Abstract
Joseph Bidez’s claim that various Late Antique and medieval sources contained traces of a lost “Arian” history from the fourth century built upon a theory that had been proposed by several scholars before him. Both H. M. Gwatkin and Pierre Batiffol had already drawn attention to certain unorthodox traits found in the seventh-century account known as the Paschal Chronicle. Bidez expanded their initial observations in his critical edition of Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History. In Appendix VII to this edition, Bidez argued that not only were his predecessors correct about their initial hypothesis of a lost “Arian” history but also that it was possible to reconstruct this account through fragments that he had painstakingly identified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Joseph Bidez and Friedhelm Winkelmann, “Einleitung” and “Anhang VII,” in Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte, ed. Joseph Bidez and Friedhelm Winkelmann (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972) cli–clxiii; 202–41. (Hereafter cited as Philostorgius.) In the absence of a proper title and author, this study will refer to the lost work and its author as the Lost Arian History and the Lost Arian Historian.
- 2.
Henry Melvill Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism: Chiefly Referring to the Character and Chronology of the Reaction Which Followed the Council of Nicaea, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1900), 219–23. Gwatkin’s second edition in 1900 includes minor corrections in the text related to other concerns. The material regarding the Lost Arian Historian was not affected by these revisions (except for a change in the page numbers). All references here are to the second edition of 1900.
- 3.
Ibid., 220: Constantius is identified as one who manifested great care for the churches while Leontius receives the epithet ὁ μακάριος (“the blessed”). As will be discussed more extensively below, neither of these sentiments would likely be found in the writings of a pro-Nicene historian.
- 4.
The issue whether classifications such as “Arian” and “Arianism” are still useful is discussed in the third section of this chapter. David Gwynn argues against the use of “party” terminology, particularly during the first decades of the theological controversy, in his The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the “Arian Controversy” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Though his arguments raise worthwhile considerations, see also the pertinent criticisms of Gwynn’s argument in Timothy D. Barnes, Review of The Eusebians: The polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the construction of the “Arian controversy,” by David Gwynn, Journal of Theological Studies 58, no. 2 (2007), 715–18. See Section III for the approach adopted by this study.
- 5.
The term homoousios already had a troubled history. Paul of Samosata had used the term in the third century to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. His conclusion was that there was no real distinction between the two and that they were identical. A council at Antioch condemned Paul and his understanding of homoousios in 268. For more information, see Leo Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 33–80. He presents an introductory, but thorough, narrative of the events in question. For a more extensive study of the theology of the period, see Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
- 6.
For more on Paul of Samosata and Sabellianism, see Davis, Ecumenical Councils, 40–44.
- 7.
For a detailed study and narrative of Heterousianism, which is alternatively labeled “Neo-Arianism” and “Anomoean Arianism,” see Thomas A. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism, vol. 1–2 (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979). It is ironic that this theology sometimes receives the moniker “Neo-Arianism” since its most influential figures considered Arius himself to be a heretic and would no doubt take umbrage at the association.
- 8.
For a specific example of this perspective, see the Heterousian Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History; Bidez and Winkelmann, Philostorgius, cxxv–cxxviii. See also Philip R. Amidon, Philostorgius: Church History (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), xxii.
- 9.
Gwatkin, Studies, 223.
- 10.
Pierre Batiffol, “Un Historiographe Anonyme Arien de IVe Siècle,” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 9 (1895), 65.
- 11.
Ibid., 84: “του̑ ἁγιου̑ Πατροϕίλου ἐπισκόπου.”
- 12.
Ibid., 97.
- 13.
Ibid.
- 14.
The search for a Q source that informed the Paschal Chronicle engaged both O. Seeck and F. C. Conybeare in the decades just prior to Bidez’s study. Cf. Otto Seeck, “Studien zur Geschichte Diocletians und Constantins,” Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 35 (1889), 601–35 and Frederick Conybeare, “The Relation of the Paschal Chronicle to Malalas,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 11 (1902), 395–405 and “The Codex of the Paschal Chronicle used by Holstein,” Journal of the Theological Studies 7 (1906), 392–97. These studies laid the groundwork for subsequent work, though they themselves were not focused on the possibility that an “Arian” history might underlie parts of the Paschal Chronicle.
- 15.
Bidez, Philostorgius, clv; clviii.
- 16.
For the date when Jerome composed this chronicle, see Jerome, Ad Damasum, XVIIIA.1.
- 17.
For example Theophanes, Chronicle, AM 5828 in which the monk interrupts his narrative to refute the claim that the non-Nicene Eusebius of Nicomedia baptized Constantine. For a discussion of George’s extensive influence on the content of Theophanes’ Chronicle, see Chapter 2.1.
- 18.
Bidez and Winkelmann, Philostorgius, 203, fragment (1). This fragment, the first in Bidez’s tentative reconstruction, derives from the Paschal Chronicle and frames its information within the context of a comment from the fourth-century Leontius of Antioch regarding the mid-third-century martyrdom of Babylas of Antioch. This and subsequent references to fragments will include only the number from Bidez’s catalogue surrounded by parentheses. For the complete reconstruction, see Bidez, Philostorgius, 202–41.
- 19.
Constantius is featured in 19 of the selections. Constantine follows with 11, and both Julian the Apostate and Valens are in 6 passages. The remaining rulers do not enjoy such prominence: Jovian (3), Valentinian (2), Gratian (1), and Valentinian II (1).
- 20.
Hanns C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer: Der Osten bis zum Ende der Homöischen Reichskirche (Tübinen: Mohr, 1988), 155, suggests that these divine punishments may be a characteristic of a non-Nicene Christian historiographical tradition.
- 21.
Another method of identifying a connection would be to study style and vocabulary to see whether there are any linguistic bonds among the fragments. However, the three different languages found among the nine sources, in addition to the difficulties presented by the epitomized nature of Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History, make it difficult to use such a technique with any confidence. For the difficulties surrounding Philostorgius’ surviving epitome, see Chapter 2.2.
- 22.
Antioch (named 19 times) has more than double the number of specific references given to Constantinople (7), the second most frequently mentioned locale.
- 23.
Constantius II, Julian, and Valens all spent a significant portion of their reigns at Antioch.
- 24.
Fragments (10) and (10a).
- 25.
Fragment (16a).
- 26.
Fragment (37): ἀλλαˋ καὶ ἒυ ҆Αντιοχεία καὶ ἄλλαις πόλεσιν. See also fragment (12a), which is primarily concerned with Constantine’s thirty-year festival in Constantinople, for a reference to a star seen in Antioch.
- 27.
Fragment (8a).
- 28.
Fragment (31).
- 29.
Cf. fragments (16a) and (24b) with, for example, (7b), (30), (31), (33).
- 30.
The author does appear to be using the Antiochene calendar when dating certain events; cf. fragments (30), (31), (32a), (33). However, these names of the months are also applicable in other areas; see Venance Grumel, La chronologie, vol. 1, Traité d’études byzantines (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1958), 172–75.
- 31.
Fragments (36); (36a).
- 32.
For a similarly vivid episode involving a presbyter of Antioch, see fragment (36).
- 33.
Fragment (41).
- 34.
Fragments (47), (47a).
- 35.
Theophanes, AM 5875.
- 36.
There is a tendency in chronicles for yearly entries to migrate. This situation typically arises when a given year is left without any data. As manuscripts passed through copyists’ hands, mistakes or confusion could lead to a given entry’s “wandering” to a nearby year that had lacked any information. For this tale of quadruplets, it may seem unlikely that this reference could move so far: Valens’ death (the proposed end point of Bidez’s hypothetical history) occurs in AM 5870 while the birth is recorded in AM 5875. Nonetheless, there is no other obvious source for Theophanes’ information, and at least on two different occasions our unknown historian shows an interest in this subject. The annual gaps that exist in Theophanes’ work appear primarily in the earlier portions of his Chronicle, and two of the interposed years (AM 5872 and 5873) between AM 5870 and 5875 lack any material. In fact, 5875 would itself be blank if not occupied by the entry of this birth. The centuries and copies that may have intervened between the historian’s autograph and Theophanes give additional reason to think such a relocation is plausible. For a study of this phenomenon, see Richard Burgess, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography, vol. 135, Historia (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999), 137–40. See also Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), lxiv-lxvii, who discuss the difficulties that Theophanes encountered in reconciling various dating schemes with the Annus Mundi and the indiction cycle. It is possible that this event could have been transferred to a later indiction by accident.
- 37.
Pierre Batiffol, La paix constantinienne et le catholicisme, 4th ed. (Paris: Lecoffre, 1929), 91, argues that the lost work was written in Syria, a proposal that these observations obviously corroborate.
- 38.
Peter van Nuffelen criticizes the modern tendency to “pigeon-hole” authors into designated doctrinal positions. He argues that what might seem as rigid party affiliations were often “shifting coalitions that only in retrospect gain genealogy and demarcation.” He points to the examples of Meletius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem as evidence of the shifting or inconclusive nature of a given individual’s theological position. See “What Happened After Eusebius? Chronicles and Narrative Identities in the Fourth Century,” in Rhetoric and Religious Identity in Late Antiquity, ed. Richard Flower and Ludlow Morwenna (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 167–9. While van Nuffelen presents a good reminder not to force individuals into preconceived or excessively rigid categories, we should also consider contemporary evidence which suggests that theological opinions could be at the forefront of even everyday discussions and thus likely to have at least a subtle influence in contemporary writings. (See, for example, the famous complaint of Gregory of Nyssa in his Oratio de deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti regarding theological discussions that intruded into the common business of everyday life [PG 46: 557b]). It does not seem a stretch to think that the debates (and opposing positions) which inspired such participation among the general populace of Constantinople would likely also be discernible in the historical texts from the era.
- 39.
Theodoret, EH, 2.19; the bishop-historian informs us that the “Arian” Leontius refused to speak the doxology openly until “for ever and ever” lest his choice of words expose his true beliefs.
- 40.
For his association with Lucian, see Philostorgius, EH, 3.15.
- 41.
Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, vol. 25 (Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, 1857): 644A-B. For the epithet “the eunuch,” see, for example, Athanasius, Zwei Schriften gegen die Arianer, ed., Werner Portmann (Stuttgart: A. Hierseman, 2006), 4.2, 20.5, 28.1. (Hereafter cited as the History of the Arians.)
- 42.
Socrates, EH, 2.26; Theodoret, EH, 2.19.
- 43.
Theodoret, EH, 2.19, describes him as an “Arian;” Sozomen, EH, 3.15; 17, associates him with the Heterousian Aetius, as does Socrates, EH, 2.37.
- 44.
Fragments (1), (24), (24b).
- 45.
Philostorgius, EH, 2.3, 2.15 (doctrine); 3.18 (care of souls).
- 46.
Sozomon, EH, 4.28; Theodoret, EH, 2.27.
- 47.
Fragment (33).
- 48.
Fragment (33).
- 49.
Fragment (24).
- 50.
For a more detailed discussion, see Chapter 5.1.
- 51.
Fragment (24): του̑ ϕανέντος ἀγγέλου σὺν τω̑ Κωνσταντίω τὴν δύναμιν.
- 52.
Theodoret, EH, 2.30.
- 53.
In reference to Sapor and the kingly vision, Theodoret writes: εἴδε γὰρ ἐϕεστω̑τα τῳ̑ περιβόλῳ τινὰ τὸ βασιλικὸν περικείμενον σχη̑μα καὶ τη̑ς τε ἁλουργίδος του̑ τε διαδήματος αἴγλην ἒκπεμπομένην.
- 54.
Fragment (33) and (33c).
- 55.
For a contrary interpretation, see Ferguson’s argument below.
- 56.
According to the church historian Socrates, Macedonius’ episcopate was marked by violent actions and imprisonment; see Socrates, EH, 2.38.
- 57.
Fragment (31).
- 58.
See Philip R. Amidon, Philostorgius, 225, n. 62. If this reading is correct and the author originally wrote “Acacius,” it would mean that he considered this leading figure of the Homoian movement worthy of more respect than many other prelates present, and second only to Maris, a companion of Arius.
- 59.
Philostorgius, EH, 6.5.
- 60.
Fragment (33).
- 61.
Burgess, Studies, 124, n. 31. Chap. 7 explores Richard Burgess’ recent findings regarding the probability that there was more than one lost historian. For the moment, our purpose is to establish the probability of a lost historiographical tradition that was in non-Nicene its perspective.
- 62.
Cyril Mango, “Constantine’s Mausoleum: Addendum”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83, no. 2 (1990), 434.
- 63.
Mango and Scott, Theophanes, lxxvii–lxxviii, lxxx–lxxxi, lxxxiv.
- 64.
Ibid., lxxx. They draw attention to the fact that excerpts from Theophanes appear in forty-five of Bidez’s proposed forty-eight fragments.
- 65.
For example, ibid., lxxviii: In reference to the possible relationship between the history of the unknown Arian and Alexander the Monk’s “On the Discovery of the True Cross,” they preface their statement with “if we accept the existence of Hypoth. Arian.”
- 66.
Ibid., lxxx–lxxxi.
- 67.
Roger Scott, “Image of Constantine in Malalas and Theophanes,” in New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th Centuries, ed. Paul Magdalino (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994), 57–71, especially 67–70.
- 68.
- 69.
Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, ed. Léon Parmentier and Felix Scheidweiler (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954), lxxxvii–lxxxix. (Hereafter cited as Theodoret.)
- 70.
Chapter 5 assesses Parmentier’s observations at length.
- 71.
Parmentier and Scheidweiler, Theodoret, lxxxviii.
- 72.
Ibid., lxxxix.
- 73.
Theodoret, EH, 3.3: εἲ γάρ καὶ του̑ ὁμοουσίου τὸ πρόσρημα βουκοληθεὶϛ ὑπὸ τω̑ν ἀγόντων αὐτὸν ὅ Κωνστάντιος οὒ προσίετο, τὴν γου̑ν τούτου διάνοιαν ἀκραιϕνω̑ς ὡμολόγει. γνήσιον γὰρ ὑιὸν πρὸ τω̑ν ἀιώνων ἒκ του̑ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον τὸν θεὸν ὠνόμαζε και τοὺς κτίσμα λέγειν τολμω̑ντας ἄντικρυς ἀπεκήρυττε, τὴν δὲ τω̑ν ἐιδώλων παντελω̑ς ἀπηγόρευσε θεραπείαν.
- 74.
Cf. Socrates, EH, 2.2 and Sozomen, EH, 3.1. Both of these historians describe how Constantius came under the sway of eunuchs and women before embracing their beliefs. There is no sense, as there is in Theodoret, that Constantius retained his orthodoxy in private.
- 75.
This source would mostly likely be distinct from Philostorgius, whose narrative is not particularly favorable to Constantius, though he does allow the ruler some redeeming traits; see Philostorgius, EH 5.4 and 7.4 in which Philostorgius condemns Constantius for the murders in his own family while hinting that Constantius may well have realized the validity of Philostorgius’ faith. Perhaps Theodoret’s source expressed sympathy for some non-Nicene figures, a sentiment that then entered Theodoret’s own Ecclesiastical History. Of course, it is also possible that Theodoret inserted his sympathetic portrayal of the emperor for his own purposes and was not relying on any previous text.
- 76.
Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby, Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989), xvi.
- 77.
Ibid.
- 78.
Ibid., 27, n. 87.
- 79.
Ibid., 30, n. 91. The error involves the location and timing of Vetranio’s forced abdication in 350.
- 80.
Ibid., 36, n. 113. The Whitbys highlight the specific details in dating for Constantius’ death and baptism as evidence of “the importance attached to the Arian Constantius by [the Paschal Chronicle’s] source.”
- 81.
Ibid., 40, n. 125.
- 82.
T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 8, 209.
- 83.
Warren Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 121–22.
- 84.
It was an awareness of the unresolved issues still surrounding the Lost Arian History that first led Treadgold to suggest this subject as my dissertation topic, a decision for which I am indebted to him.
- 85.
Robert Penella, “Julian the Persecutor in the Fifth-Century Church Historians,” The Ancient World 24 (1993), 37, n. 20. He associates Philostorgius with “an Arian chronicle” that celebrated the martyrdoms of various Christians under the reign of Julian.
- 86.
Malcolm Donalson, A Translation of Jerome’s Chronicon with Historical Commentary (Lewiston: Mellen University Press, 1996), 33–38.
- 87.
Ibid., 36, n. 102.
- 88.
Ibid., 37.
- 89.
Ibid., 37–38.
- 90.
Ibid., 38: “Most of the works preserving the material in question were composed by orthodox authors long after the suppression of Arianism by the emperors beginning with Theodosius. The dismissal of a common Arian source for these authors and Jerome leaves the pro-Arian perspective inexplicable.”
- 91.
Stéphane Ratti, “Les sources de la Chronique de Jérôme pour les années 357–364: nouveaux elements,” in L’Historiographie de l’Eglise des premiers siècles, ed. Bernard Pouderon and Yves-Marie Duval (Paris: Beauchesne, 2001), 431–434.
- 92.
Benoît Jeanjean and Bertrand Lançon, “Introduction,” in St. Jérôme, Chronique Continuation de la Chronique d’Eusebè, années 326–378 Suivi de quatre études sur les chroniques et chronographies dans l’antiquité tardive, ed. Benoît Jeanjean, Bertrand Lançon, and Stéphane Ratti (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2015), 52–3. After summarizing Ratti’s arguments, they remark: “On le voit, la discussion sur les sources de la Chronique, dans sa seule continuation hieronymieene, est loin d’être close!”
- 93.
Brennecke, Studien, 95.
- 94.
See Brian Warmington, “Did Athanasius Write History?,” in The Inheritance of Historiography 350–900, ed. Christopher Holdsworth and Timothy Wiseman (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1986), 7–15. Warren Treadgold indirectly supports Brennecke’s idea with his observation that historians generally prefer to write a story that possesses a conclusion rather than attempt a narrative whose end is uncertain; see Treadgold, Early Historians, 349. Philostorgius’ account may appear to provide a counter-example since he wrote as his own beliefs were suffering decline, but he may have hoped to influence the emperor’s favor. See Amidon, Philostorgius, xxii–xxiii. Furthermore, Philostorgius describes a community that had all but relinquished the larger contest as factions within the Heterousian leadership turned against each other. This is a stark contrast to the position faced by the pro-Nicenes of the middle of the fourth century; for this latter group, the battle was still raging without a clear victory or utter defeat, and works like that of Athanasius reveal a polemical bent that makes it seem less likely that they would have paused to compose dispassionate chronicles at this crucial moment.
- 95.
For a contrary opinion about the state of pro-Nicene historiography in this period, see Burgess, Studies, 122–27. See also van Nuffelen, “What Happened After Eusebius?,” 166, 169–174. We will discuss Burgess’ position at length in Chap. 7. Van Nuffelen, meanwhile, proposes that Andreas (mid-fourth century?) provides us with evidence that pro-Nicenes wrote non-polemical works in the midst of the fourth-century theological debates. It is difficult to know how to assess this claim since little of Andreas’ work is extent. It may be that his treatise on the dating of Easter as well as his other works did have at least a subtle polemical approach. Even van Nuffelen admits that Andreas’ work “defended the Nicene calculation of Easter” (p. 169). Given our limited knowledge, it seems best to understand Andreas in the wider context of our surviving texts which indicate that pro-Nicenes were far more likely to write from a polemical perspective during the fourth century.
- 96.
Brennecke, Studien, 95, 152–57.
- 97.
Ibid., 94.
- 98.
Hanns C. Brennecke, “Christliche Quellen des Ammianus Marcellinus?,” 1 Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum (1997), 226–49, especially 246–47.
- 99.
For a discussion on Ammianus Marcellinus and the Lost Arian History, see Chapter 6.1.
- 100.
Namely those of Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius; see Parmentier and Scheidweiler, Theodoret, xxiii–xxiv.
- 101.
Friedhelm Winkelmann, “Zur nacheusebianischen christlichen Historiographie des 4 Jahrhunderts,” in Polypleuros nous: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60 Geburtstag, ed. Cordula Scholz, Georgios Makris, and Peter Schreiner (München: Saur, 2000), 406.
- 102.
Ibid., 407.
- 103.
David Levenson, “The Ancient and Medieval Sources for the Emperor Julian’s Attempt to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25, no. 4 (2004), 417–34.
- 104.
Ibid., 417–19.
- 105.
Ibid., 423, 427–34. For more information regarding the specific reasons Levenson and others have rejected the authenticity of the letter (at least as it now survives), see 428, n. 80 and 429–30. In short, there are a number of internal inconsistencies and duplications (for example, using the Syrian calendar for dating and mentioning a fire in Jerusalem twice) that imply that the letter is a collage of details from other sources. See also David Levenson, “The Palestinian Earthquake of May 363 in Philostorgius, the Syriac Chronicon miscellaneum, and the Letter Attributed to Cyril on the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple,” Journal of Late Antiquity 6 (2013), 60–83. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss his arguments at greater length.
- 106.
Thomas C. Ferguson, The Past is Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography (Boston: Brill, 2005), 62–78.
- 107.
Ibid., 74–78. This perspective dovetails well with that advanced by van Nuffelen in “What Happened After Eusebius?”, 167–9. See n. 38 above.
- 108.
Ibid., 64–74.
- 109.
Peter van Nuffelen, “Socrate de Constantinople et les chroniques,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 54 (2004), 67, n. 47.
- 110.
Peter van Nuffelen, “What Happened After Eusebius?,” 160–179 and Peter van Nuffelen, “Considerations Sur l’anonyme Homéen,” in Les Historiens Fragmentaires de Langue Grecque à l’époque Romaine Impériale et Tardive, ed. Eugenio Amato, Pasquale Di Cicco, Bertrand Lançon, and Tiphaine Moreau (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2021), 207–22.
- 111.
Ibid., 68, n. 47.
- 112.
Burgess, Studies, 114.
- 113.
As mentioned above, Stéphane Ratti disagrees with Burgess’ arguments regarding parallels between Jerome and Theophanes. Ratti highlights both parallels that exist between the two sources after 350 and divergences between the two sources before 350. These observations undermine Burgess’ arguments that the period between 325 and 350 indicate a shared source between the two. See Ratti, “Les sources de la Chronique,” 431–434. Though van Nuffelen is generally supportive of Burgess’ theory, he, too, rejects Burgess’ belief that Jerome and Theophanes paralleled each other in their use of source(s) for this period. See “Considerations,” 211, n. 15.
- 114.
Ibid., 122–26.
- 115.
Ibid., 122.
- 116.
Ibid., 123–24.
- 117.
Ibid., 125.
- 118.
Ibid., 126.
- 119.
Cf. Gwatkin, Studies in Arianism, xvi: “But let me here claim a student’s privilege to record my conviction that the old Eastern controversies on the Person of the Lord were not mere word battles in their own time. Neither are they obsolete in ours; for they have a direct bearing on our modern scientific difficulties.”
- 120.
Rowan Williams, review of Search for the Christian Doctrine of God by R. P. C. Hanson Scottish Journal of Theology 45, no. 1 (1992), 102.
- 121.
John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, ed. Rowan Williams (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001). For examples of hostility toward the term “Arian,” see Maurice Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) 102: Wiles praises Whiston, a rare seventeenth-century critic of Athanasius: “What is primarily to be said in Whiston’s favour is that he was prepared to practise a hermeneutic of suspicion in relation to Athanasius, which so many of his contemporaries were totally unwilling to entertain but without which it is impossible to achieve any satisfactory understanding of the fourth century.” See also R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1988), xviii–xix.
- 122.
See, for example, Newman, Arians, 272–79 (unflattering biographies of the first Arians), 299–300 (in which Newman describes Semi-Arians as “men better than their creed”), and 326–34 (Newman’s narrative of the persecution of “the great Egyptian prelate” Athanasius).
- 123.
Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 9–10.
- 124.
Ibid., 82–91.
- 125.
Ibid., 82.
- 126.
Ibid., 166: “‘Arianism,’ throughout most of the fourth century, was in fact a loose and uneasy coalition of those hostile to Nicaea in general and the homoousios in particular; the pace was set for this coalition by those who looked to Lucian as their inspiration in theology, and the network of alliances only broke up when the descendants of the first Lucianists developed a theology more unacceptable in the eyes of the majority of the eastern bishops than the doctrines of Nicaea.” 223: “This serves as a necessary reminder of the point made at the conclusion of Part I: there was no such thing in the fourth century as a single, coherent ‘Arian’ party. Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea had little in common but this hostility—certainly not a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian. The protestation made at Antioch in 341 (‘We are not followers of Arius’) was no doubt perfectly sincere: bishops are not going to be marshalled as a faction by a presbyter, even if that presbyter’s teaching is generally acceptable. Arius evidently made converts to his views, many Libyans, the Illyrian clerics Ursacius and Valens, perhaps others; but he left no school of disciples.”
- 127.
Ibid., 247–48.
- 128.
It should be noted, however, that Williams does not believe that Hanson’s criticism of the term “Arian” is sufficient; see Williams, review of Search, 102–4.
- 129.
Hanson, Search, xvii.
- 130.
Ibid.
- 131.
Ibid., xviii.
- 132.
Ibid.
- 133.
Ibid., xix–xx; 870.
- 134.
Ibid., 873.
- 135.
Maurice Wiles, “In Defense of Arius,” Journal of Theological Studies 13 (1962), 339–47; see also Maurice Wiles, “Christianity Without Incarnation?” and “Myth in Theology,” in The Myth of God Incarnate, edited by John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 1–10, 148–66.
- 136.
Maurice Wiles, “Attitudes to Arius in the Arian Controversy,” in Arianism After Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Conflicts, ed. Michel Barnes and Daniel Williams (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 36–37.
- 137.
Ibid., 42–43.
- 138.
Ibid., 43.
- 139.
Wiles, Archetypal Heresy, 4–5.
- 140.
Ibid., 5, n. 6.
- 141.
In this matter, we follow the example of Lewis Ayres in his excellent Nicaea and Its Legacy which consistently avoids “Arian” and “Arianism” by employing theologically precise terms such as Homoiousian, Homoian, and Heterousian.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
J. Reidy, J. (2024). Introduction. In: The ‘Lost Arian History’ in Late Antique and Medieval Historiography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55443-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55444-5
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)