In Nomine Patris: Constantine the Great and Constantius II in Christological Polemic

In Nomine Patris: Constantine the Great and Constantius II in Christological PolemicAuthor(s): Mark HumphriesSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 46, H. 4 (4th Qtr., 1997), pp. 448-464Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436486 .

Accessed: 10/09/2013 16:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:19:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436486?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


IN NOMINE PATRIS: CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND CONSTANTIUS II

IN CHRISTOLOGICAL POLEMIC*

In 360, bishop Hilary of Poitiers finally lost patience with the emperor Constan- tius II, whose religious policies he characterised in the darkest tones in the in Constantium, a venomous invective he wrote in that year.1 Addressing the emperor in the peroration, Hilary stated: 'Know that you are the foe of divine religion, the enemy of the memory of the saints, and a rebel against your father's orthodoxy' (in Const. 27).2 This tantrum was a manifestation of Hi- lary's frustration with the emperor. A few months earlier he had still hoped to reach an accommodation with Constantius and had written to him in flattering terms, seeking an imperial audience. Constantius not only disregarded Hilary's request, but soon chose to accept a doctrinal formula which even Hilary, with all his genius for reconciliation, could never accept.3 The emperor whom Hilary

* An earlier version of this paper was read to the annual meeting of the Classical Associa- tion of Great Britain on 2 April 1995 in St. Andrews. Further research was done during April and May 1995 while I was the guest of the Istituto di Filologia Classica at the UniversitA di Urbino: I am grateful to the Director, Prof. Roberto Pretagostini, and his staff for their hospitality, and to the Russell Trust, St. Andrews, for funding my trip. Above all, I would like to thank those who discussed the paper with me: Dr. Jill Harries, Prof. Michael Whitby, Heather Ann Thompson, and especially Dr. Shaun Tougher. A. Rocher (ed., trans., intro. and comm.), Hilaire de Poitiers. Contre Constance (SChr 334: Paris, 1987), 29-40, advanced an ingenious theory to reconcile the ostensibly bipartite nature of the work. He argues that the sections addressed to Constantius were written in 360, whereas the sections of commentary aimed at the Gallic episcopate are the result of final editing of the work in 361, a view heavily influenced by Jerome's statement (de vir.ill. 100) that Hilary wrote the in Constantium after the emperor's death. This, however, is unnecessary: T. D. Barnes, Review of Rocher, Hilaire, in JThS n.s.39 (1988), 610; id., 'Hilary of Poitiers on his Exile', VChr46 (1992), 138-9 n.l0; D. H. Williams, 'A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers', JEH 42 (1991), 208 n.29; id., 'The Anti-Arian Campaigns of Hilary of Poitiers and the "Liber Contra Auxen- tium"', ChHist 61 (1992), 12-14.

2 On the translation of pietas as 'orthodoxy': Rocher, Hilaire (n. 1), 252-3; T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cam- bridge, Mass., 1993), 150.

3 The doctrinal formula which Hilary found so objectionable was the homoian creed, which stated that the Son was 'like' (6gotoqo) the Father, thus avoiding the thorny problem of substance (oi)aia). See further, Rocher, Hilaire (n. 1), 68-75. For Hilary's attempts to achieve reconciliation with the upholders of other non-Nicene doctrinal formulae (such as

Historia, Band XLVIV4 (1997) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart



In Nomine Patris 449

had recently lauded as 'most pious', 'most dignified' and 'best and most religious' (ad Const. 1, 3, 4) now slipped in the bishop's esteem: 'Constantius', concludes the first part of Hilary's invective, 'you are Antichrist!' (in Const. 11).4

Hilary's acerbic outburst in the peroration of the in Constantium sums up many of the themes of his assault on the emperor, but it is Constantius' role as 'rebel against his father's orthodoxy' (paternae pietatis rebellis) which binds the argument together. By persecuting the Church like a latter-day Nero, Decius or Galerius, and by denying the true faith as formulated at the Council of Nicaea, Constantius overthrows the achievements of his father, Constantine the Great. It is the purpose of this paper to explore the theme of Constantius' relationship with his father as it is presented in the polemical literature of the fourth-century Christological disputes.5 I will begin by examining the special relationship which obtained - or was held to obtain - between Constantius and Constantine. Then I will summarise the use, both positive and negative, of this topos in Christological polemic and consider what rhetorical devices the authors employ to give force to their arguments.6 Having explored these themes, a final section will analyse the long term consequences of this ideological battle for the perception of Constantine the Great and Constantius II by posterity.

6gotoiortoq), see M. Meslin, 'Hilaire et la crise arienne', in Hilaire et son temps (Paris, 1969), 32-5.

4 For sketches of Hilary's relationship with Constantius: C. F. A. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers' Role in the Arian Struggle ('s-Gravenhage, 1966), 170-7; Rocher, Hilaire (n. 1), 43-5 1.

5 Rocher, Hilaire (n.i), 46-7, briefly considers Hilary's opposition of the imperial father and son, but primarily to establish what Hilary knew of Church-state relations in the years 325-50.

6 My views on Athanasius' rhetorical skills differ from those expounded by Barnes, Athanasius (n.2), passim. I am not convinced by Barnes' arguments (pp. 10-14) that Athanasius' education was severely limited. If so, it seems curious that he should appropriate 'the language and ideas of Greek philosophy without embarrassment' and use 'the prevailing terminology of Middle Platonism' (p. 12). This is not to deny that Athana- sius was also profoundly influenced by the developing tradition of Christian apologetical literature (as rightly pointed out by Barnes at p.12). Clearly Athanasius' construction of many of his works is influenced by prevailing trends in Christian literature. For example, his use of documents quoted within the body of his texts is comparable to the techniques of, for example, Eusebius of Caesarea in the Historia Ecclesiastica: see further, B. H. Warrmington, 'Did Athanasius Write History?', in C. Holdsworth and T. P. Wiseman (eds.), The Inheritance of Historiography, 350-900 (Exeter, 1986), 7-16. My appraisal of the Historia Arianorum also diverges from that expressed by Barnes, Athanasius, 126-32. Although Barnes refers to Athanasius' 'rhetorical elaboration' and use of 'invented speech and invented dialogue' (pp. 129-31), he maintains that the work is a 'spontaneous' product of 'native wit' (p.126). I prefer the analysis of Warmington, who notes that this use of oratio recta, together with the description of events entirely in the third person,



450 MARK HUMPHRIES

1. Father to Son

The relationship between Constantine and Constantius II is shot through with complexities, expressed in a multitude of symbolic and ideological associations.7 Central to it was the assumption that Constantius was especially fa- voured by his father and that he, more than his brothers, had inherited Constan- tine's mantle. Julian, perhaps with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek,8 told Constantius 'it seems as if your father still rules' (Or 1.9a). This expressed the continuity between the reigns of father and son (cf. Lib., Or 59.48), a quality symbolised above all by Constantius' participation in his father's funeral at Constantinople in 337 (Eus., VC 4.70.1-2).9 As he accompanied the funeral cortege to Constantine's mausoleum, Constantius gave an ostentatious display of filial pietas,10 which he emphasised by issuing consecration coinage in his father's memory.'1 This association between father and son at a moment of heightened symbolism may have given rise to a deeper association between Constantine and Constantius: Julian and the ecclesiastical historians reflect a tradition that Constantine's will held in it a special place for Constantius. 12 It is difficult to explain the origins of this tradition, or even to know if Constantius fostered it himself. All we can say is that Constantius' presence at the funeral was undoubtedly symbolic. He had abandoned a campaign against Persia to

suggests that Athanasius is consciously employing another literary model for the Historia Arianorum, possibly (as Warmington suggests: 'Did Athanasius Write History?' 1 1- 12,14) works like commentarii or secular historiography. In general, it still seems appropriate to me to speak of Athanasius' rhetorical technique: cf. G. C. Stead, 'Rhetorical Method in Athanasius', VChr 30 (1976), 121-37.

7 In general, see the article by the late Charles Pietri, 'La politique de Constance II: un premier "c6saropapisme" ou l'imitatio Constantini?', in A. Dihle (ed.), L'Eglise et

l'Empire au IVe siecle (Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique 34: Geneva, 1989), 116-27 - as always, the exposition of one of the true masters of late-antique/early- Christian historiography.

8 As argued by Shaun Tougher, 'Julian's First Panegyric on Constantius II', unpublished paper read at the 1995 AGM of the Classical Association in St Andrews.

9 On funerals and their symbolic nature: M. Bettini, Antropologia e cultura romana. Parentela, tempo, immagini dell'anima (Rome, 1986: repr. 1988), 186-91 (=Eng.trans. by J. Van Sickle, Anthropology and Roman Culture [Baltimore and London, 1991], 176-82); S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981),

115-21; B. D. Shaw, 'The Family in Late Antiquity: the Experience of Augustine', P&P 1 15 (1987), esp. 27-8.

10 Cf. Shaw, 'Family' (n.9), 18-28. 1 1 P. Bruun, 'The Consecration Coins of Constantine the Great', Arctos 1 (1954), esp. 25-7;

cf. J. P. C. Kent, The Roman Imperial Coinage 9: The Family of Constantine I (London,

1981), 33-4, 39. 12 Julian, Or 1.45c; 2 [=3 Bidezl. 94a-b; Ruf., HE 10.12; Soc. 1.39; Soz. 2.34.2; Thdt., HE

2.3.5-6.




attend his father's burial,'3 and his hasty return to Constantinople may have evoked Constantine's dash to his own father's death-bed at York some three decades before.14

If the funeral was an outstanding symbol of Constantius' pre-eminent place in the dynastic ideology of the Constantinian empire, this image was bolstered by one further association. Themistius makes much of the synchronism of Constantine's appointment of Constantius as Caesar and the decision to found Constantinople (Or 4.58b). The new city - whatever its success in practical terms - was self-consciously a dynastic capital, symbolic of Constantine's acquisition of universal dominion through his victory over Licinius in 324 (Eus., VC 4.51; Julian, Or l.5d; Them. Or 3.40c).15 Constantius' political career, therefore, was intimately associated with his father's eponymous city and so with the institution of Constantine's new political order.

This new political order influenced Constantius in a manner which blended imperial and religious ideologies. As emperors raised up by divine favour, both Constantine and Constantius defined their dominion not only by the frontiers of the Roman empire but by the distribution of Christian communities,16 and they believed that their cosmic compact brought with it certain obligations to regu- late God's affairs on earth. Immediately after his victory over Maxentius in 312, Constantine had proclaimed his desire to strive for ecclesiastical unity in the African Church (Eus., HE 10.5.18-24; Corpus Optati 3).17 When that uniformity failed to materialise, however, Constantine's ecclesiatical policy took on a coercive character.'8 Both of these features provided a model for Constantius' dealings with the Church.19 His ideological pretensions received a practical boost when he finally achieved dominion over the whole Roman empire, and he expressed the universal nature of his rule through titles such as aeternitas mea and totius orbis dominus (Amm. 15.1.3).20 At the same time, Constantius'

13 For this last eastern campaign of Constantine's reign: G. Fowden, Empire to Common- wealth. The Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Princeton N.J., 1993), 94-7.

14 On the imagery of such dynastic funerals: MacCormack, Art and Ceremony (n.9), 115-2 1. 15 G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 451

(Paris, 1974), 25-7. 16 See esp. Fowden, Empire to Commonwealth (n.13), 80-101, 109-12. Cf. T. D. Barnes,

'Constantine and the Christians of Persia', JRS 75 (1985), 126-36; W. H. C. Frend, 'The Church in the Reign of Constantius II (337-361): Mission - Monasticism - Worship', in Dihle, L'tglise (n.7), 77-84.

17 For Corpus Optati 3, see J. L. Maier, Le Dossier du donatisme I (Leipzig, 1987), 153-8. For Constantine's view of the cosmic compact: T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 48-61; R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, 1986), 620-5.

18 W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (Oxford, 1952), 141-68. 19 See esp. Pietri, 'La politique de Constance II' (n.7), passim. 20 Pietri, 'La politique de Constance II' (n.7), 148-50. Cf. L. Cracco Ruggini, "'Felix



452 MARK HUMPHRIES

triumph over Magnentius, like his father's victory over Maxentius, and his acquisition of world-wide dominion were imbued with Christian significance. Constantius too believed he had won his victory through God's will - as his coinage made clear21 - and like Constantine he sought to repay his debt by imposing ecclesiastical uniformity. His intentions are clear from a reply by bishop Eusebius of Vercelli to one of Constantius' letters, just before the Council of Milan in 355. The bishop commends the emperor's desire for 'a steadfast ecclesiastical peace throughout the whole world' (per orbem terrarum firma pax ecclesiastica: Eus.Verc., Ep. 1.1).22 To achieve his father's goals, Constantius employed his father's methods: persuasion, argument, and, ultimately, coercion.23 Constantius' ecclesiastical policy, then, was one manifestation of the continuity between his reign and that of his father.24 To some, indeed, it must have seemed, as Julian stated, that Constantine still ruled.

2. Positive Analogies

This image of Constantius as the true inheritor of his father's mantle could be exploited by those hoping to gain his favour. Cyril of Jerusalem is a good example. He wrote to Constantius in 351 to inform him of a cross of light which had appeared in the sky over Golgotha and the Mount of Olives.25 The emperor is praised throughout the letter for his piety and particular parallels were drawn between Constantius and his father. Constantine is described as Oco4ixiataxo; ('most beloved of God': ep. Const. 3), an adjective used four times of Constan- tius (ep. Const. 1, 6, 7, 8).26 Indeed, Constantius' piety is even said to exceed that of his father (npoyovuciv e?uoe?tav g6i;ovrti m pO6 tOv &EOv 6txacpeia: ep.Const. 3). More importantly, the letter as a whole draws an extended com-

temporum reparatio": RealtA socio-economiche in movimento durante un ventennio di regno (Costanzo II Augusto, 337-361 d.C.)', in Dihle (ed.), L'Eglise (n.7), 181-201.

21 Kent, Family of Constantine (n. I 1), 367-9 (Siscia), 386 (Sirmium), 416 (Thessalonica). Cf. Pietri, 'La politique du Constance II' (n. 7), 146-8. On some of the coins there is the legend Hoc signo victor eris, a direct translation of the message xoi)rcl viica which Constantine received in his vision, according to Eusebius (VC 1.28).

22 Constantius' desire for ecclesiastical unity came in for relentless satire from Lucifer of Cagliari, e.g. in de non conv. 3.60-85.

23 For general principles, see the perceptive survey of G. Gottlieb, 'Les eveques et les empereurs dans les affaires ecclesiastiques du 4e siMcle', MH 33 (1976), 38-50.

24 Cf. Constantius' anti-pagan legislation. In CTh 16.10.2 Constantius sought to curb sacrifices taking place contra legem diui principis parentis nostri.

25 See further, E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, A.D.312-460

(Oxford, 1982), 155-6. 26 In addition, Constantius and his reign are designated 064nXo; ('beloved of God') at ep.

Const. 2 and 5.




parison between father and son. Cyril aimed to persuade the emperor that the apparition of the luminous cross was an omen of Constantius' imminent victory in war (ep.Const. 2, 3, 5). At the time Cyril wrote, Constantius was preparing to engage the western usurper Magnentius. The parallel was obvious: just as Constantine's victory over Maxentius had been presaged by a vision of the cross, so too Constantius' triumph was assured by this new vision.27 As harbin- ger of this sign of divine favour, Cyril hoped for Constantius' goodwill.28 Well he needed it: Cyril's position as bishop of Jerusalem was never secure in the stormy context of the rivalry between his own see and that of Caesarea for ecclesiastical primacy in Palestine. In the face of a powerful adversary like Acacius, then bishop of Caesarea and, perversely, Cyril's own promoter to the see of Jerusalem, the emperor's assistance could help him retain his bishopric.29 The ploy was daring. Ultimately, however, it failed: in 357 Acacius succeeded in toppling Cyril from his see.

Those more intimately involved than Cyril in the Christological controversy also appealed to the memory of Constantine when writing to Constantius. In 353/4, for example, Liberius of Rome sought to persuade Constantius that a moderate course of rational and pacific debate was best for the regulation of Church affairs. Interestingly, the reason Liberius gave for expecting Constanti- us to give him any attention at all was that he was 'a Christian emperor and the son of Constantine of blessed memory' (de Christiano enim imperatore et sanctae memoriae filio Constantini hoc ipsud sine cunctatione mereor impe- trare: Hil., Coll.Antiar. A VII. 1). This invocation of Constantine's memory was not simply gratuitous: it was designed to produce an effect. At the end of the letter Liberius recalled that the faith of Nicaea had been ratified in Constan- tine's presence (expositio fidei, quae inter tantos episcopos apud Nicheam

27 Ch. Pietri, 'La politique de Constance II' (n.7), 146-8. 28 He was not alone in that. If we can believe Sulp. Sev., Chron. 2.38, the influence at court

of Valens, bishop of Mursa, was increased when he persuaded Constantius that an angel had announced the result of his battle with Magnentius: E. D. Hunt, 'Did Constantius It have "Court Bishops"?', Studia Patristica 19 (1989), 86.

29 The rivalry stemmed from the evolution of an ecclesiastical administrative hierarchy where sees in provincial capitals had regional primacy, but where sees in centres of special Christian antiquity also enjoyed enhanced prestige. Jerusalem's status, however, seemed to challenge the regional primacy of Caesarea in Palestine. This rivalry persisted throughout the fourth century and into the fifth. See H. Chadwick, 'Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea', HThR 53 (1960), esp. 174-5 n.IO; E. Honigmann, 'Juvenal of Jerusalem', DOP 5 (1950), esp. 211-12 with n.l0, and 214-17; Z. Rubin, 'The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Conflict between the Churches of Jerusalem and Caesarea', in L. I. Levine (ed.), The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (Jerusalem and Detroit, 1982), 79-105. Rubin (at p.98) doubts the authenticity of Cyril's letter - see, however, J. Quasten, Patrology 3 (Utrecht and Antwerp, 1960), 367-8; W. Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (London, 1955), 199 n.25.



454 MARK HUMPHRIES

praesente sanctae memoriae patre tuo confirmata est: ibid., A VII.6. 1). Like- wise the western bishops assembled at Rimini for the twin councils of 359 asserted that they could not countenance the so-called 'Dated Creed' of Sirmium 'because we considered it monstrous to mutilate any ordinance of those blessed ones who sat at the proceedings at Nicaea with the father of Your Piety, Constantine of glorious memory' (ibid., A V. 1.2).30 Clearly both Liberius and the bishops at the Council of Rimini hoped that Constantius would follow his father's example and adhere to the Creed of Nicaea. Such expectations only make sense if we understand that Constantius was perceived as not only the inheritor but the continuator of Constantine's ecclesiastical policies.

3. Hostile Analogies

(a) Athanasius of Alexandria

The origins of the use of this theme in anti-Constantian polemic are closely bound up with Constantius' ecclesiastical policies in the 350s, particularly his dealings with bishop Athanasius of Alexandria. Constans was toppled and assassinated in 350 in the coup led by Magnentius, and a year later Constantius embarked on a war of revenge for his brother's death, finally achieving outright victory in 353. Now in control of all of his father's former territories, Constan- tius had the opportunity to effect doctrinal unity across the whole empire. Councils at Arles in 353 and Milan in 355 weeded out recalcitrant western bishops, who were exiled to the eastern provinces. The revival of exile as a punishment for bishops must have worried Athanasius at Alexandria, all the more so because condemnation of him had been an integral part of proceedings at the western councils and the attitude of the imperial court was growing increasingly hostile to him (cf. Hist.Aceph. 1.7-9).31 Dealing with Magnentius had temporarily deflected Constantius' interests from ecclesiastical affairs, but his victory in 353 allowed him to concentrate his attention on Church matters, particularly on the stubborn bishop of Alexandria. Early in January 356, a

30 Latin text: nefas enim duximus sanctorum aliquid mutilare et eorum, qui in Nicheno tractatu consederant una cum gloriosae memoriae Constantino patre pietatis tuae. Greek text in Athan., de Syn. 10; cf. Soc. 2.37; Soz. 4.18; Thdt., HE 2.19. The 'Dated Creed' is so-called because it was drawn up on 22 May 359 at Sirmium. The twin councils were a complicated affair: while the western episcopate met at Rimini in Italy, the easterners convened at Seleucia in Isauria. For a recent analysis of the debate: Barnes, Athanasius (n.2), 144-8.

31 All references to this text are to the edition of A. Martin (SChr 317: Paris, 1985). K. M. Girardet, 'Constance II, Athanase et l'6dit d'Arles (353). A propos de la politique religieuse de l'empereur Constance II', in Ch. Kannengiesser (ed.), Politique et thetologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1974), 63-91.




military force was dispatched to the Egyptian metropolis. At first Athanasius held firm, but soon he was compelled first to go into hiding and then to flee: it was just over nine years since he had returned from his last exile (Hist.Aceph. 1.10-1 1).

Athanasius had been under no illusions as to the precariousness of his position after 350. Indeed, even before Magnentius' usurpation removed the influence of Constans on Constantius' ecclesiastical policies, a council at Antioch in 349 had deposed Athanasius. In response he penned a revised version of his Apologia contra Arianos (or Apologia secunda) to justify his theological position. As in his other early apologetics he was reluctant to blame Constantius himself for the course of events, preferring to attribute aberrations in the emperor's religious policies to the malicious influence of his advisors, particularly those associated with Eusebius, successively bishop of Beirut, Nicomedia and Constantinople (Apol.c.Ar. esp. 1-2, 20, 36, 59-60, 63, 65, 71-2, 80, 88-90). Even after he fled Alexandria in February 356, Athanasius persisted in blaming oi nsp't Eu5aS?1tov and the like as fomenters of imperial malice towards him (ep.Aeg.Lib. 7): indeed, he even presented them as acting in contravention of Constantius' true wishes (ep.Aeg.Lib. 5: adXtata o6-t, Toi

OEooE3opta?ou PaaatX&o Kovatavriou 4tXavOp&cou 6'vTo;, iapca yv(ogtv awxoi OpuXXo3oatv a 3ekoouatv aw5oi). Athanasius still hoped for a rapproche- ment with Constantius, to whom he addressed an apologia seeking to refute forensically any charges levelled against him. Again he blamed the emperor's advisers (Apol.Const. 4, 5), while Constantius' piety was presented as irre- proachable. No doubt some concern for self preservation played a part. Later, when Athanasius adopted a more aggressive attitude towards Constantius, he was concerned that his writings should not fall into the wrong hands (ep.mon. 3; ep.Serap. 5). This is unsurprising: the brutality with which Constantius' offi- cials enforced imperial religious policy was notorious, and the period after Athanasius' flight was particularly violent.32 But this gentle diplomacy did not benefit Athanasius, and his attitude to Constantius soon hardened into open hostility.

At the end of his Apologia defuga sua, written in 357, Athanasius unequiv- ocally condemned Constantius as a heretic (Apolfug. 26: Kovatavrto; o aipE,txcoq). In the Historia Arianorum, written around the same time, he portrays Constantius as a brutal persecutor. The image probably owes much to a letter of Ossius of Cordoba written in 356, which Athanasius quoted. Ossius sternly reprimands Constantius for his violence towards the Church and directly associates it with the persecution under Maximian (apud Athan. HAr 44.1).33 Unlike Ossius, however, Athanasius gives up the charade that blamed the

32 Barnes, Athanasius (n.2), 12 1-2. 33 On this letter: M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo (Rome, 1975), 223-4.



456 MARK HUMPHRIES

emperor's religious errors on his advisers. The Historia Arianorum contains Athanasius' most sustained attack on the emperor's actions, which he paints in lurid apocalyptic colours (HAr 80.1). Much of the diatribe depends on comparing the emperor with unsavoury biblical exempla, such as Ahab and Pilate. Even so, the presentation of Constantius as an unjust ruler incorporates a great deal of detail which relies on the emperor's actual or alleged activities, particularly in connection with his family (HAr 69-73). It has been well said that 'Athanasius produces a litany of family treacheries which even the tirades of the emperor Julian never surpassed.'34 As might be expected in the light of events in the 340s, Athanasius lays particular emphasis on the differences between Constantius and Constans: Constantius' actions as persecutor contra- dict his claims to be his brother's heir.

It is also in the Historia Arianorum that we first encounter the dramatic opposition of Constantius and Constantine. Athanasius argues that Constantius' behaviour as a heretic dishonours Constantine's memory:

On account of this heresy he had not intended to observe the precepts of his father without infringing them; rather he pretends to observe them so as to flatter the impious, while in order to distress the rest he does not bother to observe the piety which is due to his father (HAr 50.1).

Despite Constantius' claims to the contrary, his policies do not adhere to the precepts laid down by his father:

If, therefore, he wishes to observe the practices of his own father, as he writes [sc. in his letters], why does he dispatch first Gregory and now George, the one who eats his own [i.e. Constantius'] stores?35 Or why does he strive zealously to introduce into the Church the Arians, whom Constan- tine had called Porphyrians,36 and protect them while he banishes others? (51 . 1).

To emphasise the contrast, Athanasius deliberately revises Constantine's image, setting him up as irreproachably orthodox. Constantine's later flirtations

34 Barnes, Athanasius (n.2), 127. 35 Both were Cappadocians. Gregory was set up in Alexandria between 339 and 345. George

had been appointed to replace Athanasius at the Council of Antioch in 349, but had not been able to take possession of the see until after Athanasius' flight in 356. In 361, as soon as they heard of Constantius' death, the Alexandrians brutally murdered George (Hist. Aceph. 2.8-10; cf. Amm. 22.11.3-11, making these events a consequence of the death of Artemius, Constantius' notorious dux Aegypti). The allegation that George has squandered imperial supplies may be intended to evoke similar charges which had been brought against Athanasius in 335. Then Eusebius of Nicomedia seems to have persuaded Constantine that Athanasius intended to prevent the grain ships sailing to Constantinople with their all important cargo (on this episode: Barnes, Athanasius [n.2], 24).

36 In other words, heretics: Opitz, Urkunde 33.




with the anti-Nicene camp are glossed over, and the emperor is shown as a resolute opponent of Arius:

If his father had indeed permitted Arius an audience, Arius would have lost the emperor's compassion when he perjured himself and burst open; and when he learned the truth, Constantine condemned him as a heretic (51. 1).

Athanasius goes even further. In 335, the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia had persuaded Constantine to exile Athanasius to Gaul. Twenty years later the needs of polemic required that these events be given a wholly different character. Now, instead of working against Athanasius, Constantine is recast as his protector:

For, on account of the false slanders of the Eusebian clique [o'ti nspi EUoaptov], he sent the bishop [Athanasius] to Gaul for a time because of the cruelty of those who plotted against him (50.2).

The theological and practical distance between Constantine and that 'arch- heretic' Eusebius of Nicomedia required emphasis:

He did not yield to the Eusebian clique by sending [to Alexandria] the bishop of their choice, but both obstructed their wishes and put an end to their attempts with severe threats (50.2).

Here was a sharp contrast between father and son: throughout the Historia Arianorum, Constantius is no longer the misguided implement but the staunch ally of o't ipit EaT'tov.37

(b) Lucifer of Cagliari

Athanasius had introduced the theme of opposing Constantine and Constantius, but it remained an undeveloped feature of his polemic. Soon, however, it was taken up by his western allies. Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari, who had been exiled by the Council of Milan in 355, wrote some of the most vicious attacks ever launched against an emperor. He used a wide selection of colourful and un- pleasant phrases to designate Constantius, ranging from the biblical to the anti- Semitic, the theological to the bestial.38 Exploiting his mastery of many rhetor-

37 On Athanasius' reinvention of Constantine, see now Barnes, Athanasius (n.2), 19-33. For general principles on revising the past to suit current needs, see M. Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, 1986; London, 1987), Ch.6, 'Institutions Remember and Forget', esp. 69: 'The aim of revision is to get the distortions to match the mood of the present times.' I owe this reference to the brilliant article by Rebecca Lyman, 'Arians and Manichees on Christ', JThS n.s.40 (1989), 493-503.

38 I. Opelt, 'Formen der Polemik bei Lucifer von Calaris', VChr 26 (1972), 200-26, gives a



458 MARK HUMPHRIES

ical tricks, Lucifer indulged in merciless satire of Constantius' religious policies, such as his obsession with achieving ecclesiastical and doctrinal unity which in fact did more to foster division (e.g. de non conv. 3.60-85).39 Among the array of targets at which Lucifer aimed his invective was Constantius' relationship with his father. In his de Athanasio, Lucifer indulged in an imagi- nary interrogation of Constantius, highlighting the absurdity and inconsistency of the emperor's stance on religious matters. Asked why he bears Athanasius such hatred, Constantius replies: 'My father sent him into exile and I ought to act in accordance with my father's ordinance.' This allows Lucifer to ensnare the emperor by challenging him over Athanasius' return from exile.40 Constan- tius now appeals to a threat of war from his brother Constans. But this does not extricate Constantius from his self-contradictory position: Lucifer wonders if a threat of war from Shapur of Persia would be enough to cajole Constantius into acceptance of Persian religion (de Ath. 1.29). Yet Lucifer never held up Con- stantine as a paradigm for the relationship between the emperor and the Church. His experiences under Constantius left him a bitter and intransigent man who refused to accept the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any emperor.41

(c) Hilary of Poitiers

It is perhaps appropriate, then, that the most concerted effort to emphasise the diametric opposition of Constantine and Constantius should come in the works of the 'Athanasius of the West': Hilary of Poitiers. In his in Constantium, Hilary marshals his information and rhetorical techniques to devastating affect. Constantius is condemned as both persecutor and heretic. In both arguments, the issue of the emperor's relationship to his father contributes significantly to the invective.

most thorough catalogue; cf. K. M. Setton, The Christian Attitude to the Emperor in the Fourth Century (New York, 1941), 92-8, esp. 95-7.

39 On the literary qualities of Lucifer's works: G. F. Diercks' introduction to the CCL edition (vol. 8: Turnhout, 1978), lxxi-lxxxii; also G. Castelli, 'Studio sulla lingua e lo stile di Lucifero di Cagliari', AAT 105 (1971), 123-247, esp. 222-32 on rhetorical features.

40 It is unclear which particular exile Lucifer means. The exile of Athanasius imposed by Constantine is that from 335-7. But Lucifer associates Athanasius' return with the influence of Constans, implying Athanasius' return from his second period of exile in 346. Perhaps he has confused them deliberately for rhetorical effect.

41 Setton, Christian Attitude (n.38), 94-5; K. M. Girardet, 'Kaiser Konstantius II. als "Episcopus Episcoporum" und das Herrscherbild des kirchlichen Widerstandes', Historia 26 (1977), 95-128, esp. 109ff. For a beautifully understated assessment of Lucifer's attitude to Constantius, see R. M. Frakes, 'Florentius' Letter to Lucifer of Cagliari', Studia Patristica 24 (1993), 91-5, at 91: 'Lucifer and Constantius did not have the best of relationships'!




In the first part of the in Constantium, the emperor is denounced as a persecutor, attacking the Church like a 'rapacious wolf' (in Const. 10.1 1). Like other anti-Constantian polemicists, Hilary used stock accusations, such as the emperor's use of violence (11.13ff), and unfavourable associations and com- parisons of him with the Jews (2.23; 11.27; 17.5; 18.4). But Hilary goes further and links Constantius with the worst persecuting emperors of earlier Roman history:

I proclaim to you, Constantius, what I would have said to Nero, and what Decius and Maximianus [sc. Galerius] would have heard from me: you - a tyrant not merely in human but in divine matters - wage war against God, you rage against the Church, you persecute the saints, you despise the preachers of Christ, you destroy religion (7.1-5).

Hilary uses a variety of techniques to distance the emperor from his father Constantine. First he asserts that Constantius' father is someone other than Constantine. At one point it is the devil himself: 'your father, the craftsman of men's deaths' (8.19).42 Elsewhere, Hilary makes Constantius a direct descend- ant of the persecuting emperors: 'Before this, your ancestors (patres tui) were enemies...of Christ' (9.15-16). These positive assertions of Constantius' diabolical ancestry are ancillary, however, to a broader rhetorical scheme: this is the second mechanism Hilary uses to distance Constantius from Constantine in the first part of the in Constantium.43

Those persecuting ancestors (patres tui) whom Hilary assigns to Constanti- us are those emperors whom he mentions by name: Nero, Decius and Galerius (4.5; 7.1-2; 8.1-2; 11.16-17). This device functions on a number of levels, as follows:

(1) Hilary's selection of Nero, Decius and Galerius evokes the opposition between Constantine and pagan emperors established by Lactantius in his de mortibus persecutorum.44 Of the nine persecuting emperors listed there, Nero, Decius and Galerius are the ones whom Lactantius distinguishes for their bestial characteristics by the use of the terms bestia and animal.45 So

42 Rocher, Hilaire (n. 1), 235. 43 On Hilary's rhetorical skill: M. F. Buttell, The Rhetoric of St. Hilary of Poitiers (Wash-

ington, 1933), esp. 9-22; G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (London, 1980), 147; I. Opelt, 'Hilarius von Poitiers als Polemiker', VChr 27 (1973), 203-17, esp. 208-14 on the in Constantium.

44 Rocher, Hilaire (n. 1), 35 and n.3. That Hilary has precisely this opposition in mind seems clear from his designation of Galerius as 'Maximianus', which also occurs in Lactantius: Rocher, Hilaire, 233; J. L. Creed, Lactanius. De mortibus persecutorum (Oxford, 1984), esp. p.xlvii.

45 See de mort.pers. (ed. Creed, see n.44) 2.7: Nero as mala bestia; 4.1: Decius as execrabi- lis animal Decius; 25.1: Galerius as mala bestia. Cf. 9.2 on Galerius: Inerat huic bestiae



460 MARK HUMPHRIES

Constantius is directly associated with the line of persecuting emperors whom Constantine had overthrown. (2) The association goes further: Constantius is even worse than Nero, Decius and Galerius. Hilary states: 'We owe more to your cruelty, Nero, Decius, Maximian. For through you we conquered the devil' (8.1-2). This was because they had afforded Christians the glory of martyrdom (8.2-10). But Constantius' persecution is more sinister since it proceeds sine mar- tyrio (7.19-20). The emperor has not the decency to offer martyrdom to his victims - despite their best efforts - but contents himself by exiling them to the less salubrious parts of Asia Minor. Here Hilary uses a technique also used by Athanasius in his Historia Arianorum. Athanasius asserts that Constantius' persecution is worse than that of the pagans, while his support for heretics is more deplorable than that Paul of Samosata received from Zenobia of Palmyra, who is identified as a Jew (HAr 71.1). (3) Hilary's construction of a diabolical ancestry for Constantius belongs to a developing form of Christian rhetoric: the demonic succession. In large measure, assertions of orthodoxy depended on one's ability to demonstrate oneself as the inheritor of a pristine tradition stretching back to the apost- les.46 Conversely, one's heretical opponents were defined as those outside that tradition. Indeed, heresy could be shown to have its own anti-tradition.47 Thus Eusebius of Caesarea drew a direct line of succession from the Jewish-Christian Ebionites of the first century to Paul of Samosata in the third.48 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria before Athanasius, extended this

naturalis barbaries, efferitas a Romano sanguine aliena. Bestia was an important compo- nent in Lactantius' conception of persecution: cf. 16.1: Vexebatur ergo universa terra et praeter Gallias ab Oriente usque ad occasum tres acerbissimae bestiae saeviebant. Cf. Lactantius more general statement at div.inst. 5.11.1: lis igitur hominibus qui deorum suorum moribus congruunt quia grauis est et acerba iustitia, eandem impietatem suam qua in ceteris rebus utuntur, aduersus iustos uiolenter exercent, nec immerito a prophetis bestiae nominantur. For commentary, see P. Monat, Lactance. Institutions divine, livre V, 2 (SChr 205: Paris, 1973), 104-9. See further, TLL 2, s.v. bestia, esp. cols.1939.54- 1940.33.

46 Cf. the assertion of the western bishops at the Council of Rimini (359) to Constantius: dum enim omnes, qui recte sapimus, constructaremus, placuit fidem ab antiquitate perseruantem, quam praedicauerunt prophetae, euangelia et apostoli per ipsum deum et dominum nostrum lesum Christum, saluatorem imperii tui et largitorem salutis tuae, <ut>, quam semper obtinuimus, teneamus (Hil.Pict., Coll.Ant.Par. A V.I. 1).

47 For generalities, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (London, 1977), 29-5 1. The classic study remains that of the late R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (London, 1962). On the use of the technique in the fourth-century Christological disputes: M. Simonetti, 'La tradizione nella controversia ariana', Augustinianum 12 (1972), 37-50; S. Longosz, 'La tradizione nella controversia ariana (a.318-362). Testimo- nianze non atanasiane', Augustinianum 19 (1979), 443-468.

48 R. M. Grant, Eusebius as a Church Historian (Oxford, 1980), 84-96, esp. 91-4.




genealogy to include Arius (Thdt., HE 1.4.35-6 = Opitz, Urkunde 14.35-6). The motif of heretical succession became a commonplace in Christian theological polemic. For Athanasius it was a fundamental feature in his rhetorical construction of Arianism, and other fourth-century authors used the technique in their definitions of heresy.49 Thus Hilary's specially constructed ancestry for Constantius provides the heretical emperor with his own demonic succession of Nero, Decius and Galerius, and so distinguishes him from his father, Constantine. (4) As well as its cogency within a framework of Christian rhetoric, Hilary's association of Constantius with Nero, Decius and Galerius is comprehensi- ble as political satire in the context of late-Roman secular encomiastic literature.50 The in Constantium is bipartite: some sections are addressed to the bishops of Gaul; others are constructed as apostrophes to Constantius. Where Hilary addresses himself directly to the emperor he inverts the rhetorical conventions for speeches, such as those described in Menander Rhetor's instructions on the composition of the aaktKo6; X6yoq (Men.Rhet. 2.368-77). There orators were encouraged to praise the actions of the living emperor by comparing him with distinguished predecessors (2.372), but remembering to 'grant perfection to the present' (2.377). Hilary's comparison of Constantius with three notorious persecutors, together with the assertion that he is even worse than them, perverts the conventions of panegyrical rhetoric to vilify the emperor still further.

The second part of the in Constantium comprises a refutation of the homoian creed adopted by Constantius in 359.51 Despite its heavily theological character, Hilary again emphasises the differences between Constantius and his father. As we have seen, the bishops assembled at Rimini refused to accept Constantius' preferred new credal formula because they could not contemplate overturning the work of the Council of Nicaea. Hilary pursues the same argument, but pushes it further, incorporating the Council and the figure of Constan-

49 E.g. Epiphanius, Panarion 65.1.4, makes Paul of Samosata a successor of Artemon. Cf. Filastrius of Brescia, Div.heres.lib. (ed. F. Heylen, CCL 9), 65 (making Photinus of Sirmium secutus in omnibus similiter of Paul of Samosata), 68.1 (Eunomiani.. ab Eu- nomio discipulo Arrii). For an excellent survey of such applications in the Christological controversy, see R. Lyman, 'A Topography of Heresy: Mapping the Rhetorical Creation of Arianism', in M. R. Barnes and D. H. Williams (eds.), Arianism after Arius (Edin- burgh, 1993), 45-62, esp. 53-8 on Athanasius; on whom see also Hanson, Tradition (n.47), 176-81.

50 On the use of imperial exempla in such literature, see L. M. Whitby, 'Images for Emperors in Late Antiquity: a Search for New Constantine', in P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines (Aldershot, 1994), esp. 84-9. Cf. J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London, 1989), 243.

51 Barnes, Athanasius (n.2), 144-51; Rocher, Hilaire (n. I), 68-84.



462 MARK HUMPHRIES

tine into the symbolic framework of sacred history. He accosts Constantius in the following terms:

Anathema to you are the 318 bishops who were brought together at Nicaea....Anathema to you also is your father [Constantine], dead these many years, who took care of the Nicene Synod, which you overthrow with your deranged opinions (in Const. 27).

Hilary's assertion that there were 318 bishops at Nicaea is nothing short of a revelation: the figure was unknown to the fifth-century ecclesiastical historians, and even to participants in the actual council, such as Eustathius of Antioch and Eusebius of Caesarea.52 In fact, the number seems to have originated with Hilary. He used it first in his de Synodis (ch.86), repeating it a year later in the in Constantium. In the earlier work it was a numerus sanctus because it was the number of the servants who helped Abraham overcome the kings who had taken Lot captive (Gen. 14:14-15). In Christian exegesis, both the number 318 - which Pseudo-Barnabas (9.7-8) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 6.11.84.1) interpreted as a mathematical cryptogram for the Cross and Christ53 - and Abraham - who in deed if not in name was a Christian (e.g. Eus., HE 1.4)54 - were significant metaphors for the advent of the True Faith. Thus Hilary made Constantine a new Abraham and the bishops at Nicaea the new 318 servants. Through Constantine and Nicaea in recent times, as through Abraham and his servants in ancient times, the true Christian religion was promulgated (Hil.Pict. Syn. 86). Thus Constantine and the council were assimilated into an elegant scheme of sacred history. Conversely, Constantius remained outside the limits of the righteous, damned as a persecutor and 'the foe of divine religion, the enemy of the memory of the saints and rebel against his father's piety.' In his application of rhetoric and metaphor then, Hilary created an immense gulf between Constantine and Constantius which effectively ridiculed Constantius' pretensions to follow in his father's footsteps.

Conclusion: Conflicting Images

Approximately a year after Hilary penned his tirade, Constantius died at Mop- sucrenae in Cilicia, still maintaining the homoian beliefs which had earned him so many enemies. As a consequence, he was condemned as an interfering heretic: even the pagan Ammianus reflected this hostile view (21.16.18). To be

52 M. Aubineau, 'Les 318 serviteurs d'Abraham (Gen., XIV, 14) et le nombre des Peres au concile de Nicee (325)', RHE 61 (1966), 6-10.

53 Aubineau, 'Les 318 serviteurs' (n.52), 10-13; M. Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Edinburgh, 1994), 14.

54 Cf. Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation (n.53), 118, 130.




sure, Constantine had died after receiving baptism from the 'arch-villain' of Christological politics, Eusebius of Nicomedia (Hier., Chron. s.a.337, p.234). Yet posterity left the orthodoxy of the first Christian emperor beyond reproach. That it did so was in no small measure due to the polemic of the Christological controversy.

In the Historia Arianorum, Athanasius had virtually reinvented Constan- tine, making him orthodox through and through, while Hilary assimilated him into a sacred historical continuum in which Constantine had, like a new Abra- ham, propagated the True Faith. To these authors, Constantine was the model for the orthodox Christian emperor. This constructed image was to have a long history. To Rufinus in his Historia Ecclesiastica (e.g. 1. 1, 3, 1 1) and Ambrose in the De obitu Theodosii (40-1) Constantine was the archetype for the Chris- tian emperor, the standard by which his successors were judged.55 At the Council of Chalcedon, Marcian was hailed as 'New Constantine', the empress Pulcheria as the 'New Helena'.56 Later, in the iconoclast controversy, the orthodoxy of Constantine was a contentious issue: to make him seem anti- iconoclast, it was necessary also to present him as anti-Arian.57 Indeed, some historians sought to deny that Constantine had ever been baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia (Photius, Bibl. 88).58 Others, however, were more circumspect. Theodoret's account of Constantine's death incorporates an extended apologia for the emperor (Thdt., HE 1.33.1-3). To be sure, Constantine had behaved in a fashion which contradicted his image as an orthodox emperor, but this was easily explicable as the result of the malevolent influence of unscrupulous bishops (i.e. oi i?pi EikEPov), and as such this was a failing from which not even king David was immune (ibid. 1.33.1-2). In contrast, no such explanation

55 F. Th6lamon, 'L'Empereur ideal d'aprds l'Histoire ecclesiastique de Rufin d'Aquilee', Studia Patristica 10 (1970), 309-14; ead., 'Rituel aulique constantinien et signification symbolique d'une mutilation', in Aquileia e l'istria (AAAd 2: Udine, 1972), esp. 295-7; ead., Paiens et chretiens au IVe siecle (Paris, 1981), esp. 46-8. Cf. the parallels drawn between Theodosius and Constantine in Prudentius' Contra Symmachum 1.467-95, on which see J. Harries, 'Prudentius and Theodosius', Latomus 43 (1984), 80.

56 ACO II. 1-2.351; cf. C. J. Hefele-H. Leclerq, Histoire des conciles 11.2 (Paris, 1908), 732- 4. It is also worth noting that the debates at Chalcedon also referred to the 318 fathers of Nicaea: Aubineau, 'Les 318 serviteurs' (n.52), 24-5.

57 R. Scott, 'The image of Constantine in Malalas and Theophanes', in Magdalino, New Constantines (n.50), 57-71, esp. 62-71. Cf. C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius (Cam- bridge Mass., 1958), 239-40.

58 It is usually assumed that Photius is referring to the late-fifth century author, Gelasius of Cyzicus: e.g. E. J. Yarnold, 'The baptism of Constantine', Studia Patristica 26 (1993), 96. It is, however, possible that Photius has confused his Gelasii (cf. W. T. Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius [Washington D.C., 1980], 68), and that the refutation was the work of Gelasius of Caesarea, who wrote in the fourth century. I hope to return to this question in a later article.



464 MARK HUMPHRIES

was made for Constantius, who emerges from the sources as a weak-willed reed, easily bent to the ways of heresy (e.g.Thdt. HE 2.3). His reputation was only saved for succeeding generations because in comparison with his pagan successor Julian, even the 'heretical' Constantius was preferable.

This dramatic contrast between the two emperors reflected, amongst other things, the Church's difficulty in negotiating its relationship with the imperial power. Constantine had liberated the Church from persecution, and so deserved the gratitude of Christians. Even so, the precise nature of his Christianity remained ambiguous, so that from the outset presentation of his beliefs by Christian authors was problematic, often reflecting more of their spiritual and theological predilections than those of Constantine.59 The increasing alienation of some parts of the Church from the State - most particularly the growing enmity between Athanasius and Constantius - in the 350s gave extra momen- tum to this process. To establish Constantine as a paradigmatic Christian emperor it was necessary not only to reinvent him in a favourable light, but also to condemn his son's ecclesiastical policies as excessive and aggressive. These rhetorical constructs have reverberated through time to create in modern historiography potent but exaggerated images of the two emperors, wholly depend- ent on subjective analyses of their 'orthodoxy'.60 Thus Constantine received the accolades of a hero and saint,61 while Constantius, in contrast, was accorded the infamy of a dictatorial heretic and persecutor.62

University of Manchester Mark Humphries

59 G. Fowden, 'Constantine's Porphyry Column: the Earliest Literary Allusion', JRS 81 (1991), 119-31, esp. 130 on the 'confusion and self-contradictoriness' of scholarship on Constantine.

60 See Warmington, 'Did Athanasius Write History?' (n.6), 14-15, comparing Athanasius' reliability as a source for Constantius with Demosthenes on Philip and Tacitus on Tiberius.

61 For example P. Kerezstes, Constantine. A Great Christian Monarch and Apostle (Amster- dam, 1981), with the review by P. Allen, VChr 37 (1983), 102-3, beginning: 'This is one book that can be judged by its cover'.

62 Fifty years on from the liberation of the concentration camps, it is distinctly disturbing to read of 'Constantius' final solution': thus R. P. C. Hanson, The Searchfor the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Edinburgh, 1988), 371. A most peculiar reading of the whole situation is that of J. W. Leedom, 'Constantius II: three revisions', Byzantion 48 (1978), esp. 136-41, which rejects the view that Constantius could have held what were later condemned as 'Arian' beliefs because he 'was a sincere Christian' (p.137)!



In Nomine Patris: Constantine the Great and Constantius II in Christological Polemic

Documents

Transcript of In Nomine Patris: Constantine the Great and Constantius II in Christological Polemic