IRITU DE SACRIFICIO

at star-gazing, and instructed many people in the sciences. Our heretic also

says that during the reign of Theodosius the Younger the woman was torn to

pieces by those championing the consubstantialist doctrine.25

? 9a [suda, Υ 166 Hypatia]. She was torn apart by the Alexandrians and her body mocked and scattered throughout the whole city. She suffered this, some say, at the hands of Cyril because of envy of her superb expertise, espe-

cially in astronomy.

10. He records that it was in the reign of Valens and Valentinian that Philostorgius lived; he was supreme among physicians, and his sons were Phi- lagrius and Posidonius.26 _{He says he saw Posidonius, who was outstanding in}

the field of medicine. He adds, though, that he was unsound in maintaining that it is not demonic attack that makes people mad but that their disease is due to an unhealthy mixture of certain humors. For the power of demons, he

24. On Lucian, see the last two paragraphs of 32 n. 43. On his “creed,” see Bardy,

recherches sur Lucien d’Antioche, 85–132.

25. On Hypatia, see the letters of Synesius of Cyrene addressed to or referring to her: listed in Antonio Garzya and Denis Roques, eds., synésios de cyrène: cor-

respondance (3 vols.; Collection des universités de France 397; Paris: Belles Lettres,

2000), 3:446; Socrates 7.15; Malalas 14.12; Palatine Anthology 9.400; Maria Dzielska,

hypatia of Alexandria (trans. F. Lyra; Cambridge: Harvard university Press, 1995),

111–17. The mob who lynched her in March of 415 was apparently not motivated by pro-Nicene fervor but by resentment of her friendship with the prefect Orestes and the suspicion that she was encouraging his resistance to “Cyril’s attempts to encroach upon the sovereignty of the civil power” (104). The rumors that she was a sorceress working against Cyril were spread to justify the murder.

26. Nothing more is known about the physician Philostorgius than what our author says here.

said, in no way threatens human beings.27 _{He also says that Magnus in Alex-}

andria gained a good reputation in practicing the same art.28

11. Our heretic, however unintentionally, expresses admiration for the wisdom of Basil the Great and Gregory the theologian.29 _{He calls Nazianzus}

“Nadiandus.” As for Apollinaris of Laodicea, he prefers him to the other two

when it comes to knowledge of sacred scripture. But he says that Basil was more brilliant than Apollinaris. In comparison to the other two, however, the rhythm of Gregory’s discourse was better suited to composition, and it could be said that his style was more powerful than Apollinaris’s and more deliberate than Basil’s.

11a [suda, Α 3397 Apollinaris of Laodicea; Β 150; Γ 450]. Philostorgius too mentions Apollinaris in his history, writing as follows.

Apollinaris flourished at that time in Laodicea in Syria, as did Basil in Caesarea in Cappadocia and Gregory in Nadiandus, which is a way station in that very same Cappadocia. These three men championed the consubstantial- ist doctrine at that time in opposition to that of “other in substance” and were so far superior to all the other leaders of that sect before and after until my own time that Athanasius must be reckoned a child in comparison to them. For they achieved perfect mastery of what are called the external disciplines and had a deep acquaintance with the sacred scriptures, being able both to read them and to cite them easily from memory, especially Apollinaris, who even knew Hebrew. Not only that, but each of them was quite a good writer in his own way; Apollinaris was by far the best at the style suited to com-

mentary, while Basil was most brilliant in panegyric. In comparison to the other two, however, the rhythm of Gregory’s discourses was better suited to composition, and it could be said that his style was more powerful than Apollinaris’s and more deliberate than Basil’s. As great as was their talent

in speaking and writing, however, the people who saw these men found their personalities equally attractive. Thus the occasions on which they were seen and spoke, and the things they published in writing, all became the means by which they drew into fellowship with themselves those able to be caught more readily for whatever personal reason.

Thus writes Philostorgius the Arian about these men, in a cursory way. 11b [Nicetas, Thes. 5.38]. The heretic Philostorgius too, in the eighth book of his history, while praising this most heretical Eunomius, says that

27. On Posidonius’s opposition to the theory that mental disturbances are caused by demons, see Aëtius of Amida, iatrica 6.12.

28. On Magnus, see Eunapius, Vit. soph. 497–498; Palatine Anthology 11.281; Libanius, Ep. 147 (written in 388).

Apollinaris was the best at the style suited to commentary, while Basil was

most illustrious only for his oratory. In comparison to the other two in

both areas, however, the rhythm of Gregory’s discourses was better suited

to composition, and it could be said that his style was more powerful than Apollinaris’s and more deliberate than Basil’s.

11c [Psellus, Logos pros Pothon 6]. And even if someone named Philos- torgius numbered [Gregory of Nazianzus] among the greats, saying that the

rhythm of his discourses was better than the others’, I took no pleasure at all

in his saying so.30

12. He says that not only Basil the Great but Apollinaris too wrote in opposition to Eunomius’s Apologia. Then when Eunomius in turn took on Basil in five books and the latter read the first one, he became so dejected

that he died.31 _{This is how much our author prefers falsehood to truth.}

12a [Nicetas, Thes. 5.38]. Apollinaris and Basil both wrote in refutation of the Apologia that Eunomius had published. Gregory, however, (and this is the clearest sign of his intelligence) realized how modest his ability was in comparison to the other and held his peace, contenting himself with the refutation of some of Eunomius’s propositions in his work on the son in the guise of a rebuttal of the anomoeans.32 _{As for Eunomius, he did not consider}

Apollinaris worth even a rebuttal (and in fact the latter’s response to his writ- ings had been feeble and negligent), but he did contradict Basil in five books.

30. “I took no pleasure” translates οὐ … γέγηθα. Perhaps read γέγηθε: “he took no pleasure.”

31. In 8.12, on the date and occasion of Eunomius’s Apologia (or Liber Apologet-

icus), see Bernard Sesboüé, Georges-Matthieu de Durand, and Louis Doutreleau, eds., contre Eunome: Basile de césareé (SC 299, 305; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1982–83), 1:28–34.

It was probably composed in 360 or 361, perhaps with a view to clearing himself of suspicions about his doctrine at the Council of Constantinople or with those consid- ering him for the episcopacy. The text is presented in the edition above (2:234–98) and in Vaggione, Eunomius, The Extant Works, 34–74. Basil’s reply, contra Eunomium, is presented in Sesboüé, de Durand, and Doutreleau, contre Eunome. The first part of Eunomius’s response to Basil, the Apologia Apologiae, seems to have appeared in late 378, the occasion being the altered ecclesiastical situation with the accession of Theo- dosius I. Philostorgius’s statement that it eventually ran to five books may be accepted. Basil did in fact die around that time (1 January 379), but we may treat our author’s explanation of his demise with suitable reserve, as with the other dramatic deaths in 3.15 and 7.12. The work has perished, apart from the fragments preserved by Gregory of Nyssa in his own contra Eunomium (see Vaggione, Eunomius, The Extant Works, 79–127). Apollinaris and the others who wrote against Eunomius are listed in Jerome,

Vir. ill. 120.

And when Basil received the first two of these books to be published, he was

so cast down that he died.

12b [Photius, Bibliotheca codex 40]. This Philostorgius, however much he may have fumed against the orthodox, did not dare to attack Gregory the theologian but acknowledged his education, however unwillingly. But he tried to tarnish the reputation of Basil the Great and only succeeded in show- ing how brilliant he was. For he was forced to acknowledge the power and beauty of the discourse in his panegyrics because they were so evident in the very works, but the coward calls him arrogant and inexperienced in works of disputation because, so he says, he dared set himself against Eunomius’s writings.

13. He shamelessly tells the most obvious lies about the holy men just mentioned, Basil and Gregory, claiming that they said not that the Son had become a human being but that he had dwelt in a human being and that for this reason Apollinaris had parted company with them. But he criticizes the latter, although not for the reasons for which the orthodox found fault with him; he represents him, rather, as turning his attention to other endeavors. He does, however, say of him, as do the others, that he even denied the resur- rection of the body.33

14. He says that what Apollinaris wrote against Porphyry is much better than Eusebius’s efforts against him and also better than Methodius’s writings on that subject.

15. He says, and I do not know where he gets the information, that Apol- linaris was a bishop and that Novatus was of Phrygian stock.34

16. He records that Valentinian and Valens were from Cibalis.35

17. He says that among those holding to the consubstantialist doctrine, the most renowned was Theodore,36 _{bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, along with}

33. Denial of the resurrection is quite out of character for Apollinaris; see Hans Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine schule: texte und untersuchungen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904), 46. Jerome says the thirty books he wrote against Porphyry are regarded as among his best works (Vir. ill. 104). He also mentions with esteem Methodius’s books against Porphyry (Vir. ill. 83; Ep. 48.13; 70.3).

34. “Novatus” is the form of Novatian’s name commonly found in the Greek authors. He was probably of Roman stock, but the number of his followers in Phrygia may have suggested to Philostorgius a Phrygian ancestry.

35. “Cibalae” (in Pannonia) is the more usual form of the name. Cf. Ammianus 30.7.2; Zosimus 3.36.2; Libanius, or. 20.25.

36. The company assembled by Philostorgius in 8.17 is actually made up of some of the most implacable opponents of the term “consubstantial.” Theodore of Heraclea was pilloried at the Council of Sardica (Hilary, Frag. hist. B II 1.7.3). Athanasius lists him as among the principal heretics (Ep. Aeg. Lib. 7; h. Ar. 28.1; Ep. 47). He was a

George, who was of Alexandrian stock and had practiced the philosophical way of life and who was bishop of Laodicea in Syria.37 _{Coming after them in}

time was Eustathius, an old man venerated by the people and persuasive,38

and also Basil, and in addition Macedonius of Constantinople and Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus. With them were Marathonius and Maximinus, presbyters of the church in Constantinople.39

18. In comparing Eunomius to Aetius, he says that Aetius was better at furnishing proofs and readier at replying to all points, for, he says, it was just as though he had everything all heaped together artlessly on the tip of his tongue. Eunomius, however, was superior in the clarity and elegance of his teaching, and especially in the way he suited it to his students.40

member of the Mareotic Commission investigating the charges against Athanasius (Athanasius, c. Ar. 72.4). Jerome, however, thinks highly of him (Vir. ill. 90).

37. Similarly, George of Laodicea detested the term “consubstantial” (Socrates 1.24.2). He had been excommunicated by Alexander of Alexandria and had helped the early Arians formulate their doctrines (Athanasius, syn. 17.5–7; Apol. de fuga 26.4). He had been singled out as one of the chief heretics at the Council of Sardica (Hilary, Frag. hist. B II 1.7.3). But he was also set against Eudoxius’s homoean doc- trine (Sozomen 4.13.1–3) and was the leader of the homoeousians with Basil of Ancyra (Epiphanius, Pan. 73.1.5–6). His exposition of this faith is in Epiphanius, Pan. 73.12.1–22.4.

38. Eustathius is he of Sebaste; Sozomen also mentions his gifts of persuasion (3.14.36). He headed the Macedonian delegation in 365 to Liberius of Rome (Socrates 4.12).

39. Eleusius and Marathonius are mentioned together in suda, Ε 813 as attracting crowds of followers by their asceticism rather than by their eloquence. Philostorgius himself gives witness to Eleusius’s homoeousian convictions (9.13). All this suggests again that our author likes to assign to the consubstantialist camp anyone opposed to the Eunomian doctrine, which, he thinks, is the only effective alternative to what the other represents.

Book 9

1. The ninth book of Philostorgius fabricates some incredible deeds for Aetius, Eunomius, and Leontius, and in addition for Candidus, Evagrius, Arrian, Florentius, and above all for Theophilus the Indian, and for some others as well whom this mad heresy portrays as among the more fervent souls.1 _{And the one concocting these absurdities shows no awareness of how}

ridiculous they are.

2. He says that Moses punished Jannes and Jambres and company with sores and brought about the death of the mother of one of the two.2

3. He says that Valens, upon his return to Constantinople from Illyri- cum, showed that he held Eudoxius in high esteem.3 _{And although Eudoxius}

especially could have fulfilled the promises made to Eunomius, he had no intention of doing so. Euzoius as well had the same opportunity of doing what he had done for them by means of the council in Antioch. But so completely had they both forgotten about these things that Euzoius turned to disparag- ing the men he had championed, remarking jestingly in church that Aetius and company were “sky-climbers” and insulting Theophilus by calling him

1. On Arrian, see 9.18. Theophilus was said to have raised a dead person to life (3.6a).

2. On Jannes and Jambres, see 2 Tim 3:8. The reference in 9.2 to “the mother of one of the two” presupposes that they are not brothers, contrary to what is found in the version of the apocryphon concerning them in P. chester Beatty XVi (see Albert Pietersma, The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 49. The text is quite fragmentary, but it appears that the mother perishes while trying to help the dying Jannes in some way. That Philostorgius mentions the mother rather than, as usual, the father (Balaam) shows that he knew the book directly, not just the traditions surrounding it (see Piet- ersma, Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, 108–9, 209, 217).

3. On Valens’s esteem for Eudoxius, see Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.60; Sozomen 6.7.9; Theodoret, hist. eccl. 4.12.2–13.1. With Julian’s death, the Eunomians had lost their imperial patron, and Eudoxius could freely express his hostility toward them (see 7.6 and 8.2–4). Euzoius now sided with him, because Valens had banished Mele- tius from Antioch, and he preferred to have the emperor’s support (kopecek, history

of Neo-Arianism, 422–23).

an “Ethiopian.”4 _{Thus the struggles were not about orthodoxy and faith but}

about discrimination in color and race. As for Eudoxius, he made some dis- dainful remarks about them and said in church, “I do not call them heretics, which is what they would like to hear, so as not to lend countenance to their separation; but I do call them pests.”

4. When Aetius and Eunomius and company had broken once and for all with Eudoxius and Euzoius and company, they left Constantinople to Florentius.5 _{Aetius sailed off to Lesbos and lived there on a property near}

Mytilene, where he received with gracious speech those who came to see him. The property was a gift from the emperor Julian in token of his regard for him. As for Eunomius, he crossed to Chalcedon and dwelt there in a garden that was his own property by the sea-walls, and he showed no less concern for his visitors. Neither of them had charge of a church particularly assigned to him, but those who shared their views considered them fathers and guides of them all. Eunomius, in fact, did not even perform a liturgy from the time he left Cyzicus, nor for that matter for the rest of his life, even though none of the bishops of his sect would ever do anything pertaining to the affairs of the church without his approval.

5. When Valens reached the third year of his reign, he took the field against the Persians, on which occasion Procopius usurped power in Con- stantinople.6 _{Procopius was related to Julian, and many there were who}

thought the realm should be his, and many a tongue conveyed the thought. For this reason when Jovian became emperor he escaped from Mesopotamia, fled with his wife, and remained in hiding, moving often from place to place

4. “Sky-climbers” (οὐρανοβάτας) is an example of the jokes often made of the Eunomians’ claim to know God’s very essence. Basil speaks sarcastically of them as “passing through heaven and all the powers transcendent” (Adversus Eunomium 1.13), while Gregory of Nazianzus places Eunomius “above the clouds” (or. 27.9). See also Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 1.60. As Euzoius here shows, Arius’s original followers, who shared his views about God’s incomprehensibility, joined in the fun. Theognis of Nicaea expressed himself likewise, if the text ascribed to him is sound, when he said that to speak rightly of the Father and the Son “super nubeculam est ambulare” (Bardy,

recherches sur Lucien d’Antioche, 212). The epithet applied by Euzoius to Aetius may

involve a play on Ἀέτιος and ἀετός (“eagle”). See also Epiphanius, Pan. 76.54.17–24. 5. On the final break between Eudoxius and the Eunomians, see Socrates 4.13.1–2; 5.24.1–6; Sozomen 7.6.2; Theodoret, hist. eccl. 2.29.10–12.

6. On Procopius’s revolt, see Eunapius, Frag. hist. 31–32; Vit. soph. 479; Ammi- anus 26.5.8–9.11; Jerome, chron. 366; consul. const. 365; 366; Libanius, or. 1.171; 19.15; 20.25–26; Themistius, or. 7.91a–93c; Socrates 4.3; 4.5; Sozomen 6.8.1–3; Zosimus 4.4.2–4.8.4; Paschoud, Zosime, 2:340–49; Pio Grattarola, “L’usurpazione di Procopio e la fine dei Costantinidi,” Aevum 60 (1986): 82–105.

in trying circumstances, until he had had enough of wandering about and, as our author puts it, staked everything on one last throw.7 _{Making his way to}

Chalcedon, he hid himself on Eunomius’s property outside the city while its owner was away. And from there he crossed over to the city and took control of the government without bloodshed.8 _{Shortly afterwards, when he took the}

field against Valens, he was defeated by the treachery of his generals Gomoar- ius and Agilo, and fled to Nicaea.9 _{He planned to move on from there on the}

following day but was arrested by Florentius, whom he had appointed com- mander of the city garrison, and led in fetters to Valens by the one who had arrested him. Procopius was beheaded after six months of usurpation, but Florentius was not saved by his own treachery; the soldiers delivered him to the flames from an old grudge, because while he was garrison commander of Nicaea under Procopius he had mistreated many of them who had sided with Valens.10

6. While Procopius was usurping power, Eunomius paid him a visit when he [Procopius] was staying in Cyzicus. His arrival brought about the release of those being kept in prison by him.11 _{They were in prison for siding}

with Valens, and their relatives had compelled Eunomius to undertake the embassy. Once he had undertaken it and freed the men, he returned at once.

Around the same time, the person sent by Procopius to govern the island brought Aetius to trial because he had been accused by the locals of favor-