Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mixed Messages: The Early Modern Reception of Eusebius as a Church Historian

  • Article
  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. For other cases of visionary ecclesiastical scholarship, see M. García-Arenal and F. Rodríguez Mediano, The Orient in Spain: Converted Muslims, the Forged Lead Books of Granada, and the Rise of Orientalism, transl. C. López-Morillas, Leiden and Boston, 2013, and K. Olds, Forging the Past: Invented Histories in Counter-Reformation Spain, New Haven, 2015.

  2. On Paul’s chronological project, see P. Nothaft, Dating the Passion: The Life of Jesus and the Emergence of Scientific Chronology (200–1600), Leiden and Boston, 2012.

  3. Paul of Middelburg, Paulina de recta Paschae celebratione, Fossombrone, 1513, sigs P IIIv–[P Vr].

  4. Ibid., sig. [P VIIr]: ‘Nec mirum videri debet quod Eusebius caesariensis pontifices aliquos neglexerit, nam usque ad tempora Eusebii & Constantini imperatoris ecclesia christiana continuis persecutionibus & tribulationibus vexata fuit quando quidem non solum pontifices, sed & christiani omnes passim necabantur. atque etiam codices sacri in quibus catalogus pontificum continebatur per totum orbem combusti fuerant praeter paucas epistolas quas tandem Alexander hierosolymorum episcopus in bibliotheca quam construxerat collegit, ex quibus Eusebius ipse totius operis sui & historiae scribendae materiam se sumpsisse fatetur. quem admodum videre licet libro sexto ecclesiasticae historiae capitulo decimooctavo.’.

  5. A. D. Momigliano, ‘Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.’, in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. D. Momigliano, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79-99; see A. Grafton, ‘Arnaldo Momigliano and the Tradition of Ecclesiastical History’, in The Legacy of Arnaldo Momigliano, ed. T. Cornell and O. Murray, London and Turin, 2014, pp. 53-76. In his great article, Momigliano both followed and satirized E. Schwartz, ‘Über Kirchengeschichte’, 1908, repr. in id., Gesammelte Schriften, 5 vols, Berlin, 1938–63, I, pp. 110–30.

  6. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica [hereafter cited as HE], 6.20.1: ‘Ἤκμαζον δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο πλείους λόγιοι καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ ἄνδρες, ὧν καὶ ἐπιστολάς, ἃς πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεχάραττον, ἔτι νῦν σῳζομένας εὑρεῖν εὔπορον: αἳ καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐφυλάχθησαν ἐν τῇ κατὰ Αἰλίαν βιβλιοθήκῃ, πρὸς τοῦ τηνικάδε τὴν αὐτόθι διέποντος ἐκκλησίαν Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐπισκευασθείσῃ, ἀφ̓ ἧς καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰς ὕλας τῆς μετὰ χεῖρας ὑποθέσεως ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν συναγαγεῖν δεδυνήμεθα.’.

  7. For a substantial, though incomplete, list and discussion of the changes made by Rufinus see J. E. L. Oulton, ‘Rufinus’s Translation of the Church History of Eusebius’, Journal of Theological Studies, 30, 1929, pp. 150–74.

  8. Rufinus, HE, prologus: ‘Sciendum sane est quod decimus liber huius operis in graeco quum perparum erat in rebus gestis, reliqua omnia in episcoporum panegyricis nihil ad scientiam rerum conferentibus…’; translation from The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books 10 and 11, transl. P. Amidon, Oxford, 1997, p. 4.

  9. Oulton, ‘Rufinus’s Translation’ (n. 7 above), pp. 169–74.

  10. Rufinus, HE, 10.5-6. See P. Amidon, ‘Introduction’, in The Church History of Rufinus (n. 8 above), esp. pp. xii–xvii; Amidon’s Introduction to his translation of Rufinus, History of the Church, Washington DC, 2016, pp. 3–16, esp. pp. 7–14; M. Humphries, ‘Rufinus’s Eusebius: Translation, Adaptation and Edition in the Latin Ecclesiastical History’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 16.2, 2008, pp. 143–64; and C. Chin, ‘Rufinus of Aquileia and Alexandrian Afterlives: Translation as Origenism’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 18, 2010, pp. 617–47.

  11. Rufinus, HE, 6.20.1: ‘Florebant autem per idem tempus plurimi disertissimi in ecclesiis viri, quorum epistolae, quas ad se invicem dabant, reperimus in hierosolymorum bibliotheca ad nos usque servatas, quam construxerat vir eruditissimus de quo superius memoravimus alexander loci ipsius episcopus. Unde et nos (ut fateamur quod verum est) totius huius operis nostri et historiae conscribendae materiam sumpsimus.’.

  12. Autores historiae ecclesiasticae, Basel, 1528; British Library 4532.h.2, 145 on HE 6.15. For Cranmer’s books, see D. Selwyn, The Library of Thomas Cranmer, Oxford, 1996; on his reading habits, see D. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life, New Haven and London, 1996, esp. pp. 26–31.

  13. On Tolosani, see D. Marzi, La questione della riforma del calendario nel quinto concilio lateranense (1512–1517), Florence, 1896; E. Rosen, ‘Was Copernicus' Revolutions Approved by the Pope?’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 36, 1975, pp. 531–42; E. Garin, Rinascite e rivoluzioni, Rome, 1975; and Nothaft, Dating the Passion (n. 2 above).

  14. Ioannes Lucidus Samotheus [Giovanni Maria Tolosani], Opusculum de emendationibus temporum, Venice, 1537, fol. 58r.

  15. Ibid., fol. 1v: ‘Praecipue vero authores illi recipiendi sunt qui ex officio publico & fide probata scripserunt. Dicit enim idem Metasthenes in eodem libro. Neque tamen omnes recipiendi sunt qui de regibus scribunt: sed solum sacerdotes illius regni penes quos est publica & probata fides annalium suorum: qualis est Berosus. Nam is Caldeus omne tempus Assiriorum digessit, ex antiquorum annalibus. Haec ille.’.

  16. Ibid.: ‘Rejicitur in ea Iosephus ex hebraeis & Clemens, Tatianus, Aphricanus, & Eusebius ex graecis quia privatas opiniones sequuti contra publicam fidem ponunt reges & tempora quae in bibliothecis & annalibus non reperiuntur…. Proinde idem Eusebius quoniam in tertia Monarchia graecorum & in quarta Romanorum publicam annalium fidem sequitur, in utraque recipitur.’.

  17. Ibid., fol. 58r: ‘Non est mirum Eusebium in hoc defecisse eo quod suo tempore nondum erat editus praedictus Damasi pontificalis.’.

  18. Ibid.: ‘Magis enim creditur, quantum ad hoc, Damaso pontifici: qui de archivis ecclesiae Romanae id accepit: quam caeteris scriptoribus qui per opiniones ad libitum scripserunt.’.

  19. Ibid.: ‘Postea enim Hieronymus presbyter, qui transtulerat Eusebium de temporibus: & hunc eius errorem repererat: rogavit eundem Damasum per literas, ut ederet librum pontificum Romanorum: quod & fecit.’.

  20. For these texts, see L. Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis: Texte, introduction et commentaire, 2 vols, Paris, 1886–92, I, p. 117.

  21. A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Bibical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2009, p. 67.

  22. See the recent treatments by O. Andrei, ‘Canons chronologiques et Histoire ecclésiastique’, in Eusebius, Histoire Ecclésiastique, Commentaire, I, ed. S. Morlet and L. Perrone, Paris, 2012, pp. 62–82, and E. Prinzivalli, ‘Le genre historiographique de l’Histoire ecclésiastique’, ibid., pp. 83–111, with ample references to earlier discussions. For the larger context of both works, T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge MA, 1981, remains essential.

  23. In addition to the works by Momigliano and Grafton cited above, see A. Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, ed. R. di Donato, Berkeley, 1990, chap. 6.

  24. M. Wallraff, ‘Die Rezeption der spätantiken Kirchengeschichtswerke im 16. Jahrhundert’, in Auctoritas Patrum, II, ed. L. Grane, A. Schindler and M. Wriedt, Mainz, 1998, pp. 223–60 (245–6).

  25. Ecclesiastica historia, 13 vols in 7, Basel, 1560–74, I, sig. α 5r: ‘Plurimum enim occupati sunt in describendis et laudandis personis. Commemorant, qualis ac quam sanctus vir quis fuerit, quam mirabilem vitam duxerit, quam multum ieiunarit et orarit, quae miracula vivus aut mortuus fecerit: quorum tamen nonnulla, an sint veritati consentanea, non praeter rem ambigitur. Non ibi dogmata, non certamina perspicue exponuntur.’

  26. Konrad Braun, Adversus novam historiam ecclesiasticam… admonitio Catholica, Dillingen, 1565, e.g., sigs [D6v–D7r]: ‘In prima igitur parte enumeratis aliquot historicis ecclesiasticis, qui de rebus Ecclesiae scripserunt, inter quos ab eis enumerantur Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoretus, Nicephorus, Vincentius, Martinus, Nauclerus, Sabellicus & alij: primum de Eusebio Caesariensi tanquam in hoc genere aliorum principe, alijsque veteribus historicis scribunt: plurima & quidem ea omnium potissimum, quae in historia sacra Ecclesiae Dei, vel omnium maxime eminere, & quasi astra quaedam lucidissima fulgere debebant, vel omnino, vel magna ex parte in ipsis desiderari.’ For Braun and his debate with Flacius, see J. L. de Orella y Unzué, Respuestas católicas a las centurias de Magdeburgo (1559–1599), Madrid, 1976, pp. 54–68; M. B. Rößner, Konrad Braun (ca. 1485–1563) – ein katholischer Jurist, Politiker, Kontroverstheologe und Kirchenreformer im konfessionellen Zeitalter, Münster, 1991, pp. 197–8.

  27. Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Refutatio invectivae Bruni contra Centurias Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Basel, 1566, pp. 15–17, quoting Juan Luis Vives, De causis corruptarum artium, ii, in De disciplinis libri xx, Cologne, 1536, pp. 97–9. See M. Oliveri, ‘Le facce diverse di Melchior Cano’, in Il piacere del testo: Saggi e studi per Albano Biondi, ed. A. Prosperi with M. Donattini and G. P. Brizzi, Rome, 2001, pp. 149–76.

  28. Cesare Baronio, Annales ecclesiastici, I, Rome, 1593, sig. b4v.

  29. For Jerome and the Latin tradition in chronography, see R. Burgess and M. Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time: The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD, Turnhout, 2013.

  30. Vespasiano da Bisticci, Vite di uomini illustri del secolo XV, Florence, 1938, p. 523. Palmieri’s working copy is Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS Convv. Soppr. 133. See A. Modigliani, ‘Per la datazione del De re aedificatoria: Il codice e gli archetipi del Alberti’, Albertiana 16 (2013), pp. 91–110 (91–100). Handsome copies of this text were much loved by Anglophone collectors. Examples include British Library Add MS 62994, Wellcome Library MS 591, Fitzwilliam Museum MS 178, Glasgow University Library MS Hunter 198 (U.1.2) and Beinecke Library Marston MS 217. Early in the sixteenth century, a new supplement to the Chronicle was produced in a Paris printer’s shop; see P. Way, ‘Jehan de Mouveaux’s “Primum exemplar”: A Model Copy Made for Henri Estienne’s 1512 Edition of Eusebius’s Chronicle’, Quaerendo, 32, 2002, pp. 60–98. A still later continuation appears in Johannes Sichardus’s edition, Habes opt. lector chronicon opus felicissime renatum, Basel, 1536, fols 211r–221v: ‘Nova temporum continuatio Germani cuiusdam.’.

  31. Palmieri’s account of Lucius’s conversion appears e.g. at MS Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 817, fol. 94r: ‘Lucius britanniae rex eleuterium pontificem baptisma postulavit: quod cum accepisset: brittani quoque fidem christi una susceperunt: & usque ad dioclitiani tempora inviolatam servaverunt.’ On the story of Lucius and Eleutherius, see F. Heal, ‘What can King Lucius do for you? The Reformation and the Early British Church’, English Historical Review, 120, 2005, pp. 593–619.

  32. Jerome-Eusebius, Chronicon, Venice, 1483, fol. 77v: ‘Constantinus extremo vitae suae tempore ab Eusebio Nicomediensi episcopo baptiçatus….’.

  33. MS note, Princeton, University Library, ExI 2016-0016 N, ibid.: ‘Magnam hic locus altercationem excitavit inter doctos viros…’.

  34. MS note ibid., flyleaf, e.g., this quotation from Jerome-Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. E. Klostermann, GCSL, Leipzig, 1904, 5: ‘Eusebius, qui a beato Pamphilo martyre cognomentum sortitus est, post x ecclesiasticae historiae libros, post temporum canones, quos nos Latina lingua edidimus, post diversarum vocabula nationum, quae quo modo olim apud Hebraeos dicta sint et nunc dicantur exposuit: post cosmographiam [lectio facilior for chorografiam] terrae Iudeae et distinctas tribuum sortes, ipsius quoque Hierusalem templique in ea cum brevissima expositione picturam, ad extremum in hoc opusculum laboravit, ut congregaret [om. nobis] de sancta scriptura omnium pene urbium, montium, fluvium, viculorum et diversorum locorum vocabula, quae vel eadem manent vel immutata sunt postea, vel aliqua ex parte corrupta, unde [om. et] nos admirabilis viri sequentes studium, secundum ordinem litterarum ut sunt in Graeco posita transtulimus etc.’.

  35. Heinrich Pantaleon, Chronographia Christianae ecclesiae, Basel, 1561, New York Society Library Sharp P197 C5577, 13. The text reads: ‘Polycarpus, Iustinus, Papilus in Asia, Photinus, Sanctus, Maturus, Atalus, Blandina & multi alij in Gallia martyrij coronam reportant. Euseb. 4. cap. 15. & 5. capite 1. quaeso vide.’ The unidentified annotator comments: ‘Dignissima sunt lectu f[ragmenta] epistolarum Eccles. Smyrene[nsis de Poly]carpo, et Lugdunensis de Atato, Blandina et…’.

  36. Joseph Justus Scaliger, Thesaurus temporum, Leiden, 1606, p. 202: ‘Quorum usque in praesentem diem condita libris certamina perseverant.] Ea et Polycarpi martyrium hodie extant apud Eusebium in Historia Eccles. quae sunt vetustissima Ecclesiae martyria, quorum lectione piorum animus ita afficitur, ut nunquam satur inde recedat: quod quidem ita esse unus quisque pro captu suo et conscientiae modo sentire potest. Certe ego nihil unquam in historia Ecclesiastica vidi, a cuius lectione commotior recedam, ut non amplius meus esse videar. Idem sentimus de Actis Martyrum Lugdunensium et Viennensium apud eundem Eusebium, quibus quid augustius, quid venerabilius in antiquitatis Christianae monimentis legi potest?’ Isaac Casaubon underlined ‘vetustissima Ecclesiae martyria’ and ‘Certe ego nihil unquam in historia Ecclesiastica vidi, a cuius lectione commotior recedam, ut non amplius meus esse videar’ in his copy of the book, Cambridge University Library Adv.a.3.4., and commented on the blank before the title-page: ‘202. Scaligeri pietas, et affectus in legendis Actis martyrum. vide.’.

  37. T. Freeman, ‘Sex, Lies and Microfilm: Reading and Misreading Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs”’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 30, 1999, pp. 23–46.

  38. See T. Freeman, ‘“Great Searching Out of Bookes and Autors”: John Foxe as an Ecclesiastical Historian, PhD Diss., Rutgers University, 1995; G. Minton, ‘”The Same Cause and like Quarell”: Eusebius, John Foxe and the Evolution of Ecclesiastical History’, Church History, 71, 2002, pp. 715–42.

  39. Eusebii Pamphili, Ruffini, Socratis, Theodoriti, Sozomeni, Theodori, Evagrii et Dorothei Ecclesiastica historia, sex prope seculorum res gestas complectens, Basel, 1587, Halle, Bibliothek der Franckeschen Stiftungen, 114. A 1, 15, 17. Milde also wrote ‘Sursum corda!’ in large letters on the title-page.

  40. See, e.g., Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (n. 22 above); A. Grafton and M. Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius and the Library of Caesarea, Cambridge MA, 2006.

  41. Andrei, ‘Canons chronologiques’ (n. 21 above).

  42. Tolosani, Opusculum (n. 14 above), Liber x. de gestis praecipuis post Christum, 70r–77v.

  43. Paulus Constantinus Phrygio, Chronicum, Basel, 1534, sig. a3v: ‘Deinde singulis regnis, quantum possibile fuit, suas adscripsi, quae in eo factae gestaeve fuere historias, ut quid in singulis regnis eodem tempore, qualis reipub. facies, cernere possis, & quae ab diversis autoribus scripta sunt, quasi tabula una ob oculos depicta habeas. Postremo quo omnibus facerem fidem, singulis historijs autores adiunxi, quot eandem historiam, qui tempore eodem scripsere, quando incepere, quando scribere desierunt, adnotavi.’.

  44. For heretics, see, e.g., ibid., p. 271 on AD 88; p. 284 on AD 134; p. 285 at AD 138; p. 286 at AD 142. For a discussion of a good Christian, oddly unchanged in tense from his source, see ibid., p. 290 at AD 181: ‘PANTAENVS Scholae ecclesiasticae Alexandrinae & doctoris officio praefuit, vir in omni eruditione eruditissimus. Ex quo apud eos consuetudo antiquitus tradita, quae usque in hodiernum permanet, scripturarum divinarum doctores, inibi scholae ecclesiasticae haberi, viros duntaxat in scientia & eruditione probatissimos. Euseb. li. 5. ca. 10.’.

  45. See Phrygio to Beatus Rhenanus, 27 March 1533, in Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus, ed. A. Horawitz and K. Hartfelder, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 414–15; Beatus Rhenanus to Boniface Amerbach, 14 April 1533, ibid., p. 415.

  46. Pantaleon, Chronographia (n. 35 above), sig. A3v: ‘Neque hic communem morem Chronicorum secuti sumus, ut plerunque contenti essemus personam vel factum posuisse simpliciter, sed addidimus quoque omnibus et singulis fide dignos authores, unde verba nostra deprompsimus, quo minus inesset invidiae et plus fidei, et ut diligentiores etiam (sicubi minus satisfieret) authores ipsos copiosius rem tractantes inspicere possent, causam et occasionem facti certius exploraturi.’.

  47. Ibid., p. 26.

  48. On this side of Polydore’s work, see C. Atkinson, Inventing Inventors in Renaissance Europe: Polydore Vergil’s De rerum inventoribus, Tübingen, 2007; C. Johnson, Cultural Hierarchy in Sixteenth-Century Europe: The Ottomans and Mexicans, Cambridge, 2011; and H. Zedelmaier, Werkstätten des Wissens zwischen Renaissance und Aufklärung, Tübingen, 2015.

  49. New York, New York Society Library, Z-Fo Sharp P197 C5577, p. 11: ‘Trogus histo. lib. de differ. febr. ridet credulitatem christianam, quae demonstrationes non postulat. Lucianus plane impius et Atheos, licet Christianam simplicitatem rideat, tamen in Peregrino multa narrat, quae ad historiam pertinent, et eius aetatis Christianorum quae mores essent non obscure indicat.’

  50. Ibid., p. 48.

  51. New York, New York Society Library Z-Fo Sharp P197 C5577, ibid.: ‘Has Ceremonias etiam in Britanniam invenit [read: invexit] per Augustinum quendam Monachum, reclamantibus tamen alijs Angliae monachis, qui prioribus erant contenti. Postea in Germaniam per Bonifacium, qui Germanorum episcopus appellatur, estque Mogunt. sepultus inductae sunt: Demum in Galliam per reges ipsos. Postremo etiam in spaniam opera muliebri irrepserunt.’.

  52. Gilbert Génébrard and Arnoldus Pontacus, Chronographia in duos libros distincta. Prior est de rebus veteris populi: posterior recentes historias, praesertimque ecclesiasticas complectitur, Paris, 1567. Book II has its own title-page: Secundus liber chronographiae, de rebus gestis a Christo nato ad nostra usque tempora. Id est ad annum 1567, Paris, 1567. See sig. P4r: ‘Elias Romanae synagogae Iudaeorum praepositus cum tota sua familia fit Christianus, & a PP baptizatur prid. Idus Iunii 1566. Eodem an. eius exemplo Iudaei plures 300. fidem Christianam suscipiunt.’ On de Pontac, see J. Weinberg, ‘Chronology and Hebraism in the Work of Joseph Scaliger: The Case of Arnaud de Pontac (Arnaldus Pontacus)’, in For the Sake of Learning; Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, ed. A. Blair and A.-S. Goeing, 2 vols, Leiden, 2016, I, pp. 39–54.

  53. Génébrard and Arnoldus Pontacus, Chronographia, sig. Er: ‘Nihil in doctrina Catholica a tempore Apostolorum ad hanc usque aetatem immutatum fuit, maxime Romae, notat Io. Calvinus institu. Gallic. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 3. & epist. ad Sadoletum. Statue tibi quaeso (inquit) ob oculos veterem illam ecclesiae faciem, qualem Chrysostomi aut Basilii aetate apud Graecos, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Augustini seculo apud Latinos extitisse ipsorum monumenta fidem faciunt.’.

  54. Historiae ecclesiasticae scriptores Graeci, transl. John Christopherson, ed. Suffridus Petrus, Cologne, 1581, Praefatio, sig. ††r: ‘Nam cum praecipuam lucem historijs infundat assignatio temporum, nos hoc operam cum primis dedimus, ut & generalem toto opere, & specialem in singulis libris chronologiam adnotaremus, ita ut non modo universalium, sed etiam singularium rerum descriptiones suis temporibus ubique descriptae habeantur’ (this description of Petri’s notes is somewhat exaggerated).

  55. Eusebius-Jerome, Chronicon, Princeton University Library ExI 2016-0016 N, flyleaf: ‘De Chronicis Eusebii mentio habetur xv di. inter sancta ubi gelasius propter doctrinae Eusebii praestantiam eius opera et maxime chronicon et historiam ecclesiasticam non respuit quanquam historiam inter apocrypha enumerat etc.’ Like Lorenzo Valla (see below), this annotator used the version of the list of books attributed to Gelasius found in Gratian, Decretum, D. 15, c.3, §§ 7-82.

  56. Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, ed. E. von Dobschütz, Leipzig, 1912, p. 46: ‘item chronica Eusebii Caesariensis atque eiusdem historiae ecclesiasticae libros, quamvis in primo narrationis suae libro tepuerit et post in laudibus atque excusatione Origenis scismatici unum conscripserit librum, propter rerum tamen singularem notitiam, quae ad instructionem pertinent, usque quaque non dicimus renuendos.’.

  57. Ibid., p. 55.

  58. Beatus Rhenanus in Autores historiae ecclesiasticae (n. 12 above), sig. aa2v: ‘Quod autem xv.d. paulo post legitur Historiam Eusebii Pamphili apocrypham esse, ab aliquo asino adiectum est: nisi velimus dicere Gelasium sibiipsi contrarium, ut qui in eodem decreto improbet librum ante a se probatum, quod est valde inconveniens.’ Cranmer’s underlining is in his copy, London, British Library, 4532.h.2.

  59. Ibid.: ‘Putant autem eruditi et in Hieronymi Vitis esse nonnulla, quae ille facilius forsan scripserit, quam crediderit.’.

  60. Melchior Cano, L’autorità della storia profana. (De humanae historiae auctoritate), ed. and transl. A. Biondi, Turin, 1973.

  61. Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis XI.6, in id., Opera, ed. Hyacinthus Serry, Padua, 1762, p. 302: ‘hoc insolenter, rustice, imperiteque dicit’.

  62. Ibid.: ‘magnus omnino labor, varia & pene incredibilis lectio, ac grave prorsus in lectionis varietate judicium… ‘.

  63. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, I.1.

  64. Wallraff, ‘Die Rezeption’ (n. 24 above), pp. 226–9.

  65. Strassburg, 1500; Haguenau, 1506.

  66. Beda Venerabilis, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglicanae, Antwerp, 1550, sig. A2r: ‘Quod vero ad operis huius rationem attinet, imitatus auctor videtur Caesariensis Eusebij studium, nunquam certe satis laudatum, qui Christianae religionis, ut sic dicam, infantiam, adolescentiam reliquumque progressum gravissima ac diserta oratione conscripsit. Scopus quippe Bedae fuit ostendere qua aetate, quibus auctoribus, propugnatoribus Christianae fidei sementis in Anglia sata, rigata, atque ad incrementum perducta fuit. Quae res sane non solum ad pietatem plurimum valet, verum et id quoque secum commodi affert: quod multorum impiae calumniae ex his satis facile refelli queant, qui hodie receptiss. ac probatiss. ecclesiae sive dogmatibus, sive institutis haud verentur, tanquam novitia essent et ad quaestum a nuperrimis ecclesiae proceribus conficta.’.

  67. Eusebius, Opera, 4 vols, Basel, 1542, I, title-page: ‘Habes candidiss. lector Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis, in omni divinarum humanarumque rerum cognitione, & in nullo literarum genere non exercitatissimi, opera omnia, quae hactenus ubique gentium maxima eruditorum industria inveniri potuerunt. Cui quidam Ecclesiasticorum doctorum summi viri recte iudicarunt, hoc munus a Deo datum, ut certiss. argumentis demonstraret doctrinam Evangelicam, & diversam confutaret. Nam quanquam in disserendi arte & omnibus disciplinis fuerit instructissimus, ita tamen scribere non potuisset, absque singulari dono divini spiritus, qui solus docet exactam methodum, quae fallere minime potest.’.

  68. Ibid., III, p. 3.

  69. Beatus Rhenanus in Autores historiae ecclesiasticae (n. 12 above), sig. aa2r: ‘Ignoraturi sane fueramus Egesippum, Iustinum, Dionysium Corinthiensem, Melitonem Sardensem, Cl. Apollinarem Hierapolitanum, Dionysium Alexandrinum, et ipsum Irenaeum (nam huius tantum quinque libri hodie extant, quod sciam, nondum excusi typis, cum multa scripserit) nisi hic nobis ex illorum libris fragmenta quaedam adferret.’ On this point, see Wallraff, ‘Die Rezeption’ (n. 24 above), p. 227.

  70. Decretum Gelasianum (n. 56 above), p. 57.

  71. Lorenzo Valla, Antidotum in Pogium ad Nicolaum quintum pontificem max. libri IIII, in id., Opera omnia, I, Basel, 1540, repr. Turin, 1962, pp. 325–66 (356): 'Tacebo alias disputationes, referam unam brevem. Quodam die apud sanctam Mariam de muribus extra muros Campanos, cum Arnoldus Pallas Episcopus Urgellensis omnium episcoporum nobilissimus, qui nunc Neapoli est, vexilla regia, ut moris est, initiasset, venimus apud eum in contentionem. Cumque hic attulisset pro testimonio epistolam Christi ad Abagarum regem, derisi hominem, qui Abagarum non modo regem, sed hominem fuisse existimaret, et inquam: "An ignoras istam epistolam inter apocryphas, atque adeo inter fictas ac falsas in Decretis esse positam?"'.

  72. Ibid.: ‘Hic affirmare, & pertinacissime suo more contendere. Ibi Urgellensis, quippe qui decretorum doctor est: Iam inquit, tolerare non possum, aut iniquitatem tuae causae, aut improbitatem tuam, qui rem aperte falsam coneris defendere.’.

  73. J. C. Linde, ‘Lorenzo Valla and the Authenticity of Sacred Texts’, Humanistica Lovaniensia, 60, 2011, pp. 35–63 (46–9).

  74. Alberti to Leonardi Dati. MS Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 767, fol. 42r, published in Opuscoli inediti di Leon Battista Alberti: Musca. Vita S. Potiti, ed. C. Grayson, Florence, 1954, repr. Pisa, 2005, pp. 86–7. See E. Giannarelli, ‘Alberti, I Padri della Chiesa e la letteratura cristiana antica: linee di un problema’, in Alberti e la tradizione: per lo “smontaggio” dei “Mosaici” albertiani, ed. R. Cardini and M. Regoliosi, 2 vols, Florence, 2007, II, pp. 425–47.

  75. A. T. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger, 2 vols, Oxford, 1983–93, II, pp. 299–301; J. Machielsen, Martin Delrio: Scholarship and Demonology in the Counter-Reformation, Oxford, 2015, pp. 335-40, and J. Machielsen, ‘Sacrificing Josephus to Save Philo: Cesare Baronio and the Jewish Origins of Christian Monasticism’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 23.3, 2016, pp. 239-45.

  76. For bio-bibliography in patristic literature, see Chin, ‘Rufinus’ (n. 10 above), esp. pp. 619–23.

  77. Chetham’s Library, Manchester, MUN Collection, A.9.17–20, at Mark 1: ‘de evangelio marci vide in 2o hist. eccl. cap. 15o. char. 34. Et hieronymum in lib. de scriptoribus eccles. in mentione petri. sed et evangelium (inquit) iuxta Marcum, qui auditor eius et interpres fuit, huius esse dicitur [1]. vide in marco. breve (inquit) scripsit evangelium, quod cum Petrus audisset probavit, et ecclesiae legendum sua auctoritate dedit [8].’.

  78. For a case in point, see I. Backus, ‘Calvin’s Judgment of Eusebius of Caesarea: An Analysis’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 22.3 (1991), pp. 419–37 (436) (though in this case, as Backus shows, Calvin distorted the testimony of Eusebius).

  79. Chetham’s Library, Manchester, MUN Collection, A.9.17-20, at Luke 1: ‘eusebius in 3o historiae ecclesiasticae. tradunt autem (inquit) quod evangelium suum ex pauli ore lucas scripserit. et quod resumpsit quod apostolus suum evangelium solitus sit nominare, cum dicit secundum evangelium meum. sicut et marcus quae ex ore petri fuerant praedicata conscripsit. Hoc item ijsdem pene verbis Hieronymus producit in mentione lucae, in libro de eccles. scriptoribus 272.’.

  80. See F. N. Clark, ‘Dividing Time: The Making of Historical Periodization in Early Modern Europe’, PhD diss., Princeton University, 2014; J. Helmrath, ‘Perception of the Middle Ages and Self-Perception in German Humanism: Johannes Trithemius and the Cathalogus illustrium virorum Germaniam… exornantium’, in Biography, Historiography, and Modes of Philosophizing: The Tradition of Collective Biography in Early Modern Europe, ed. P. Baker, Leiden and Boston, 2017, pp. 177–208, with sample texts on pp. 209–39.

  81. Jerome, Prologus to De viris illustribus: ‘Apud Latinos autem Varro, Santra, Nepos, Hyginus, et ad cujus nos exemplum provocas, Tranquillus. Sed non mea est et illorum similis conditio: illi enim historias veteres annalesque replicantes, potuerunt quasi de ingenti prato non parvam opusculi sui coronam texere. Ego quid aucturus, qui nullum praevium sequens, pessimum, ut dicitur, magistrum memetipsum habeo? Quamquam Eusebius Pamphili in decem ecclesiasticae Historiae libris, maximo nobis adjumento fuerit, et singulorum, de quibus scripturi sumus, volumina aetates auctorum suorum saepe testentur.’

  82. See Papias, fragment 3.15, in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. and transl. B. Ehrman, 2 vols, Cambridge MA and London, 2003, II, pp. 102–3, from Eusebius, HE, 3.39.

  83. Papias, fragment 3.4, ibid., pp. 98–9.

  84. Papias, fragment 1, ibid., pp. 92–5.

  85. Rufinus, HE, 3.39.12–13.

  86. For recent modifications of this view, see G. Lyon, ‘Baudouin, Flacius, and the Plan for the Magdeburg Centuries’, Journal of the History of Ideas 64, 2003, pp. 253–72; H. Bollbuck, Wahrheitszeugnis, Gottes Auftrag und Zeitkritik: die Kirchengeschichte der Magdeburger Zenturien und ihre Arbeitstechniken, Wiesbaden, 2014.

  87. Ecclesiastica historia (n. 25 above), II, col. 172: ‘Forte et haec sunt obscuriora, quam ut inde liquido probari queat, Papiam nullum discipulorum conspexisse. Verum cum Papiae libri interierint, ex quibus ista omnia clarius petere possemus, fides sane penes Eusebium esto.’.

  88. Beatus Rhenanus in Autores historiae ecclesiasticae (n. 12 above), 1528, sig. aa2v: ‘Nec vero quicquam Eusebio obesse debet, vel quod Ariano dogmati plusculum favisse fertur, quam par erat, cum in hoc opere nullam eius rei faciat mentionem: vel quod minutiora quaedam nonnumquam recenseat, quae indigna videri possint illis, de quibus narrantur, quale est illud, quod a nasutis obijci solet de Christi literis ad Abgarum, et de adulescente quem Iohannes Evangelista ad meliorem frugem revocavit, cum utrobique fidem suam liberet Eusebius, alterum e Syrorum commentarijs depromptum asserens, alterum e Clemente Alexandrino.’ Cranmer underlined ‘alterum e Syrorum commentarijs depromptum asserens, alterum e Clemente Alexandrino’ and wrote ‘literae Christi ad Abgarum etc. earum fides quae?’ in the margin of his copy (British Library 4532.h.2).

  89. Autores historiae ecclesiasticae (n. 12 above), p. 149 on 6.23; Cranmer underlined Rhenanus’s printed marginal note: ‘Aphricani epistola ad Origenem de Historia Susannae. Origenis ad hunc responsio.’.

  90. Wallraff, ‘Die Rezeption’ (n. 24 above), pp. 230–31, 259. See also A. Taylor, ‘Humanist Philology and Reformation Controversy: John Christopherson’s Latin Translations of Philo Judaeus and Eusebius of Caesarea’, in Tudor Translation, ed. F. Schurink, Basingstoke, 2011, pp. 79–100 (90–1).

  91. See the articles collected ibid.

  92. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica with De vita Constantini, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen and Evagrius, 2 pts., Paris, 1544, London, British Library, C.79.g.4., I, fol. 53v, on 5.18.6.

  93. For one slip detected by Cranmer, see ibid., I, fol. 45v, on 5.1.25: ‘Biblis aut (ut Ruffinus transtulit) Blandina, ad tormenta revocatur.’.

  94. Ibid., I, fol. 39v on 4.15.47: ‘liber Eusebii de antiquis martyribus’. Notes of this kind by Cranmer are especially common in Book 10.

  95. Ibid, I, fol. 41v on 4.23.9–10.

  96. Ibid., I, fol. 44r on 5 int. 2: ‘significare videtur Eusebius opus suum de antiquis martyribus, cuius ante etiam meminit’.

  97. Jewel’s copy, Oxford, Magdalen College Library, e.8.1., on 1.7.2: Αφρικανός; on 1.13.2: Ἄγβαρος [so in printed text]; on 1.18.22: τὰ τοῦ φίλωνος συγγράμματα. He also calls attention with his standard remark, ‘en’, to such key passages as the material from Papias in 3.39.

  98. MS Cambridge, Trinity College Library, 717, e.g. fol. 47av, col. 1: ‘ex 26. capite libri 4. Socratis scholastici, folio 238.b. ad verbum desumpta est haec historia, sensum tamen male vertendo corrupit.’.

  99. Ecclesiasticae historiae autores, Basel, 1549, sigs *3v–*4r: ‘Quod vero versionem hanc meam attinet, non est quod me quisquam levitate aliqua motum decem Eusebii Pamphili de historia Ecclesiastica libros, iam olim latine redditos, post usitatam versionem denuo vertisse ac publicasse putet. Etenim haud desipiebam usque adeo, ut tantum laboris praeter rationem subirem, nisi antiquam versionem a graeco exemplari, Lutetiae Parisiorum anno Dominicae incarnationis M.D.XLIIII. aedito, quam plurimis in locis variare deprehendissem.’ For his insistence on the tenacity with which he had followed the Greek originals, see also sig. *4r: ‘De mea interpretatione hoc libere testari possum, quod nihil sustulerim, nihil adiecerim, nec mutarim quicquam, sed omnia bona fide sic verterim, ut reperi, tametsi quaedam ex illis meo iudicio parum probarentur, praesertim quae posteriore operis huius parte plurimum a synceritate priorum historiarum dissident. Etenim quoniam in hoc opere non iudicis sed interpretis vice functus sum, nihil aliud ad me pertinere putavi quam ut historiographos Graece loquentes latine loqui aut saltem balbutire docerem.’.

  100. For Musculus’s version of 6.20.1, see Ecclesiasticae historiae autores, Basel, 1562, p. 95: ‘Viguerunt autem illis temporibus plures etiam alij diserti & ecclesiastici viri, quorum epistolas quas invicem alijs alij scripserunt, hactenus asservatas facile quis invenire poterit, quae etiam ad nostra usque tempora asservatae sunt in bibliotheca Hierosolymitana, ab Alexandro qui tum eam paroeciam administrabat constructa, unde & nos praesentis argumenti materiam in unum veluti corpus colligere potuimus.’

    Grynaeus gives the same version in his collection of Latin translations, Eusebii Pamphili, Ruffini, Socratis, Theodoriti, Sozomeni, Theodori, Evagrii et Dorothei Ecclesiastica historia, sex prope seculorum res gestas complectens, Basel, 1587, p. 79. His note cited in the text is also found there.

  101. John Christopherson, ‘Prooemium interpretis’, in Historiae ecclesiasticae scriptores Graeci, transl. John Christopherson, Cologne, 1570, sig. [*5r]: ‘Dictu est prope incredibile, quot ne dicam verba (de quibus non ita laborandum) sed integrae sententiae, integrae paginae, integrae orationes, integrae epistolae, integri prope libri praetermissi sint. Dimidiatum octavum & decimum pene integrum non omnino attigit. Duos tamen libros adiecit de suo, quibus si Socrati credamus, non tantum fidei adiungendum est. Sit tamen illa commendatio tributa Ruffino, quam aliquis aequus rerum aestimator eo tribuendum putarit. Quod recte egerit, ei laudi detur: quod secus, ne a me quidem vertatur vitio.’

  102. Edward Godsalve, ep. ded., ibid., sig. *2v: ‘Hic autem satis correctis (ut credibile est) exemplaribus destitutus, innumeris locis turpissime labitur.’.

  103. Taylor, ‘Humanist Philology’ (n. 90 above), pp. 90–2.

  104. Wallraff, ‘Die Rezeption’ (n. 24 above), pp. 232–3.

  105. MS London, British Library, Harley 1860, fol. 5r–v. On this version, see E. Olivares Merino, ‘Mary Roper Clarke Bassett and Meredith Hanmer’s Honorable Ladie of the Lande’, Sederi 17, 2007, pp. 75–91; S. Ross, The Birth of Feminism: Woman as Intellect in Renaissance Italy and England, Cambridge MA, 2009, pp. 161–6.

  106. The Auncient Ecclesiasticall Histories of the First Six Hundred Yeares after Christ, transl. Meredith Hamner, London, 1577, p. 157: ‘All that which followeth vntill the ende of this eight booke, I haue found in the greeke coppy, distinguised from the 18. chapiters, which went before. Not deuided into chapiters, as the rest was, but lying confusely for a suspected worke, whose autor was not knowen. I perused by my selfe the whole fragment, to see whether I cold gather any iust cause to the contrary, but that it shoulde be turned to Englishe: I founde the doctrine sound, the history pleasaunt, the stile artificiall, and farre more curious then in the former bookes. The frase sauored of the latine (and no force for Eusebius was well seene in bothe), the periods longe, though not often vsed throughout his histories, yet in others his workes very rife and common. Though this fragment be founde more curious and artificiall, then the rest: no maruell at all, for mens giftes doe not serue them at all tymes alike. If this rule were obserued, & paised in the ballance voyd of all parciality there woulde not be so many peeces, so many tracts, & so many learned workes of ancient writers, contemned and renounced, by reason that the frase in some point seemeth to differ or fall from the wonted grace.’

  107. For the very complex question of the different redactions of the Ecclesiastical History and the materials interpolated in some manuscripts into Book 8, see V. Neri, ‘Les éditions de l’Histoire ecclésiastique (livres VIII–IX): bilan critique et perspectives de la recherche’, in Eusebius, Histoire ecclésiastique (n. 21 above), Commentaire, I, pp. 151–83, esp. pp. 152–73.

  108. Auncient Ecclesiasticall Histories (n. 106 above), p. 157.

  109. A. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Leiden and Boston, 2003.

  110. Joseph Justus Scaliger, Opus novum de emendatione temporum, Paris, 1583, p. 282: ‘Eorum princeps Eusebius multum historiae contulit: quod negari non potest. Omnia enim apud veteres scriptores Africanum, Tatianum, alios sparsa in unum conspectum coniecit: ut hoc nomine plurimum illi debeatur. Sed cum delectu eius scripta legenda esse non dubitabit, quisquis illa attentius leget, quam ipse scripta veterum.’.

  111. Grafton, Scaliger (n. 75 above), II.

  112. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Henry Valois, Paris, 1659, sig. [o ivv] ‘Vnus patrum memoria exstitit Iosephus Scaliger, qui praecipiti quadam audacia ac maledicendi libidine abreptus, hanc doctrinae gloriam, quam nec adversarij Eusebio unquam inviderent, ei adimere conatus est. Ejus verba si quis cupit cognoscere, inter testimonia veterum collocavimus; non quod ejus judicium hac praesertim in parte magni faciamus; sed eo potius consilio, ut importuna ejus maledicentia omnium oculis subjiceretur. Qui cum in Chronicum Eusebij canonem commentarios scribere instituisset, in ipso operis exordio reprehendit Hieronymum, quod Eusebium virum eruditissimum appellaverit. Ac principio quidem statueram adversus Scaligerum pluribus disputare, ejusque sententiam prolixiori responsione subvertere. Sed quoniam ea res maioris est otij, ac fortasse taedium allatura esset lectoribus, in aliud tempus opportunius differetur.’.

  113. Ibid., sig. o iijr: ‘Inter omnes tamen ejus libros merito palmam fert Ecclesiastica historia. Multi quippe ante Eusebium pro Christianae fidei defensione libros conscripserant, et Iudaeorum contumaciam erroremque Gentilium validissimis rationibus convicerant. Sed qui rerum Ecclesiasticarum historiam potius traderet, nemo ante Eusebium exstiterat. Quo magis laudandus est Eusebius noster, qui et primus hoc argumentum excogitavit, et cum illud aggressus fuerit, omnibus numeris absolutum reliquit.’

  114. Ibid., I, p. 176.

  115. Ibid., II, p. 96: ‘Nobiles Ecclesiae, et praesertim quae ab Apostolis institutae fuerant, Episcoporum suorum successionem in Archivis reconditam diligentissime servabant; eorum nomina et diem obitus ex diptychis perscribentes. Hujusmodi libros accurate excusserat Eusebius noster, sicuti ex hoc loco apparet, qui praecipuarum Sedium Episcopos non aliunde quam ex hujusmodi Tabulis digessit. Quamobrem successiones Episcoporum quae in historia et in chronico Eusebij recensentur, maximi faciendae sunt, utpote omnium vetustissimae ac certissimae.’.

  116. See Grafton, ‘Arnaldo Momigliano’ (n. 5 above).

  117. Paolo Beni, De ecclesiasticis Baronii Cardinalis Annalibus disputatio, Rome, 1596, p. 8.

  118. Paolo Beni, De historia libri quatuor, Venice, 1611, pp. 91–2: ‘Quid enim Athanasium verbi gratia hoc anno in medium afferas: tum quadriennio toto de illo sileas, quod alijs rebus multis ac varijs transmittas: inde ad eum redeas, quem rursus dimittas altero quadriennio quo alia narres, ac lectorem quinquaginta integros annos distrahas huc illuc dissipata Athanasij facta commonstrans? Id quod eo magis intolerandum videri potest, quod haec rerum dissipatio in eius Annalibus propemodum sit perpetua: ita ut lectorem nunquam fere non torqueat.’ See S. Tutino, Shadows of Doubt: Language and Truth in Post-Reformation Catholic Culture, Oxford, 2014, pp. 91–106, 108–12.

  119. Cited from John Foxe’s The Acts and Monuments Online (http://www.johnfoxe.org/index.php?realm=text&gototype=modern&edition=1563&pageid=5).

  120. Raffaele Maffei, Commentariorum urbanorum… octo & triginta libri, Basel, 1559, Anthropologia, XV, p. 357: ‘Hic teste Hieronymo in epistola xlvij. Constantino magno cum ille caesaream venisset & si quid ei opus diceret respondit minime cum mihi tua liberalitate fit satis: verum quod magis opto: iube per orbem terrarum gesta martyrum & quicquid inter christianos actum sit apud omnia loca, ex publicis ac privatis monumentis exquiri ac mihi adferri. Ex quo ille postea tam universae historiae scriptor apparuit.’ Gessner identified Maffei as one of the sources for his great compendium, the Bibliotheca universalis, Zurich, 1545, at sig. *6r. He cited, but did not quote, the passage Maffei ascribed to Jerome on fol. 235v: ‘Quomodo hanc historiam conscripserit, & alia plura, vide in Anthropologia Raph. Volaterrani prope finem libri 16.’ Jerome’s letter seems not to be otherwise attested. It is entirely possible that Gessner—or his book—brought it to Foxe’s attention.

  121. Maffei, Commentariorum urbanorum… libri (n. 120 above), p. 357: ‘Sed et ipsemet fatetur plura a bibliotheca Alexandri praesulis Hierosolymitani se accepisse.’.

  122. This would have surprised no one less than Jerome himself. Forged letters ascribed to him were in circulation, much to his annoyance, during his lifetime. See B. D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Oxford, 2013, pp. 82–3.

  123. Correspondence of Matthew Parker, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. J. Bruce and T. Thomason Perowne, Cambridge, 1853, p. 186; P. M. Black, ‘Parker’s Search for Cranmer’s “great notable written books”’, The Library, ser. 5, 29, 1974, pp. 301–22.

  124. The printed text of the Privy Council’s letter is preserved in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 114A, p. 49.

  125. See, in addition to the sources already cited, H. J. Lawlor, ‘On the Use by Eusebius of Volumes of Tracts’, in his Eusebiana: Essays on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, Oxford, 1912, pp. 136–78.

  126. See R. I. Page, Matthew Parker and His Books, Kalamazoo MI, 1993; M. Budny, Insular, Anglo-Saxon, and Early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: An Illustrated Catalogue, 2 vols, Kalamazoo MI, and Cambridge, 1997; T. Graham, ‘Matthew Parker’s Manuscripts: an Elizabethan Library and Its Uses’, in The Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland, I: To 1640, ed. E. Leedham-Green and T. Webber, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 322–41; J. Summit, Memory’s Library: Medieval Books in Early Modern England, Chicago, 2008, ch. 3; A. T. Grafton, ‘Matthew Parker: The Book as Archive’, History of the Humanities, 2.1, 2017, pp. 15–50; M. C. McMahon, ‘Matthew Parker and the Practice of Church History’, forthcoming in Confessionalisation and Erudition in Early Modern Europe: An Episode in the History of the Humanities, ed. N. Hardy and D. Levitin, Oxford, 2019, pp. 116–53.

  127. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Henry Putnam University Professor of History, 126 Dickinson Hall, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA

    Anthony Grafton

Authors
  1. Anthony Grafton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Grafton.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grafton, A. Mixed Messages: The Early Modern Reception of Eusebius as a Church Historian. Int class trad 27, 332–360 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-019-00547-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-019-00547-x

Search

Navigation