuilding of the quoted in full: [The Jews] flocked together therefore and set to work with great joy and were excavating the foundation trench with silver mattocks and shovels and making ready to lay the foundation, when a terrific storm arose that buried the excavation site. All during that night it lightened and thundered ceaselessly, until finally as day was approaching there was an earthquake in which many perished even of those who had stayed out of doors. And a fire that came out of the excavated foundations incinerated everyone who was there. 61 Additionally, other cities and areas suffered earthquakes, destruction, deaths, fire, and darkness. 62 While Jews were the victims of these acts of wrath, Philostorgius shows that Julian and his pagan polytheism were the real causes of the natur al disasters and signs of divine anger. He lists in great detail a series of gruesome deaths of supporters of Julian who had gone over to paganism, culminating in the death of 60 Philostorgius, 7.8a. 61 P hilostorgius, 7.9a. Fragments from the Artemii Passio 62 For a discussion of the textual relationship between the attempt to rebuild the Temple and earthquakes The Palestinian Earthquake of May 363 in Philostorgius, the Syriac Chronicon miscellaneum and the Letter Attributed to Cyril on the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Journal of Late Antiquity 6 (2013): 61 83.
207 Julian himself. 63 her number of natural calamities and miraculous signs than the preceding narrative. Philostorgius emphasized the perils of an empire openly espousing paganism. Given that both Nicene and anti especially telling. The following description of the reign of a Roman emperor consists of a brief reference potentially indicating apocalyptic themes. I n a passage that concludes the account of the reign of Gratian, the epitomizer Photius records that the emperor was 64 Amidon argues that Ph to Nero marks the beginning of an apocalyptic narrative since Nero featured in Christian apocalyptic texts and was associated with the beast in Chapter 13 of the book of Revelation. He explains that Philostorgius viewed th e reign of Gratian as the beginning of all the ominous disasters that follow in the narrative because his imperial policies targeted heretics (including Eunomians). 65 Thus, the linking of Gratian to Nero could potentially indicate an apocalyptic structure t however, that Philostorgius did not associate Gratian with Nero to begin an apocalyptic narrative, but rather because Nero had the reputation of an infamous persecutor of Christians. That is not to say that Philo storgius was not drawing on apocalyptic literature, but his use of such allusions were not necessarily intended to correlate 63 Philostorgius, 7.10, 7.13, 7.15. 64 Philostorgius, 10.5. 65 Amidon, Philostorgius 137, n. 7. Als o, Watts, 88, has a similar argument.
208 directly with specific apocalypses. It is difficult to imagine a direct association between Gratian and Nero as the beast in Revela tion, as Philostorgius had just recorded the death of the emperor. Furthermore, Photius concludes the brief mention with the suggests that Philostorgius commented on Grat The brevity and lack of detail in this passage make it difficult to interpret definitively, but it is clear that Philostorgius associated Gratian with wrong belief and the persecution of other hand, inferring that this reference to Nero constituted part of a larger apocalyptic narrative structure is difficult to maintain. come. Philostorgius first describes the omens foretelling the horrors soon to befall the empire as a result of the Theodosian establishment and then reports on the events in great detail. victory over the usurper Maximus comb ines a variety of different elements of military narrative. 66 nothing good comes out of illegitimate rule. victory over the usurper, a sign a ppeared unmistakably portending doom and gloom. 67 perspective there could be no doub t about the ominous meaning of this phenomenon. He carefully described the occurrence, emphasizing its strange and sinister nature: 66 Theodosius I is an ambiguous figure in the narrative, because he is hard on pagans, but hard on the heterodox as well. 67 Philostorgius, 10.9.
209 Then there was a gathering of stars from everywhere that clustered around it (one might liken the sight to a swarm of bees englobing [sic] their leader). Whereupon, as though from the force of their mutual compression, all of their light blazed forth combined into one flame. The sight was just like that of a great, fearsome double edged sword shining with a startling brillianc e, all of the other stars having migrated so as to assume this shape, while that one alone that had been the first to be seen appeared underneath in the situation of the root or hilt of the whole form, and as though generating all the brightness of the sta r revealed, like the flame leaping up from the wick of a lamp. That was how strange the object was that appeared. 68 This sword star represents an inversion of the cross stars that Constantine and Constantius had so propitiously received. 69 If this descriptio n alone was not enough to convince his readers that God was not pleased with Theodosius, Philostorgius then proceeds to detail the path of the sword star. The epitomizer Photius concludes this description of the trajectory of the star with the observation, author describes many other strange things concerning this sword 70 The point remains that the Eunomian historian took great pains to counter Nicene representations of Theodosius as a good emperor. Specifically, t he story of the sword his conclusion to the Ecclesiastical History r for the emperor. 71 In contrast however, Philostorgius knew that Theodosius had exiled the heteroousian hero Eunomius, and hence God could not possibly be pleased with him. 68 Philostorgius, 10.9. 69 It also could be a specific kind of comet. Amido n, Philostorgius 139, n. 19. 70 Philostorgius, 10.9. 71 Rufinus, 11.16; 11.33 34.
210 The sword star was not the only sign of trouble. Philostorgius also records the a ppearance of two strange human beings, one who was gigantic, and the other one size, although his feet did not correspond to the height of the rest of his body but were ben t inward so as to make him bandy 72 The other man was from Egypt and he 73 Adding to the strangeness of this occurren ce, Philostorgius also maintains that the short man possessed intelligence, polished speech, and a noble mind. Some scholars have labeled this occurrence as apocalyptic. 74 Regardless, it is clear that Philostorgius linked it to the signs associated with Th bearing these two men to anticipate any objections that these were not meaningful signs, but rather out of the ordinary occurrences. Whether or not Philostorgius viewed these and the other signs associated with Theodosius as foretelling the end of the world, he used such imagery to argue that divine signs everywhere were clearly showing that the reign of The odosius and what followed would not be good for the Empire. Philostorgius clearly also maintained that he had direct knowledge of these men as Photius makes a comments o 72 Philostorgius, 10.11. 73 Philostorgius, 10.11. 74 Watts, 89.
211 young; the tall one departed this life after his twenty fifth year, while the short one 75 According to Alanna Nobbs, these ominous passages mark a shift t affairs in the History 76 While I agree that Philostorgius focuses more secular events in the second half of the of the text. The apocalyptic imagery in the history serves to highlight the consequences of the ecclesiastical policies of E message he communicates throughout the history. e of all of the terrible events that befall the Empire in the final chapters of the history, as the sword star portended, stresses a great loss of life and disasters which occur in droves. The historian laments the fall of Roman military might and emphasiz es that the military 77 This account presents war only from the side of an ugly loss of li fe and devastation to the land. He places war right in the middle of a long list of natural disasters that create suffering for the people of the Roman Empire. He acknowledges the role of barbarian invasions as mainly responsible for this loss of life, but he also emphasizes that the contributed to an unprecedented level of suffering. He then continues to list again in 75 Philostorgius, 10.11. 76 Nobbs, s tory: An 281. 77 Philostorgius, 11.7.
212 great detail earthquakes, storms, lightning, fiery droughts hail, snow, and cold. All of 78 According to Philostorgius, God was expressing his anger at the leadership of the Empire for policies against Eunomians and, moreover, for exiling Eunomius. This section on all t 79 Although the reign of Theodosius I is more central to his History Philostorgius also recorded signs of divine wrath that occurred during the reign of Theodosius II. Oddly, even though he lived and wrote under Theodosius, he still felt compelled to 80 Not only did the historian take the risk of including these signs in his narrative, but he even explained that the strange comet which occurred at the same time was not a comet as others claimed but a divine porten t. 81 Following his extensive explication of why the comet was clearly of supernatural origin, Philostorgius proceeds to do the same for earthquakes. The Ecclesiastical History shows that Philostorgius represented natural disasters as t the failure of the leadership of the Christian Roman Empire as well as at the open espousal of a doctrine that amount to pagan polytheism in his view. is knowable and clearly revealed through such signs and omens. 78 Philostorgius, 11.7. 79 Philostorgius, 11.7. Theodosius is against the Eunomians and exiles Eunomius, 10. 6. 80 Philostorgius, 12.8. 81 Philostorgius, 12.8 10. There is another list of calamities at this point.
213 rescue from disaster. 82 The most striking incident of this kind involves the occupation of Constantinople by the Gothic mi litary commander Gainas. 83 This account occurs right in the middle of all the military disasters just described, so Philostorgius clearly represents the episode as part of a sequence of examples of war that serve as the scourge of God. At the same time, ho wever, God intervenes to save the inhabitants of execute his plan, saved the city from capture and handed over to human justice those found out. There ensued a great slaugh 84 This narrative of divine intervention stands out in the history. 85 Why would God send a heavenly armed force to assist the Theodosian dynasty? It appears that the main focus of divine assistance was the city of Constantinople, not the imperi al regime. Philostorgius may have been in the city at the time, afraid for his life. 86 Describing events in the western empire, Philostorgius relates the story of the marriage of the R in law) shortly after the sack of Rome [another disaster]. 87 The text in this portion of the epitome is fragmentary, 82 The Seige of Nisibis; victory over Magnentius; Philostorgius, 3.23, 3.26. 83 Philostorgius, 11.8. 84 Philostorgius, 11.8. Socrates (6.6.18 22) and Sozomen (8.4.12 14) refer to giant angels. 85 In fact the origin of the story remains a myste ry. In addition to Socrates and Sozomen, it also occurs in Cameron, and Jacqueline Long, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1993), 199 223. 86 87 Philostorgius, 12.3, 12.4. Galla Placidia was the sister of emperor Honorius.
214 which makes interpretation even more challenging than usual. 88 But it is clear that Philostorgius associated the marriage of Galla Placidia to Ataulf with the prophecy and apocalyptic narrative in the biblical Book of Daniel about an empire half of iron and half of clay. Philostorgius describes the union as a joining of the races of iron and clay. It is possible that iron represents Rome, but the key element is that the combination of iron and clay create a fragile and brittle structure that ultimately leads to collapse. 89 It is unclear whether or not Philostorgius intended this allusion to communicate his belief that the Roman Empire was destined to fall or if he saw any hope of reversing these negative signs. 90 contemporary events fulfilling the prophecies in Daniel as well as describing divine punishment. In particular, he maintains that Philostorgius directed his apocalyptic warnings at the Eunomian community which had divided into multiple factions. 91 Largely in keeping with my own analysis in this chapter, Watts has a rgued that Philostorgius used apocalyptic images and notions of divine punishment to interpret catastrophic events in the empire. 92 I would add, however, that Philostorgius was not just warning the Eunomian community through his representation of events but rather directing his view of history to the Roman Empire as a whole. 88 he?] who had sprung from iron was then joined to the race of clay. And that is not all, but it [happened] also when 89 Amidon, Philostorgius 90 91 Watts, 87 88. 92 Watts, 79 98. Watts argues that all Pseudo Joshua the Stylite, Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius, and Timo thy Aelurus used Biblical tropes to explain natural disasters, and that Pseudo Joshua and Timothy Aelurus used this rhetoric to call people to better behavior.
215 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION: COMPETING HISTORIOGRAPHICAL VOICES: PHILOSTORGIUS RECONSIDERED At the conclusion of this study, it makes sense to step back and take a look at where Philostorgius and his Histor y stand as objects of scholarly inquiry in this moment. Given the fragmentary nature of the text and his historical reputation as an outlier, Philostorgius has fared well in many ways. Scholars continue to use his Ecclesiastical History exte nsively as a source for events and ideas in late antiquity. A recent conference dedicated entirely to Philostorgius subsequently led to the publication of a substantial collection of essays. Philostorgius could not have asked for a better editor than Josep h Bidez, and his work has also benefited from an excellent translation into English. Moreover, as this study was wrapping up a new edition and translation was published in Source Chr tiennes 1 By academic standards he has become quite mainstream. In the mi nds of scholars, however, Philostorgius remains in the same place as he was when Photius epitomized him, in many ways defined by heresy. Thus, as historians now more frequently incorporate Philostorgius into broader studies of late antiquity, it is all the The analysis in the preceding chapters has demonstrated the importance of not treatment of the Arian controversy and the relationship between church and state reveals that he did not simply write in favor of the heretics and to attack his opponents. The History not only reveals a complex treatment of Arianism, but also clearly demo nstrates that Philostorgius did not self identify as an 1 Philostorge, Histoire Ecclsiastique douard Des Places, Bruno Bleckmann, Doris Meyer, Jean M arc Prieur, Sources Chrtiennes 564 (2013).
216 Arian. Even though other scholars have made this point in the past, it still needs to be reiterated as the misidentification persists in contemporary works. Of course, inappropriate terminology is not the only issue, but the use of these heresiological categories can lead to erroneous conclusions such as that Philostorgius did not write the history of the Christian church or that his account, in contrast with the Nicene ecclesiastical histories, is exc eptionally polemical. 2 I f we imagine that neither writer History as somehow more polemical and partisan than that of Rufinus those of his contemporary historians also allows for a fuller understanding of other aspects of late antiquity such as Christianization. His particular presentation of mission in the History and h is inclusion of accounts which serve as the sole witness to some events add detail and nuance to the ecclesiastical history and contributing to the development of a Christi an view of the past is in itself part of the Christianization process in the later Roman Empire. Moreover, his view of bishops and emperors is important for understanding how religious minorities may have viewed the Roman Empire and sheds light on the rela tionship between History contributes to our knowledge of late Roman views of diverse pagans, barbarians, Jews, and others and can contribute to an understanding of how the categories of religion and ethnicity differed and intersected. 2 Marasco, 265; Marasco, torgius and
217 longer and even more fascinating text. Yet often descriptions of Philostorgius give no indication of that richness. This is just one exam ple that seems apt to mention in the conclusion of this study. The esteemed Henry Chadwick wrote, ...within the empire Arianism died unloved and unlamented. The surviving fragments of the Arian historian Philostorgius, who wrote an apology for Arianism abo ut 425, show how the movement which had begun as a bold endeavor to reformulate Christian doctrine in a way more palatable to the educated public of A.D. 320, sadly ended in the superstitious repetition of antiquated slogans. 3 Twenty years after Chadwick The Early Church (1993), even so prominent a Byzantine scholar as Anthony Kaldellis could not overcome the 4 It is remarkable that Ecclesiastical History The text clearly displays evidence of an abundance of sources and erudition incorporated into a narrative with a theo ry of history. The fact that the History combines the influences and content of the Old Testament, Maccabees, other ecclesiastical histories (Eusebius, Rufinus, the anonymous fourth century historian), Herodotus, and such contemporary sources as Olympiodor us of Thebes, to name only a few of his sources, allusive and nuanced use of images and symbols as part of his narrative. He wove all of these elements together to pr esent a coherent vision not just of the Christian church and the Roman Empire, but of divine revelation to humanity. It is no wonder then that 3 Henry Chadwick, The Early Church rev. ed. (London: Penguin, 1993) 151. 4 K aldellis, 70.
218 Photius chose to summarize this text extensively, all the while reminding the reader that Philostorgius was a nas ty heretic as though to allay any doubts the reader may have heretic. Given all its different components, the History defies easy characterization as a work within the gen re of church history. Rather it contributes to the argument that no such established genre ever existed. Even though Philostorgius did claim to write an ecclesiastical history, this does not mean that he necessarily had a clear set ideas about what that en tailed. While it is important to ask what late antique writers meant by the term, the notion of a genre of church history has not been a particularly useful category of scholarly analysis. Church historians have frequently been evaluated by whether or not they measure up to Eusebius. Also, scholars in the past have lumped together the Nicene historians and overlooked their individuality, only recently paying more attention to their differences. As is the case with other historians and their histories, Philo events of the church for he himself envisioned the history of the Christian church as having a broader timeline and timeframe. Thus, it is not so surprising that he focuses more on secular events in the second half as he viewed these events as part of Christian history as much as the activities of bishops. One of the goals of this study was to approach Philostorgius as an historian as well as a man of faith. His allegiance to the Eunomian form of Christianity was undeniably a central aspect of his identity. This is evident in his History as his fundamental to his interpretations
219 of the past. But Philostorgius provides further evidence of the prominent role of Christianity in his life. He reveals that he wrote a treatise against Porphyry and a eulogy for Eunomius, and he provides details of his family and their faith. 5 His history, however, also shows that he did not only see himself as a Christian. He clearly saw himself as a Cappadocian as well, as numerous passages attest to this aspect of his identity. He also saw himself as a participating member of the Roman imperial system. The fact that he moved to Constantinople as a young man su ggests that he found employment in a position that was at least part of the wider system of the court and the imperial bureaucracy. Additionally, he expressed opinions of the imperial and ecclesiastical leadership of his day. He saw himself as an educated elite member of society participating in this culture along with others like him, both pagans and Christians. He joined them in the acquisition and production of knowledge as his passages on medicine, geography, and ethnography show. In fact, the question of how radical he appeared to his contemporaries remains. Would Sozomen feel the need to respond to a man whose opinion was so marginal? It is also important to consider that Philostorgius personally interacted with people whose views he opposed, as may h ave been the case with the pagan historian Olympiodorus. 6 Philostorgius lived in the same city in which numerous other authors wrote and shared the same educational background. It is interesting to imagine the atmosphere in this educational setting. Was it contentious, or secretive, and did students care about each 5 Philostorgius, 3.21, 10.10, 9.9. 6
220 included rhetoric, philosophy, and medicine. As a member of this educated elite culture he saw himself as drawing on a long heritage going all the way back to Herodotus that was as much a part of his cultural inheritance as it was of his Nicene contemporaries. In other words, even though over the course of his lifetime Philostorgius witnessed alarming rever sals for the Eunomians, the impact of imperial proclamations did not happen overnight. Philostorgius lived during a time of change in the ecclesiastical, imperial, and social reality of the late Roman Empire. He was born before the establishment of Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Empire and witnessed a continued battle for the definitions of Christian doctrine. Perhaps in the end this is what explains his decision to write. It was not that he had lived his entire life knowing that the en d had come, but rather that at the age of 57 he saw the signs that the world that he inhabited had become more entrenched and was in peril if the leadership of the Roman Empire, especially bishops, emperors and the educated elite, did not change course. Fi Ecclesiastical History has attempted to engage with the vast historiography of history writing in late antiquity. The History itself is a witness to the richness and diversity of ways in which people understood, interpr eted, and constructed the past in late antiquity. The fact that so many historians wrote during this period and that they covered many of the same events does not show that there were unsuccessful, as Momigliano has suggested, but rather attests to the vib rancy of historiography in late antiquity both in terms of the number of writers who chose to share their vision of history but also in terms of a sufficient audience to read these works. In fact, the variety in late antique historiography -the church hist ories, non
221 Christian histories, chronicles, the works in Latin, Greek, and a range of new literary languages, the brevaria, hagiographies and other works that interpret or use the past suggest that it might make sense to compartmentalize them and to give u p the idea of producing an overarching synthesis of the topic. While it is certainly valuable to point out the differences between all these different historical works and to pay attention to the time period, language, and other contexts in which they were written, the case of Philostorgius provides just one example of how scholars have overused or confused these categories. In so doing they have obscured one of the defining features of late antique history writing its diversity in communication, diversity not exclusively in the sense of division, but in the sense of dialogue, debate, overlap, and coexistence. Thus, relegating Philostorgius to the category in which Photius placed him, that of an overly polemical heretic, has prevented us from seeing histori ography in the fifth century as a competitive exchange about theories of history. By closely analyzing and share in the polemical aspects of his history with his colleagues, but also in certain approaches to history. Simultaneously, his distinctive understanding of history elicited a response from other writers and thereby helped create the very works that later became in this dynamic period of late antique history writing went forgotten. It makes sense that assessments of late Roman historiography have generally been so pessimistic and critical. Not only were scholars holding up late antique historians to the standards of classical antiquity but they were not fully acknowledging the diversity of authors and works that were part of this vibrant historiographical exchange.
222 LIST OF REFERENCES Primary Sources Amidon, Philip R., translation. The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia Books 10 and 11 New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Amidon, Philip R., translation, introduction, and notes. Philostorgius: Church History. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Artemii Passio Translation by Mark Vernes, in From Constantine to Julian: Paga n and Byzantine Views: A Source History edited by Samuel N. C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat London: Routledge, 1996. Auxentius of Durostorum. Letter on the Life, Faith and Death of Ulfila Translated by Peter Heather and John Matthews in The Goths in the F ourth Century Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1991. Bidez, Joseph. Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte: Mit dem Leben des Lucian von Antiochien und den Fragmenten eines arianischen Historiographen 3rd edition revised by Friedhelm Winkelmann; GCS; Be rlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981. Blockley, R.C. Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus vol. 2, text, translation, and historiographical notes. Liverpool, Great Britain: Francis Cairns, 1983. Codex Theodosianus Edited by Theodor Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, Theodosiani Libri XVI I.2. Berlin: Weidmann, , 1962. Gregory of Nyssa. Contra Eunomium In Grgoire de Nysse. Contre Eunome I Greek text edited by W. Jaeger (Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Lei den). Translated by Raymond Winling, Sources Chrtiennes 521. Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 2008. Gryson, Roger. Sources Chrtiennes 267. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Henry, Rene, ed. and trans. Photius: Bibliotheque 9 vols Paris: Belles Let t res, 1959 1991. Kotter, Bonifatius, ed. Opera homiletica et hagiographica vol. 5 of Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos ; PTS 29; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Letter of Constantius to the Rulers of Aksum Quoted by Athanasius, Apology to Constantius 31. In Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church, AD 337 461 Edited by J. Stevenson. Second edition revised by W. H. C. Frend. London: SPCK, 1989.
223 Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Dominic Montserrat, eds. From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views: A Source History London: Routledge, 1996. Palatine Anthology Book IX in Greek Anthology, Collection des Universits de France, vol. 7, text by Pierre Waltz, translated by Guy Soury (Paris: Socit d' Philostorge. Histoire Ecclsiastique Greek text revised by Jospeh Bidez (GCS) ; translated by douard Des Places; introduction, revision, notes and index by Bruno Bleckmann, Doris Meyer, et Jean Marc Prieur Sources Ch rtiennes 564. Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 2013. Schwartz, Eduard and Theodore Mommsen, eds. Eusebius Werke GCS; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999. Socrates. Ecclesiastical History In Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire Ecclsiastique, Livre I Translated b y Pierre Prichon and Pierre Maraval, Sources Chrtiennes 477. Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 2004. Socrates. Ecclesiastical History Translated by A. C. Zenos. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957. Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History In Sozomne. Histoire Ecclsiastque, Livres I II Edited by Josef Bidez and translated by And Jean Festugire, Sources Chrtiennes 306. Paris: Cerf, 1983. Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History Translated by Chester D. Hartranft. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957. Theodoret. Ecclesiastical History In Theodoret de Cyr. Histoire Ecclsiastique Edited by L. Parmentier, G. C. Hansen, J. Bouffartigue, Annick Martin, and Pierre Canivet, S ources Chrtiennes 501. Paris: Cerf, 2006. Theodoret. Ecclesiastical History Translated by Bloomfield Jackson. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Const itutions Translated with commentary, glossary, and bibliography by Clyde Pharr. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952. Suidae Lexicon Edited by Ada Adler. 5 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928 1938. Vaggione, Richard Paul. Eunomius, The Extant Works: Text and Translation Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
224 Secondary Sources Allen, Pauline. Evagrius Scholasticus: The Church Historian Louvain: Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 1981. Traditio 43: 368 381. Reading the Past in Late Antiquity edited by Graeme Clark. Rushcutters Bay, NSW, Australia: Australian National University Press, 1990. Amerise, Marilena. Filostorgio e la morte di Constantino il Grande. Historia 55 ( 2006): 328 343. Giving the Heretic a Voice: Philostorgius of Borissus and Greek Athenaeum 89 (2001): 497 524. Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy: an Approach to Fourth century Trinitarian Theology Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004. Philostorg e et l'historiographie de l'antiquit tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung edited by Doris Meyer. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011. Barnes, Timothy D. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Barnes, Timothy D. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. From Eusebius t o Augustine: Selected Papers, 1982 1993 Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1994. Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World edited by G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, Oleg Grabar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Bjornlie, Shane M. Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople: A Study of Cassiodorus and the Variae 527 554. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press, 2013
225 Endzeiten Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen edited by Wolfram Brandes and Felic itas Schmieder. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008, 13 40. Jahrbuch fr Antike und Christentum 46 (2003): 7 16. Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr ., 1 (2004): 185 231. Die Wahrnehm ung von Krisenphnomenen. Fallbeispiele von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit edited by H. Scholten. Kln: Bhlau Verlag, 2007, 97 109. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine edited by Noel Lenski. Cambridge University Press, 2006, 14 31. Blockley, R.C. Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus vol. 1. Liverpool, Great Britain: Francis Cairns, 1981. Brennecke, Hans Chris tof. Studien zur Geschichte der Homer: der Osten bis zum Ende der homischen Reichskirche Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Continuity and Change: Studies in Late Antique Historiography Krakw: Jagiellonian Univers ity Press, 2007. Brown, Peter. tiquity: The Case of Augustine. I n The Past before Us: the Challenge of Historiographies of LateAntiquity edited by Carole Straw and Richard Lim Turnhout: Brepols, 2004 Burgess, R. W. Review of Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004. 03. 49. Passio S. Artemii, Philostorgius, and the Dates of the Invention and Translations of the Relics of Analecta Bollandiana 121 (2003): 5 36. Cameron, Alan, and Jacqueline Long. Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
226 Casiday, Augustine, and Frederick W. Norris, eds. The Cambrid ge History of Christianity, Vol. 2: Constantine to c.600 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church Revised edition. London: Penguin, 1993. Chesnut, Glenn F. The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius 2 nd ed. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986. Clarke, Graeme, ed., with Brian Croke, Alanna Emmett Nobbs, and Raoul Mortley. Reading the Past in Late Antiquity Rushcutters Bay: Australian National University Press, 1990. Croke In The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography edite d by John Marincola, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Croke, Brian, History and Historians in Late Antiquity edited by Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett. Rushcutters Bay: Pergamon Pr ess, 1983. Croke, Brian, and Alanna M. Emmett, eds. History and Historians in Late Antiquity Rushcutters Bay: Pergamon Press, 1983. De Nie, Giselle. Poetics of Wonder: Testimonies of the New Christian Miracles in the Late Antique Latin World Turnhout: Br epols, 2012. Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal Historiography edited by Peter Liddel and Andrew Fear. Londo n: Duckworth, 2010. Drake, H. A. Review of Church History Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (2009): 160 161. Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity edited by Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011, 67 78. Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal Historiogr aphy edited by Peter Liddel and Andrew Fear. London: Duckworth, 2010. Ferguson, Thomas C. The Past is Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography Leiden: Brill, 2005.
227 Fernndez Hernndez, Gonzalo. se Gerin 3 (1985): 211 229. Fernndez Hernndez, Gonzalo Klio 71 (1989): 361 366. Theodosian Code Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity edied by Christopher Kelly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Fowden, Garth. Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Frakes, Robert M. Review of Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian Journal of Late Antiquity 2 (2009): 172 180. 361): Miss ion Monasticism L'Eglise et l'Empire au IVe sicle: sept exposs suivis de discussions edited by Friedrich Vittinghoff and Albrecht Dihle. Genve: Fondation Hardt, 1989. Mis cellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae vol. 3, edited by Derek Baker. Louvain, 1970. Galvo Sobrinho, Carlos R. Doctrine and Power: Theological Controversy and Christian Leadership in the Later Roman Empire Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Gwyn n, David M. The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Gwynn, David M., Susanne Bangert, and Luke Lavan, eds. Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity Leiden: Brill, 2010. Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977): 372 429. Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy, 318 38 1 Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. Heather, Peter. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27 (1986): 289 318. Heather, Peter, and John Matthews. The Goths in the Fourth Century Liverpool: Liverpool Univer sity Press, 1991.
228 Hedrick, Charles W History and Silence: The Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000. Holdsworth, C. J., and T. P. Wiseman, eds. The Inheritance of Historiography, 350 900 Exeter: Un iversity of Exeter Press, 1986. Hoyland, Robert. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam London: Routledge, 2001 J ournal of Early Christian Studies 16 (2008): 143 164. Hunt James Michael Constantius II and the Ecclesiastical Historians. Fordham University, 2010. Inglebert, Herv mediterrane en. Mediterraneo Antico 4 (2001): 559 584. Inglebert, Herv Interpretatio Christiana: Les mutations des saviors (cosmographie, 630 apres J. C.) Paris: Institut d'tudes Augustiniennes, 2001. Inglebert, Herv. Les Romains Chrtiens face l'Histoire de Rome: Histoire, Christianisme et Romanits en Occident dans l'Antiquit tardive (IIIe Ve sicles) Paris: Institut d'tudes Augustiniennes, 1996. Iricinschi, Eduard, and Holger M. Zellenti n, eds. Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Janiszewski, Pawel. The Missing Link: Greek Pagan Historiography in the Second Half of the Third Century and in the Fourth Century AD translated by Dorota Dzierzbicka. Warsaw: Rap hael Taubenschlag Foundation, 2006. Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald, ed. Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Kaldellis, Anthony. Ethnography after Antiquity: Foreign Land and peoples in Byzantine Liter ature Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Kelly, Christopher, ed. Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013. Theodosius II: R ethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity edited by Christopher Kelly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
229 Kope ek, Thomas A. A History of Neo Arianism Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979. Lankina, Anna. Review of Philo storge et l'historiographie de l'antiquit tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2012.12.34. Tran sactions of the American Philological Association 127 (1997): 129 168. Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. edited by Gabriele Mar asco. Leiden: Brill, 2003. eretical Historiography: Philostorgius Studia Patristica 34 (2001): 111 124. Leppin, Hartmut. Von Konstantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II: das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozome nus und Theodoret G ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996. The Palestinian Earthquake of May 363 in Philostorgius, the Syriac Chronicon miscellaneum and the Letter Attributed to Cyril on the Rebuilding of Journa l of Late Antiquity 6 (2013): 61 83. Liddel, Peter, and Andrew Fear, eds. Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal Historiography London: Duckworth, 2010. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical Wor ld edited by G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Irish Theological Quarterly 43 (1976): 3 23. In Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. edited by Gabriele Marasco. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Marasco, Gabriele. Philostorge et l'historio graphie de l'antiquit tardive / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung edited by Doris Meyer. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011 265 274. Marasco, Gabriele. Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 2005.
230 Marasco, Gabriele, ed. Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. Leiden: Brill, 2003. The Material s, Sources and Methods of Ecclesiastical History edited by Derek Baker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Matthews, John. The Roman Empire of Ammianus Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. Barbarian Bishops and the Speculum 72 (1997): 664 697. In Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation o f Identity in Late Antiquity edited by Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011, 17 32. Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity edited by Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011, 1 4. Romans, Barbarians, and the T ransformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity edited by Ralph Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011, 54 65. McGill, Scott, Cristiana Sogno, and Edward Watts, eds. From the Tetrar chs to the Theodosians: Later Roman History and Culture, 284 450 CE New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. McLynn, Neil. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends, and Pupils edited by John Drinkwater and Benet Salway. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2007. Meyer, Doris. Mdecine et t hologie chez Philostorge. In Les pres de l'glise face la science mdicale de leur temps edited by Vronique Boudon Millot and Bernard Pouderon. Paris: Beauchesne, 2007, 427 449 Meyer, Doris, ed. Philostorge et l'historiographie de l'antiquit tardi ve / Philostorg im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011.
231 Millar, Fergus. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408 450) Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Momigliano, Arnald o. (320 Rivista Storica Italiana (1969) 81: 286 203. Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography Sather Classical Lectures, 54. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990 [ 1961 1962] In The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century edite d by Arnaldo Momigliano. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Momigliano, Arnaldo. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012 . Nobbs, Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991): 271 281. Tradition and Traditions. Prudentia suppl ( 1994): 198 207. Nobbs Reading the Past in Late Antiquity edited by Graeme Clarke. Rushcutters Bay, NSW, Australia: Australian National University Press, 1990. The Spr ead of Christianity in the First Four Centuries: Essays in Explanation edited by W. V. Harris. New York: Brill, 2005, 125 143. Opitz, Hans Byzantion 9 (1934): 535 593. Prieur, Jean Marc. Histoire ecclsiastique de Philostorge. Revue 85 (2005): 529 552. Prieur, Jean Marc. "Eunome selon l'Histoire ecclsiastique de Philostorge. Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 86 (2006): 171 182. Prie ur, Jean Marc. spcifiques. Bulletin de 14 (2005): 82 86. Prieur, Jean Marc. Phil Plerinages et lieux saints dans l'antiquit et le moyen ge: mlanges offerts Pierre Maraval edited by Batrice Caseau, Jean Claude
232 Cheynet, and Vincent Droche. Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 2006, 417 427. The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity edited by Mary Whitby. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Rohrbacher, David. The Historians of L ate Antiquity London: Routledge, 2002. Rosen, Klaus. Ammianus Marcellinus Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. Sabbah, Guy. La Mthode d'Ammien Marcellin: Recherches sur la Construction du Discours Historique dans les Res Gestae Paris: L es Belles Lettres, 1978. Shahid, Irfan. Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1984. Simpson, Alicia. Niketas Choniates: A Historiographical Study Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. The Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996): 373 386. Church History 79 (2010): 1 39. as Interpreters and Church History 79 (2010): 271 304. Athenaeum 88 (2000): 559 563. ques et les Antichit altoadriatiche 39 (1992): 171 194. Thelamon, Franoise . Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1981. Thompson, E. A. n The Conflict be tween Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century edited by Arnaldo M omigliano Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Thompso n, E. A. The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947.
233 Thompson, E. A. The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila Second edition. London: Duckworth Publishers, 2008 . Treadgold, Warren. The Early Byzantine Histor ians New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Treadgold, Warren. The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1980. Trompf, G. W. Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive Justice London: Continuum, 2000. Urbain Historia 46 (1997): 355 373. Urbainczyk, Theresa. Socrates of Constantinople: Historian of Church and State. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997. Urb ainczyk, Theresa. Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity edited by Mary Whitby. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Vaggione, Richard Paul. Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Van Dam, Raymond. Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia Philadelphia: University of Pennsy lvania Press, 2003. In Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. edited by Gabriele Marasco. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Van Ginkel, Jan J. John of Ephesus: A Monophysi te Historian in Sixth century Byzantium Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 1995. 450 C.E.): The Journal of Early Christian Studies 18:3 (2010): 425 451. Van Nuffelen, Peter. Un hritage de paix et de pit: tude sur les historie ecclsiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomne Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Van Nuffelen, Peter. Isolement et apocalypse: Philostorge et les eunomiens sous Philostorge et l'hi storiographie de l'Antiquit tardive / Philostorg
234 im Kontext der sptantiken Geschichtsschreibung edited by Doris Meyer. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2011, 307 326. Van Nuffelen, Peter. Historiogr Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal Historiography edited by Peter Liddel and Andrew Fear. London: Duckworth, 2010. emperors in the Histor y of Philostorgius] Nauchnie Vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 13 (2010): 19 27. Wallraff, M. In Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart vol. 6, Tbingen, 2003, col. 1315 16. Disasters in the Works of Pseudo Joshua the Journal of Late Antiquity 2 (2009): 79 98. Whitby, Michael. Review of Filostorgio: cultura, fede e politica in uno storico ecclesiastico del V secolo The Classical Review 57 (2007): 89 90. Williams, Daniel. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian Nicene Conflicts Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1987. Winkelmann, F Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Fourth to Sixth Century A.D. edited by Gabriele Marasco. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wood, Ian. The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europ e, 400 1050 New York: Longman, 2001. Woods, David. A Companion to Late Antiquity edited by Philip Rousseau and Jutta Raithel. Chichester/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2009, 357 371. Young, Frances with Andrew Teal. From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background Second edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Metodologie della ricerca sulla tarda antichit edited by Antonio Gar
235 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Anna Lankina traveled from her native Moscow, Russia in the fall of 2001 to attend and complete high school in Woolwich, Maine. Her subsequent studies at Hillsdale College, Michigan confirmed her desire to st udy ancient history and inspired her to pursue the fields of Late Antiquity and Early Christianity in particular. She continued her studies at the Department of History at the University of Florida through a ing the enthusiasm of Dr. Andrea Sterk for the topic of Christianization, Anna combined this newfound interest with her prior fascination with heresy to focus on the distinctive features of non Nicene mission and its her to examine the understudied Ecclesastical History of Philostorgius. In 2014 she completed a dissertation focusing on themes of Christian leadership and empire in the History and received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida.