Abstract
Several times in the previous chapters, this study has mentioned the work of Richard Burgess and his reevaluation of the reconstruction of Joseph Bidez. Burgess argues that Bidez actually combined two different works. One of these, dubbed by Burgess the Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii, is the focus of that historian’s analysis and will be the theme of the first part of the present chapter. Though Burgess believes that the Continuatio is not a part of any non-Nicene historiographical tradition, a closer reading strongly suggests that Bidez’s belief that the fragments were by an “Arian” remains correct. Furthermore, internal evidence even allows us to propose the identity of the author of Burgess’ Continuatio.
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.
Burgess, Studies, 111–283. Bleckmann, “Vom Tsunami,” 14 n. 18 does not believe that Burgess’ theory is convincing, though this study obviously concludes otherwise.
- 2.
Ibid., 122–26.
- 3.
Ibid., 122. See section III below for those chronicle-esque fragments that cover material after 350.
- 4.
Ibid., 125.
- 5.
Ibid., 123–24.
- 6.
Ibid., 126.
- 7.
Ibid., 144–45.
- 8.
Ibid., 144.
- 9.
Socrates, HE, 2.26; Theodoret, HE, 2.19.
- 10.
For the use of the epithet “the eunuch” in this context, see, for example, Athanasius, History of the Arians, 4.2, 20.5, 28.1.
- 11.
Burgess, Studies, 126.
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
Ibid., 127, n. 40.
- 14.
Ibid., 127.
- 15.
Philostorgius, HE, 2.4. Constantine is criticized for the execution of his son Crispus and wife Fausta.
- 16.
Burgess, Studies, 126.
- 17.
Ibid., 127.
- 18.
Brennecke, Studien, 95; see also Warmington, “Did Athanasius Write History?,” 7–16. Van Nuffelen, “What happened after Eusebius?”, 160–173 argues against Brennecke’s position by suggesting that the chronicler Andreas was a fourth-century pro-Nicene. However, there is simply too little information either about Andreas himself or his works to make this argument conclusive. Furthermore, though van Nuffelen identifies Andreas as pro-Nicene because he accepts that council’s system for dating Easter, later, on page 177 in the same article, van Nuffelen observes that “Arians,” too, accepted “its [Nicaea’s] principle for establishing the Easter date … even if opposing councils may have produced their own calculations.” Thus, it is quite possible that Andreas may have been another “Arian” chronicler whose work happened to agree with some decisions taken at Nicaea while rejecting others. Ultimately, the use of Andreas as a counter-example to Brennecke’s position is not compelling since we know so little and what we do know does not truly indicate a clear theological position.
- 19.
Ibid. 127, n. 40. See also Richard Burgess, “A Common Source for Jerome, Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and the Epitome de Caesaribus between 358 and 378, Along with Further Thoughts on the Date and Nature of the Kaisergeschichte,” Classical Philology 100 (2005), 173.
- 20.
Burgess, Studies, 127, n. 40.
- 21.
Jerome, De viris illustribus, ed. Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo, (Firenze: Nardini Editore, 1988), Preface; for the date of its composition, see Kelly, Jerome, 174.
- 22.
Ibid.
- 23.
Jerome, De viris, Chapter CXXIV.
- 24.
Ibid., Chapters LXXXI and CXX.
- 25.
So obvious was this to contemporaries that Augustine wrote to Jerome complaining that if he felt so pressed to include heretical authors he should at least have mentioned in what ways they erred; see Augustine, Augustinus-Hieronymus epistulae mutuae, ed. Alfons Früst (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), Ep. 40.
- 26.
Jerome, Chronicon, Preface; see also Kelly, Jerome, 73–75.
- 27.
Cf. Richard Burgess, “Jerome and the ‘Kaisergeschichte,’” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 44 (1995), 354. Burgess emphasizes the “amateur” nature of Jerome’s efforts and how he likely copied from other sources. Though Burgess’ study addresses Jerome’s use of the Kaisergeschichte, his observations pertain to the current subject. After all, there were only a limited number of works that Jerome could have consulted for the period after Eusebius’ Chronicle; even if one accepts Burgess’ arguments that Jerome would never willingly use an “Arian” source, it may be that he knew of only one work that could assist him in his self-professed haste and used it in spite of its theology. Van Nuffelen, “Considérations,” 211, n. 15, while denying that Jerome relied extensively on the Continuatio, nonetheless affirms that there are connections between the two texts.
- 28.
Two other possibilities remain. Either the work was anonymous or Jerome intentionally excluded its author. (There is evidence that he ignored authors whom he knew but disliked; see Kelly, Jerome, 149.) Neither possibility can be entirely dismissed; but it seems more likely that he would include at least a cursory mention of an author whose work he had actually read, unlike those authors listed whose works he merely pretended to have read; see Kelly, Jerome, 176–77.
- 29.
Burgess, Studies, 144–45: “The Continuatio thus provides us with an interesting glimpse into the world view of a reasonably well-off and educated inhabitant of Antioch in the middle of the fourth century, a view unlike that presented in most of our sources, since he was not an emperor, a bishop, or a religious leader, a teacher like Libanius, or a member of the senatorial aristocracy.”
- 30.
See both fragment (21b) and Chapter 6.1’s discussion on Ammianus 14.7.18.
- 31.
Jerome, De viris, XCI: “Eusebius Emisenus, elegantis et rhetorici ingenii innumerabiles et qui ad plausum populi pertineant confecit libros, magisque historiam secutus ab his qui declamare volunt, studiosissime legitur.” For van Nuffelen’s alternative reading, see van Nuffelen, “What happened after Eusebius?,” 166 n. 32. Though van Nuffelen argues that “historiam” references Eusebius’ literal reading of Scripture, there is nothing in Jerome’s sentence itself to indicate that interpretation conclusively; cf. the translation provided by Ernest Cushing Richardson in Philip Scaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 3 (NY: Cosimo, 2007), 379: “Eusebius of Emesa, who had fine rhetorical talent, composed innumerable works suited to win popular applause and writing historically he is most diligently read by those who practise public speaking. Among these the chief are Against Jews, Gentiles, and Novatians and Homilies on the Gospels, brief but numerous. He flourished in the reign of the emperor Constantius in whose reign he died, and was buried at Antioch.” Van Nuffelen’s observation that Jerome does not list any historical works is accurate, but given that Jerome states that he includes only titles “chief among these” (e quibus vel praecipui sunt), it would not be surprising that not work is mentioned.
- 32.
Socrates, EH, 2.9; Sozomen, EH, 3.6.
- 33.
Sozomen, HE, 3.6. Given the frequent use of Sabellianism as a polemical term to describe a general anti-“Arian” attitude during this period, it seems likely that this accusation was unfounded.
- 34.
Jerome, De viris, XCI. For two theories about the year of his death, see Eligius M. Buytaert, L’heritage littéraire d’Eusèbe d’Émèse: Étude critique et historique (Louvain: Bibliothèque du Muséon, 1949), 94 and Woods, “Ammianus Marcellinus and Eusebius of Emesa,” 585–91. The first suggests early 359 as a death date since we have records of a different bishop of Emesa later that year; Woods places Eusebius’ death at the hands of Gallus among the events leading up to that Caesar’s own execution in 354. While Woods’ argument lacks definitive proof, its ingenious argument is thought-provoking and plausible.
- 35.
Jerome, De viris, XCI; see CXIX for his mention of one such emulator, Diodorus of Antioch.
- 36.
For an important study on the surviving corpus of Eusebian literature, see Buytaert, L’heritage littéraire. Robert E. Winn, Eusebius of Emesa: Church and Theology in the Mid-Fourth Century (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2011), 5–13, offers a recent discussion of Eusebius’ works and the studies that have identified them.
- 37.
Robert Winn, “The Church of Virgins and Martyrs: Ecclesiastical Identity in the Sermons of Eusebius of Emesa,” Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11 (2003), 316. This was later adapted as a chapter in his more recent monograph, Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 225–51.
- 38.
Van Nuffelen stresses that, though Eusebius of Emesa refrained from explicitly taking a side in the “Arian” debate, he did critique at least one branch of Christianity as is evident from Jerome’s observation that he wrote against the Novatians. See van Nuffelen, “What happened after Eusebius?,” 166 n. 32. We do well to remember this observation, but it does not affect the arguments presented below.
- 39.
Eusebius of Emesa, De Filio, 2.11: “Unigenitus enim is est, qui solus natus ab uno est. Si est alia interpretatio sermonis, non contendimus. Si enim voluero aliter interpretari Unigenitum Patris, magis autem audi evangelium quam me,—sine contentione. Noli me audire sed evangelium, quia et ego non mea dico sed de evangelio. Si autem dissentio, quia non ea dico quae evangelium, reliquens me audi eum quem oportet et me audire” (Italics mine).
- 40.
Eusebius of Emesa, De Fide, 3.26: “Noli dicere quemadmodum, neque quaeras generationem illam, quam nullus enarrat, nullus scit, nullus novit. Crede et confitere infirmitatem tuam ut obumbret te Christus. Si enim quomodo natus es nescis, quemadmodum qui de te ignoras de Patre et Filio aut quaeris aut nosse te putas. Quid ergo? Non debemus confiteri Deum et Filium? Confitere ea quae de Patre et Filio scripta sunt et noli curiosus ea quae non scripta sunt requiere.”
- 41.
Eusebius of Emesa, Adversus Sabellium, 4.5: “Si dixerit Spiritus Sanctus: Generationem eius quis enarravit? noli quaerere neque ab hominibus, neque ab angelis … Quemadmodum autem Filius ex Patre, cede ei qui novit, ei qui noscitur. Sed tu quaeris, et quis est qui promittat se nosse? Omnis enim quicumque promittit se nosses, mendax est. Pronuntiavit enim Dominus, quod nullus norit nisi solus Pater Filium et Filius Patrem.” In 4.8 he states emphatically, “Si quid scriptum non est, nequidem dicatur; si quid autem scriptum est, ne deleatur. Non sumus enim auctores, sed discipuli. Non quae volumus, sed ea quae legimus; non ea, quae ex corde, sed ea, quae a Spiritu in scripturis sanctis sunt posita.”
- 42.
Eusebius of Emesa, De Filio, 2.44: “Ego enim neque cum contentione dico neque cum lite: ecclesiam Dei non esse circum, scio: non sum illius aut illius, non cum his aut cum illis. Non enim aliter cum patribus ecclesia consuevit: si quis scientiam habet, proferat in medio.”
- 43.
Ibid., 2.16: “Illic [the relationship between the Father and the Son] caritas, istic lis. Cur lis? Quia scripturis contenti non sumus, sed ex corde non miscenda miscemus” (Comment in brackets mine).
- 44.
Ibid., 2.12: “Non sumus enim sapientiores Deo: non ut volumus, sed ut genuit; non ut loquimur, sed ut se habet negotium. Non est enim in nobis, quomodo est Filius, sed in eo qui genuit. Non est nostrum nosse neque enarrare, siquidem generationem eius quis enarravit, ut Isaias in Spiritu dicit. Qui enim contendit, [non] audit; qui autem suscipit, concedit solum Patrem nosse.” Regarding his professed willingness to bear correction, see ibid., 2.32: “Meus amicus est omnis qui increpat recte; et ego beneficium dantem asscribo omnem qui causatur bene, [non] propter contentionem scilicet; et si ego erro, suscipio tamen alacritatem eius, qui reprehendit.” For other examples, both of his willingness to bear correction and his desire to avoid party polemics, see ibid., 2.32–34.
- 45.
Eusebius of Emesa, De Arbitrio, Voluntate Pauli et Domini Passione, 1.31: “Non sum contentiosus, sed et abstineo me a contentione. Cum humilitate autem de dubiis volo quaerere ut a fratribus. Nonne veritatem dico, quia virtus non poterat suscipere carnis passiones? Sed ego taceo … Et non contendo!”
- 46.
Hanson, Search, 389–90.
- 47.
See n. 35 for theories regarding when Eusebius died.
- 48.
Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 19–51, especially 46–50.
- 49.
Hanson, Search, 387.
- 50.
Cf. entries 31 (page 168–69) and 9 (page 172–73) in Burgess, Studies and Sozomen, HE, 3.6.
- 51.
Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 41–45. Winn even suggests, based on the frequency and manner of use in his sermons, that Eusebius’ favorite Scriptural passage was 1 Cor. 15:41, which suggests the practice of stargazing.
- 52.
Burgess, Studies, 156: “καὶ ἐϕάνη ἀστὴρ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐν τῳ̑ οὐρανῳ̑ κατὰ τὸ ἀνατολικὸν μέρος καπνίζων σϕόδρα ὡς ἀπὸ καμίνου, ἀπὸ ὥρας τρί της ἕως ὥρας πέμπτης.”
- 53.
Ibid., 218.
- 54.
Ibid. If Burgess is correct, then the inclusion of this comet emphasizes the author’s fascination with the stars. It is one thing for an individual to record a comet that made an impression on him personally through his own experience; it is another to seek out second- or perhaps even third-hand information about the stars in order to include it in his chronicle.
- 55.
Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 32–33.
- 56.
Socrates, HE, 2.9; Sozomen, HE, 3.6. For the ascetic implications behind Eusebius’ “study of philosophy,” see Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 35.
- 57.
Various dates, ranging from 326 to 331, have been offered by historians; for a listing of recent arguments, see ibid. 33, n. 38.
- 58.
Ibid. 33, n. 37.
- 59.
Burgess, Studies, 168–69.
- 60.
Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 33–34 agrees with a late return for Eusebius, though Winn believes that Eusebius remained in Egypt until 337. Athanasius returned from his first exile during that year, and Winn argues that Eusebius may have witnessed the people’s joy at Athanasius’ return, which, in turn, may have shaped his decision to refuse the see of Alexandria at the Dedication Council. There is nothing inherently contradictory between Winn’s suggestion and the theory that Eusebius did not return to Antioch until 341. Hanson, Search, 387–88 argues that Eusebius returned to Antioch in 335, but there is no particular reason to believe that he returned then as opposed to 336 or even a later year.
- 61.
See the discussion on fragment (13) in Appendix 1.
- 62.
Burgess, Studies, 219. However, see also David Woods, Review of Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography by Richard W. Burgess, Journal of Theological Studies 52 (2001), 902–3. Woods argues that two separate notices have been combined. The one pertains to Eustathius of Sebaste during his early career at Constantinople, while the other references a martyrium for the Antiochene martyr Zenobius. Woods suggests that the martyrium was mistakenly identified as the one in Jerusalem and thus the identity of Zenobius shifted from the actual martyr honored to that of the architect for the martyrium. This interpretation eliminates the need for a happenchance meeting between the author and otherwise unknown figures, and, if it is a more accurate reading of the source material, it still supports our general contention regarding the author’s familiarity with Antioch its environs.
- 63.
Ibid., 218.
- 64.
Ibid., 158; 238.
- 65.
Ibid., 238.
- 66.
Ibid., 144.
- 67.
R. Bas Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 9–10.
- 68.
Burgess, Studies, 144.
- 69.
Ibid., 132–33. The praise that Burgess found for Constantine in the Antiochene chronicle may also be related to the relationship between the two Eusebii and the desire of the bishop of Emesa to emulate the exuberant praise of Constantine by his predecessor.
- 70.
Ibid., 164–66, entries 16 and 22.
- 71.
See Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 243–49, especially 247–48. See also Ralph Hennings, “Eusebius von Emesa und die Juden,” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 5 (2001): 240–60.
- 72.
Cf. Burgess, Studies, 126 and, for example, the text in nn. 40–46 above.
- 73.
Cf., van Nuffelen, “What happened after Eusebius?,” 168: “Modern attempts at pigeon-holing their authors are, in fact, stronger at revealing scholarly presuppositions than reaching clear results. Why should a terse chronicle be written by a layman and why would a bishop be unable to do so?”
- 74.
Sozomen, HE, 3.17.3; for details about the see of Emesa, see Winn, Eusebius of Emesa, 41–45.
- 75.
Jerome, De viris, XCI; see also Burgess, Studies, 146 for the popularity of the Antiochene continuation.
- 76.
Buytaert, L’heritage littéraire, 175–77.
- 77.
Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 126–75.
- 78.
See discussion on fragment (21) in Appendix 1.
- 79.
Jerome mentions Eusebius’ compositions (‘multa et uaria conscribit’) in an entry (236i = AD 347) close to that marking the year 350. The proximity to the suggested ending of the Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii could indicate that Eusebius of Emesa concluded his work by mentioning himself or his own writings in some fashion.
- 80.
- 81.
See Jerome, De viris, XCI for Jerome’s reluctant witness to Eusebius’ reputation.
- 82.
For examples of Jerome’s “plagiarism,” see Kelly, Jerome, 145–46; for the saint’s proclivity to use devastating satire to discredit his foes, see David S. Wiesen, St. Jerome as a Satirist: A Study in Christian Latin Thought and Letters (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1964). If this entry belongs to a continuation of the Continuatio, then it follows that Jerome used this expanded text for his own Chronicon.
- 83.
Kelly, Jerome, 177–78: “But perhaps the most vivid impression it leaves is of his conceit and vanity. It was these which led him not only to conceal his sources in ways which deserve to be called dishonest, but to give such exaggerated prominence to himself in the closing section.”
- 84.
Jerome, De viris, XCI; see n. 32 above for the text.
- 85.
Pace van Nuffelen, “Considérations,” 212. While I have nothing but respect for van Nuffelen’s meticulous scholarship, I cannot agree with his presupposition that historians should avoid making tentative connections such as what I argue here regarding Eusebius of Emesa. Such theories, even if disproven by future studies, foster further research and enrich the scholarly conversation by proposing connections that may shed light on issues otherwise overlooked.
- 86.
Not all of the relevant parallels are necessarily tied to the proposed martyrology. See Sect. 3 below and Appendix 2.
- 87.
Fragments (35) and (36a), in particular, with their detailed knowledge of the events at Daphne, an Antiochene pimp’s death, and the death at Antioch of the apostatizing bishop Heron imply either an eyewitness testimony or one based on an eyewitness.
- 88.
For an alternative argument that these fragments should be considered part of another chronicle, see van Nuffelen, “Considérations,” 218.
- 89.
For Dufourcq, see Chap. 6’s commentary on Ammianus 22.11. See also Brennecke, Studien, 94: “Zu dieser Schrift muß über die Verfolgung unter Julian eine Märtrergeschichte gehört haben, ob von der eigentlichen Kirchengeschichte abgetrennt, wie Eusebs ‘Märtyrer in Palästine’, oder in sie eingearbeitet, wie im VIII Buch seiner Kirchengeschichte, läßt sich nicht mehr ermitteln.”
- 90.
In a similar fashion, Eusebius of Caesarea introduces the long recension of his The Martyrs of Palestine by briefly recalling the martyrdoms of SS Peter and Paul in Rome over two centuries prior.
- 91.
See Chap. 6’s commentary on Ammianus 22.11. One may object that there is a contradiction in emphasizing the Antiochene character of these fragments and yet, as Chap. 6 does, maintain that Artemius did not die in that city. The key is not so much the martyrs as the villains who punish them. The fragments reveal a detailed awareness of petty figures of the persecution, an awareness situated in Antioch and its environs. It would be surprising for these figures of local notoriety to be included in a text based in, for example, Constantinople. Conversely, the events surrounding high-profile figures, like Artemius, would become known to a wider number of people, especially as Christians celebrated and spread the news of the martyrs’ victory over death. Alternatively, if we accept the arguments of Busine and Teitler from the previous chapter, it may be that the author included as many as he could of those whom he knew Julian had executed, regardless of whether the actual motive for the execution was religious in nature.
- 92.
Bidez, Philostorgius, 167 and 171.
- 93.
A perusal of Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Early Christian Biography reveals that the name Eugenius was far too common (51 entries) to make any arguments based on the name alone.
- 94.
Brennecke, Studien, 131, n. 88.
- 95.
Bidez, Philostorgius, clix.
- 96.
Brennecke, Studien, 115.
- 97.
Ibid., 94. For his thought-provoking study on the subject, see 87–157, especially 152–57.
- 98.
Ibid., 95. Though the current study disagrees with some of Brennecke’s conclusions—such as the reliance of Rufinus and others on the Lost Arian History—his thorough analysis is an excellent aid.
- 99.
That Bidez assumed that a common theological position was held throughout the fragments is not surprising. Constantius changed his own theological perspective from Homoiousian to Homoian, and it is possible that a Homoiousian prelate like Eusebius of Emesa praised him even though later Homoian proponents could likewise do so after his death and the rise of the Homoian Valens.
- 100.
Ibid., 153–54.
- 101.
See Theodoret, EH, 3.12.3. This should not surprise us since Theodoret wrote nearly one hundred years later and may have been more interested in providing numerical impressiveness than in doctrinal purity. Cf., Brennecke, Studien, 140–41.
- 102.
Brennecke, Studien, 144–45.
- 103.
It is worthwhile to note that the apparent parallels between the fragments of the Lost Arian History and Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History begin with the siege of Nisibis and parallel many of the fragments here tentatively associated with a lost martyrology. Cf. Theodoret, EH, 2.30 and fragment (24) and (24d).
- 104.
If these fragments represent a continuation, some hint of events toward the end of Constantine’s reign would presumably be evident, but there is no trace of a narrative source among the fragments identified by Bidez.
- 105.
For examples of the hagiographies that may have potential ties to this lost text, see Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, passions (33) [Aemilianus]; (169) and (170) [Artemius]; (205–9) [Babylas]; (219–20) [Barbarus]; (242–43) [Basilius]; (560–61) [Dometius]; (638–40) [Eusignius]; (975) [Iuventinus and Maximinus]; (1023–24) [Manuel, Sabel, and Ismael]; (2126–27) [Eugenius and Macarius]; (1199) [the fifteen martyrs]; (2165) [Gordianus); (2191) [John and Paul]; (2248–50) [Marcus Arethus and Cyril the Deacon]; (2460) [Timothy].
- 106.
See David Woods, “The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997): 335–67. Woods argues that the author of this passion incorporated a text that referred to soldiers during the reign of Julian, even though the hagiography purports to describe the persecution under Maximilianus. Woods’ thoughts on the deaths of Bonosus and Maximilianus may also be germane to this study, though it is impossible to do more than suggest that the martyr accounts of the Lost Arian History may have informed this passion. See David Woods, “Ammianus Marcellinus and the Death of Bonosus and Maximilianus,” Hagiographica 2 (1995): 25–55.
- 107.
Brennecke, Studien, 152–57, especially 156–57.
- 108.
Sozomen, EH, 7.6.1–6 and Theodoret, EH, 5.16 both describe Theodosius’ apparent theological ambivalence at the beginning of his reign. Could this situation have engendered a soon-be-dashed hope in the minds of Homoians that he would reveal himself to be a proponent of their theology?
- 109.
Cf., fragments (33) and (36) from the Paschal Chronicle and fragments (33b), (33f), (33h), and (36c) from Theophylact’s Martyrion.
- 110.
Busine, 98 argues that “there is no evidence that [Artemius’] cult was ever transferred from the Syrian metropolis to Constantinople.” While I agree that he did not die in Antioch, I think it is entirely possible that devotion to him developed in Syria, especially if people became confused about the place of his execution.
- 111.
Lieu and Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian, 216–17.
- 112.
For reasons why Fragment (43) probably does not belong with the others, see Chapter 6.1.
- 113.
See, for example, fragments (41) and (47) which tell of odd births in the Antiochene region.
- 114.
See fragment (24b), which praises Leontius of Antioch. The depiction of Valens may be interpreted as sympathetic—for example, fragment (45) defends his execution of those involved with the THEOD conspiracy—and thus pro-Homoian, though this is not certain.
- 115.
Scott, “Image of Constantine,” 64, 67–69. Scott believes that the issue of Constantine’s “Arian” baptism indicates that Alexander the Monk’s De inventione sanctae crucis should also be associated with the Lost Arian History. However, in light of Chap. 4’s arguments in favor of an Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Caesarea, it seems more likely that this account contained the information that shaped both Alexander and Sozomen’s narratives in that regard; cf. Alexander the Monk, De Inventione, 4068A and Sozomen, EH, 2.1–2. Notice the emphasis that both place upon Helena’s role in the discovery of the relic. Any parallel between Alexander the Monk (for example, 4069B and fragment [25a]) may be explained by Gelasius’ incorporation of the Lost Arian History.
- 116.
See Appendix 2 for a list of these fragments.
- 117.
Another possible fragment that could belong to this continuation was discussed in Chap. 1, nn. 35 and 36.
- 118.
While Jerome’s Chronicon does offer parallels, for example (26b) and (28d), his witness is difficult to assess since he may have derived his knowledge from his own personal experience and those whom he personally met while in Syria. See Appendix 1 for more on his particular parallels.
- 119.
Burgess, Studies, 119–22.
- 120.
Van Nuffelen, “Socrate et les Chroniques,” 64–67.
- 121.
Ibid., 67, n. 45.
- 122.
Ibid., 65–70. In his Un héritage, 457–461, van Nuffelen suggests that the following sections from Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History derive from the Continuatio: 1.16.1 (Constantine’s piety toward Christian churches and his building of Constantinople, the “second Rome” [δευτέραν Ῥώμην]), 1.17.1 (Helena’s journey to Jerusalem), 1.18.4 (triumphs of Constantine against the Goths and the Sarmatians), 2.8.2 (Eusebius of Nicomedia’s decision to hold the Dedication Council in Antioch), 2.8.5 (precise dating of the convocation of the Dedication Council), 2.10.1 (the appointing of Gregory as bishop of Alexandria), 2.26.7–10 (the hostile attitude against Athanasius revealed by Neronias of Cilicia, George of Laodicaea, and Leontius of Antioch with additional details regarding Leontius’ self-mutilation). The chronicle from 350 to 378 he associates with Socrates, EH, 2.28.16–23 (Constantius’ interactions with Vetranio), 2.31.5 (the residence of Constantius at Sirmium while awaiting the end of the war against Magnentius), 2.32 (the defeat of Magnentius), 2.33 (the uprising of the Jews in Dio-Caesarea), 2.34.1–5 (Gallus’ execution of Domitian and Magnus and Constantius’ subsequent execution of Gallus), 3.2.10 (the murder of George in Alexandria [to which Socrates adds the detail that the camel was burned with George’s body.]), 3.13.3–4 (a brief summary of Julian’s persecution of Christian soldiers, including Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens), 4.1.2 (a physical description of Valentinian I), 4.8.8 (completion of an aqueduct in Constantinople), 4.9.5 (about Marcian, a former soldier now a Novatian priest of Constantinople), 4.10 (birth of Valentinian II), 4.11.1 (specific information about that year’s consulate and the unusually large hail in Constantinople), 4.31.6–7 (death of Valentinian I and the proclamation of his son Valentinian II at Aquincum); see van Nuffelen, Un héritage, 461–68. Van Nuffelen hesitates to ascribe 4.8.8, 4.9.5, 4.10, 4.11.1, and 4.31.6–7 to the chronicle, for these could have derived from any combination of Constantinopolitan traditions and sources. If one removes them, a much briefer “chronicle from 350–375” emerges, one which may coincide with the material preserved in the Paschal Chronicle.
- 123.
Van Nuffelen, “Considérations,” 217.
- 124.
For Burgess’ detailed comments on the Continuatio and those sources which may directly incorporated its text, see Burgess, Studies, 129–31. His thoughtful discussion provokes further questions on the relationships among Syrian texts, though it appears that these other sources, such as the Chron. 819, did not employ the Continuation of the Continuatio. Discrepancies in detail among these sources convince Burgess that a Syriac epitome of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Chronicle, along with Eusebius of Emesa’s Continuatio, was made prior to the fifth century and forms an independent witness of the Continuatio than that found in, for example, the Chron. misc.
- 125.
Van Nuffelen, “Considérations,” 212–3 incorporates observations from Andy Hillkens to argue that the parallels between Theophanes and later Syriac chronicles derives from the later texts’ use of a source that incorporated Theophanes.
- 126.
Levenson, “Ancient and Medieval Sources,” 439, n. 128 argues that Michael the Syrian shows no independent use of the Lost Arian History.
- 127.
It is worthwhile to note that John Malalas does not include any trace of these chronicles—or of the martyrology. This may be indicative of his own ineptitude.
- 128.
Van Nuffelen, “Socrate et les Chroniques,” 53–75, especially 64–70.
- 129.
Van Nuffelen, “Considérations,” 213 argues that Theophylact drew from Theophanes rather than the Lost Arian History directly. However, the fact that Theophylact includes subtle details that Theophanes does not may indicate that a direct reliance.
- 130.
Cf. Schor, Theodoret’s People, 58.
- 131.
Philostorgius, EH, 9.15, unlike fragment (45), criticizes Valens for the execution of those he thought were involved in the plot. 9.17, meanwhile, demonstrates a superior narrative that, as discussed in Appendix 1, synthesizes well the information found in fragment (48) and its parallels. This could be evidence that Philostorgius used the Continuation and incorporated its text better, or it may be evidence that he drew from another text that was clearer.
- 132.
Other scenarios are certainly possible. For example, it may be that Panodorus used the collection, which then found its way to work of Annianus. Theophilus of Edessa (and thus George’s translation) may have incorporated the “Arian” material when he consulted Annianus. Alternatively, it may be that George knew of the compilation from Panodorus directly or from both Theophilus and Panorodus.
- 133.
For a brief narrative of events after the council, see Hanson, Search, 820–23.
- 134.
Amidon, Philostorgius, xxiii: “[Philostorgius] lived in a time when the state was showing itself ever more hostile to his sect, but also to polytheistic paganism and to Gnosticism, so the trend of his history cannot have seemed to him utterly hopeless.”
- 135.
This again implies that the work was composed close to 378.
- 136.
For his aspirations, see Kelly, Jerome, 170. Regarding its popularity: The influence of the Lost Arian History spanned almost one thousand years and a variety of sources; it apparently had an intrinsic interest that outlived its obvious non-Nicene bias.
- 137.
Ibid., 177; this was not a universal bias, as the example of Ambrose of Milan (De viris, CXXIV), whom Jerome disliked, demonstrates.
- 138.
Photius, Bibliotheca, 67a.
- 139.
Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem, 153–76, especially 169–76.
- 140.
Glanville Downey, “Caesarea and the Christian Church,” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 19 (1975), 31.
- 141.
Ibid., 32.
- 142.
Jerome, De viris, CXIII: Euzoius, apud Thespesium rhetorem, cum Gregorio Nazianzeno episcopo adolescens Caesareae eruditus est, et eiusdem postea urbis episcopus, plurimo labore, corruptam jam Bibliothecam Origenis et Pamphili in membranis instaurare conatus est. Ad extremum sub Theodosio principe Ecclesia pulsus est. Feruntur eius varii multiplicesque tractatus, quos nosse perfacile est.
- 143.
Carriker, Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, 27.
- 144.
Kelly, Jerome, 170.
- 145.
Regarding Theodosius’ conference in 383, see Kocepek, History of Neo-Arianism, 516–19.
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). Toward a New Reconstruction. In: The ‘Lost Arian History’ in Late Antique and Medieval Historiography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55444-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55443-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55444-5
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)