Abstract
The fourth-century bishop and scholar Eusebius of Caesarea established the genres that would shape subsequent Christian histories for generations. The present chapter seeks to situate the Lost Arian History within this historiographical context by revisiting Eusebius and his historical writings and by identifying his earliest known continuators. In so doing, we can better understand the models that likely inspired the Lost Arian Historian and how it is that other sources, not included in Bidez’s reconstruction, may echo this lost work.
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.
As noted earlier, Bidez acknowledged that additional sources, such as martyr accounts, likely had some relationship to the Lost Arian History. See Bidez, Philostorgius, clix-clxii.
- 2.
For several studies on Eusebius of Caesarea, see T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981); Chesnut, The First Christian Histories, 33–174; Andrew James Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Boston: Brill, 2003); Treadgold, Early Historians, 23–46.
- 3.
Eusebius described himself as “Eusebius Pamphili,” or Eusebius (son) of Pamphilus, which, according to Timothy Barnes, may imply that the latter adopted Eusebius; see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 94 and 332, n. 117.
- 4.
For the year of his death, see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 263.
- 5.
Around the year 330, a council of bishops offered him the see of Antioch, a more influential bishopric than that of Caesarea, but he refused to leave his original diocese. Antioch was a focal point of contention between “Arian” and pro-Nicene factions, and Eusebius’ unwillingness to move to that see may suggest his desire to avoid such fighting. Nonetheless, we should also remember that he did participate in the decision to remove several pro-Nicene bishops, most notably when he presided in 335 over the Council of Tyre, which ultimately led to the exile of Athanasius of Alexandria.
- 6.
Eusebius’ Life of Constantine is not included in this study, despite its obvious biographical, historical nature, because it has no apparent relationship with the Lost Arian Historian.
- 7.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Die Chronik, in Eusebius: Werke vol. VII, 2nd ed., ed. Rudolf Helm and Ursula Treu (Berlin: Academie-Verlag, 1984). (Hereafter referred to as Chronicle.) See Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius for the most complete study of the subject.
- 8.
The term “canones,” or measuring line or rule, refers to the structure of the Chronological Tables’ content, whose annual entries were divided from each other by means of lines or rules.
- 9.
See Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, 22–27 for pictorial examples of this arrangement.
- 10.
Burgess, Studies, 37–43 notes that Eusebius, by accepting Porphyry’s faulty chronology uncritically, found himself with a two-year discrepancy that became compounded by the superficial solutions with which Eusebius tried to correct it. His entry for AD 279, the last for his first edition, actually has data for AD 277.
- 11.
It is Jerome’s continuation to AD 378 that plays a significant role in Bidez’s reconstruction and in Burgess’ own study on the Continuatio Antiochiensis. For a German translation of the Armenian edition, see Eusebius of Caesarea, Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar, ed. Josef Karst, in Eusebius: Werke, vol. 5 (Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs, 1911).
- 12.
Cf. Treadgold, Early Historians, 39 and Timothy D. Barnes, “Early Editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 21 (1980), 197–98. Treadgold argues that there were five editions of the Ecclesiastical History, for he believes that the decisions to excise praise for Licinius, Constantine’s erstwhile co-emperor, and Crispus, his eldest son, represent two different moments in the history of the work’s composition. Barnes, however, does not list the copy without Crispus as a distinct edition. The nuances of the editions do not dramatically affect the present study. See also William Tabbernee, “Eusebius’ ‘Theology of Persecution’: As Seen in the Various Editions of His Church History,” Journal of Early Christian Studies (1997): 319–34. Tabbernee writes that the different editions, which he labels “drafts” prior to 303, reflect the evolving attitude of Eusebius to the event of the Great Persecution and its aftermath.
- 13.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Die Kirchengeschichte, in Eusebius: Werke, ed. Eduard Schwartz and Theodor Mommsen, vol. 1–2 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1903–1909), 1.1. (Hereafter cited as Ecclesiastical History, or EH.)
- 14.
Cf. Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine, 4, which dramatically recalls the death of his friend Apphianus.
- 15.
For examples of retributive justice in Eusebius’ works, see Trompf, Early Christian Historiography, 122–42, especially 126–34. For the difference between Eusebius and Lactantius, see 136–37.
- 16.
For the Syriac long recension, see Eusebius of Caesarea, Martyrs of Palestine, ed. and trans. Hugh Jackson Lawlor and John E.L. Oulton, in Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, vol. 1 (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1928), 327–400. For the shorter version, see Eusebius of Caesarea, Die Kirchengeschichte, ed. Eduard Schwartz and Theodor Mommsen, in Eusebius: Werke, vol. 2.2, (Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs, 1908), 907–50.
- 17.
Treadgold, Early Historians, 39. Treadgold also suggests that Eusebius hesitated to break too dramatically from his habit of relying on written sources. Since so much of Martyrs of Palestine was dependent on eyewitness testimony, he may have desired to avoid constructing a narrative that, from his perspective, lacked the necessary literary foundations.
- 18.
Scholars react to this bland ending in different ways. Treadgold, Early Historians, 40 describes Eusebius’ failure to address adequately any of the major issues of his day, for example the Donatist crisis, as a failure to apply his abilities to their fullest. Trompf, Early Christian Historiography, 140–41, emphasizes Eusebius’ desire to soften partisan divisions within the Church in favor of a Constantinian solution. Any way one considers the matter, the conclusion is the same: The finale of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History is far less interesting and useful than it easily could have been.
- 19.
Cf. Bidez, Philostorgius, clviii, which argues that the Lost Historian wrote a chronicle and Brennecke, Studien, 94, which states that he wrote a narrative history.
- 20.
Some may argue that Athanasius’ History of the Arians represents a similar desire to continue the narrative of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, but the bishop’s work is polemical in purpose rather than an effort to continue the general Christian narrative begun Eusebius. See Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 126–32 and Warmington, “Did Athanasius Write History?,” 7–16. See also van Nuffelen, “What Happened After Eusebius?”, 162–4; 178–9 for additional authors who may have written chronicles during the decades immediately after Eusebius of Caesarea.
- 21.
Pandorus had dated the Creation and the Nativity of Christ to the years corresponding with our 5493 BC and AD 8; Annianus, in contrast, claimed that 5492 BC and AD 9 were the proper years for these events.
- 22.
For more information on these chronicles, see William Adler and Paul Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), lxiii-ix; William Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources from Julius African to George Synkellos (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1989), 72–105; Brian Croke, “The Early Development of Byzantine Chronicles,” in Elizabeth Jeffreys, Studies in John Malalas: 27–38.
- 23.
Many of the arguments discussed here and in the following chapter regarding the Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Caesarea and its potential relationship with the history of Sozomen of Bethelea were initially published as “The Works of Gelasius of Caesarea: A Potential Source for Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History?” Copyright © 2022 Johns Hopkins University Press and the North American Patristic Society. This article first appeared in Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 30, Issue 2, 2022, pages 275–299. Those parts of the argument that remain unchanged are reprinted here with permission. For a recent summary of what we know about Gelasius’ biography, see Martin Wallraff, Jonathan Stutz, and Nicholas Marinides, ed., Gelasius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History: The Extant Fragments (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2018), xi-xvi.
- 24.
See Wallraff, et al., Gelasius of Caesarea for an attempted reconstruction.
- 25.
F. Winkelmann, “Das Problem der Rekonstruktion der Historia ecclesiastica des Gelasius von Caesarea,” Forschungen und Fortschritte 10 (1964), 311–14; ibid., Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia, Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Vol. 3 (Berlin: Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, 1965); ibid., “Charakter und Bedeutung der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisereia,” Byzantinische Forschungen 1 (1966), 346–85. For recent studies that incorporate Winkelmann’s theory, see Günther Christian Hansen, Anonyme Kirchengeschichte: Gelasius Cyzicenus, CPG 6034 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), ix-xii, and Wallraff et al., Gelasius of Caesarea, XXIII-XXVIIII. For an excellent summary of the contributions of scholars leading up to Winkelmann’s thesis, see Martin Wallraff, “Gélase de Césarée, un historien ecclésiastique du IVe siècle,” RevSR 94 (2019): 499–520, particularly 502–7.
- 26.
Amidon, The Church History of Rufinus, xiii-xviii provides a succinct summary of the various scholars’ arguments in this historiographical debate. For example, Jacques Schamp, “Gélase ou Rufin: Un fait nouveau – Sur des fragments oubliés de Gélase de Césarée (CPG, no. 3521),” Byzantion 57 (1987), 360–90 tweaks Winkelmann’s argument by claiming that Gelasius’ history ended with the death of Arius—some 40 years prior to the AD 379 ending that Winkelmann suggested as its conclusion. While some, such as Amidon, Church History of Rufinus, xvi, have accepted Schamp’s argument, the observations of Treadgold, Early Historians, 123, n. 10 and, especially, of Peter van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée, un compilatuer du cinquième siècle,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 95 (2002), 624–6 persuasively refute Schamp’s theory. (Treadgold also suggests that Gelasius’ work was most likely a single volume since Photius’ codex refrained from mentioning the number of books as was his habit. However, given that Photius identifies the title of his copy as the “Preface,” it is equally reasonable to suggest that Photius did not have the entire history and possibly did not know its contents.) Wallraff argues that the translation of Rufinus into Greek happened centuries later than others generally assume; see Wallraff, “Gélase de Césarée,” 515–7.
- 27.
Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 88: Τίς ποτε δέ ἐστιν ὁ Γελάσιος οὑ̑τος, οὐκ ἔχω σαϕω̑ς ἐκμαθει̑υ. Μέχρι γὰρ νυ̑ν τριω̑ν, πρόσεστιν ἐικάσαι, Γελασίων καὶ ἐπισκόπων Καισαρείας τη̑ς κατὰ Παλαιστίνην Βιβλίοις ἐνετύχομεν, ἢ πάντως γε δύο.
- 28.
Wallraff, et al., Gelasius of Caesarea, 15, n. 4 and 6.
- 29.
For more details about the Anonymous of Cyzicus, sometimes known as Gelasius of Cyzicus, see Hansen, Anonyme Kirchengeschichte, IX-XII. See also Warren Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 165–66. According to Treadgold, Photius’ account became confused by a mistaken memory: Photius misremembered the work (mentioned in Codex 15) in which he encountered a copy of this conciliar narrative that was attributed simply to “Gelasius,” who described himself as the son of a priest from the town of Cyzicus. Perhaps confused by a combination of similar names of both persons and places (“Gelasius of Cyzicus” and “Gelasius of Caesarea”), Photius might have conflated this Gelasius with Gelasius of Caesarea and thus wrote in Codex 88 that the Nicene account belonged to “Gelasius of Caesarea.”
- 30.
Cf. Wallraff, “Gélase de Césarée,” 503–4.
- 31.
Gelasius’ actual treatise was entitled Against the Anomoeans (κατὰ ҆Ανομοίων). In an effort to be as theologically precise and terminologically consistent as possible, however, I have chosen to refer to this treatise, the beliefs, and the practitioners as “Heterousian.” See also Wallraff et al., Gelasius of Caesarea, 19, n. i for possible additional references to this work.
- 32.
Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 89: Ἡ δὲ λοιπὴ βίβλος ἐπιγραϕὴν μὲν ἔχει τοιαύτην. Προοίμοιν ἐπισκόπου Καισαρείας Παλαιστίνης εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορίαν Εὐσεβίου του̑ Παμϕίλου, ἄρχεται δὲ οὓτω.
- 33.
For a brief biography of Rufinus, see Amidon, The Church History of Rufinus, vii-xiii.
- 34.
Μνημονεύει δ’οὐ̑ τος καὶ ῥητω̑ν τινω̑ν Γελασίου τινός, Γελάσιον αὐτòν καὶ Pʽουϕι̑νον ἅμα καλω ̑ ν.
- 35.
See n. 26 above.
- 36.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 634.
- 37.
Yves-Marie Duval, “La place et l’importance du Concile d’Alexandrie ou de 362 dans l’Histoire de l’Église de Rufin d’Aquilée,” Revue des Études augustiniennes 47 (2001): 283–302.
- 38.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 631–32.
- 39.
Ibid., 630.
- 40.
Regarding the competition between the sees of Caesarea and Jerusalem, see Jan Willem Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City (Boston: Brill, 2004), 31–49, especially 35–39.
- 41.
Winkelmann, Untersuchungen, 5 (Gelasius’ presence at the Council of Constantinople) and 18, n. 2 (Cyril’s request).
- 42.
See, for example, Borgehammer, How the Holy Cross was Found (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International, 1991), 11–14 and Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem, 175–76. The former assumes that Gelasius’ account is both one of the earliest and the result of his close relationship with his uncle. Drijvers explicitly links the apparent inclusion of the invention story in Gelasius to a shared desire between Cyril and Gelasius to elevate Jerusalem. For more on the invention of the True Cross, see Chapter 4.4.
- 43.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 630.
- 44.
Ibid., 630; cf. Rufinus, EH, 10.24.
- 45.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 633–34.
- 46.
Ibid., 631: Jérôme, l’observateur de la vie intellectuelle de Palestine, ignorait l’existence d’une histoire ecclésiastique dela main de Gélase de Césarée, tout en connaissant d’autres ouvrages.
- 47.
Jerome, De viris illustribus, cxxx.
- 48.
Ibid.
- 49.
For detailed replies to van Nuffelen, see Wallraff, et al., Gelasius of Caesarea, xxvii-xxviii and Wallraff, “Gélase de Césarée,” 507–11. See also Philippe Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451–491): De L’Historie à la Géo-Ecclésiologie (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2006), 500–1. Blaudeau accepts van Nuffelen’s major premise that Gelasius did not write an ecclesiastical history but finds the motive behind van Nuffelen’s proposed compiler “weak” (faible).
- 50.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 633.
- 51.
The observation in Wallraff, “Gélase de Césarée,” 509 is germane to this point: “Peut-on penser que le Gélase historique n’a rien à voir avec le genre littéraire de l’histoire ecclésiastique, mais qu’en même temps l’auteur anonyme du Ve siècle a estimé qu’il était pertinent de faire circuler son œuvre sous le nom de cet évêque?”
- 52.
That such a situation is possible may be argued from the fifth- or sixth-century writings of Ps.-Dionysius. His works appeared to be in the persona of the first-century convert Dionysius the Areopagite and could thus be an example to bolster van Nuffelen’s theory. One difference, however, between the two is that Dionysius’ presence in the New Testament automatically surrounded his name (and any work associated with it) with intrinsic interest for all Christians. Furthermore, by claiming that his own theological ideas came from an associate of St. Paul, Ps.-Dionysius could ensure that his ideas would receive a more open reception than they might have otherwise experienced. In sum, there is an obvious motive for Ps-Dionysius to act in such a way. There is not an obvious motive for “Ps-Gelasius” to compile a number of works and then attribute them to someone else who did not possess a far-reaching significance or interest. If van Nuffelen is correct that the work was merely a collage of others’ efforts, there would be few new ideas (perhaps even none) that the author was subtly advancing nor obvious gain for the author. Even if we could devise a theory that did suggest some motive, such conclusions are best accepted only when detailed textual evidence gives reason to doubt the authenticity of a given author. Such a situation does not present itself in connection with Gelasius due to our lack of source material.
- 53.
As noted above, Gelasius allowed his uncle to sign the documents of that gathering before him, thus giving Cyril precedence even though, technically, Gelasius was the metropolitan of the region and was thus higher in rank.
- 54.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 627; 634.
- 55.
Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 88.
- 56.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 632.
- 57.
Ibid.
- 58.
Ibid., 633.
- 59.
Ibid., 633: “Pourquoi a-t-il choisi le nom de Gélase de Césarée? L’auteur voulait donner une grande autorité à son ouvrage: il pille Socrate mais se veut plus ancien et original que celui-là. Il fait donc de sa source principale, Rufin, un presbytre de Rome et il se cherche un nom d’une antiquité et d’une orthodoxie vénérable.” Interestingly, van Nuffelen cites the example of Gelasius/Anonymous of Cyzicus in the associated footnote. Gelasius/Anonymous apparently laid claim to reading old documents which he obviously did not. It should be noted, however, that he did this to enhance his own reputation. Van Nuffelen suggests that someone acted similarly to promote the reputation of someone dead for decades, but he proposes no satisfying motive, however conjectural, that would explain why the forger acted in this way.
- 60.
For information regarding Theodore Lector and his compilation of the three ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodore, see Treadgold, Early Historians, 169–74.
- 61.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 631–32 notes the connection between the Life of Constantine and Gelasius of Caesarea, though whether Gelasius incorporated the Life himself into his Ecclesiastical History or whether the fifth-century compiler consulted it independently does not alter this study’s overall argument.
- 62.
Cf. Treadgold, Early Historians, 171. This muddled state could also help explain why Photius notes that the prose in Codex 102 is better than that of Gelasius’ Prologue. Its original wording would have been altered during epitomization.
- 63.
The example of Eusebius’ Chronicle and the failure of the original Greek text to survive independently might be a rough parallel for how Gelasius’ Ecclesiastical History, once incorporated into another work, might not survive. Of course, Eusebius’ work was much more widespread than Gelasius’.
- 64.
Van Nuffelen, “Gélase de Césarée,” 627.
- 65.
Pace Wallraff, et al., Gelasius of Caesarea, xxxviii.
- 66.
Might it be that Socrates, if he did use Gelasius, only had an anonymous copy of the text?
- 67.
Cf. John Malalas and John of Antioch and their plagiarism of Eustathius of Epiphania in Treadgold, Early Historians, 235–53; 311–29. See also the section in Chapter 4.4 on Sozomen.
- 68.
For Rufinus, see Amidon, The Church History of Rufinus, vii-xvii; Peter van Deun, “The Church Historians After Eusebius,” in Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, ed. Gabriele Marasco (Brill: Boston, 2003), 160–67; Treadgold, Early Historians, 123–24.
- 69.
Socrates, EH, 7.27. Philip’s evident desire to demonstrate his learning may be linked to his hopes to be elected bishop of Constantinople. Though his ambition would be repeatedly frustrated, his Christian History may have been an attempt to win support.
- 70.
For more on Philip and the surviving fragments of his history, see Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1994), 528–30.
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). Eusebius of Caesarea and His Early Continuators. In: The ‘Lost Arian History’ in Late Antique and Medieval Historiography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55443-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55444-5
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)