Ecclesiastical History

prodigia. Others also, not a few like them, existed before us, "of whom the world was not worthy" (Heb. xl, 38). What is there to wonder at, then, if we who are small perform these small things, bringing healing to the lame, the blind, and the lepers, which physicians also perform by their art? ^A

Concerning Abba Didymus

We saw there a man named Didymus, an old man in years, honest in appearance, who killed scorpions, horned vipers, and asps with his own feet, since no one else dared to attempt this; indeed, many others of those who were considered capable were killed by them, merely by touching the creatures.

Concerning Cronidius

^B We saw also another Father of monks, named Cronidius, well advanced in a good old age, one of the men of antiquity who had lived with Anthony, being one hundred and ten years of age. He, having exhorted us much and admonished us, questioning us, held himself in low esteem; such humility he had acquired up to his old age. We saw likewise three brothers, endowed with the highest learning and virtue, who, on account of the holiness of their lives, were seized for the episcopacy; out of great piety, they cut off their own ears. An audacious deed indeed, yet undertaken with a purpose agreeable to reason, that no one might henceforth bother them.

It is sufficiently wonderful that, while Palladius relates that Ammonius amputated his own left ear, Socrates says the right.

ANNO DOMINI CDXXV.

PHILOSTORGIUS NOTITIA

(FABRIC., Bibliotheca Graeca, ed. HARLES, vol. VIII, p. 420.)

Philostorgius, from the village of Borissus in Cappadocia, was the son of Carterius the Eunomian and Eulampia (whose father was the presbyter Anysius). He was himself a Eunomian, and at the time when Eunomius was being driven from Caesarea in the year of Christ 388, Philostorgius himself was, as he testifies in book IX, 9, twenty years old. He, who relates that his mother Eulampia by her persuasions led her father Anysius, her brothers, and other relatives from the profession of the homousion to the sect of Eunomius. There is another Philostorgius under Valentinian and Valens, whom our author mentions in VIII, 10. Another, whom Arrian mentions in III, 17, of the Epictetan dissertations. For Philostorgius, see Cave, *Hist. litt. SS. eccl.*, vol. I, p. 410; Du Pin, *Nouv. Biblioth.*, vol. IV, p. 76; Oudin, *Comment. SS. eccl.*, I, p. 995 sq.; R. Ceillier, *Hist. gen. des A. E.*, vol. XIII, p. 659; Hamberger, *zuverl. Nachr.*, III, p. 92, who refers his birthday to the year 364; but Jac. Gothofredus, in his prolegomena, written with wisdom and learning, p. 5 sq., on grounds deduced from the narrative of Philostorgius himself, teaches that he was born about the year of Christ 358, and that he set the final seal upon his history in the fifty-seventh year of his age. HARL.

^A He severely criticizes the semi-Arians no less than the Catholics, but he defends the Arians and Eunomians, and gladly celebrates and praises them: hence it is that Photius (b), cod. XL, warned that his history should not be called a history, but rather an encomium of heretics and a condemnation and vituperation of the orthodox. Learned men wrongly conclude that Philostorgius was called an atheist from this epigram, which they have misunderstood, and by which a certain Eunomian certainly wished to praise the work of a Eunomian man, not to destroy it:

‘Ιστορίην ἐτέλεσσα, Θεοῦ (c) χαρίτεσσι σοφῇσι, Πράγματ' ἀληθείης ποικίλ' ὑφηνάμενος. The tapestry of history I have woven well, through the grace of God, Contexing in my work many true things.

He wrote two volumes of Ecclesiastical History (d) from the beginnings of the Arian controversy, or from the year of Christ 300, down to the year 425, when Valentinian the Younger succeeded Honorius, each volume of which was divided into six tomoi or discourses, totaling twelve books in all. If the first letters of these were joined together, they revealed the name of the author; such ^B acrostics (e) were formerly interwoven into their works by Epicharmus and Heraclides Ponticus, and by the example of Philostorgius, by Nicephorus Callistus, and among the Latins by Ennius, Commodianus, Damasus, and others. The work of Philostorgius itself has long since perished; but besides a brief notice, judgment, and censure of it, found in Photius’ Bibliotheca, cod. XL, ample excerpts from each of the twelve books by the same Photius have been preserved, which Diegus Hurtadus had in Venice, as Gesner attests, and which Jacobus Godofredus first published in Greek from the Bongarsian codex, along with his own translation, very rich and learned annotations, prolegomena, and a most copious index, at Geneva (f) in 1643. Bochart (tom. I, lib. II, Hierozioi, cap. 55) testified that he had these same excerpts much more emended than in the printed editions. And Stephanus le Moyne, in his notes to the Varia sacra, p. 379, reports that the codex of Bochart was communicated to him by Valesius. Therefore, Henry Valesius cites the readings of the Scoriacensis codex intermittently in relation to it, and no less to the emendations which Lucas Holstenius had inscribed in his own codex. The aforementioned Valesius published ^C the more emended excerpts of Philostorgius, together with his own better translation and notes at the end of the History of Theodoret, Evagrius, and Theodorus Lector, Paris, 1673, fol., which edition was reprinted at Mainz, as the title shows, or rather at Frankfurt in 1679; for whatever copy shows Amsterdam on the front in 1695, it is the very same Mainz edition, adorned with a new title, and Reading included it in tom. III of the SS. eccl., with Theodoret and Evagrius, pp. 475 sqq., Cambridge 1720, fol. See above, on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. In the Medicean codex V, nr. 9, plut. 70, at Florence, there are two excerpts from the epitome of Philostorgius’ H. E.; the first is part of cap. 10, book XII, the second is cap. 9, book III (see Bandini, Cat. codd. Gr. II, p. 661). — In Venice, in cod. CCCXXXVII, Marciano, there is an epitome of the XII books of the H. E. of Philostorgius, from Photius. In Oxford, in the Bodleian codex CXLII, nr. 7, there is Philostorgius’ H. E. epitome by the voice of Photius CCXLIII, which (according to the author of the Catalogi codd. Angliæ, etc. I, p. 18) is very different from that which exists in Photius, and much more extensive; ibid. p. 271, among the adversaria of Gerard Langbane, the Hist. of Philostorgius related from the mouth of Photius, Gr. — among the codices of Mendoza, etc., in Iriart, Cat. codd. Gr. Matrit. p. 277. Harl. — Besides the fragments of Philostorgius from Nicetas, book V, of his Treasure, and from John of Antioch (whose passage was first brought forward by Salmasius, p. 407, to Solinus), and those from Suidas and Photius produced by Jac. Godofredus, Valesius appended to his own edition new excerpts from Suidas also, which he himself had observed. In the notes of Valesius, Godofredus is very frequently criticized, sometimes even quite sharply, as on p. 130, where he chastises his lack of skill in reading Greek exemplars, and on p. 136, where he chastises his lack of skill in the Greek language. But Godofredus, a man well learned and in many respects deserving of great praise for his contributions to letters, was certainly to be heard, who in his prolegomena, p. 57 seq., promises himself indulgence from the fair-minded reader in these words: I myself know how much of the text itself emerges uncorrected in many places, and how many things may also be desired in this first interpretation, and finally how many mistakes have crept in everywhere. ^D Yet it is permissible for me and for the printer to hope for indulgence, for more than one reason; initially the very...

The plan of this writing encourages one to hope for this. It is known to those who deal with manuscripts how uncorrected they usually are, as was certainly the case with the one that we used from the most illustrious Bern-Bongars library, conceded to me by the kindness of the most learned and distinguished D. Luithard. It is known, furthermore, how much labor is involved in eclogues of this kind, in fragments, which have gaps in their series, in immediately dividing them properly into chapters, and in translating them into Latin: since often many things must be taken from elsewhere to properly grasp their sense, they must certainly be handled much by hand and mind before the end and scope of each, or their meaning, can be clearly established. Add to this that it was often laborious to distinguish the censure and judgment of Photius from the Philostorgian elements. A second reason for excuse is the very haste of the edition, which an impatience to assist literary pursuits extorted from us. For just as there is pleasure in studies when it is first granted to unearth something from obscurity, so I am accustomed to place that very thing—to immediately bring it into the public without any postponement—in the highest part of my pleasure. Hence, therefore, that haste, not without some flaw: but one which, I think, every best person would prefer to those slow names and individuals who are accustomed to torture others with long expectation, and think it pertains to the authority of their own knowledge if they sit upon what they have discovered alone for as long as possible. Wherefore, for a shield I have this:

Grant pardon for sudden things; he who hastens, Caesar, deserves not to have displeased you, who wished to please you.

The last reason for our excuse is that the context of Philostorgius, or Photius if you prefer, along with the version, was committed to the press when I was away and assiduously performing legations, or perhaps while I was discharging a consular duty: otherwise, had it been under my eyes, I could have corrected it more accurately even as it was running through the press, and could have revised it more attentively with the file. Philostorgius has also been reviewed by Stephanus Clericus, and in it not a few things which escaped both Godefroi and Valesius have been observed, as noted by his son, Joannes Clericus, in the preface to the *Sacred Questions* of his father and uncle, David Clericus, Amsterdam, 1685, 8.

EPITOME OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES OF PHILOSTORGIUS, COMPILED BY PATRIARCH PHOTIUS

(From the edition of Henricus VALESIUS, which Gulielmus Reading, librarian of the London clergy, later reviewed and enriched with the observations of many learned men. Cambridge, at the Academic Press, 1720. This splendid edition, consisting of three volumes of the largest folio size, comprises the ecclesiastical historians whom Henricus Valesius had already published with his own interpretation.)

Compendium of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, which Patriarch Photius dictated. ^A

The history of this writer is comprised in twelve books. Moreover, the first letters of each book, when joined together, form the name of the author. Furthermore, he begins his history from the quarrel and contention of Arius the Alexandrian—as he himself calls it—against Alexander, which he declares to be the cause of the heresy. He proceeds, however, up to the imperial proclamation of Valentinian the Younger, who was the son of Placidia and Constantius, and up to the slaughter of the tyrant John. But this history is, in truth, an encomium of the heretics; it is an accusation and vilification of the orthodox rather than a history. ^B

EPITOME OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BY PHILOSTORGIUS, COMPILED BY PHOTIUS THE PATRIARCH

FROM THE FIRST BOOK

^A 1. Concerning the books of the Maccabees. Philostorgius says that he does not know who the author of the books called Maccabean is. However, he deems the first book worthy of acceptance, as it is in harmony and narrates things in accordance with the prophecies of Daniel [(a)]. And because he explains with great prudence how the wickedness of men drove the affairs of the Jews to the ultimate extremity, and how the virtue of other men brought them back. At that time, they regained their strength against their enemies, and the temple was cleansed from the defilements of Greek superstition. He says the second book does not appear to be by the same author as the first, but is a summary of those things written by Jason of Cyrene in five books, in which he reports the war that Judas Maccabaeus waged against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son, surnamed Eupator. He disparages the third book, calling it monstrous and saying it contains nothing like the first book. As for the fourth, he acknowledges that it was written by Josephus, but claims it is less a history than an encomium concerning Eleazar and the seven Maccabean children.

^B 2. Concerning the errors of Eusebius Pamphili. Though he praises Eusebius of Pamphilus regarding other matters, especially for his writing of Ecclesiastical History, Philostorgius states that he was mistaken regarding piety. The impious man recounts his error, saying that he thought the Divine was neither knowable nor comprehensible. He says that he was also implicated in other such errors. Furthermore, he testifies that he brought his History down to the times when the children of Constantine the Great succeeded to their father’s empire.

^C 3. Concerning Arius and Alexander. This impious man says that when the votes for the archbishopric of Alexandria were inclining toward Arius, he preferred Alexander to himself, and transferred the votes to him.

^D 4. Concerning Alexander, a presbyter called Baucalis, because of a mass of superfluous flesh piled up on his back [(4)]...

resembling the shape of an earthenware vessel—which the Alexandrians in their native tongue are accustomed to call "Baucalas." He says that this man, who held the second rank after Arius among the presbyters, was the cause of the conflict that broke out between Alexander the bishop and Arius, and that the proclamation of the "consubstantial" was devised by him from that source.

5. Constantius Chlorus. — Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, was declared emperor, as Philostorgius says, because of his excellence in the highlands of Galatia, where the so-called Alps are. These regions are difficult of access and impassable. Moreover, these Galatians are now called Gauls by the Romans. The death of Constantius occurred in Britain, which was once called the island of Albion. There, Constantine, having arrived while his father was ill, after having happily escaped the treacheries of Diocletian, attended to him as he was dying, and became his successor in the empire.

6. Constantine the Great: the cross shown. — Philostorgius agrees with everyone else that the cause of Constantine the Great's conversion from the superstition of the Gentiles to the Christian religion was his victory over Maxentius. In this battle, the sign of the cross was seen in the East, extending for a great distance, depicted with a certain admirable light, with stars running all around it in the manner of a celestial arch, and expressing the form of letters. The letters in the Latin tongue indicated these words: *In hoc vince* [In this conquer].

7. Concerning the deeds against Arius. — Philostorgius says that even before the Council of Nicaea, this Alexander of Alexandria had arrived in Nicomedia and, having conferred with Hosius of Corduba and the other bishops who were with him, he arranged by the votes of the synod that they should profess the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, and that they should cast Arius out of communion.

8. And not long after, the synod occurred at Nicaea, at which, among other bishops of God, Basileus the bishop of Amasea ^C and Meletius of Sebastopolis were present.

9. Philostorgius also admits that all the bishops agreed to the definition of faith made at Nicaea, except Secundus alone.

of Ptolemais, whom Theon of Marmarica also followed. The rest of the company of the Arian prelates—I mean Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom Philostorgius calls "the Great," Theognis of Nicaea, ^A Maris the bishop of Chalcedon, and the other phalanx—shifted over to the side of the synod. They did so deceitfully and fraudulently, as even Philostorgius testifies, since they cunningly concealed the *homoiousion* under the word *homousiou*; yet they did not refuse to consent to the synod’s decrees, when Constantina, the sister of Emperor Constantine, suggested this counsel to them.

10. Philostorgius also says that Secundus, as he was about to be sent into exile, said to Eusebius: "Eusebius, you have subscribed so that you might not be sent into exile. I, however, trust in God, who reveals this to me, that you will be led off into exile within a year." And indeed, Eusebius was banished three months after the synod, just as Secundus had predicted, when he had openly returned ^B to his former impiety.

FROM THE SECOND BOOK

1. That this lying Philostorgius says that, after the ecumenical synod and the manifest recantation of those around Eusebius regarding the faith, Emperor Constantine punished them because, although they thought otherwise, they had nevertheless subscribed to the *homousion*; but that he recalled Secundus and his companions from exile and sent letters everywhere, in which he exploded the term "consubstantial" but confirmed the faith of the "dissimilar substance." He says that Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, also subscribed to these letters, and that for this reason he even admitted Arius to communion; but when fear of the emperor subsequently ceased, Alexander returned to his former opinion. Arius, however, along with the ^C defenders of that same opinion, withdrew from Alexander and from the Church.

2. On Arius’s songs. He says that Arius, once he had withdrawn from the Church, composed nautical and mill-grinding and traveling songs, and other things of the sort, which he arranged to certain melodies, as he thought fitting for each song; and that in this way he gradually drew the minds of the ignorant toward his own impiety through the pleasure of the melody.

3. On Arius's doctrine. That Arius, in fighting against God ^D regarding the *homoiousion*, [was engaged in] impiety.

Philostorgius says that he ^A became entangled in absurd errors because he asserts everywhere that God can neither be known, nor comprehended, nor conceived by the mind; and this applies not only to men—which would be a more tolerable evil—but not even to the only-begotten Son of God himself. And regarding the absurdity of this error, he says that at that time, not only Arius but also most of them were carried away with him. For, except for Secundus and Theonas, and the disciples of Lucian the martyr—namely, Leontius, Antonius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia—the rest of the band of impious men embraced this view.

4. On Crispus and Fausta. Philostorgius says that Constantine, having been circumvented by the calumnies of his stepmother, killed his own son Crispus ^B. But later, when she was caught in adultery with one of the *cursores*, he ordered that she be suffocated by the heat of a bath. And not long after, Constantine, while staying at Nicomedia, paid the penalty for the slaughter of his son, and was killed by his brothers with poison.

5. How the Goths became Christians. Philostorgius says that, at that time, Urfila ^C led a great multitude of people from among the Scythians beyond the Ister—who were called Getae by the ancients but are now called Goths—into Roman territory, as they had been cast out of their native homes on account of piety. The manner in which that nation had long ago passed over to the faith of Christ was as follows: When Valerian and Gallienus were administering the empire, a great multitude of the Scythians living beyond the Ister crossed into the territory of the Romans, and they ravaged a large part of Europe. Then, having crossed into Asia ^D, they invaded Galatia and Cappadocia. After they had taken many captives, among whom were not a few clergy, they returned to their own country with huge spoils. These captive and pious men, intermingled with the barbarians, brought not a few of them over to the true piety, and persuaded them to embrace the Christian religion instead of the superstition of the Gentiles. From the number of these captives were the ancestors of Urfila, Cappadocians by nation, born near the city of Parnassus, from a village called Sadagolthina. This Urfila, then, became the leader of the pious men who had departed from Gothia, and became their first bishop, appointed in this way: When, at the time of Constantine, he was sent on an embassy to the king who then ruled over the Goths, together with others (for even the barbarian nations there were subject to him), he was appointed bishop by Eusebius and those bishops who were with him…

overseeing the Christians living in the Getic lands. He took great care of them in other matters and, having devised a proprietary script for them, he translated all the Scriptures into their own tongue, with the exception of the Books of Kings; this was because the latter contain the history of wars, and that nation is war-loving and has more need of a bridle to restrain its impulses toward battle than of a spur to incite it to such things. These latter books have a great power to incite, inasmuch as they are considered most venerable and form the minds of believers in the service of God. The emperor established this multitude of fugitives in the regions of Moesia, as each saw fit, and held Urfilas himself in such great honor that, when speaking of him, he often called him the Moses of our time. ^B Philostorgius, however, extols this Urfilas with wonderful praises and records that both he and the Goths under him were followers of the same heresy as himself.

6. *Concerning the conversion of the inner Indians.* — The impious Philostorgius says that the inner Indians, who were converted to the worship of Christ by the preaching of the apostle Bartholomew, profess that the Son is of a different substance. He introduces Theophilus the Indian (16), who embraced this opinion, as having come to them and imparted his own conviction to them. He says that these Indians were formerly called Sabaeans, from the city of Saba, which is the capital ^C of the whole nation, but are now called Homerites.

7. *That after three full years* he says that Eusebius, Maris, and Theognius, having obtained their return by the vote of the Emperor Constantine, set forth a symbol of heretical faith and sent it everywhere for the subversion of the Council of Nicaea; and that they deposed and excommunicated Alexander of Alexandria, because he had turned back again to the faith of the consubstantial. But they also honored Eustathius of Antioch with exile, ^D blaming him for the improper mingling with a maidservant and the enjoyment of shameful pleasure.

And ^A he made a boundary in the West. He writes that the number of this unlawful council was two hundred and fifty, and that Nicomedia was the workshop of their transgressions.

8. Miracles of Agapetus. — Of Agapetus, also a follower of the same heresy, who had at first been a soldier, then became a presbyter of his sect, and finally bishop of Synada; he narrates many prodigious things, saying that dead men were raised by him, and many sicknesses were cast out and healed. He says that other miracles were also performed by the same man, and that he caused many of the Gentiles to be converted to the Christian religion by his works.

9. Founding of the City. — He says that in the twenty-eighth ^B year of his reign, Constantine remodeled Byzantium into Constantinople. And as he was delineating the circuit of that city, he walked around it on foot, holding a spear in his hand. And when it seemed to those who were following him that he was measuring a space greater than was necessary, he says that one of them approached him and asked: "How far, my Lord?" And that the emperor replied to him in these words: "Until he who goes before me stops." By this response he openly declared that some heavenly power was leading him by the hand, teaching him what must be done. Philostorgius adds that, after Constantine had built the city, he called it Alma Roma, which in Latin signifies "illustrious"; he further established a senate there, and distributed a generous amount of grain to the citizens, and added all other adornments to the city so magnificently ^C that it sufficed to rival the glory of the elder Rome.

10. Eusebius bishop. — And after the bishop of this city, Alexander, had died, he says that Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to the episcopal throne of the newly founded city.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ^D (19) *He made a boundary in the West*. After the word "having inscribed," the final distinction must be added, then write "flight for himself," etc. In the manuscript code of Samuel Bochart for "having inscribed" I found "he inscribed." (20) *Of Agapetus*. Suidas has more on this Agapetus under the entry "Agapetus" from Philostorgius. Although in Suidas, Eusebius Pamphili is put instead of Philostorgius. But Eusebius Pamphili nowhere mentioned Agapetus in his Ecclesiastical History. Therefore, Suidas, lapsing in memory, put Eusebius for Philostorgius. For those things which are reported about Agapetus by Suidas completely agree with those which Photius reports from the same Philostorgius. (21) *Soc. book 1, chap. 16*. (22) *The magnificent adornment of the state*. The translator has not grasped the sense of the passage, as is apparent from his version. For he thus translates: "And he established in it every other adornment of most absolute disposition." Philostorgius does not say this, but says that Constantine had increased the honor of the city of Constantinople in a wonderful way, to such a degree that it might be equal to the honor of the Roman city: namely, he granted the Constantinopolitan citizens privileges equal to the privileges which Roman citizens enjoyed. Such was the Italic right, which was later granted to the Constantinopolitans by the law of Valentinian Augustus, as it is read in the Theodosian Code. (23) *After the death*. Philostorgius rightly reports the death of the bishop of this city in the principate of Constantine the Great. But that he writes that Eusebius of Nicomedia was substituted in his place, in that he is mistaken, although Theodoret in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History writes the same. Concerning which matter, see what I have noted in the second book of Ecclesiastical Observations on Socrates and Sozomen, chapter one.

VARIORUM. (a) *Twenty-eighth*. The twenty-eighth year of Constantine, completed in the month of July in the year of Christ 334, and therefore Constantinople was also completed. Ant. Pagi ad ann. 324, n. 19.

^A For this impious artificer of lies says that after the death of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and while the suffrages of the bishops were at variance and many were being nominated, and after some time had been spent in this dispute, the divine Athanasius ran into the church which is called Dionysius’s toward evening; and having found there two certain Egyptian bishops, he locked the doors most securely together with the men of his own faction, and was thus ordained, although the ordainers greatly protested. But when such force was brought to bear upon them, which overcame their will and power, the thing that Athanasius wanted was accomplished. And as the rest of the bishops who were then present were of another mind, for this reason they sent him away with an anathema. But Athanasius, after he had secured his own position, wrote letters to the emperor in the name of the whole city concerning his ordination. And he, thinking that the letter had been written by the curia of the Alexandrians, approved that election with his own vote. But afterward, being more accurately informed of what had been done, he sent Athanasius to Tyre, which city is in Phoenicia, so that he might render an account of his deeds to the synod that had been gathered there. And Philostorgius writes that Athanasius yielded to the threats of the emperor. ^B But at length, when he had come to Tyre, he himself did not wish to appear in court; but having hired a certain harlot—who already made her own licentiousness manifest by the swelling of her belly—he incited her and engineered for her to be sent in against Eusebius, who was considered the head and leader of that synod; thinking that amidst the tumult and confusion which would, as is likely, be excited by such a calumny, he would elude the judgment and escape condemnation. But our lover of lies writes that the trick was detected in the very same way that the orthodox record that that prostitute, who had been hired by the heretics against the great Athanasius, was convicted. For he says that Eusebius asked the harlot whether she knew her defiler. And when she had affirmed that he was well known to her, Eusebius asked again whether he was present in the current assembly of bishops. ^C But she replied: "Good words, master; for I am not so mad as to dare to accuse any one of such foul lust from the midst of so great a company of men." So that, condemnation having begun from thence, the truth was laid bare and the whole scheme was revealed. And thus Eusebius was shown to be greater than any calumny; while Athanasius, instead of fleeing, ^D was judged guilty by the double charge.

^A And so it happened that he was condemned by a unanimous vote of deposition, although he brazenly continued to insist and to say that those who took part in the synod had carried out his deposition out of hatred and enmity, because he refused to receive the laying on of hands from them. For this reason, the emperor granted that the case concerning Athanasius should be examined again by another synod. But they added other charges to the previous ones. For they claimed he had put Callinicus the confessor, bishop of Pelusium, in iron shackles ^B and committed him to prison, and that Athanasius had not ceased to heap insults upon him until he had made an end of him. Then, too, the hand of Arsenius was brought forth into the midst, along with the Mareotes matter, and Ischyras, and the sacred cup, and similar things, because of which the assembly is said to have declared him deposed and to have appointed in his stead Gregory of Cappadocia. These things, then, our "Lover of Lies" Philostorgius fabricates concerning the holy Athanasius.

12. That, he says, Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, built a city at the mouth of the gulf of Nicomedia, ^C naming it Helenopolis. He says she was drawn to the place for no other reason than that the body of the martyr Lucian had been carried there by a dolphin after his martyrdom.

13. That he says when the martyr Lucian was about to die, and the tyrannical violence afforded him neither church nor altar, and his chains and wounds did not even allow him to move, he lay on his back and performed the dread sacrifice upon his own chest, and thus he himself partook of it, and granted the others the opportunity to partake of the immaculate victim. ^D This liturgy was performed in the prison, while a sacred choir of Christians which surrounded him as he was already near death provided the likeness of a church and served as a rampart, lest the things being done should be seen by the impious.

14. That of this martyr Lucian there are many...

^A other disciples he records, among whom he lists Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicaea, and Leontius, who later became bishop of Antioch, and Antonius of Tarsus in Cilicia, and ^B Menophantus, and Numenius, and Eudoxius; and furthermore Alexander and Asterius the Cappadocian. He says that these also yielded to the violence of the tyrants and sacrificed to the gods of the Gentiles; yet later they amended their fall, their master helping them toward repentance. 15. That of those mentioned, he says that Antonius and Leontius kept their piety ^B unimpaired; but that Eusebius, Maris, and Theognis were indeed led astray by the synod at Nicaea, but later returned from their defection. And that Maris, having been brought back from there, slipped again into another absurdity, as indeed did also Theognis; who thinks that God was Father even before begetting the Son, inasmuch as He possessed the power of begetting. And indeed he writes that Asterius also shifted his opinion, bearing witness in his writings and books that the Son is an unchanging image of the substance of the Father. 16. That in the thirty-second year of his reign, ^C he writes that Constantine was killed by poison at the hands of his brothers in Nicomedia. And having reached the end of his life and perceived the plot, he wrote a testament demanding punishment for those who had killed him, and commanded that the one of his children who arrived first should exact this from them, for fear lest they too might suffer something similar from them; and that he gave the testament to Eusebius of Nicomedia. But he, fearing the emperor’s brothers, lest they might one day search for them and wish to learn what was written in them, ^D placed the book in the hand of the dead man and hid it within his garments. When they inquired, as he suspected, Eusebius said that indeed he had received them, but acknowledged that he had handed them back again into his hands. Then after this, he took them up and entrusted the letter to Constantius, his own son, having forestalled the others; and he, after no

and immediately restored them to the hands of Constantine himself. Later, however, when he had taken the documents of the will again, he handed them over to Constantius, the son of Constantine, who had anticipated the arrival of his brothers. Not long after this, Constantius fulfilled the things which his father had ordered in his will.

17. ^A *Constantine’s image.* — This hater of God also accuses the Christians of honoring the image of Constantine standing upon the porphyry column with sacrifices, and of venerating it with lighted lamps and incense, and of offering prayers to it as to a God, and of performing supplications to it to avert calamities.

18. ^B *Athanasius’ return.* — He says that after the death of the great Constantine, when all who were in exile everywhere had obtained permission to return, Athanasius also had arrived in Alexandria from the Gauls; and, as he had learned that Gregory was dead, he went straight from the ship into the church and took possession of the throne, having paid no regard to those who had proscribed him.

FROM THE THIRD BOOK

1. ^C *The murder of the younger Constantine.* — He says that Constans, who was the eldest of Constantine’s children, laid snares for his brother Constantine, and that having joined battle with his generals, he was killed, and the portion of the empire under his rule was added to the rule of Constans.

2. That he speaks of Constantius with praise, and...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

^D ...with their hands: so that the chariot on which the statue was carried might go around the upper field and proceed to the *scamma* [arena] opposite the imperial throne: and that the emperor who might be reigning at that time should rise from his throne and adore the statue of the same emperor Constantine, and the Fortune of the city of Constantinople. In the Greek text I have emended *καμπηγίων* to *γαμπαγίων*. I have corrected *Pre- terea* [sic]. This emendation is confirmed by Hesychius at the end of his book *On the Origins of the City of Constantinople*. But one might not unjustly doubt whether Philostorgius means this statue of Constantine in this passage, or rather another one of radiant bronze, which the same Constantine had erected for himself in the forum of the city of Constantinople upon a porphyry column, of which the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* speaks under the consulship of Januarius and Justus. I think, therefore, that this statue, which I mentioned in the second place, is rather intended by Philostorgius, for two reasons: first, because Philostorgius says that that statue had been placed upon a porphyry column, which is indeed true of the latter statue of Constantine, but not of the former; second, because Philostorgius writes that frequent and almost daily gatherings of the people were made to that statue of Constantine; which indeed applies better to that statue which was in the Forum of Constantine upon the porphyry column. But that statue *ἀπὸ ξοάνου* [from an idol], which held the Fortune of the city in its right hand, was adored by the emperor and the people only once a year in the Circus, as Hesychius testifies in his *On the Origins of Constantinople*, and the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle*.

VARIOUS NOTES

(a) *Constans says.* Here Philostorgius says that Constans laid snares for his brother Constantine; whereas others report that Constantine, by moving a controversy specifically against his brother Constans from Africa, moved war against him. And Valesius followed this sense in his interpretation. See Socrates, book II, ch. 5; Sozomen, book III, ch. 2.

^A Philostorgius praises Constantius with many commendations, and says that he built a church at Constantinople which in truth is, and is called, the Great Church. He writes that he also translated the relics of the Apostle Andrew from Achaia to the church which he himself had finished, which is called the Church of the Apostles. And that he placed the tomb of his father beside that church; that, furthermore, the Evangelist Luke was translated by him from the same Achaia to the aforesaid church; and finally, that the Apostle Timothy was deported from the Ionian city of Ephesus to that same celebrated and venerable basilica by order of the same Constantius.

3. *Athanasius flees.* Philostorgius says that Constantius, when he learned that Athanasius had recovered the see of Alexandria, expelled him from Alexandria, but ordered that George the Cappadocian should be ordained in his place. Athanasius, therefore, fearing both the emperor’s threats and the snares of his enemies, fled once more to the emperor who at that time was reigning in the parts of the West.

4. ^B *Legation to the Homerites. Theophilus the Indian.* Philostorgius says that Constantius sent legates to those who were once called Sabaeans, but are now called Homerites. This nation is descended from those who were born to Abraham by Keturah. He writes that the region which they inhabit is called Great and Happy Arabia by the Greeks, and reaches to the furthest Ocean; and that its metropolis is Saba, from which city a queen once traveled to visit Solomon ^C (37). The nation is circumcised, and they practice circumcision on the eighth day; they also sacrifice to the sun and moon and to indigenous gods. A not insignificant multitude of Jews is also mingled with them. Constantius therefore sent a legation to them, with the intention of bringing them over to the true piety; he determined, through magnificent gifts and the bland persuasion of his words, to conciliate the king of that nation to himself, and, having obtained an opportunity thereby, to plant the seeds of religion there at once. He also requested that it be permitted to build churches for those of the Romans who sailed thither, and for the inhabitants of the region who might wish to be converted to the faith of Christ. He also gave to the legates a great sum of money, which ^D

^A was to be spent on the building of churches. The leader of this legation was Theophilus the Indian. ^B He had been sent to the Romans long ago, while Constantine was reigning and he was still very young, as a hostage by those called the Divæi (the island of Diva is their country). These peoples are also called Indians. Philostorgius writes that this Theophilus, after having spent no little time among the Romans, had refined his own character to the highest degree of virtue, had embraced the true opinion concerning God, and had chosen the monastic life; and he testifies that he was promoted to the rank of deacon, with Eusebius laying his consecrating hands upon him (though this happened earlier), and that, once he undertook this legation, he received from those of the same belief the dignity of bishop. ^C Constantius, however, wishing to make the legation magnificent and very gracious, sent two hundred horses of the finest Cappadocian breed on transport ships, along with many other gifts to excite admiration, and partly to win over the hearts of the people. When Theophilus reached the Sabæans, he endeavored to persuade the national leader to acknowledge and worship Christ, and to abandon the error of the Greeks. The Jews' customary deception and malice were forced into the deepest silence when Theophilus, by performative, miraculous deeds, had shown once and again that the faith of Christ was invincible. The legation met with a happy outcome, when the prince of that nation turned with a sincere heart to the true piety and built three churches in that region—not, however, with the money that the legates had brought with them from the Emperor, but from the expenses ^D which he himself provided with a cheerful heart from his own private wealth, striving to show a greatness of mind equal to the wondrous works of Theophilus. Of those churches, he built one in the metropolis of the whole nation.

which they call Tapharon; another in the place where the Roman emporium used to be, turned outward towards the Ocean. This place is called Adane, where it is customary for all who come from Roman territory to drop anchor. He built a third church on the other side of the region, where the Persian emporium is known to be, situated at the mouth of the Persian sea located there.

5. Theophilus, however, having settled matters among the Homerites, as far as was possible and as the circumstances permitted, and having dedicated the churches and adorned them with whatever decorations he could, sailed to the island of Divu (which, as the account explained above, was his homeland). From there he traveled to the other India, and corrected many things among them that were not being done properly. For they were accustomed to listen to the readings of the Gospel while seated, ^B and they practiced other things which the divine law did not sanction. But after correcting each of these things according to a more holy and God-pleasing rite, he also confirmed the dogma of the Church. For they had no need, says this impious man, of instruction to correct their divine worship, being those who, from the very beginning, 47 had most steadfastly professed the Son to be of a different substance from the Father.

6. From this great Arabia, Theophilus set out for the Ethiopians who are called Auxumites, ^C who dwell upon the first shores of the Red

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. [(46) For they were accustomed to sit.] It was the custom for Christians who were present at the solemnities of the Mass to stand, with head uncovered, and with staffs laid upon the ground, in order to hear the reading of the Gospel. And concerning the uncovered head and the staffs, the Roman Order testifies clearly. As for the standing, there are elegant verses by Hildebert, bishop of Le Mans, in his book *On the Exposition of the Mass*, which I shall record here as they were transcribed from an old codex of the College of Clermont:

ON THE GOSPEL. Then to the left are the Lord’s sacred words read. The people lay down their staffs, stand, and uncover their heads. Lest the enemy coming upon them sow weeds, The mystical form of the cross is imprinted on their foreheads. As Judea rejected the faith, by the grace of Christ It passed to the Gentiles; Israel wanders still. This passing, as often as the Gospel is read, Occurs to the minds and is expressed by the place. It is read to the left, because in wandering away it passed thither, And just as to the left was the idolatrous race. That you may be attentive, patient, and upright against the enemy, Both the head, and the staff, and your very stance teach. Indeed, by uncovering your head, you are warned to listen attentively. By laying down your staff, you are instructed to spare. Standing you learn, since we are accustomed to fight standing, Because the battle remains serious under a watchful enemy. An illustrious example of the same custom exists in the *Life of Saint Anselm*, Bishop of Lucca, where these things are read concerning the Countess Matilda: "The lady had been suffering excessively from fevers for many days, and a violent headache had exhausted her. But when one day the Gospel was being read, she stood up on her feet, though she soon collapsed, exhausted by her infirmity." Also in the manuscript *Life of Saint William*, Abbot of the monastery of Eskilsø in Denmark, written five hundred years ago by an Eskilsø monk, a contemporary of Peter, Bishop of Roskilde: "On the vigil of Pentecost, after the prophecies and glorifications were finished, and the deacon was proclaiming the Gospel, she heard a voice (a woman with a contraction) saying to her: 'Woman, arise; it is not fitting for Christians to sit for the Gospel, but to stand with reverence and listen to what is being read.'" This passage I owe to the information of that most learned man and scholar of ancient monuments, my brother Adrian Valesius. That this same custom existed in Africa is taught by Augustine in book 2 of his *Homilies*, sermon 26. That it was observed likewise in Gaul is taught by Caesarius of Arles in homily 13. From the same custom there also flowed the fact that the people would stand in church to listen to sacred sermons, since these were nothing other than an exposition of the Gospel. Our Eusebius testifies to this in book 4 of *The Life of Constantine*, c. 33, and Augustine in his sermon *On the Holy Martyrs*; likewise in his *Tractate* on the Gospel of John; and in his sermon *On the Communal Life of his Clerics* to the people of Hippo; and in the sermon delivered in the Basilica of Faustus. See Ferrari in his book *On Sacred Sermons*, ch. 21.

[(47) Steadfastly.] I had once thought it ought to be written ἀπαρατρόπως. Yet now I retain the common reading; for Philostorgius uses the same word in book 2, c. 16.

VARIOUS. (a) To the Auxumites. Here Philostorgius relates that the Auxumites were converted by the Arian Theophilus during the time of Constantius; whereas the conversion of that people should truly be attributed to the orthodox Frumentius, who was ordained by Athanasius at the beginning of his episcopate, about the year 327. See the epistle of Constantius to the tyrants of the Auxumites in Baronius, year 356, n. 23, and Pagi, year 327, n. 12, 20. W. Lowth.

^A of that sea, which the Ocean, insinuating itself there, produces. The Red Sea, however, extending to a great length, is divided into two bays: and the one of them extends towards Egypt, ^B called Clysma, where it ends. Through this bay the Israelites of old, fleeing from the Egyptians, passed over with dry feet. The other part comes toward Palestine, near a city which has been called Aila from ancient times. Now, to the left of the outer ^C part of this Red Sea dwell the Auxumites, so named from their metropolis. For Auxumis is their metropolis. Before these Auxumites, living towards the further ocean that stretches to the east, dwell the Syrians, being so called also by the inhabitants of those regions. For Alexander the Macedonian took them from Syria and settled them there; and they still use their native language today. They are all exceedingly black, the rays of the sun striking them sharply. Among them xylocassia grows most abundantly, as well as cassia, and cassamum, and cinnamon. There are also many elephants there. And Theophilus did not reach these peoples; but having arrived at the Auxumites, and having duly settled all affairs there, he proceeded from there to the Roman ^D

^A dominion. Having been honored by the emperor with many honors after his return, he did not receive a particular city as his bishopric; but he was regarded by men of his own sect as a kind of common monument of virtue.

7. The Tigris River.

8. The Euphrates River. The Euphrates river rises openly from the Armenians, where the mountain is, at Ararat, which is still called so by the Armenians, upon which mountain, the Scripture says, the ark was settled. They say that even until now not small remains of the wood and the nails of this same ark are preserved there. Hence, the Euphrates, having grown from small beginnings, as it advances, always becomes greater, drawing along with it very many rivers that flow into its channel. Having passed through Greater and Lesser Armenia, it advances, ^C cutting first the Syria which is properly called Euphratensis; then, however, having passed through the other [(55)], and having broken into a very varied spiral [(56)], as it flows through the regions, when it approaches Arabia, there it is carried in a circle, opposite the Erythraean Sea, and having encompassed a not inconsiderable territory, it then turns its channel towards the Caecias wind, which stands between the north and east winds. And having rushed towards the Tigris river, it is not able to be entirely mixed with it, but having taken up certain of its parts beforehand, the rest ^D [VALESII ANNOTATIONS] (55) "Then, however, and the other," and "this and the other." It is also written in this way in the codex of Bochart and in Nicephorus. But it is read as follows in the Scoriacensian codex, etc., with those five words expunged, which are utterly useless and superfluous. (57) "And ships." This is a corruption of the passage, which Nicephorus also retained. I do not doubt, however, that this passage should be written thus, etc. In the codex of Samuel Bochart it is read xal vaῦν ἀνασχέσθαι. But it is better written in Nicephorus. VARIORUM. (a) "To have taken its name from the beast, the tiger." But Curtius, book v, Strabo, book vi, Pliny, book vi, cap. 27, claim the river Tigris is so called from its speed, like an arrow, because the Medes call an arrow "tigris." ... Philostorgius said "Syria" above for "Assyria," an error shared with other writers.

is carried off into the Persian Gulf, having ceased from its own name, along with that [river]. And that which lies between these two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, is called Mesopotamia.

9. That the Tigris and the Euphrates are, in their manifest reaches from whence they emerge, as has been said. Our holy Scripture, however, which says that they spring from Paradise, records the most true fact. For they bring their first beginnings of streams from it, and they flow for some distance perhaps above the earth; then, after the great and most sandy desert has received them, they are swallowed down into the depths there, and they do not cease to be carried toward the lower regions until they reach the solid and rocky ground of that land. But after that embankment has repressed their flow toward the lower regions, then at last they advance further, with their waters gathered together, striving to be borne straight ahead by the force and multitude of the waves continuously flowing toward the front ^A (58). But these rivers, traveling underground as they do, with the earth that lies between them absorbing no small part of them, reach the places of their emergence smaller and weaker. And that they travel through very much land in their underground course is not reasonable to disbelieve. For there are many other streams everywhere, even of those that are the very greatest and most powerful, that arrive under the earth. And it is evident: for a great sound is heard from them, as they are carried along with much turbulence and roaring. Nay, even when some persons have attempted to dig wells ^B over them and have gradually pierced the rocky soil which they encountered, beneath which the roaring water was struggling to burst forth upward, they were with great difficulty pulled back by those who were standing above on the edge of the well. And the water, having followed, proceeded into a channel, no longer interrupted by any drought, on account of the perennial supply of water. For the ineffable wisdom of God has fashioned the courses of the rivers as if they were veins providing necessary things, making some hidden and others manifest. Whence also the prophet David sang: *He founded it upon the seas, and prepared it upon the rivers* ^C; in that, as to the seas, He (as it were) stores them up ^D within those greatest gulfs of theirs.

and strengthens their foundation 62 to support such a mass and multitude of things that are carried therein; and to the rivers He grants a free exit by the clever arrangements of their disposition, always providing by the slopes and low-lying ground of the regions a path for the momentum of the heavy water from the higher to the lower places.

10.

The site of Paradise, and its rivers.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS. (62) *And strengthens their foundation.* It is to be written also in this place. But if we wish to keep the common reading, the word must be referred to the word *gulfs*, which signifies nothing else than the bosom or lap of the earth. (65) *Perpendicularly.* I agree with Lucas Holstenius, who noted in the margin of his codex that it should be written perpendicularly. (64) *Flows beneath the earth.* It should be written without doubt, as it is read in Nicephorus, which is clearly confirmed by what follows. (65) *As it is credible.* A word seems to be missing. It can be supplied in this way: *as it is credible*.

VARIORUM. [(a)] Pison. Acacius of Caesarea in the *Catena of the Greek Fathers* thus [speaks] of the four rivers of Paradise: The four rivers have names, and those among the Hebrews are called thus: the first is Pison, the second Gihon, the third Pharrad, the fourth Edekem; but among the Greeks: Ganges, Nile, Euphrates, Tigris.

^A And it is said that it forms great springs beneath the mountain called the Moon, where two great fountains, not a small distance from one another, burst forth violently from below into the heights. And flowing through Ethiopia, it proceeds into Egypt, rushing headlong through very high rocks.

11. He says that the entire region toward the rising sun and the southern climate, although it is scorched beyond measure, nevertheless produces the best and greatest of everything that the earth and sea are able to nourish. For both the whales of incredible size are in that sea, and have often been seen by those sailing that ocean emerging from the deep. The land also has elephants, the largest and most monstrous. And indeed, also those called taurolephants [bull-elephants], ^B of which species the rest of the body is like a very large ox, but its hide, skin color, and magnitude are almost like an elephant. For I saw the animal itself when it was brought to the Romans, and I write of what I saw. Furthermore, there are dragons among them, in thickness no less than beams, but in length extending to fifteen fathoms [(a)]; for I have seen their hides brought to the Roman dominion. The animal called the monoceros [unicorn] is also among them, having the head of a dragon, except that a winding horn grows on it, though not very large; and its entire chin is covered with a beard. Its neck is long, stretching upwards, and is very closely similar to that of a dragon. The rest of the body, however, refers more to the likeness of a stag; but it has the feet of a lion; and one may see a representation of it in the city of Constantine. ^C And indeed, the camelopard [giraffe] is also a product of that region. In other respects, it is a very large stag, but it is fashioned to imitate the size of a camel; it carries its neck, however, to an extreme length, and rising to a height out of proportion to the rest of the body. But furthermore, its entire skin, from the very top of its head down to the extremities of its feet, is most similar to a leopard in its variegated patterns; and it has longer forefeet than hind feet. Among them is also what is called the aegopithecus [goat-ape], a certain species of ape; for there are myriads of tribes of apes. For there are among them arcopitheci [bear-apes], and leontopitheci [lion-apes], and cynocephali [dog-headed ones]; and ^D the monkey-form is mixed with the shapes of many other animals. And these things are evident, as many such specimens are brought to us; such, for instance, is the one called Pan, which is goat-faced on its head, having goat horns, and from its flanks downward is goat-legged, while having its belly, chest, and arms

^A of a pure ape. The king of the Indians sent this animal as a gift to the Emperor Constantius. It lived for some time, although it was carried in a cage because of its ferocity. When it died, those who brought it salted it, for the purpose of exhibiting an unusual spectacle, and kept it intact all the way to the city of Constantine. And it seems to me that the Greeks of old had seen this animal, and, astonished by the strangeness of the sight, had fashioned it into a god for themselves, since it was their custom to deify marvelous things, just as they did also with the satyr; for this too is actually an ape, with a red face, a quickness of movement, and a tail. ^B Indeed, the sphinx is also a genus of ape; for I am writing this having seen it myself. Its body is hairy, like other apes; but its chest, all the way up to the neck, is bare; it has the breasts of a woman, and a certain short, red, millet-like prominence runs all around the naked part of the body, which, when joined to the human-colored skin in the middle, brings a great deal of elegance and beauty. The face is almost round and approaches the female form; the voice is reasonably human—except that it is not articulated into syllables, but, as if for some woman, it utters obscure sounds quickly and as if with a certain anger and distress. ^C It is also more grave than shrill. The beast is, moreover, terribly wild and most cunning, and not easily tamed. It seems to me that because this creature was brought long ago to the Boeotian city of Thebes, and had attacked some of those who had flocked to see it, and had mutilated the faces of its fellow-creatures, Oedipus, taking it ill that the limbs of his fellow-citizens were being maimed, slew the beast and gained a renowned name from that act. And the myth, adorning him for his bravery, fashions the beast as winged, because it leaps about so nimbly; and it fits it with a woman's chest and a lion's body: a woman's, due to the exposed flesh and the similarity to the female form; a lion's, due to its ferocity and because it happens to rely for the most part on four feet. ^D The story made the creature a partaker of reason because of the human-like quality of its voice, and called it enigmatic because it uttered obscure sounds. And there is nothing strange in this; for it is common for the Greeks to fashion many other things into myths. And that same region also produces wild asses, which are very large in size and variegated in their hide in a strange way, with white and black colors mingled together not a little, but there are certain zones reaching from the spine to the sides and the belly; and there, dividing and winding themselves about one another in certain circles, they create a certain wonderful and strange texture and variety. But truly, the phoenix, a bird spoken of by many, also happens to be found among them. And in fact...

we know that the parrot is brought from thence, which is of all birds the most talkative and most closely imitative of the human voice; and also birds which are variegated and marked with spots, which some call Garamantides, having taken that name from the nation from which most of them are brought to us. Finally, very many other animals of exceptional quality undoubtedly grow there, the multitude of which this present narrative shrinks from recounting. But also, the purest gold is born there, as it were in spontaneous golden fibers rising out of that earth, lying one upon another, and providing an open and manifest emergence of that gold. Moreover, the fruits among them are most beautiful and very large, of which the nuts are the most well-known. Finally, the entire region of the Homerites, as far as the Red Sea, yields a double harvest of fruits every year. Whence the region has been called Arabia Felix; but even generally, all that region which verges toward the rising sun excels all other regions in every respect by a great deal. But Paradise, since it is the most excellent and purest tract of all the East, and has a most bright and beautiful sky, and is watered by the most limpid waters, is without a doubt the most excellent place of the whole world in all things, which is washed by the waves of the Ocean towards the sunrise. ^B

12. ^B That [Philostorgius] says that Athanasius, having arrived to the Western emperor, and having won over those who held power in his palace with an abundance of gifts, and especially Eustathius, who was the Count of the Private Domains and had the greatest authority with the prince, obtained a letter to Constantius, which said these things: “Athanasius, coming to us, shows by manifest proofs that the bishopric of Alexandria belongs to him. Let him, therefore, obtain it through you, or else he shall recover it by my arms.” Moreover, when these letters were received, he says that Constantius had summoned the bishops, so that he might deliberate with them about what it was necessary to do; but that they gave this advice to Constantius: that it was better that Alexandria should not be delivered from the yoke of Athanasius, than that he should undertake a war against his brother. Therefore, that Constantius permitted Athanasius to recover the bishopric, but recalled George to himself by a letter. And indeed George returned to Cappadocia, from which he was sprung, and dwelling there, administered his own private affairs. But Athanasius, with greater ^D confidence henceforth, passing through the cities, wherever it happened that there were bishops, exhorted them with his words to the *homoousion*; and those ^C who did not receive the others...

^A accused of fornication in Palestine, and who wished to cover up the disgrace by yielding to Athanasius, to defect to his opinion. He states that he nonetheless rendered a very swift punishment, with his sexual organ having rotted away and teeming with worms, and thus he departed this life. He also writes that Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, inclined toward the opinion of Athanasius, although the persecution under Maximian had shown him to be a martyr, and he carried one of his eyes gouged out for the sake of piety. He adds furthermore that Athanasius drew many others to his opinion little by little.

13. Concerning the Doxology of Flavian. He says that Flavian of Antioch, having gathered a multitude of monks, first proclaimed: "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit." For of those before him, some were accustomed to say, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," and this proclamation was more prevalent; others, "Glory to the Father in the Son and Holy Spirit."

14. That, he says, even if those from Arcius differed in their opinions from those who profess the *homoousion*, nevertheless they shared in their prayers, and hymns, and deliberations, and in almost all other things, except for the mystical sacrifice. But when Aetius arrived, and began the schism in these matters, he persuaded the like-minded congregation ^C to break all bonds and friendships and associations with which they were joined to those holding different views, and to set up a party that was most antagonistic toward them.

15. That the fatherland of Aetius was in Hollow Syria. And his father, when he had fared poorly in the military service. And his life in...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

...tradition of the faith of the *homoousion*. But Philostorgius says the contrary: that Athanasius had indeed exhorted all the bishops of Palestine whom he visited to embrace the faith of the *homoousion*, but that no one complied with his admonitions except Aetius. And that these things are false is testified by the synod of the bishops of Palestine, which was convened at that time by Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, as Athanasius writes in his *Apology*.

...restored from a manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart, in which it is written explicitly thus, etc. Moreover, the interpreter revealed his own lack of expertise in the Greek language in this spot, particularly while he thinks that Aetius, for the crime of adultery, was crucified and died with his legs broken. Soon, instead of [Greek], in the Bochart manuscript codex I found [Greek], which I prefer more.

...for Maximian, Philostorgius wrote.

...to Gothofredus, who believed that "orthodox" meant *homoousians*. Lucas Holstenius more correctly understood these words to refer to the Arians, of whom Aetius was the author, so that with all the bonds of friendship and concord broken by which they had hitherto been joined with the orthodox, they might form a peculiar and private faction. Certainly, Holstenius on the margin of his codex interprets this passage thus: He was the author/instigator, so that [the party] consenting with him in the same faith might form a faction contrary to these others, with all the bonds of friendship and association broken by which they were previously joined with those who thought otherwise.

...sufficiently indicates that the name of the city is missing here, from which Aetius originated. Certainly, Suidas, in the entry [Greek], describing this passage of Philostorgius, assigns Antioch as the fatherland of Aetius; Nicephorus, however, in Book 9, expressed this passage of Philostorgius thus... Following whom, Gothofredus interpreted these words of Philostorgius as follows: "He says Aetius' fatherland was Cœle-Syria." But this phrasing is improper; for the fatherland of anyone is said to be not the province from which he originated, but the city or village of his province. I did note, however, that the province from which someone originated is accustomed to be called "fatherland" by Philostorgius. Thus in chapter 8, book IV, of Philostorgius, and in chapter 3, book VI. Suidas more correctly refers to this passage in this way...

^A when he had departed this life, he says that the governor of the province at that time confiscated his property (77). Aetius, being still a young man, was reduced with his mother to extreme poverty; and for this reason he was driven to the goldsmith's trade, so that he might in some manner support both himself and her who had borne him. Having practiced this craft sufficiently, by the strength of his nature he turned toward logical studies. And first he was a hearer of Paulinus (78), who had been transferred from the episcopate of Tyre to the see of Antioch. But when his mother had departed this life—for whose sake he had chiefly practiced the goldsmith's art, which adorned gold with various designs—he gave himself over entirely to the contemplation of logical disciplines, and he was soon seen to be superior to the majority in the contests of discourse (79); and from this he kindled no small amount of envy. But as long as Paulinus lived, that envy ^B restrained its strength. But when that man died after the sixth month of his episcopate, and Eulalius (80) took his place...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. Regarding those who were involved, he had died. . . ^C And regarding the soldier: I prefer to read *in the army* with Suidas, rather than *in the service of the household*, as our codices have it. For the father of Aetius did not follow the armed military service, but was a civil official, or an attendant to the governor of the province: which service was called "cohortalis"; and it was far inferior to camp service. That *spatia* is surely used for office and attendance, I have long since observed in the Annotations to Ammianus Marcellinus. Furthermore, that the father of Aetius was not a soldier, but an official of the governor, can be inferred from this. First, because Philostorgius adds that his goods were confiscated by the governor of the province: which no doubt would never have happened if that father of Aetius had followed the armed military service. For soldiers were tried in another forum, namely, the military forum of the judges. Besides, Suidas clearly writes from Philostorgius that the parents of Aetius were base and poor: which surely he would not have said if Aetius had been born of military stock. I prefer to accept *enveilegmenon*, as it is read in Suidas, rather than *envegmenon* or *enteylegmenon*, as it is read in the Bochart codex. It is said... ^D that Eulalius held the throne, etc. (b). In the Chronicle of Saint Jerome, and in the Chronographia of the patriarch Nicephorus, Eulalius is numbered as the twenty-fifth bishop of Antioch after the apostles; who, however, ought rather to have been called the twenty-sixth. For Paulinus, bishop of the Tyrians, who was omitted by them, held the twenty-fifth position among the bishops of Antioch. Furthermore, what Philostorgius says, that Eulalius was the twenty-third after the apostles, is not to be understood as if all the apostles had held the see of Antioch; for only Peter held the Antiochene chair, as is agreed by all. But what is done by one apostle is said to have been done by all the apostles together, because of the college and fellowship of the apostolate. Just as in the edict of one praetorian prefect, the others were also said to command, on account of the authority of the same power, as the author of the *Questions of the Old and New Testament* writes, chapter 97. Therefore, the Church founded by one apostle is rightly said to have been constituted by all the apostles together. Indeed, Eusebius, in his books of Ecclesiastical History, enumerating the successions of the apostolic sees, always calls their bishops successors of the apostles: for example, the Alexandrian Church...

VARIOUS NOTES. (a) Moved by the authority of Valesius, I was at one time of the opinion that Paulinus had been transferred from the Tyrian see to Antioch. But after better consideration, although I willingly concede that Paulinus survived the Synod of Nicaea by some years, I deny that he presided over the Church of Antioch. Nor do any of the ancients, with the single exception of Philostorgius, affirm this; nor does the passage of Eusebius himself, which Valesius cites in his favor from book IV against Marcellus (Euseb. Hist. lib. x, cap. 1, not. 4), rightly understood, persuade us of it; from which nothing else can be extracted than that Paulinus had administered the bishopric of Tyre with such praise that the Church of Antioch was accustomed to glory in him as if in its own good (for he had been a presbyter of the same Church). Guil. Cave in *Eusebius*, vol. I, pag. 131. (b) See the passage of Jerome cited by Valesius in note 1 to Sozomen, pag. 107, where Paulinus is numbered as the twenty-second bishop of Antioch, and Eulalius as the twenty-fourth.

^A dead, and Eulalius was substituted in his place; but then envy, recovering its former strength, incited Eulalius to expel Aetius from Antioch. Aetius, therefore, having proceeded to Anazarbus, a city of Cilicia, again made use of his art to gain a living, and did not entirely abstain from disputations against those who wished to engage with him. Furthermore, when a certain grammarian, captivated by admiration for his intellect, attempted to impart his art to him, Aetius, having been admitted into his house, served him, performing menial tasks. And the former, with a willing mind, instructed him in the precepts of grammar. But Aetius, when he had at one time publicly refuted his master, as one who explained the divine oracles less than correctly, and had visited upon him great shame on account of that ignorance of his, received as his reward the expulsion from the house that had treated him well. ^B Expelled from there, he associated with Athanasius, a disciple of Lucian the martyr, who was then governing the bishopric of Anazarbus. With him, having read the Evangelists and observed accurately every detail occurring therein, he went on to Tarsus to see Antonius, who himself was also one of the disciples of Lucian. From him, having been taught the explanation of the Epistles of the Apostle, he spent a considerable amount of time with him, while he was still established in the order of presbyters. But when Antonius was promoted to the episcopate, and could no longer spare time to instruct Aetius in that teaching which made him wise, Aetius returned again to Antioch, to hear Leontius; for Leontius was at that time a presbyter of Antioch, and had himself been listed among the disciples of Lucian. He it was who expounded the prophets to him, and especially Ezekiel. ^C But envy from there once again—as Philostorgius drivels, but as one would say, speaking more truthfully, the intemperance of his tongue and the impiety of his mind—drove him out. From there, therefore, he reaches Cilicia; and a certain one of the Borborians, having engaged with him in argument through the conceit of his own opinion, brought him to an extreme defeat. On account of this, despondency seized him, and he considered life unendurable, seeing the falsehood and the truth...

^A more powerful than its rival. Thus, a certain vision, as Philostorgius fables, appeared to Aetius, who was in such a state of mind, dispelling his despondency and providing him with symbols of the unconquerable nature of the wisdom already granted to him [85]. From that time on, it was divinely granted to Aetius that he should be defeated by no one in the exchange of arguments. Not long after, a certain Aphthonius, a leader of the Manichaean madness, who carried a great reputation among many for wisdom and skill in speech, encountered him in Alexandria, Egypt. For Aetius had come thither from Antioch, stirred by the man’s reputation. But when it came to the contest, with no long-drawn-out discourse, Aetius reduced Aphthonius to a speechlessness that brought him down from his great glory to great disgrace. Wherefore, ^B finding it hard to bear that he had been defeated beyond all expectation, Aphthonius fell into a grievous malady, which was shortly followed by death, for he could not survive the blow for more than seven days. Aetius, meanwhile, went through all things, overthrowing his opponents everywhere with his arguments and carrying off a brilliant victory. At that same time, he also applied himself to medicine, so that he might be able to heal not only the diseases of souls but also those of bodies. Sopolis was his teacher in this discipline, a man in this art second to none; and Aetius, excelling in medicine, provided treatment to those in need without payment. And if he ever had need of the necessities of life, he would go by night to one of his fellow-craftsmen, so that he might not be drawn away from his more serious pursuits during the day, and whatever gold required the hand of a more skilled craftsman, having finished it quickly [87], he would receive the fee from the goldsmith ^C and so support his life. These things occurred during the reign of Constantius, at the time when Theophilus also, having returned from the Indians, was living in Antioch.

16. He says that Aetius, having entered into arguments concerning the consubstantial with Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebastia, and having shown them to be the most infantile of all men—as this man fables—thereafter became the object of their implacable hatred.

17. He says that Leontius, whom the previous narrative pointed out as priest and mentor to Aetius, having been appointed bishop of Antioch, [appointed him] to the diaconate.

He promoted him, and permitted him to teach ecclesiastical doctrines publicly in the Church. Aetius, however, declined the function of a deacon, but willingly embraced the office of teaching. And when he had remained there as long as he judged sufficient for the delivery of the sacred teachings, he traveled back to Alexandria. For Athanasius was already there, defending the consubstantiality ^A with great force, and it was necessary that there be someone to resist him.

18. Flavianus and Paulinus deposed by Leontius. — Philostorgius says that Flavianus and Paulinus, who later divided the bishopric of Antioch between them, were deposed by the aforementioned Leontius, as men whose sentiments were contrary to his own. They had followed Eustathius when he was led into exile. He, however, did not suffer any part of the priestly office of the Church of Antioch, or rather of the whole of religion, to be corrupted by the vicissitudes of the times.

19. Aetius refuses the bishopric. — He says that when Secundus and Serras elected Aetius to fill a bishopric, he refused to consent, saying that they did not celebrate the divine mysteries purely or holily, inasmuch as they mingled with the Homousians.

20. Eunomius. — Eunomius, when word reached him of the wisdom of Aetius, set out from Cappadocia to Antioch, and held a conference with Secundus. ^B Here he commended Eunomius to Aetius, who was at that time living in Alexandria. Both, therefore, dwelt together: Aetius teaching, and Eunomius learning the sacred disciplines.

21. The impious Philostorgius says that he wrote an encomium of Eunomius, and does not blush to admit it.

22. Constans, Magnentius, and the tyrant Veteranio. — He says that Constans, because of his zeal for Athanasius, was killed by the tyrant Magnentius. After his death, when Constantius was staying at Edessa in Mesopotamia—for the Persian war required it—their eldest sister Constantina, who was a widow

was of Hanniballianus, fearing that the tyrant Magnentius ^A might bring the whole empire under his power, proclaimed Veteranio, one of the masters of the soldiers, Caesar. She seemed to do this by her own right, because their common father, while he lived, had crowned her with the diadem, and named her Augusta. Constantius, indeed, having learned these things, immediately sent the diadem to Veteranio, confirming the imperial dignity to him by his own suffrage; but afterwards, having departed with the army against Magnentius into the parts of the West, under the pretext of a conversation that he wished to enter into in a friendly manner with Veteranio, because he had offered the suspicion of defection, he seized him and stripped him of his imperial robe. Yet, having afflicted him with no other inconvenience—nay, even having admitted him to his own table—he sent him away to Prusa in Bithynia, assigning him ample and magnificent revenues, and taking care that nothing which makes the life of private men pass happily should be wanting to him.

23. That he records how Sapor, king of the Persians, waged war against Nisibis, and laid siege to it; but that he returned unsuccessful and covered with shame, beyond everyone's expectation, when Jacob, the bishop of that city, had instructed the citizens what was to be done, and had fought for the safety of the city in a wondrous manner, through his hope and confidence in God. ^B

24. That the Alps, as well as those called the Succi, and the Julians, are narrow passages between the greatest mountains on either side, and in one place, they nearly meet each other, drawing together. These passes ^C are in a certain way similar to the straits of Thermopylae. But the Julian Alps divide the Gauls and Italy; while the Succi are situated between Dacia and Thrace, whose narrow passes, when Veteranio attempted to occupy them, gave to Constantius the suspicion of defection.

25. That while Constantius was preparing an expedition against the tyrant Magnentius, a messenger reached him that the Persians were moving with huge forces against the provinces of the East. Wherefore he found it necessary to name Gallus Caesar, and to send him against the Persians into the East. Now Gallus was his cousin; for the father of Gallus, Constantius, was the brother of Constantine the Great, from whom were born Constantius and his brothers. ^D

26. Constantius indeed won the victory over the tyrant, the sign of the cross having appeared there also, extended for a very long space, and outshining the light of day with most stunning brilliance. It appeared

at Jerusalem ^A about the third hour of the day, during an observation of the festival commonly called Pentecost. This sign, divinely painted, could be seen extending from the so-named Mount of the Skull as far as the Mount of Olives, with a great rainbow in the form of a crown surrounding it on all sides. The rainbow signified the favor of Him who was crucified and assumed into heaven, while the crown signified the victory of the emperor. This luminous and venerable sight, moreover, did not escape the eyes of the soldiers, but was clearly seen by both armies, striking Magnentius and those who stood on his side—inasmuch as they were addicted to the worship of demons—with incredible fear; but it restored to Constantius and those with him an invincible confidence. Magnentius, having been defeated at the first, then slowly recovering himself, and engaging a second time in battle, was utterly vanquished; and, having lost nearly all his forces, he fled to the city of Lugdunum. There, at first, under a pretense of benevolence, he slaughtered his own brother, to snatch him from the hands and outrages ^B of his enemies. Then, he destroyed in the same manner whomever he saw present from among his nearest kin. Finally, he threw himself upon a sword he had placed against his own breast, and having been pierced through the back, he breathed his last, having exercised tyranny for nearly four years.

27. Philostorgius says that those around Basil and Eustathius, having conceived enmities against Aetius, fabricated certain absurd calumnies and incited Gallus against him, so that Gallus, trusting in them as in bishops and inflamed with anger, ordered Aetius to be sought out and to have his legs broken. But when Leontius, the bishop of Antioch, ^C reported to the Caesar reports contrary to those which had been brought against Aetius, the sentence of condemnation was revoked, and not long after, Aetius came into the presence of Gallus and was accounted among his friends. He was also sent frequently to Julian, and especially at the time when Gallus had learned that his brother was inclining toward the superstition of the Gentiles; he was sent with the purpose that he might recall Julian from impiety. Moreover, Gallus also took Aetius as his teacher of sacred studies.

28. When Gallus had acquitted himself most strenuously in the war against the Persians, ^D those who delighted in calumnies stirred up the emperor’s envy. Constantius, therefore—the Persian war now having been settled by the valor and fortitude of the Caesar Gallus—sent Domitian, the prefect of the praetorium, giving him secret instructions to restrict the exits of Gallus from the city of Antioch, thinking by this means to diminish the glory Gallus had gained through his bravery and his care for public affairs. But Domitian, not only not more moderately...

than they had been commanded, but even more audaciously ^A acting and feeling, when he had come to Antioch, where Gallus was staying, he did not even deign to come into his sight. For this reason, and because of other events that had occurred, Gallus decided to visit extreme punishment upon the insolent and stubborn prefect, and took Montius as an assessor to his judgment. But the latter, using immoderate confidence, addressed Gallus with these words: "It is not permitted for you to appoint even a curator of the city. How, then, could you kill a prefect of the praetorium?" Provoked by these words, Constantia, the wife of Gallus, because Gallus, who was both Caesar and the husband of an Augusta (for she herself had received this dignity from her father), was being treated with such contempt, she herself with her own hands dragged Montius from the tribunal and handed him over to the guards. They immediately seized him and carried him off to the praetorium of Domitian. And when they had also dragged him from the tribunal, they tied ropes to the feet of both of them and put them to death in a pitiable manner. And this was done swiftly, with Gallus also consenting. ^B

FROM BOOK FOUR

1. *The slaughter of Gallus.* When Constantius had learned what had happened regarding Montius and Domitian, he was inflamed with anger and summoned Gallus. But he, not gathering the summons as a good omen, yet fearing that if he refused he would provoke a civil war, complied with the orders. Constantia, however, had gone ahead, eager to meet her brother first and intercede for her husband. But when she reached Bithynia, she was stopped by death in the course of both her journey and her life. Because of this, Gallus was cast into even greater fear, yet he did not change his former resolve. Theophilus the Indian also traveled with him. But when Gallus had reached Noricum, Barbatio, a master of soldiers, was sent there from the city of Mediolanum, where Constantius was then residing, ^C with the intention that he should take Gallus... ^D

^A from his purple robes and relegate him to some island in Dalmatia. But Theophilus, who was present, by no means allowed the matter to reach this conclusion. For at the time when Gallus was appointed Caesar, he had been the mediator of the oaths that had passed between Gallus and Constantius, by which they had pledged to maintain mutual friendship and promised that neither would ever plot against the other, and he was the one who upheld their harmony. Constantius, therefore, having learned of Theophilus’s interference, ordered him to be sent into exile, and that Gallus, stripped of his rank ^B and reduced to the status of a private citizen, should be sent away under guard to the island. Now Eusebius the eunuch, who had been elevated to the dignity of the praepositus, and those who were with him, were inciting the spirit of Constantius even more against Gallus, fearing, of course, that Constantius, either by recalling the oaths to memory or out of respect for their kinship of blood, might release the Caesar from exile, and that Gallus, having escaped that danger, might perish them—evil as they were—with evil. Therefore, through the machinations of these men, those who were to kill Gallus were sent. However, before the murder was committed, Constantius, moved by repentance, sent others to prevent the slaughter. But Eusebius persuaded them not to approach the island, and not to divulge to anyone the imperial rescript by which the slaughter of Gallus was forbidden, before Gallus had ended his life by the sword. And it came to pass just as they had plotted. For this reason, Julian, having later girded himself with the power of the empire, exacted justice from Eusebius and his associates for the lawless act committed against his brother.

2. Moreover, Constantius, considering the burden of the empire and that he was not, by himself, able to bear it alone, sent for Julian, the brother of Gallus, from Ionia, and appointed him Caesar, betrothing to him his own sister, Helena, in marriage. He sent him off to guard the Gauls; for affairs in those parts were greatly disturbed. ^C

3. Being himself present at Sirmium, he resided there; at which time he also brought back from exile Liberius, the bishop of the city of Rome, whom the Romans were urgently demanding, and restored him to his citizens. At that time, indeed, he says that Liberius also subscribed against the consubstantiality ^D and, moreover, against Athanasius; and in like manner also the...

^A bishop Hosius, having assembled some synod there, and having drawn them into agreement. But after they had subscribed, Hosius returned to his own diocese of Corduba in Spain and ruled the throne; Liberius ruled over the Church of the Romans. Felix, however, who had been ordained bishop in the absence of Liberius, retired to his own affairs, retaining indeed the dignity of the episcopate, yet presiding over no Church.

4. ^B That, upon the death of Leontius, bishop of Antioch, those who were of the same opinion as Eudoxius, as he says, brought him from Germanicia and placed him on the throne. He was indeed of the Arian opinion, but he had been led by the writings of Asterius to the view that the Son is similar according to substance. But his fellow-heretics, bringing him back to their own view, led him toward the assertion of a dissimilar substance. Philostorgius, however, describes Eudoxius as gentle in character and modest in his ways, and gifted with no little intelligence and skill; yet he greatly denounces him for cowardice and timidity. He says his father, whose name was Caesarius, was born in Arabissus, a city of Lesser Armenia; and that he, although he had been quite exuberant in the lusts of women, nevertheless ended his life by martyrdom, which both wiped away his stains and furthermore brought him athletic crowns.

5. That Eudoxius, he says, promoted Eunomius to the rank of deacon; but the latter, before he had learned their entire doctrine most accurately, refused to accept that office.

6. That, he says, when the management of the Antiochian Church had been entrusted to Eudoxius, Basil of Ancyra took it very hard; for he himself had cast his eyes of desire upon that see, and carried a love for it deeply fixed in his mind.

7. That, he says, the wife of Constantius being seized by a passion of uterine madness—and Constantius hung upon her desires—it became a necessity for him...

to recall Theophilus from exile (for he was renowned as a healer of diseases by divine power). When he arrived, he asked for pardon for the sins he had committed against him and implored him to heal his wife, and, as he says, he did not fail in his request. For when Theophilus had laid his appeasing hands upon her, the woman was delivered from the malady. ^B 8. That, he says, Basilius, having taken with him Eustathius of Sebastia and other leaders of the Churches, and especially Aetius, and then also Eudoxius, slanders them to the emperor, inventing other charges against them, and alleging that they were conspirators and participants in the rebellion of Gallus, including Theophilus as well in the slanders against them. The emperor, being persuaded, and especially through the women (for those around Basilius had managed to win them over to their own opinion), inflicts punishment upon Theophilus, to live in exile in Heraclea of Pontus, and orders Eudoxius, having departed from Antioch, to abide at home, and delivers Aetius and certain others who were with them into the power of their slanderers. But those around Basilius happened, in the presence of the emperor, to have engaged in discussion concerning the faith, in which they clearly expounded the Son to be like the Father in all things, ^C but no mention of substance was introduced into the other arguments, not even by name. They strove to confirm this opinion also by the judgment of a synod and by signatures. Not long after, Eunomius, when the report of what had been done by Basilius had reached Antioch, accepts the ordination of the deacon, and being sent as an ambassador to Constantius to rescind what had been decreed, he is caught on the way by those around Basilius, and is banished to Midaion, a city of Phrygia; and Aetius, having fallen into the power of those around Basilius, exile in Pepuza, a village of Phrygia, received; but Eudoxius withdrew to his own fatherland, Armenia. But others also were given over to exile, subject to the votes of those around Basilius, the number of whom totaled seventy in all. ^D 9. That those around Basilius, having accomplished all these things, wandering everywhere, the homoousion—

that is, the word signifying "same substance"—confirmed. ^A And many, in giving way to their opinion, even drew Macedonius, the bishop of Constantinople, into their own opinion, although he had previously been more inclined to the sentiment of Eunomius. They also brought over many other bishops to their side, partly by enticing them with words, and partly by blending persuasion with force.

10. Patrophilus and Narcissus accuse Basilius. Synod of Ariminum. Disaster at Nicomedia. He says that Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, and Narcissus, bishop of Irenopolis, together with some others, arriving at the city of Singidunum in Moesia, reported to Constantius those things which had been committed by Basilius through fraud. Constantius, struck with amazement and moved by grief, recalled from exile those who had been condemned; and commanded that two synods be held: the one at Ariminum, which would gather those from the West; and the other at Nicomedia, which was to have gathered the bishops from the East, Libya, and Thrace; so that in these synods, those things which were said by each side might be discussed ^B with diligent examination. But the synod at Nicomedia, as this impious man slanders it—for the reason that most of them were inclined toward the faith of the consubstantial—was stopped by an earthquake, which destroyed the church in which they were gathered, and together with it, Cecropius, the bishop of that city, as well as those fifteen in number who had arrived before the others. The synod at Ariminum, however, to which three hundred bishops came together, rejected the word "substance" entirely. And declaring the Son to be like the Father according to the Scriptures, it confirmed this with the added subscriptions of each one.

11. The Synod of Seleucia. Since Nicomedia, as he says, had been destroyed by an earthquake, fire, and an inundation of the sea, and many men had perished, the synod was finally gathered at Seleucia, since Basilius had refused Nicaea, and Eudoxius and Aetius had refused to accept Tarsus. ^C But the followers of Basilius, having divided the synod into two factions by certain machinations, and having met apart, confirmed the "like according to substance"; and they deposed those who felt otherwise, having condemned the dogma of "dissimilar substance." And they themselves, on their own, ordained Annianus as bishop of Antioch. Eudoxius and Aetius, however, having confirmed the dogma of "dissimilar substance" in writing, sent their letters everywhere.

12. The Synod of Constantinople. The emperor, having learned of these things, ordered everyone to meet at Constantinople. And ^D

so they came together, both from the Western regions and from the East and from Libya, ^A almost everyone. 25 The leaders of those who professed the Son to be similar in substance were Basil and Eustathius. There were others with them giving support, including another Basil, who at that time still held the rank of deacon; although he was superior to many in the power of speaking, yet because of a certain timidity of mind 21 he shrank from public struggles. Of those who proclaimed the dissimilar substance, Aetius and Eunomius were the primary figures in terms of strength and power, although each held only the rank of deacon. Bishops, however, fulfilled the role of seconds, namely Maris and Eudoxius, who at that time held the episcopate of Antioch, but was later promoted to the Constantinopolitan see; and also Acacius, the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who feigned agreement with them ^B so as to cause distress to Basil's party, because they showed honor to Cyril of Jerusalem, who had been deposed by him. Acacius was bold in disputes, very sharp in discerning the nature of matters, and quite eloquent in expressing his thoughts in words. Hence, the acts of this synod, which are not few in number, were arranged and organized by him alone. When, therefore, both sides had come to a contest regarding their dogmas, Basil was the champion of those who held the opinion of the consubstantial, while those of the dissimilar substance put forward Aetius to speak for all, with Eunomius assisting him. But when those around Basil saw that Aetius had been set against them for the argument, fearing the power of his words, they said that it was unseemly for bishops to join in debate about dogmas with a deacon. ^C But when the opponents objected, saying that the present judgment was not about dignity but an inquiry into the truth, those around Basil [(a)] accepted the contest, though unwillingly. And, as this author states, he was utterly defeated by the tongue of Aetius, to such an extent that he not only confessed that the substance of the begotten differs from the substance of the begetter and has no similarity in any respect, but he even confirmed his confession with his own signature, as Aetius had demanded. The emperor having learned this, and remembering the calumny that Basil had previously concocted against Aetius—which was still ^D flourishing in the midst of his heart—he seized the opportunity to satisfy his anger. Therefore, he brought both of them to view, and asked Basil what were the things for which he blamed Aetius. He replied that he introduced the Son as being unlike the Father. Aetius then answered to these things...

to view, and asked Basil what were the things for which he blamed Aetius. He replied that he introduced the Son as being unlike the Father. Aetius then answered to these things: "So far," he said, "am I from saying or thinking the Son unlike the Father, that I rather profess Him to be similar without any distinction." But Constantius, accusing that term and not enduring even to learn in what sense Aetius had used the word, ordered him to be expelled from the palace. Afterwards, however, through the efforts of Acacius, he brought it about that the same Aetius was deposed by episcopal judgment, and his deposition was subscribed not only by the orthodox, but even by those who held the same opinion as he: some of whom had changed their former opinion, while others covered up what they had done against their will under the name of economy. Furthermore, Constantius brought forward the letter of the Westerners, and ordered it to be confirmed by the subscriptions of the bishops present. This letter contained that the Son is similar to the Father according to the Scriptures. Then, indeed, through the efforts of the same Acacius—who truly had one thing hidden in his heart and another ready on his tongue—everyone who was present, including those who had previously professed a dissimilar substance, subscribed.

FROM THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE HISTORY

1. Acacius deposed those around Basil and Eustathius and many others, having won over the emperor to his own opinion and having attacked them with various charges. He also stripped Macedonius, the bishop of Constantinople, of his priesthood. After Macedonius was deposed, Eudoxius was subrogated into his place from the see of Antioch with the approval of Constantius. But those who had been deposed were sent into exile: Basil to Illyricum, while the others were dispersed here and there. And when they were being led into exile, they revoked their subscriptions by which they had confirmed the faith of the Council of Ariminum; and these claimed the Son to be consubstantial again, while those claimed Him to be of similar substance. Aetius, however, having been deposed ^B because he had introduced [the term] "the ^Aunchangeable," which was manifestly contradicted by his other sermons and writings, was relegated to Mopsuestia in Cilicia, when almost all his supporters and followers had condemned not only him, but even the faith which he preached, by their subscription: some casting off the opinion they had previously embraced, others serving the times and judging the will of the emperor to be more important than truth itself.

Furthermore, Acacius, having deposed those around Basil because of private enmities, and Aetius because of a discrepancy in dogmas, and having thrust them into exile, returned to Caesarea ^C and appointed, in the widowed churches, high priests who worshipped the consubstantial [doctrine]; and he appointed Onesimus in Nicomedia in place of Cecropius; and in Ancyra, Athanasius ^D (25) in place of Basil. [index: entries preserved]

Ecclesias antistites constituit, qui consubstantialem colerent: et constituit quidem in Nicomedia antea Cecropio, Onesimum; pro Basilio autem in Ancyra, Athanasium. Acacium autem instead appointed for the Tarsians, in place of Silvanus. Now in Antioch, those of the clergy who had previously acted with Basil in the bold undertakings against Aetius and Eudoxius were expelled without a hearing. Meletius was sent for ^A from the city of Sebastia in Armenia, and installed in the see in place of Eudoxius—for Eudoxius had already departed for Constantinople. Meletius, at first, in order to show favor to the inclination of the Emperor, pretended to hold the "dissimilar to the substance" view, and he even subscribed to the scroll of the Westerners, but once he had taken control of the Antiochene see, he was an ardent champion of the consubstantial. Acacius also ordained Pelagius as bishop in Laodicea; and, in short, wherever his influence and power ^B allowed him to provide counsel, he took great pains to install, in place of those who had been driven out, men who openly professed the consubstantial.

2. The exile of Aetius. — When the Emperor learned from Acacius that Aetius was being treated with the utmost kindness and benevolence by Auxentius, the bishop of Mopsuestia, he commanded that he be banished to Amblada, so that he might miserably end his life there due to the barbarity and inhumanity of the inhabitants. And when an unbearable drought and pestilence infested that place, this impious writer of lies claims that Aetius, having propitiated the Divine Power, caused these calamities to cease, and was received by the inhabitants with the greatest benevolence and reverence.

3. Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. — After the deposition of those around Eustathius, Eusebius, and Eleusius, those around Maris and Eudoxius, by the will of Constantius, ordained Eunomius ^C bishop of Cyzicus; yet he refused to accept this ordination unless he first received a promise from them that Aetius would be absolved from both his exile and the sentence of his deposition; and for the accomplishment of this matter, an interval of three months was established. ^D

4. *Constantius inferior in the Persian war.* — For, he says, Constantius, who had been accustomed to be victorious over his enemies, after he had stained his right hand with the gore of his own kin ^A, and, persuaded by the slanders of Basil, had sent Theophilus, Aetius, and Serras into exile, suffered defeat when he engaged the Persians.

5. *Euzoius substituted for the expelled Meletius.* — This impious Philostorgius says that Meletius of Antioch was sent into exile to his own fatherland, Melitene, by Constantius, who was then staying in Antioch, on the grounds that he was caught in perjury, and because, while he most ardently preached the *homoousion*, he yet feigned to embrace the *heteroousion*. Thereafter, Constantius summoned Euzoius, a partner in the heresy of Arius, from the city of Alexandria, and, having commanded the bishops to lay hands upon him, he established him as bishop of Antioch. ^B

FROM THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE HISTORY

1. *Defense of the accused Eunomius.* — Certain members of the clergy of the city of Cyzicus accused Eunomius before Eudoxius, as if he were asserting that the Son is unlike the Father, taking the fact that he denied the Son is "like according to substance" as an argument for a dissimilarity between the Father and the Son. Furthermore, they accused him of changing ancient rites and expelling those who would not act impiously alongside him. On account of this, a tumult was stirred up in the Church of Constantinople, with a certain presbyter of that Church, Hesychius by name, stirring it up on purpose. Therefore Eudoxius sent for Eunomius. When he arrived, he accused Eudoxius of delay and negligence in fulfilling that which he had promised. Eudoxius, however, replied that he had by no means neglected those things, but that the tumult which had been raised on his account must first be settled. Eunomius, therefore, having begun his defense before the clergy of Constantinople, so won over those who were previously in an uproar that they not only passed over to the opposite opinion, but even voluntarily bore witness thereafter to the piety of Eunomius. ^C For he was caught not only *not* dogmatizing that the Son is unlike the Father in the things which he fashioned, but he even grew bold to herald [the Son] as "like" according to the Scriptures. However, he did not accept "like according to substance," saying that it was equal to blasphemy to say "like according to substance" to the Father.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(32) *He replied as to these things.* I do not doubt that it should be written *ἀπεκρίνατο* (replied), even if the manuscripts change nothing.

(33) *In the things which he fashioned.* It must be written, if I am not mistaken, *ἐδημηγόρησε* (he spoke in public forums), that is, in the addresses which Eunomius had to the clergy of Constantinople, so that he might purge himself before them of the crime of heresy. Certainly Philostorgius testified a little earlier that Eunomius had set forth an apology or defense of his faith and doctrine before the clergy of the royal city, etc. And this is perhaps the apology in which Eunomius gloried so greatly, as Gregory Nyssenus reports in his first book *Against Eunomius*.

(34) *The "like" however.* The asterisk itself sufficiently indicates the lacuna. We have supplied this lacuna from the manuscript code of Samuel Bochart in this manner: etc., that is, "He did not at all admit 'like according to substance,' affirming it to be of the same impiety, to call the Son 'like according to substance' to the Father, and not to profess him 'most like' ^D according to the reasons befitting the only-begotten Son toward the Father who begat without passion." If these things seem perhaps obscure to anyone, let him read the exposition of the faith of Eunomius, which I recently edited in the *Annotations to the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates*, page 274, etc. But it is better to ascribe the very words of Eunomius here, as we have translated them; for they do not...

VARIOUS NOTES

(a) *With the gore of his own kin.* That is to say, of Constantius, Dalmatius, and Hannibalianus, his uncles and cousins; but especially Gallus Caesar; concerning whose slaughter Julian induces Constantius to be repentant, in *Epistle to the Senate and People of Athens*: He thinks that from this he suffers childlessness, and from these things he assumes that he does not act successfully against the enemy Persians.

^C But he did not admit it; he said that to call the Son "like in essence" to the Father was equivalent to blasphemy, and that it was not fitting to believe him "most like" to the Father who begat him without passion, according to the arguments regarding the only-begotten God. Nor did he influence only the clergy in this way, but he also drew the entire gathering of the Church, having spoken the same things, into a great and sweet wonder of both wisdom and piety. From this, even Eudoxius was overjoyed and exclaimed: "This is my defense to those who question me," and the crowd raised an ovation to him, because he had spoken the holy words of Scripture well and in season.

^B 2. Eunomius’s impiety against the Son. — The impious Philostorgius says that the God-hated Eunomius, by the appointment of Eudoxius, spoke to the people on the day of the feast of the Theophany, at which time their impious and godless nature is most exposed. For truly, those cursed men did not shudder to claim that after the ineffable birth, Joseph had had relations with the Virgin, and—much more impudently still—they did not hesitate to declare the Son to be a servant and minister of the Father, and even the Spirit to be a servant and minister of the Son, considering nothing about them to be fearful. Furthermore, their manner of speech on these points was stripped of oratorical grace; it was unclear, full of digressions, and swollen with the use of impure words into a most unpleasant, laughable, and confused character, reflecting the darkness and turmoil of their souls and their ^C god-blighted state.

3. Eudoxius and Eunomius disagree. — After many praises heaped upon Eunomius, Eudoxius not only had no intention of fulfilling what he had promised, but he even attempted to persuade him to register his approval of the deposition of Aetius and the exposition of the faith at Ariminum, under the pretext of the "economy."

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

[35] ...in the Genevan edition, I believe, the word "arguments" was omitted, which we have supplemented here from our manuscript copies.

[36] ...as it is read in the manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart. These are the words of the Apostle Paul from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter ix, which Eudoxius, the bishop of Constantinople, had used when he had heard Eunomius’s defense in the church. Having heard this, the entire populace that was present applauded, signifying that the Apostle’s statement had been well and fittingly cited by Eudoxius. For such is the interpretation to be given to those words of Philostorgius, just as Lucas Holstenius noted on the side of his codex.

[37] The true emendation of this passage was indicated to us by the codex of Samuel Bochart, in which it is written thus: "Splendidly, if you add the phrase in this way: '...and that they did not hesitate to call the Holy Spirit the servant and slave of the Son.'" That this was indeed the dogma of Eunomius is shown by the aforementioned exposition of his already cited by us. But nothing is to be added. Only the word that preceded it is to be supplemented. Gothofredus did not understand the passage. Lucas Holstenius corrected his interpretation in the margin of his codex: "Covering or glossing over their wicked and involuntary act with the title of 'economy'." But I cannot approve of this interpretation. For "connivance" is wont to be used for a fault, since it is an argument of negligence. On the contrary, [the "economy"] is always placed in a context of praise, and rightly so, when it is joined to prudence. Philostorgius says here that Eudoxius, who had subscribed to the formulary of the faith of Ariminum and the condemnation of Aetius not sincerely or from the heart, but through fraud and simulation, had passed over that act under the guise of the "economy." This, indeed, Philostorgius noted also above in Book IV, at the end, where he speaks of the deposition of Aetius: Of those who were not orthodox...

^A regarding that which had been established for them, both unwanted and illicit. Eunomius, heavily burdened by this, endured neither, but abandoned them, and Cyzicus, first indeed by words, and then by letters, and arrived at his own homeland, Cappadocia.

4.

Acacius persecutes Eunomius.

5.

Constantius dies while intending to repress Julian.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

6. ^A Constantius’ funeral. When Constantius was being carried to his burial, Julian entered Constantinople and walked before the coffin without a diadem, offering honor to the dead man whom he had shortly before been eager to deprive of life.

7. ^A Julian recalls exiled bishops. – Julian, having seized power by force, recalled Aetius from exile, since he had fallen into danger on account of Gallus; and not only him, but all others as well who had been sent into exile on account of ecclesiastical doctrines, he restored to their own sees.

FROM THE SEVENTH BOOK OF THE HISTORY

1. ^B The Gentiles rise up against the Christians. – When Julian had seized the empire and granted all license to the Gentiles by edicts, that they might omit nothing of what they had learned, he cast the Christians into most grievous and inexplicable hardships, while the Gentiles everywhere, in every place, inflicted upon them torments of every kind, novel tortures, and most bitter forms of death.

2. ^B The murder of Bishop George of Alexandria. – When George, the bishop of Alexandria, was presiding over a council and compelling those who felt the same as Aetius to subscribe to a letter against Aetius, the Gentiles suddenly rushing in laid hold of him, and after many insults heaped upon his body, finally delivered him to the fire. ^C Furthermore, this impious author says that they were incited to this crime by the counsel of Athanasius. Indeed, when George was killed, Athanasius recovered his own see, with the Alexandrians receiving him with a willing mind.

3. ^C Concerning the statue of Christ at Paneas. – Concerning the statue of our Savior, which the faith of the woman who labored with a flow of blood erected in gratitude to her benefactor, Philostorgius writes that it was placed beside the fountain which is in the city, together with other statues, and afforded a pleasant and delightful spectacle to those who visited it. As for the Savior’s image, [of] the herb...

which had sprung up at its feet—which was a remedy for all diseases, and especially for consumption—those inquisitive about the cause (for as time passed, both whose form it bore and through what deed it had been erected had been forgotten; for it stood naked in the open air, and having been covered for no small part of the body, with earth continually brought upon it from higher places, especially during times of rain, by which the knowledge of the letters which explained each detail had been obliterated) ^B having set their minds to this investigation, excavated the buried portion and discovered letters which taught the whole history. And the herb was no longer seen after that time, neither there nor elsewhere. But they moved the statue into the *diaconicum* (46) of the church, and rendered it the care and respect that was appropriate, honoring it indeed but by no means worshipping it (for it was not right to worship bronze or any other material), but rather this: that they had placed it in a more honorable place, and that they came eagerly to that place for the sake of seeing it, thereby demonstrating their love for the archetype. ^C This statue, in the times of Julian, the pagans who inhabited Paneas, incited to impiety, dragged from its base, having tied ropes to the feet, through the middle of the public street. After this, they broke the rest of the body by pulling it apart; but the head, being separated from the neck during the dragging, some of those who were pained by what was happening secretly snatched away and saved as best they could. And he (Philostorgius) declares that he himself saw it. Furthermore, Paneas was in ancient times called Dan, having derived its name from Dan the son of Jacob, the leader of those dwelling in that region (51) at that time. Afterward, it was called Caesarea Philippi (a). Of the Hellenists, Paneas... ^D

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(46) *Having moved it... into the diaconicum,* etc. I prefer the writing of the Bochart codex, in which it is written thus: *Having moved the statue, he entered into the diaconicum, weeping and throwing himself upon his face.* And so it is also written in Nicephorus, book 10, chap. 30. Regarding the *diaconicum* of the church, Jacob Gothofredus observes many things here learnedly, stating it is what the Latins formerly called the *secretarium*, we call it the *sacristy*, where sacred vessels and vestments are kept. But in denying that the *diaconicum* is a part of the church, he is grievously mistaken. Gothofredus was afraid, of course, that if the *diaconicum* were a part of the church, it would seem that Christians had statues and images of Christ in their churches in ancient times. John Moschus speaks of the *diaconicum* in the *Pratum*, chapter 25; *He entered the sacristy weeping, and fell upon his face.*

(47) *But this,* supply *honoring*. And *with delight*, etc. But in the Bochart codex, this passage is written far differently, in this way: *And that they should visit the place, the appearance being to be honored, demonstrating the longing for the archetype.* I consider this reading indeed to be the most true.

(48) *The appearance being to be honored,* that is, to keep watch over that image. Certainly Philostorgius affirms that worship is by no means to be offered to statues and images, but he does not deny *therapeia*, that is, respect. For he said a little before about this statue, *they rendered it the care appropriate to it.* Moreover, this respect consisted in the statue being as bright as possible, and not being filled with dust or filth or rust. In the Scoriacensis manuscript also it is read not as Gothofredus published it, but undoubtedly as it is read in the Bochart codex and in Nicephorus. It is a phrase of Philostorgius, which he used a little before in chap. 2 of this book.

(49) *The Hellenists.* It is to be written, without doubt, *the pagans*, as it is read in the Bochart codex and in Nicephorus. The phrase is Philostorgius', which he used a little before in chap. 2 of this book. I have emended *Hellenists* from the same codices a little later.

(50) *Whereby.* In the manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart I found *wherein*. And immediately for the word *to see*, the same codex has *to behold*, which is excellent, without doubt, and as I had also conjectured before I had obtained that codex.

(51) *Of those dwelling in this region.* The Bochart codex has *of those inhabiting this region*.

VARIORUM.

(a) *Caesarea Philippi.* Josephus writes the same in *Jewish War*, book 3, chap. 13; He constructed Paneas, which is at the springs of the Jordan, and calls it Caesarea.

^A a tribe, which at that time had its seat in those parts, deriving that cognomen. In subsequent times it was named Caesarea Philippi. But when the gentiles placed an idol of Pan in it, it passed into the name of Paneas.

^B 4. *The gentiles rage against the holy dead and the living. Julian sets bishops against one another.*—When the gentiles had committed many atrocities against the Christians everywhere, then this crime was also committed by them in Palestine. They extracted the bones of the prophet Elisha and of John the Baptist—for both of them had been buried there—and, mixing them with the bones of dumb animals, they committed them to the fire, and when reduced to ashes, scattered them to the wind. In some places, also, when they apprehended Christians, they placed them upon the burning altars as victims; and they were driven to madness in many other unspeakable outrages. Julian, knowing these things, was not only not indignant, but even rejoiced, since the infamy of the atrocious deeds rested upon others, while his own will was being fulfilled by their actions. But when he perceived that by such atrocity nothing of what he desired was being brought to pass—for the spirit of the Christians whom he was attacking was being strengthened more and more—he devised this: to set at variance the bishops who had been expelled for various reasons and those who had been substituted in their place. He gave permission, therefore, to both parties to do whatever they could for their own restitution and defense. For which reason, they clashed with one another, and brought great disgrace and opprobrium upon our religion, just as the apostate desired. He also added ^C other things of similar malignity; for he recalled those who had been enrolled in the clergy to the public functions of decurions, and handed over the [grain] rations of the churches to the ministers of demons, and ceased not to do and contrive everything so that the superstition of demons might flourish, and our religion, as he hoped, might be utterly extinguished.

5. *The dispute of Eudoxius and Euzoius concerning Aetius.*—While things were in this state, Eudoxius, recalling the oath and the promises by which he had bound himself to Eunomius in favor of Aetius, wrote letters to Euzoius, the bishop of Antioch, to ^D assemble a synod, through which it was necessary that Aetius [should be freed from] the condemnation...

which had been pronounced against him. But Euzoius paid no attention to this request, blaming Eudoxius especially, because he had not started doing what he was enjoining others to do. But when Eudoxius persisted in his request, Euzoius promised that he would do it. ^A

6. That while Aetius and Eunomius were staying in Constantinople, Leontius of Tripolis arrived to them, as did Theodulus from Chairetopoi, as well as those around Serras, Theophilus, and Heliodorus from both Libyas, along with all those who held the same opinion, who had not been willing to subscribe either to the condemnation of Aetius or to the tome of the Westerners. Having gathered together, they ordained Aetius ^B as bishop, and he himself, along with Eunomius, was everything to them. They also ordained other bishops, with Eudoxius in no way annoyed at the time, but who even frequently submitted his own vote to Aetius on behalf of those who were to be ordained. In the meantime, Euzoius, having gathered a synod of nine in number, annulled the actions which had formerly been taken against Aetius. He also dissolved the six-month deadline, after which the penalty of removal from the priesthood had been decreed for those around Serras, if they did not subscribe to the deposition of Aetius and the Western tome. And when both of the aforementioned actions had been completed, they prepared to send the tomes to those around Eudoxius; but the intolerable persecution of the Christians which was happening at that time checked their impulse. ^C

7. That the apostate Julian [arrested] Valentinian, who was a commander of a military unit (for he was count of those called the Cornuti), since, despite having tried everything, he could in no way move him from his piety, ^D

stripped him of his rank and banished him to the Thebes of Egypt. They say that when Constantius was reigning, he ^A saw one of those called Silentiarii emitting a flame of fire from his mouth; he saw this during the afternoon, at the time when we are accustomed to take sleep after a meal; and he reported these things to Constantius. For when he had been sent by him to summon Valentinian for some business, he had chanced upon this spectacle. Constantius, upon this being reported to him, was gripped by suspicion and fear, but he did not cause the man any harm. Wishing to soothe his own fear, he sent him to the fortresses of Mesopotamia to be a guardian of those places and to check the incursions of the Persians.

8. Babylas. — Concerning the martyr Babylas, regarding the insults with which Julian treated his sacred body, and the things the demons were compelled to say, and how the temple of ^B Apollo together with its statue was consumed by lightning, and all the other wondrous things which were performed at that time, partly in a human manner and partly beyond human power, Philostorgius relates not much different from others. He says that the holy Babylas suffered martyrdom along with three boys who were brothers, quite young in age; and that the martyrdom came about for the following reason. Babylas was the bishop of Antioch. At a certain time, a desire, induced by a demon, took hold of the Roman emperor Numerian—or, as some say, Decius—to enter the church of the Christians when the people had gathered in very large numbers. But the priest of God, standing at the porch of the church, closed the entrance to him, asserting that he would not permit, so far as it lay in his power, a wolf to sneak into the sheepfold. The emperor, for his part, immediately desisted from his undertaking, whether fearing sedition ^C or for some other reason having changed his mind; but, having first accused the bishop of rashness, he then ordered the holy man to sacrifice to the demons; for this was the only sacrifice by which he could both wash away his crime and for the future secure for himself honor and glory. But when the bishop had resisted the things proposed to him with a brave and noble spirit, he obtained the crown of martyrdom.

9. The restoration of Jerusalem attempted in vain. — The apostate Julian did not believe the oracles of our Savior, which say that Jerusalem was so utterly overturned that not even a stone ^D

^A remained upon a stone, but intended to prove them false; not only did he accomplish nothing of what he had planned, but he confirmed the absolute truth of those very oracles, however unwillingly (67). For when he had gathered the Jews from every quarter and had provided funds and other resources from the treasury, he commanded them to restore the temple. But terrors sent from God, which no power of eloquence could explain, not only checked their impulse but also reduced the emperor himself and the Jews to such a state of bewilderment and disgrace as to beggar description. For from one side a fire fell upon those who dared to set their hands to the work; from another, an earthquake buried them; and other calamities broke out upon others, and the audacity that had planned to bring the master’s words into contempt unconsciously served to proclaim their inviolable and venerable efficacy.

10. The horrible deaths of Julian the Count, Felix, and Elpidius (68). — While many of those who had raged against the Christians and against the faith paid not unmerited penalties, the most conspicuous and eminent to pay these present penalties in the sight of all were Julian, Governor of the East, uncle of the apostate Julian; Felix, the Count of the Largesses; and Elpidius, the superintendent of the royal house, whom the Romans call *comites rerum privatarum* (Counts of the Privy Purse). ^B These three were among those who had abandoned our religion to find favor with the emperor. Felix, for no apparent cause, had one of his larger internal veins suddenly rupture, and he vomited a stream of blood from his mouth, providing a horrible spectacle to all who were present; he did not survive the whole day, but died toward evening as his blood failed (69). Julian, seized by a difficult and mysterious disease, lay on his back for forty full days, neither speaking nor possessing any sense; but afterwards, when he began to feel himself slightly better, he condemned the impious deed he had committed, ^C confessing that his punishment had been inflicted upon him for that very reason; and having been thus relieved of his disease only so long as until he had been a witness to his own impiety, his belly was torn by every kind of ulcer, and he exhaled his soul amid torments. Finally, Elpidius, though later than the others, was nonetheless found to be conspiring with the tyranny of Procopius, who had risen up against Valens ^D.

^A, ^B stripped of his goods and living in perpetual imprisonment, ended his life in total ignominy, with everyone detesting him and calling him "the sacrificer" Elpidius. Furthermore, another man, having entered with the aforementioned into the church which they were plundering and despoiling, while they were carrying off the sacred vessels and offerings and heaping abuse upon God, who was worshipped through these things—this man, I say, lifted his garment and impudently urinated upon the altar, and he immediately paid a harsh and swift penalty. For the very members with which he had committed the insult rotted away right up to his entrails; and, after breeding an indescribable multitude of worms, he ended his life in a most pitiable manner, unworthy even to be recounted. And indeed, others also who had dared to commit similar acts suffered equivalent punishments.

[11.] That the Roman emperor Hadrian, who was also called Aelius, renamed Jerusalem "Aelia" after himself, so that he might entirely remove and sever that Jewish nation from it, and so that they might not even have a pretext to claim it as their fatherland, as it no longer had a name. For he feared their hot-headed and rash nature, lest, gathering under the pretext of worship in the city, they might cause trouble for the Romans.

[12.] That, he says, after the remains of the martyr Babylas were moved, the oracles of the Greeks—beginning with the one at Daphne—began to give responses and prophecies, as Divine Providence allowed them indeed to speak, but turned the zeal and worship of their own adherents into unspeakable disgrace. For the more eagerly the Gentiles strove to have the demons give oracles, so that they might have a juster cause for paying them divine honors, the more they were compelled by Divine Providence to detect their weakness and deception. For the oracles that flowed from them appeared false and imperfect; for while all the oracles had individually responded that Julian, the emperor’s uncle, who was then suffering from an illness, would by no means die, he breathed out his soul most miserably even while those very oracles were being read.

[13.] That, he says, a certain Heron, hailing from Thebes in Egypt, who had reached the rank of bishop and then turned to Hellenism, was suddenly seized by a rotting disease, which, after devouring his entire body, rendered him an abomination to everyone. Being reduced to total indigence from every side, he lay in the streets, with no one from anywhere showing him any compassion; for the Christians altogether avoided him...

while the Gentiles only knew him insofar as they had led him into the fellowship of their error. And indeed, Heron perished by such a bitter and unhappy end. But also a certain Theotecnus, who had crossed over to the superstition of the Gentiles, suddenly had his whole body putrefy, and becoming a receptacle for worms, and having his eyes dug out by them, he was finally driven to madness, and having cut and eaten his own tongue, he was sent from bitter torments to much more severe punishments. Many such prodigies did God manifest at that time, exacting from those who had impudently defected from piety the punishments matching their wickedness. ^A

14. (76) B. John’s Gospel discovered in Jerusalem. — Julian, when he ordered Jerusalem to be rebuilt—with the intention of proving the predictions of our Lord concerning it to be void—brought about the exact opposite of what he was striving for. For not only did many other prodigies sent from heaven restrain the work; but also, as the foundations were being prepared, one of the stones placed in the lowest footing was moved from its position and revealed the opening of a certain cave, which had been hollowed out in the rock. But since it was difficult to see what was inside due to the depth, the overseers of the work, eager to know the truth, lowered one of the workmen tied with a long rope. ^B Being lowered, he found water standing in the cave up to his mid-shins; and having gone around everywhere and felt the walls, he realized the cave was square. Then, returning and having stood in the middle, he stumbled upon a certain pillar that protruded a little above the water. When he grasped this with his hand, he found a book placed upon it, wrapped in a very thin and pure linen cloth. ^C And when he had taken it up just as he had found it, he gave the signal for them to pull him back up. Being drawn up, he showed the book, and struck everyone with amazement, especially because it appeared new and untouched, and because it had been found in such a place. This book, which caused even greater astonishment among the Gentiles and Jews, was immediately opened, and at the very beginning it had written in large letters: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And indeed, this book contained that entire Gospel ^D which the sacred tongue of the disciple and virgin had announced. Moreover, this miracle, along with other prodigies that were shown at that time from heaven, clearly indicated that the decree of the Lord, which had predicted that the desolation of the temple would remain forever, would never fall into insignificance. For that book revealed God the creator of all things to be the one who had also prophesied these things; and it was a refutation of those who were laboring in vain concerning the building, as the divine...

and had declared that God and the Creator of the universe would judge in the matter. And it was a most certain sign that they labored in vain in building, since the immutable sentence of God had condemned the temple to perpetual destruction. The city of Jerusalem itself was formerly called Jebus, inhabited by the tribes of the Benjaminites, before King David, by the operations of Joab, had taken it. And when the army had promised him command if he should gain possession of the city, he handed it over as he had promised; and he himself, building a city in that same place, wished it to be the metropolis of the whole nation of the Hebrews.

^A 15. The Emperor Julian, relying on the oracles of the Gentiles from all sides, and trusting that he would have invincible power, undertook an expedition against the Persians. A certain old man, who had long since been discharged from service among the Persians, deceived the Apostate, who was waging war in Persia, by craft and treachery ^B. Having led the Romans into a trackless wilderness and into the greatest difficulties, in which the greater part of the army perished, he delivered the enemies over to his countrymen as if they were prey for the hunt. For the Persians rushed upon the Romans, joined by their allied Saracen horsemen who carried spears; one of whom, having hurled his spear at Julian, struck him in the thigh near the peritoneum. And when the spear-point was extracted, dung also flowed out, having followed along with the blood. A protector of the Emperor fell upon the Saracen who had struck him and cut off his head. But the Romans, having quickly placed the mortally wounded Julian upon a shield, carried him away to his tent. And to many it seemed that the deed had been done by the Romans, because the wound had been inflicted so suddenly and in a moment of time, and no one knew whence it had been inflicted. But the miserable Julian, catching the blood from his wound in his hands, cast it toward the sun, ^C crying out with a loud voice, "Be satisfied." And he called the other gods both evil and destructive. There was in his retinue a most excellent physician, Oribasius, a native of Sardis in Lydia. But the wound was above all the art of medicine, and took Julian’s life within three days; he had exercised the dignity of Caesar for five years, and the Augustan empire after the death of Constantius for two years and a half. And Philostorgius writes in this place that Julian cast the blood that he had caught into the sun, and uttered insults against his gods. Most of the historians, however, report that both of these acts were done by Julian against our Lord and true God, Jesus Christ.

FROM BOOK EIGHT OF THE HISTORY

1. The Emperor Jovian — After the death of Julian, the army ^D

^A proclaimed Jovian emperor. And he, because there was no other way to be saved—the entire army having been reduced to a tenth part—concluded a thirty-year truce with the Persians, and surrendered Nisibis itself to them, as well as those fortresses which had been placed by the Romans as a sort of rampart against the Persians up to Armenia. Moreover, Merobaudes and those with him in Cilicia carried the corpse of Julian, and not by design, but by some chance, they deposited it opposite the tomb that contained the bones of Maximin, with only a public road separating their coffins from each other.

2. Euzoius, he says, and those with him, indeed wrote a document on behalf of Aetius and his doctrine; ^B yet they did not apply themselves to ensure that the matter was brought to a conclusion. Wherefore Aetius and Eunomius, who were staying in Constantinople, administered their own affairs by themselves. And they settled other matters as seemed best to them; and, furthermore, they even appointed bishops, of whom Candidus [b] and Arrianus were set over the churches in Lydia and Ionia; and Theodulus, from Chairetapora, became bishop of Palestine. And in Constantinople (for a not inconsiderable multitude had flowed away from Eudoxius and other sects, increasing the party of Aetius and Eunomius), they ordained as the first bishop of their own church a man named Pomenius. This act, too, moved Eudoxius, who until then had been nourishing hopes of union with them, to become their confirmed opponent. And Pomenius having died after no long time, they substituted Florentius in his place. Furthermore, in Lesbos, when its bishop had died, they ordained Thallus. ^C And upon the arrival of Theophilus the Indian, at whose instance Euzoius was to be stirred up and encouraged to bring to an end what had been determined on behalf of Aetius... ^D

or, if not, that he himself would take the lead of the multitude there, ^A so far as they embraced his opinion. The care of both regions of Libya and whatever remained of the same sentiment in Egypt rested with Serra, Stephanus, and Heliodorus (89). Philostorgius knows no satiety in adorning all these men with praise, praising both the power of their words and deifying their way of life.

3. That he introduces a certain Theodosius (a) among the bishops, an ardent lover of his own heresy, and how he turned aside to the pleasures of women (90), and added other impious things to the ancient faith, saying that Christ is indeed mutable by His own nature, but by an incomparable cultivation of virtues was raised to an immutable state; and that the Divine ^B neither speaks nor hears, since otherwise hands and ears would have to be fashioned for Him; and he says other similar impious things about him.

4. That Aetius went to Lydia to install Candidus and Arrianus in the churches; but the aforementioned Theodosius, fearing that the life of those men would be a reproach to his own, became hostile to Aetius, even though he did not endure before signing the document against him (91). ^C

^A (91). Having shared his counsel with Phoebus (92) (who was himself one of the number of those who had not chosen to vote against Aetius; for long-standing intimacy made him a friend, and his similarity in an unhallowed way of life), these men, having also taken Auxidianus into their fellowship (he was a bishop, just like them), plotted against Aetius and those with Candidus. And having gathered others ^B (93) of the bishops and having convened a synod, they sent a letter by common vote to those around Eudoxius and Maris. The letter accused Aetius’ ordination as having been performed contrary to the canons (94), more especially because, after his deposition from the diaconate, the ones who had deposed him had not revoked their vote, and yet the deposed man (95) had nevertheless leaped up to a higher rank. They also disapproved of the opinions newly introduced regarding Candidus, as well as the other actions which those around Aetius had performed. Eudoxius, having received the letter gladly, did not take into account at all the oaths by which he had bound himself to Eunomius, nor the letters he had written to Euzoïus, nor the many and varied promises by which he had pledged his faith. Instead, he wrote back to those around Theodosius, urging them to carry out the deed, or rather advising them to act against the ones who had provided the ordinations rather than ^C against those who had received them.

5. That the Emperor Jovian restores the ancient state (a) to the Churches, freeing them from every harassment which the Apostate Julian had inflicted upon them. He also recalls those whom that man had sent into exile because they would not abandon piety: of this number was Valentinian, returning from the Egyptian Thebes.

VALESIAN ANNOTATIONS

(92) *Shared his counsel.* I agree with Gothofred, who emended it to Phoebus, and indicated that this Phoebus was bishop of the city of Poluchalandus in Lydia, following Epiphanius. But in what the same Gothofred adds in the Annotations—saying that this Phoebus was a friend of Aetius—he errs ^D completely. For Philostorgius says he was a friend not of Aetius, but of Theodosius, both on account of old habit and because of their similarity in life and character. This is what these words signify: "and the sameness of his unhallowed life." Gothofred twisted these words of Philostorgius into a strange sense, as can be seen in his Annotations.

(93) *Gathered others.* I have emended this place in the manuscript codices, namely the Scoriacensis and the Bochartianus, in this manner: etc. Therefore, this was a synod of nine bishops of the province of Lydia. For Theodosius, together with Phoebus and Auxidianus, had gathered six other bishops from Lydia or from the neighboring provinces.

(94) *Against the canons.* There is no doubt that Philostorgius is speaking a little later of the ordinations of Candidus and Arriani.

(95) *The deposed man.* In the codices Scoriacensis and Bochartianus, this passage is written thus: etc., though I prefer the vulgate reading, which I interpret as follows: The bishops of Lydia were accusing Aetius’ ordination, both because it was done contrary to the canons, and especially because Aetius, after the sentence of deposition was pronounced against him, before the bishops who had stripped him of the diaconate had restored him—as ought to have been done—had none the less been promoted to a higher rank. *The deposed man* has the same value as "what was necessary."

VARIORUM

(a) *The ancient state.* It understands not only the ancient ornament conferred upon the Churches, but also the provisions of grain and the immunities; all of which Julian had taken away from the Churches. See Zosimus, lib. VI, cap. 3. Concerning Valentinian, see above, lib. VIII, cap. 7, and Sozomen, lib. VI, cap. 6. Jac. Gothofred in loc.

^A 6. That, he says, Candidus and Arrianus, who were related to the emperor, arrive to him at Edessa, and stand in the way of Athanasius, who was striving to reconcile the emperor to himself. However, the emperor, having put aside for common judgment the things spoken by either side, did not for that time show any clear inclination toward either.

7. That Eudoxius writes against Candidus and Arrianus to Euzoius. He was vexed, but, having taken Elpidius with him, he wrote back to Eudoxius, partly blaming his counsel, and partly exhorting him that he should instead withdraw from such a resolution; at the same time he also gently reproached him for the excessively long delay of those things which he had long since promised to Eunomius in favor of Aetius.

8. That the Emperor Jovian, setting out for Constantinople, and having arrived at Ancyra, appoints one of his own children, Varronianus, ^B being still a very young boy, as most noble, which signifies "nobilissimus" among the Romans. Thence, as a most severe winter was setting in, he proceeds onward with the army. And many perish along the road. But he, with those who had survived, reaches Dadastana. Having lodged at a certain station and partaken of food, he lies down for sleep in a room that had recently been plastered. A fire having been lit so that warmth might be spread through the room, a certain vapor began to exhale from the newly plastered walls. This, slowly entering through the nostrils, obstructing the passages of breathing and suffocating him, destroyed the emperor, who had completed nearly ten months in the empire. And his corpse is indeed brought to Constantinople. ^C But the army, having arrived at Nicaea, after twelve days had passed, proclaims Valentinian emperor. Datianus the Patrician had suggested this plan by letters from Galatia (for he had been left behind there due to both old age and the magnitude of the winter), and the plan was assisted by Secundus the prefect and Arinthaeus the general, and Graifus, who led the domesticos. And the army, at the very moment of that proclamation, demanding that the emperor, mounted upon a shield, should take a partner into the empire, in the ^D

^A way, he signaled to them with his hand to be silent, and with calm and imperial steadiness addressed them thus: It was indeed of your own will and choice that you created me emperor from a private station; henceforth, however, to observe and determine what must be done is the duty, not of those who are subjects of the empire, but of the emperor. Having entered Constantinople, he made his brother Valens a partner in the empire; and taking him along as far as Sirmium, he set out for the West. And at Sirmium, having divided the affairs of the empire with him, as much as related to the adornment and other such service, he sent him to Constantinople, having entrusted to him the portion of the empire over which Constantius had ruled; while he himself, having taken for his own lot the other two regions towards the West, reigned over the whole of the West. Not long after, he raised his son Gratian, still a youth, to the empire and trained him in his own ^B manner.

9. *Hypatia the philosopher.* Philostorgius says that Hypatia, the daughter of Theon, was instructed in mathematical disciplines by her father, but that she became far superior to her teacher, especially in the art of observing the stars, and that she instructed many in the mathematical disciplines. Yet this impious man asserts that, during the reign of Theodosius the Younger, the woman was torn to pieces by those who professed the homousian faith.

10. *Philostorgius and his sons, physicians.* This writer reports that Philostorgius, who was the most excellent of all physicians, lived in the times of Valentinian, and that he fathered children, Philagrius and Posidonius; and he testifies that he himself saw Posidonius excelling in the medical art. Yet he says that this Posidonius thought wrongly, asserting that men do not become frantic by the impulse of demons, but that the condition is caused by an excess of certain corrupt humors; for he maintained there is no power of demons at all that vexes the human race. Magnus also flourished during the same times in Alexandria, practicing the same art.

11. *Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Apollinaris.* This impious writer, though reluctantly, admires Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian for their wisdom. He names the homeland of Gregory as Nadiandus and Nazianzus. However, he prefers Apollinaris of Laodicea to both of them in whatever pertains to ^C sacred learning. And he says that

^A even Apollinaris, he puts ahead of both. And he says that Basil was indeed more brilliant than Apollinaris in panegyrics. But he says that the speech of Gregory, if it is compared with both, had a more solid foundation for writing; and Apollinaris was indeed more abundant in his manner of speaking, but Basil was firmer.

[It is pleasing to place here another fragment of Philostorgius in Greek, which Morellius placed only in Latin in the fifth book of Nicetas, fol. 509, but which otherwise is read only fragmentarily in Greek in Suidas (under the word) and in the Photian excerpts of the eighth book. Thus, therefore, does the passage of Philostorgius exhibited by Nicetas in the Vatican codex, p. 133, stand: The most ungodly Philostorgius, in the eighth book of his history, praising this most ungodly Eunomius, says that Apollinaris had the best mastery of the commentary style of speech; but Basil was most brilliant only at the panegyric; however, for Gregory, when examined alongside both, his speech had a greater foundation for writing; and it might be said that he was more robust than Apollinaris, and more stable than Basil. Now, both Apollinaris and Basil wrote against the Apology which Eunomius had published; but Gregory (and one might take this as no small proof of his intelligence), having discerned how great the middle ground of power was between himself and that man, and having embraced stillness, only refuted certain of Eunomius' chapters in his discourse "On the Son," as a form of refutation against the Anomoeans. Eunomius, however, did not even deem Apollinaris worthy of a refutation; for he truly attacked these things weakly and disconnectedly; but he responded to Basil in five books, the initial ones of which Basil received, and he departed this life out of grief. — MAI, Spicileg. Rom., tom. IV, p. 424.]

12. The author Philostorgius says that not only Basil the Great, but also Apollinaris, wrote in response to the Apology of Eunomius; and that later Eunomius struggled against Basil in five books; and that the latter, when he had read just the first book, was struck with heavy grief and departed this life. So much does this writer value lying more than the truth. ^B

13. Concerning the same calumny. He openly and impudently slanders the aforementioned holy men, Basil and Gregory: for he says that they did not preach that the Son had become man, but that He inhabited a man, and that for this reason Apollinaris separated himself from their party. He also accuses that man, not for those things for which he was deservedly rebuked by all the pious, but asserts that he was led into some other zeal. Among other things, he also says that he denied the resurrection of bodies. ^C

14. That, he says, Apollinaris wrote against Porphyry.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (3) *More brilliant than Apollinaris.* At Suidas he adds the word "extemporize," which I do not know why Photius omitted, since the entire force of the sentence consists in it. For Philostorgius says that these three, namely Apollinaris, Basil, and Gregory, were the most eloquent of all their time. Yet that each had his own proper and peculiar character of speech. For [he says] that the style of Apollinaris was most apt for writing commentaries. That Basil, however, excelled in the genre of panegyric speaking. That the oration of Gregory was more founded, that is, as we are accustomed to say commonly, more periodic. (4) *Greater foundation for writing.* He confirms this text from the codex of Samuel Bochart, in which it is read thus [etc.]. ^D

VARIORUM. (a) *So much does this writer value lying.* Photius rightly appended this exclamation to that narrative. For Eunomius did not publish those books until after the death of Basil, as the same Photius attests, cod. 136. W. Lowth. (b) *He denied the resurrection of bodies.* Apollinaris did not deny the resurrection, but he spoke foolishly concerning the resurrection; for he said that the dead would return to the law and circumcision, rites, sacrifices, and the temple for a thousand years; as Basil attests, ep. 74; Epiphanius, heresy 77; Jerome in chapter XXXVI of Ezekiel. Concerning his peculiar heresy see Socrates, lib. II, last chapter, note a.

that which was written by Eusebius against the same Porphyry; he left behind him even the books of Methodius on the same subject.

15. He states, moreover, that he knows not whence he derived [the information] that Apollinaris was a bishop, and that Novatus originated from the race of the Phrygians.

16. Philostorgius writes that Valentinian and Valens had Cibalis as their native land.

17. ^A *Adherents of the Homoousion.* — Among those who asserted that the Son is similar in substance, he says that Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, was most celebrated, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, an Alexandrian by race, who had previously applied himself to philosophy. After them, in the course of time, were those of a later age: Eustathius, an aged man, venerable to the common people and persuasive; and indeed Basilius also, and Macedonius the bishop of Constantinople, and Eleusius the bishop of Cyzicus; with whom were Marathonius and Maximinus, presbyters of the Church in Constantinople. ^B

18. *Eunomius compared to Aetius.* — Philostorgius, when comparing Eunomius with Aetius, prefers Aetius as regards the force of his demonstrations and his ready faculty for answering every point. For it seemed as if all things lay ready, entirely joined together, on the very tip of his tongue. But as regards clarity in teaching, concinnity, and a style of discourse most suitable for those who are learning, he prefers Eunomius.

FROM BOOK NINE OF THE HISTORY

1. *Heretical wonder-workers.* — The ninth book of the history contains certain stupendous miracles of Aetius, Eunomius, and Leontius, invented by Philostorgius; likewise also of Candidus, Evagrius, Arrianus, and Florentius, but especially of Theophilus the Indian, and of certain others, whom the same fury of impiety showed to be more fervent than the rest. And when ^C Philostorgius was fabricating these things, no sense of absurdity entered his mind to restrain him.

2. *Jannes and Jambres.* — Moses, says he, after having punished Jannes and Jambres with divinely-inflicted ulcers, also handed over the mother of one of them to death.

3. *Eudoxius and Euzoius are against Eunomius.* — Valens, as Philostorgius writes, when he had returned from Illyricum to Constantinople, treated Eudoxius with special honor. And although Eudoxius could easily have fulfilled the things he had promised to Eunomius, his will, however— ^D

^A remained lacking. Yet for Euzoius, too, a similarly opportune time arrived to put into execution the things he had managed synodically at Antioch on their behalf. Each of them, however, was so far from mindful of those things, that Euzoius began to revile the very men whose champion he had taken upon himself to be, calling the followers of Aetius "heaven-climbers" ^B in church in mockery, and insulting Theophilus the Ethiopian, just as if the matter were not one concerning religion and faith, but a selection of colors and lineage. Eudoxius, for his part, cast other insults against them as well, and said this specifically in the church: "I do not call them impious, which is what they desire to hear, so that their defection might not appear to have secured a specious pretext; rather, I call them plagues."

4. Concerning how those around Aetius and Eunomius separated from those around Eudoxius and Euzoius

4. Aetius and Eunomius, breaking away completely from Eudoxius and Euzoius, left Constantinople to Florentius. Aetius, having left Constantinople, sailed away to Lesbos; and there, in a certain field near the city of Mitylene, he passed his time, greeting those who arrived with pleasant words. This field was a gift from the Emperor Julian, a monument of his disposition toward him. Eunomius crossed over to Chalcedon, and there he made his abode in a certain garden, a property of his own, lying near the sea walls; he, too, no less than Aetius, provided for those who came to him. Neither of them ^C ruled over a dedicated church, but the like-minded regarded them as common fathers and leaders. Eunomius, for his part, did not even touch upon the sacred ministry from the time he departed from Cyzicus ^D, nor indeed for as long as he lived.

^A although there was no one among the bishops of his own sect who transacted any ecclesiastical business without his judgment.

5. Procopius the tyrant. — In the third year of his reign, Valens set out on an expedition against the Persians; at which time Procopius also seized the tyranny at Constantinople. Now this Procopius was related by blood to Julian, and many thoughts were being stirred up, attributing the empire to him. And both thoughts and rumors were circulating. For this reason, when Jovian had assumed the imperial power, he fled from Mesopotamia, and after traversing many places in great hardship, wandering about with his wife and hiding himself, when he was utterly exhausted by his wanderings, he cast, as they say, the final die. Having reached Chalcedon, he hid himself in the estate of Eunomius, which was situated outside the city, at a time when the master was absent. From there, having crossed over into the city, he gained control of the empire without bloodshed. ^B Then, not long afterward, having joined battle with Valens, he was defeated through the treachery of his own generals, Gomarius and Agilo; and taking to flight, he reached Nicaea. The next day, as he was planning to depart from there, he was seized by Florentius, whom he had appointed as the commander of the garrison of that city, and the one who had seized him led him in chains to Valens. And Procopius was soon beheaded, having carried on his tyranny for the space of six months. As for Florentius, his treachery did not even serve to save his life, but the army delivered him to the fire out of an old grudge, because, while he was guarding Nicaea under Procopius, he had maltreated many of them, as they favored the cause of Valens.

6. The death of Aetius. — During the time that Procopius was still exercising his tyranny, Eunomius came to him while he was staying at Cyzicus. The purpose of the arrival of Eunomius was to obtain the release of those who were being held in chains by Procopius; for they had been cast into shackles because they adhered to the cause of Valens. The relatives of the prisoners had compelled Eunomius to undertake this embassy. He, having gone and ^C

released them, returned more quickly. ^A About the same time, the man who had been sent by Procopius to govern the island, having been accused by the locals of favoring the faction of Valens, seized Aetius for trial. A violent death would undoubtedly have followed the accusation, had not one of those who held great power in the court of Procopius arrived at that very moment and plucked Aetius from the sword. For the man who had been sent by Procopius was a kinsman of Herennianus and Gerresianus; these were brothers, who had been with Eunomius and were accused together with him. Thus, 16 with great authority, he threatened the judge who had condemned them, and rescinded the death sentence that had been passed against them, releasing them pure and innocent of the crimes charged. Aetius, having taken those 17 with him, sailed to Constantinople, where he lived with Eunomius and Florentius. Soon after, he departed from this life, with Eunomius closing his mouth and pressing his eyes shut with his fingers, and most sumptuously conducting the rest of the funeral rites with those of the same opinion.

7 That because Eudoxius was staying in Marcianopolis with Valens, the clergy of the Church of Constantinople voted that Aetius should be expelled from that city. He, having reached Chalcedon, wrote to Eudoxius concerning what had happened. Eudoxius not only was not moved by what had been written 19 but also showed that he was displeased that he had not suffered even worse things 20.

8 That they calumniated, he says, Eunomius, alleging that he had hidden in his own field Procopius, who was grasping at tyranny. And with difficulty he defended himself against the slanders and the death that hung over him from that quarter. He was, however, sent into exile to the land of Mauritania, Auxonius, the prefect of the praetorium, having imposed this punishment upon him. And while it was winter, Eunomius was being led 21

^A to Mursa, a city of Illyricum, where a certain Valens was bishop. There he was received most humanely and recalled from his exile, as Valens had approached the emperor together with Domninus, the bishop of Marcianopolis, and set forth the case of Eunomius with much affection. However, after the revocation, the emperor wished to admit him to his sight, but Eudoxius prevented this meeting by certain artifices. After this, the emperor set out for Nicæa to appoint a bishop there (for Eugenius, who presided over that city, had died), but he departed this life before he could bring this business to an end. Demophilus, meanwhile, was transferred from Berrhœa to Constantinople, the emperor confirming the synod's decision. ^B

9. Philostorgius’s parents. — Philostorgius says that at Borissus (which is a village in the territory of the Second Cappadocia), a certain priest named Anysius lived, who had four sons and one only daughter, whose name was Eulampia (24), from whom was born Philostorgius, the writer of this History. Her husband, Carterius by name, followed the sect of Eunomius. He persuaded his wife to depart from her own opinion; for she, both on her father's and mother's side, professed that the Son was consubstantial to the Father. But the woman, induced by her husband's persuasions, first drew her brothers, and then by degrees her father and her other relatives, into the same opinion.

10. Demophilus bishop at C. — Demophilus, he says, was installed at Constantinople ^C primarily by Theodore, the bishop of Heraclea. For this man seemed to have the privilege of such a priestly office above all others. But many of the crowd then present, at the installation of Demophilus, cried out not "He is worthy," but "unworthy" (d) (e).

VALESII ANNOTATIONS. (22) "Having set forth... with much affection." In the codex of Bochartus I found it written "having pointed out," but I prefer the vulgate reading. (23) "The synod's decision." I think that in writing it should be [in Greek: "confirming"], that is, approving and confirming. For that is what the word signifies, as the grammarians testify. Moreover, it is to be noted that the election of bishops, especially of patriarchal sees, was confirmed by the emperors. An illustrious example of this is in the first book of Philostorgius's History, where he treats of the election of Athanasius: he calls it "a synodical vote" because this election had been made in a synod. Certainly that patriarchs were elected and ordained in a synod of bishops is shown in the last chapter of my book, *Ecclesiastical Observations*. (24) "Whose name was Eulampia." There is no doubt that it should be written [in Greek: "of Eulampia"]. For the names of women were sometimes expressed in the neuter gender. Thus *Eustochium*, and similar instances are almost infinite.

VARIORUM. (a) To Mursa in Illyricum. That is, Pannonia, which was an Illyrian province, an illustrious city through the destruction of the tyrant Magnentius (Sozom. lib. IV, cap. 7, note a), and this Valens, bishop of Mursa and an Arian, the most bitter enemy of Athanasius; concerning whom, as many things occur passim under Constantius, this must be noted in this way: that at this same time, in the year of Christ 369, he was condemned in the West, while Damasus was holding the Roman bishopric, as may be learned from Athanasius to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth (Gothofred. in loc.). On Eugenius, bishop of Nicæa, see Soz. p. 139, n. 1. On the time of the death of Eudoxius, Socr. p. 250, n. 2. W. Lowth. Presbyteri uxorati fuere etc. That in this time, somewhere, and indeed in Cappadocia, there were married priests who had children; this is also testified by Epiphanius in the *Heresy of the Cathari* 50, n. 4 (although he himself disapproves of it), and by Jerome in his *Epistle to Demetrias*; and in his book *Against Jovinian*. Gothofred. in locum. Anysius could, however, have lost his wife by death before receiving orders, as was often the case. (d) "Instead of 'worthy'." A customary acclamation at the election of a bishop. See Eusebius, lib. VI, cap. 29, on the election of Fabian as Roman bishop. W. Lowth. (e) "Cried out 'unworthy'." Thus the soldiers, when Galba was elected emperor, cried out "not worthy." Plutarch in *Life of Galba*. W. Lowth.

^A 11. Eunomius banished to Naxos. — After Modestus had been promoted to the office of Praetorian Prefect, because he was hostile to Eunomius (as Philostorgius relates), he condemned him without a hearing, on the grounds that he was disturbing the Churches and the cities, and he banished him to the island of Naxos. ^B

12. Mazaca formerly called Caesarea. — Caesarea was formerly called Mazoca, taking that name from Mosoch, a prince of the Cappadocian race; but as time went on, through a phonetic shift, it was named Mazaca.

13. Election of a bishop for the Cyzicenes. — Ever since Eunomius had left Cyzicus, no bishop had yet been appointed in his place, as Philostorgius writes. But Demophilus, having arrived in Cyzicus along with Dorotheus and others for the purpose of ordaining a bishop, could accomplish nothing; because those who were there, having confirmed the opinion of the similarity of the Son to the Father according to the tenets of Eleusius, were steadfastly maintaining that position. But when Demophilus and those who were with him had accepted the protest of the Cyzicenes, and had condemned Aetius and Eunomius with an anathema (for this was the substance of their challenge), and had publicly proclaimed in speech and in writing that Eunomius was unlike [to the Father], and had [validated] their own faith, as well as those who accepted it...

by subjecting them to the same anathema, they finally accepted the ordination at Cyzicus, allowing no one else to be promoted to the episcopacy unless their own votes had favored him. And the one who was ordained immediately and openly proclaimed the Son to be consubstantial. 14 14. Dorotheus, bishop of Antioch. — Upon the death of Euzoius of Antioch, Dorotheus from Heraclea in Thrace was translated to his throne. Philostorgius chides both of them—Demophilus as well as Dorotheus—calling the latter most vain, and saying that Demophilus was in the habit of mixing and confounding everything, and especially church doctrines; to such an extent that once, while addressing the people at Constantinople, he said that the body of the Son, having been mingled with the divinity, had vanished into utter invisibility, in the same way as a sextarius of milk, when poured into the whole body of the sea, vanishes. Now Demophilus was born in the city of Thessalonica, of not ignoble family. He was extremely hostile to the Eunomians and afflicted them with the most grievous evils. 15 15. The Oracles about the successor of Valens. — In the times of Valens, the pagan oracles gave to those who consulted them tokens marked with certain letters. These, when put together, seemed to indicate to some Theodosius, to others Theodulus or Theodore, or someone else of that kind. For the characters of the letters went as far as the delta, with the demons—as is their habit—giving ambiguous responses, to the ruin of those who believed them and to the evasion of any evil outcome. Whence also a certain Theodore, led astray by this deceit, and having begun an attempt at tyranny, was quickly destroyed along with his followers; with whom Valens also put to death many innocent people, because their names began with those letters. 16 16. Valentinian the Elder dies; the Junior succeeds him. — The Emperor Valentinian dies, having reigned twelve years, and leaves his son Gratian as heir to the empire. He also left two other children, namely his daughter Galla, and Valentinian the Junior, having been born [only] four years, whom his mother...

Justina, along with the army that was in Pannonia, created emperor. Gratian, however, when he learned of this nomination, did not approve of it, because it had been done without his consent. And he even punished some of those who had dared to attempt it. Nevertheless, he did not refuse to have his brother as a partner in the empire, and he fulfilled towards him the role of a father.

17. ^B The Scythians who are situated beyond the Ister, having been attacked in war by the Huns and expelled from their own lands, crossed over into Roman territory under the guise of friendship. Now the Huns appear to be the same people whom the ancients called the Neuri, situated near the Ripaean mountains, from which the river Tanais originates and pours its waters into the Maeotic lake. The Scythians, however, having migrated, after having at first been moderate toward the Romans, turned to brigandage; then they also chose a war without declaration. Valens, having learned of these things, departed from Antioch. And having arrived at Constantinople, he marched into Thrace. And having engaged in battle with the barbarians, and having lost many of his own men, he fled with all speed. And having been seized by every kind of helplessness and difficulty, he hid himself with the few who were following him in one of the rural dwellings used for storing hay. But the barbarians, while pursuing, as they set fire to everything else they encountered, did likewise to that dwelling, having no suspicion whatsoever of the emperor. And so Valens was destroyed in this manner, along with the loss of a most numerous and strong part of the Roman empire; but the barbarians, with Fritigern as their leader, devastated all of Thrace thereafter without any fear. Gratian, for his part, mourned his uncle and lamented the disaster of the Romans; but having appointed Theodosius as emperor, he sent him to rule the empire of his uncle. This Theodosius ^C had as his homeland the Spains, which they now call Iberia, because the river Iberus, which flows through them, has overcome the former name.

18. That, upon the death of Theodulus of Chaeretapa (for this man was bishop of Palestine), those around Eunomius ordained Carterius in his place. And when he had quickly departed this life, they replaced him with John; and along with this John, Eunomius himself and Arrianus and Euphronius, having left Constantinople, arrived in the East, so that there they might… ^D [alt-version omitted]

bring them there, and to have Theophilus the Indian at Antioch, and to establish the state of the rest of the East. ^A

19. Theodosius, having conquered the barbarians, restores the Homousians. — Emperor Theodosius engaged the barbarians near the city of Sirmium: for as soon as he had received the empire, public utility demanding it, he had set out there; and having conquered them in battle, he proceeded thence in splendor to Constantinople. He entrusted the care of the churches to those who held the Homousian faith, and expelled the Arians and Eunomians from the city. Among their number was also Demophilus, who, having been expelled, betook himself to his own city, Beroea. Hypatius, too, having been driven from Nicaea, arrived at Cyrus in Syria, whence he originated. But Dorotheus also, having been expelled from Antioch, took hold of Thrace, from whence he had sprung. And others were scattered in other places. ^B

FROM THE TENTH BOOK OF THE HISTORY.

1. The embassy of the clergy of Antioch to Eunomius. — Dorotheus indeed, as was stated above, was expelled from Antioch; but the presbyters of the same city, Asterius and Crispin, and the rest of the clergy, having gathered a council, at which some bishops from the neighboring cities were also present, sent to Eunomius and those who were with him, seeking their communion. They, however, responded by letter that they would not receive them on any other condition than that they should rescind the sentence of condemnation brought long ago against Aetius and his writings; but they also required an amendment of their life, for they were contaminated by certain acts that were not pure. At that time, they did not accept the condition offered; but later they went so far that they denounced Eunomius and those who were with him in the church, calling them vain babblers ^C and full of desperation and madness, because they had dared to propose such a condition to them.

2. The dogmas of Arius. — Philostorgius accuses Arius, the ringleader of their impiety, as one who says that the God of all things is composite and of many parts. For he says that Arius asserted that He is not to be comprehended as much as God is, but as much as each person's power is strengthened for comprehension; and that he also held that God is neither essence, nor hypostasis, nor anything else of those things which are named; and that he held the same opinions as the synod of Ariminum and that of Constantinople, which [holds] the generation of the Only-Begotten ^D

to be most unknown to all, attributing the knowledge of this generation to Him alone who begat Him. This is, moreover, the very synod that condemned Aetius. ^A

3. *The sect of the Arians.* The Arians divided the likeness of the Only-Begotten to the Father into many heresies. For some posited it in the fact that each has foreknowledge of future things; others in the fact that each is by nature God; others indeed in the fact that each is able to create from nothing. But these things, says Philostorgius, even if they seem to differ among themselves, end in one and the same conclusion, namely, that they preach the Son as consubstantial with the Father. He says that these persons, after having been split into various opinions, also descended into much other indecency and baseness, inasmuch as they bought and sold priesthoods for money, and pursued flagitious bodily pleasures. ^B

4. *The baptism of the Eunomians.* The followers of Eunomius, as Philostorgius writes, so greatly abhorred the aforementioned heresies that they admitted neither their baptism nor their ordination. The Eunomians, however, baptized not by a triple immersion, but by a single one, baptizing in the death of the Lord, as they said; which he endured only once for us, and not twice or thrice. ^C

5. *The murder of Gratian.* The emperor Theodosius adorned his son Arcadius, while still a mere boy, with the imperial dignity. And not long after, the emperor Gratian was destroyed in Gaul by the treachery of the tyrant Maximus. Moreover, Philostorgius fabricates many calumnies against Gratian, insomuch that he compares him to Nero. For the doctrine of the right faith, which Gratian professed, did not—as it seems—please Philostorgius. ^D

6. *Eunomius relegated to various places.* The emperor Theodosius, having discovered that some of his chamberlains followed the doctrine of Eunomius, cast them out of the palace. But as for Eunomius himself, he immediately caused him to be seized from the city of Chalcedon and sent into exile to Halmyris.

^B Now Halmyris is a place in Moesia, situated on the Danube. But Halmyris, when the Danube was frozen over, was captured by the barbarians who crossed it; Eunomius, however, was sent from there into exile to Caesarea in Cappadocia. He was hateful to the people there because he had once composed works against Basil, the bishop of that place. From there he was permitted to live on his own estates; the name of the fields was Dacoreni. Philostorgius writes that he saw Eunomius in Constantinople—he [Philostorgius] was twenty years old at the time—and he treats Eunomius with divine veneration, declaring his intelligence and virtue to be incomparable. He also describes the appearance of his face and the rest of his bodily limbs as being full of grace and charm, and he compares the words that flowed from his mouth to pearls; even though a little later he admits, however reluctantly, that he had a stutter. Nor is he ashamed to exalt this stuttering as a matter of great charm and elegance. In addition to this, he asserts that the vitiligo, which had marked his face with what were like spots and scars, had added a certain ornament to his body. Furthermore, even though he lauds all his books with divine praises, he affirms that his letters far surpass his other works.

7. ^C That, Galla having died, the Emperor Theodosius took as his wife Galla, the sister of Valentinian the Younger, but the daughter of the Great Valentinian and Justina Augusta. Now this Justina followed the Arian heresy. From Galla, Theodosius had a daughter, named Placidia.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ^D ... [regarding indices and the text of the annotations:] ... [index: entries preserved]

Valentinian at Thessalonica, set out against the tyrant Maximus. For the tyrant, having seized the authority of Gratian, intended also to annex that of Valentinian. The emperors therefore sent against the tyrant the commanders Timasius and Richomeres, along with Promotus and Arbogastes. These, having fallen upon him suddenly, threw him from his throne, stripped him of the imperial insignia, and brought him in private attire before the emperors; there Maximus was beheaded, having exercised tyranny for five years in all.

9. A NEW STAR.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (54) *Suddenly.* In the manuscripts it is written *suddenly*. Furthermore, the passage seems to require correction... (57) *Two-edged sword.* I had formerly conjectured that it should be written *two-edged*. But having since obtained the manuscript of Bochart, I found it written there just as I had conjectured. It is, however, a two-edged sword, that is, sharpened on both sides, as Suidas explains under the entry... (58) *Theodor.*...

VARIORUM (a) *The return to Rome.* Concerning this arrival of Theodosius into the city of Rome, see Socrates, lib. v, cap. 14; Sozomen, lib. vii, cap. 14. Concerning the new star, Philostorgius, infra, cap. 11, and lib. ii, cap. 7. This is referred to the consulship of Timasius and Promotus (which was the year of Christ 389) by Marcellinus in the *Chronicon*, the *Fasti Idaciani*, and the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*. Gothofred. W. Lowth.

^A pursuing its own course; yet it had the same general rotation as the other stars near which it moved. But when it had completed its own course in the space of forty days, it cast itself into the middle of the Great Bear, and appearing there in its very center, it was extinguished. Philostorgius writes not only this, but many other wonderful things concerning this sword-shaped star.

10. That this author also says he wrote against Porphyry in defense of the Christians.

11. Prodigious men. — At the same time that this sword-bearing star appeared, two human bodies were also seen: one in Syria, greatly exceeding the stature of human nature; the other in Egypt, ending in unbelievable shortness. The Syrian was five cubits in height, with a span added, although his feet did not correspond to the rest of the height of his body, but turned inward and were somewhat deformed ^B; the man's name was Antonius. The Egyptian, however, was so shrunken in size that he could imitate partridges kept in cages, and they would even contend with him in play. But what is more wonderful is that wisdom was present in the man, not in the least diminished by the shortness of his body; for his voice was not uncouth, and his words sufficiently declared the power of understanding which he possessed. Both of these men lived in the time of Philostorgius, and neither departed from this life quickly. For the tall one departed this life after his twenty-fifth year, and the smallest one was not much behind that span of time. Philostorgius records many other prodigies in this place, which either occurred at the same times as the prodigies mentioned above or in an earlier memory.

12. The faster Eudoxius. — Philostorgius says that the fast of the fourth and sixth day ^C is not established solely in the abstinence from meats, but that it is also the rule that nothing at all should be taken for food until evening. For he writes as follows concerning a certain Eudoxius, a follower of the same heresy, who was a presbyter by rank, but deprived of his genitals: "He was so diligent in fasting, that throughout his whole life, not only on those days which by commandment keep the memory of the Lord's passion ^D..."

FROM THE ELEVENTH BOOK OF THE HISTORY

^A ...and to make use of bears and lions. Being in the twentieth year of his life, he was deprived at once of life, of his empire, and of his amusements with wild beasts. He was also beyond measure intemperate in his anger, and this, above all, was the cause of his death. For once, as he was conversing in the palace with Arbogastes, he was goaded to anger by his words and rushed to draw his sword against the master of the soldiers; but he was prevented—for the bodyguard, whose sword he had attempted to draw, restrained him—and he then attempted in words to remove Arbogastes from that suspicion. But the latter, from the prince's remarks, detected his intention all the more accurately and brought it into the clear light of day. For when he asked the cause of such an outburst, Valentinian replied that he intended to lay hands upon himself, because, though he was emperor, he was permitted to do nothing that he desired. ^B Arbogastes, for that time, made no further curious inquiry. But later, at Vienne in Gaul, having seen the emperor after he had dined, in the meridian hour, in a deserted part of the palace, sporting in the river with certain buffoons, he sent some of his satellites against him. These, with the strength of their hands and their natural ferocity, strangled the wretched man, as none of the emperor’s own attendants were present. For at that time, they had all gone off to their meal. But in order that no one might immediately inquire after the authors of the murder, those who had strangled him fastened his own scarf about his neck in the manner of a noose and suspended him, so that it might appear that he had broken his own throat by his own design.

2. ^C Arbogastes, having slain Valentinian, since his birth excluded him from the empire (for his father was a barbarian), appointed a certain Eugenius, who was a master in rank and a pagan in religion, as emperor of the Romans. When Theodosius learned of these things, he entrusted the imperial crown to one of his children, Honorius; and throughout the entire winter...

he prepared all that was necessary for war. When spring approached, he set out on an expedition against the tyrant. Having reached the Alps, he took them by treachery. An engagement with the tyrant then took place along the river (which they call the Frigidus), and a bitter battle having ensued, with great slaughter on both sides, the victory nevertheless turned away from the tyrant and acknowledged the legitimate emperor. ^A Thus the tyrant was captured and beheaded. Arbogastes, however, despairing and having lost all hope, fell upon his own sword and took his own life. After these things, the emperor arrived at Milan, summoned his son Honorius, and entrusted the entire West to him. After this victory over the tyrant, Theodosius was seized by the disease of dropsy and ended his life, having reigned for sixteen years. Throughout the time he ruled, he reached the highest pinnacle of human happiness. For he was illustrious for his victories, and holding the monarchy of the entire Roman Empire, and seeing himself the father of two emperors, and leaving the empire firm and free from sedition for them, he departed this life in his own bed by a most fortunate death; receiving this reward, as it seems to me, for the zeal with which he burned against the worship of idols. While the impious Philostorgius says these things about the most pious Theodosius, he is not ashamed to ridicule him for intemperance of life and immoderate indulgence, for which he writes that he was condemned and brought to the disease of dropsy. ^B

3. Arcadius and Honorius, Emperors. Rufinus and Stilicho.

was striving to claim the empire. But the soldiers who had returned from Rome, ^A having marched with Theodosius against the tyrant, cut down Rufinus with their swords at the place called the tribunal, at the very feet of the emperor; this they did partly because they had received orders from Stilicho to do so, and partly because they had discovered that they were being mocked by Rufinus. And on that very day the thread of his life was snapped, on which the astrologers had all but invested him with the purple.

Rufinus, he says, was tall of stature and virile; and the movements of his eyes, as well as his readiness of speech, manifested his keenness of mind. Arcadius, on the other hand, was short in stature, slender in build, weak in strength, and dark in complexion; the sluggishness of his soul was announced both by his words and the nature of his eyes, which appeared heavy and drawn down in a sleepy and listless manner. ^B These things deceived Rufinus, leading him to think that the army, at first sight, would gladly choose him as emperor and would cast off Arcadius.

The soldiers, however, having severed the head of Rufinus, placed a stone in his mouth and, fixing it upon a spear, ran about everywhere; bearing also his right hand, which they had cut off, they carried it around through the individual workshops of the city, saying: “Give to the insatiable one.” And by such a request they collected much gold; for as if at a delightful spectacle, those who saw it willingly bestowed gold. Thus did the love of the empire cut short the life of Rufinus. And Stilicho too, as this author says, for having plotted against Honorius, he himself and his fellow conspirators were executed ^C by the army upon receiving the order from the emperor.

4. Eutropius the eunuch. After Rufinus, Eutropius, a eunuch of servile origin, wormed his way into the palace and, having attained the rank of praepositus, was not content with his present fortune. But because the amputation of his genitals excluded him from the empire, he persuaded the emperor to proclaim him Patrician and consul. And thus the eunuch, who could not even beget a common child, was thenceforth the father of the emperor.

^A 5. Eutropius, as Philostorgius relates, instructed Caesarius—who, after Rufinus, was administering the office of praetorian prefect—to transfer Eunomius from the Dacoroenian estate to Tyana, to be kept under guard by the monks there. For, envying Eunomius his reputation, he would not even permit his corpse to receive burial in the common sepulcher with his master, although many had entreated him much. He even ordered his books to be destroyed by public decree.

6. The Emperor Arcadius, after his father’s death, took to wife the daughter of Bauto. This Bauto was a barbarian by race, but had distinguished himself by his generalship in the western regions. The woman was far removed from her husband’s sluggishness and apathy, for there was not a little of barbarian boldness in her. Arcadius had already begotten by her two daughters, Pulcheria and Arcadia; later, he also had Marina, and a son, Theodosius. ^B Now, being the mother of only two children at that time, and having been insulted by Eutropius—for Eutropius had even threatened to eject her from the palace before long—she approached her husband just as she was, holding her children in her arms, and while wailing and holding out the infants, she shed floods of tears and did all else that an angry woman is wont to do with feminine art, by which husbands are more vehemently stirred to pity. Arcadius was moved both by pity for his children, who were crying in natural impulse along with their mother, and by anger; and then at last, with anger inflaming him and supplying vigor to his words, the Emperor Arcadius showed himself. ^C He immediately stripped Eutropius of all his dignity, seized his wealth, and banished him to the island of Cyprus. Not long after, when some had brought an accusation against him that, when he had been made consul, he had used as ornaments those things which no one but the emperor was permitted to use, he was summoned back from Cyprus. And a council having been held at what is called the Pantichium, ^D [the rest of the text on this page consists of scholarly marginal glosses, which are excluded from this translation].

the crime of which he was accused and suffered capital punishment. And Philostorgius indeed writes this regarding Eutropius. Others, however, recount different causes for why Eutropius was stripped of his rank, exiled, and finally punished with death.

7. Public calamities. He says that even in the times that occurred during my own age such a destruction of men happened as no age from the beginning of time had ever known; ^B and that this, therefore, was also signified by the star [resembling] a sword. For not only were the military forces consumed, as in former wars of the past, nor did the calamities cease in any one part of the world; but humans of every condition perished, and all of Europe was utterly destroyed, and no small portion of Asia was destroyed along with it. But also much of Libya, and especially as much of it as was subject to the Romans. For the barbarian sword caused a great multitude of the destruction; but famine and pestilence, and herds of wild beasts, set upon them all at once. Violent earthquakes also, overturning cities and houses from their very foundations, cast them into inescapable destruction. And chasms of the earth, breaking open in some places for the inhabitants, were a spontaneous tomb; there were also inundations of water from the air, and in other places, scorching droughts, and whirlwinds of fire sent from heaven, which made the disaster varied and unbearable. And indeed, hail larger than a stone that could be gripped in the hand fell in many places; for it was seen to have descended with a weight, as they say, of eight pounds. A quantity of snow and extremes of cold, seizing those whom another calamity had not snatched away, deprived them of life, clearly announcing the indignation of God. But to recount these things one by one ^C would seem to be beyond all human power.

8. The movement of the barbarians. Tribigild. Gainas. Fravitta. The Huns—he says—some of whom had first conquered and devastated Scythia which is on the hither side of the Ister, afterwards crossed the river frozen with ice and rushed suddenly into the Roman domain; and having spread through all of Thrace, they plundered the whole of Europe. But the eastern Huns, having crossed the river Tanais, and having flowed into the east, rushed through great Armenia into the region which is called Melitine. From there they attacked the Euphratensis and drove as far as Coelesyria, and having overrun Cilicia, [they inflicted] an incredible slaughter of men.

Not only they, but also the Maxices and Auxoriani (who dwell between Libya and the Afers) laid waste to Libya on their eastern flank, and at the same time destroyed no small part of Egypt; and having fallen upon the Afers on their western flank, they inflicted a similar disaster. ^A Besides all these barbarians, Tribigild—a man of the Scythian race, from those who are now called Goths, for there are very many and diverse tribes of these Scythians—having gathered a barbarian force around him and residing at Nacolia in Phrygia, invested with the rank of count, suddenly turned from a friend into an enemy of the Romans. Beginning from that very place, Nacolia, he seized most of the cities of Phrygia and committed a great slaughter of men. Gaina the general was sent against him, who was himself also a barbarian by race; he betrayed the victory, as he himself was plotting similar things against the Romans. ^B Thereafter Tribigild, as if fleeing from Gaina, invaded Pisidia and Pamphylia and laid them waste; then, after being worn down by various difficulties of the terrain and by Isaurian battles, he finally escaped to the Hellespont. And having crossed into Thrace, not long after he was destroyed. But Gaina, after his betrayal, returned to Constantinople in the guise of a general and attempted to seize it. However, a certain heavenly, armed force appeared, and having terrified those who had set out to execute the deed, it delivered the city from the danger of being taken; those who were caught, it surrendered to human justice, and much of their blood was shed. Gaina was struck with such terror that, ^C as soon as the night came on, he forced his way past the guards of the gates with as many men as he could gather and fled from the city. Since Thrace had been completely laid waste and was no longer able to provide any of the necessities nor to endure further pillaging, Gaina headed for the Chersonese, intending to cross over to Asia on rafts. When his plan became known to the emperor, the general Fravita was sent against him, a Goth by race, but a Hellene in his convictions, yet faithful to the Romans and most skilled in military matters. This man, while Gaina was transporting the army under him across to the opposite side on rafts, attacked them with armed ships and with little effort destroyed all who were being carried on the rafts. ^D Whereupon Gaina, seeing that no hope was left for him, fled into the upper regions of Thrace, and some Huns, not long after this had transpired, came upon him and slew him; and his head, preserved in salt, was brought to Constantinople. Beyond the aforementioned evils, the race of the Isaurians also brought various disasters upon the Romans. For towards the sunrise they ravaged Cilicia and the neighboring Syria, not only the Coele [Syria], but also the rest [of the land], reaching as far as the Persians themselves.

Toward the Iapygian and Thrascian winds, they invaded Pamphylia and devastated the Lycians. Having laid waste to the island of Cyprus, they also led the Lycaonians and Pisidians into captivity. And when they had driven the Cappadocians from their homes and taken them as captives, they proceeded as far as the Pontus, and behaved more cruelly toward the captives than the other barbarians. ^A

FROM THE TWELFTH BOOK OF THE HISTORY.

1. *Of the murder of Stilicho.* Philostorgius, while inveighing against Stilicho in many other places, writes that he was also guilty of aiming at tyranny. He relates, moreover, how a certain Olympius, a master, snatched with his hand the sword that was drawn against the emperor in the palace, and though he wounded himself, he saved the emperor, and became his accomplice in the killing of Stilicho, who was then staying at Ravenna. Others say that this was not Olympius, but Olympiodorus; and they claim that he did not bring aid to the emperor, but instead laid snares for Stilicho, his benefactor, and falsely accused him ^B of aiming at tyranny. They write also that he was not a master at that time, but received that rank later, after the unjust murder of Stilicho, as a reward. Yet they add that he himself, not long after, was beaten to death with clubs, paying the penalty to Stilicho for his nefarious murder.

2. *Alaric invades the Roman world.* That at the times aforesaid, Alaric, by race a Goth, having gathered an army about the upper regions of Thrace, invaded Achaia and captured Athens; he also plundered the Macedonians and the neighboring Dalmatians. (95) Furthermore, he invaded Illyricum and crossed the Alps to enter Italy; and he was summoned by Stilicho, who ^C was then still alive, as Philostorgius says. He claims that he opened to him the passes of the Alps. For he alleges that Stilicho had plotted every kind of treachery against the emperor, and did not feel any shame even that he had him as his son-in-law, having given him his daughter in marriage; but that he had mixed for him a poison of anguish. Yet he failed to realize, that while he was zealous to proclaim his son Eucherius ^D [as emperor]—

^A he was rooting out and destroying the grandson ^A to whom the empire was due by right of succession and law, even before the flower of his youth. Furthermore, he writes that Stilicho had exercised tyranny so openly and without any fear, that he had even minted coins, in which nothing was lacking except his own image.

5. *Barbarians seek Romans. Of Alaric. Attalus. The death of Alaric.* After Stilicho was killed, the barbarians who were with him took his son and immediately departed. And when they approached Rome, they permitted him to flee to a certain temple ^B which enjoyed the right of asylum. But they ravaged all things that were around the city, partly to avenge Stilicho, and partly because they were pressed by hunger. But when letters were sent by Honorius—which were more powerful than the right of asylum—the barbarians put Eucherius to death; for these reasons they joined Alaric, and incited him to the war against the Romans. He, indeed, quickly takes possession of the Port ^B; this is the greatest naval base of the city of Rome, consisting of three harbors, and extending to the size of a small city. In this, all the public grain was stored according to ancient custom. Having taken the Port with little effort, and having besieged Rome by scarcity of food, or by other siege engines, he takes the city by force; and upon the Romans voting—for this Alaric had granted to them—he proclaims Attalus as their emperor. He was of Ionian [Greek] descent, a pagan in religion, but in dignity, prefect of the city of Rome. After the proclamation of the emperor Attalus, Alaric permitted the remaining Roman people, namely those whom famine and the eating of human bodies had left [alive], to convey provisions for themselves from the Port. Then, taking Attalus, and performing for him the duty of *magister militum*, he marches against Honorius toward Ravenna. And Attalus commands Honorius to choose a private life, and to purchase the safety of his whole body by the amputation of its extremities. Sarus, however, who after Stilicho held the military command delegated by Honorius, engages with Alaric, wins the battle, and drives him from Ravenna. But he, having taken the Port ^C, […].

^A, stripped Attalus of the empire; whether because he had been accused of having a malevolent mind toward Alaric, or, as others say, because Alaric had it in mind to enter into a treaty with Honorius and thought he must first remove from the middle the one who appeared to be an obstacle. After this, Alaric, having returned to Ravenna and offering terms, was rebuffed by the aforementioned Sarus, who affirmed that he who had owed legal penalties for his audacity was not worthy to be numbered among friends. Enraged by this, Alaric, a year after his first incursion into the port ^B of the city of Rome, marched toward Rome just as an enemy with hostile standards. From then on, external fire, a hostile sword, and barbarian captivity divided among themselves, as if by lot, the magnitude of such glory and the fame of such power. While the city of Rome lay in ruins, Alaric plundered Campania, and there, seized by disease, he died.

4. Adaulfus succeeds Alaric. — Moreover, his brother-in-law Adaulfus succeeded him. He took as his wife Placidia, the sister of Honorius, whom Alaric had led away with him as a captive from the city of Rome; he repudiated his former wife, who was sprung from the race of the Sarmatians. And then at last to the earthen race ^C [the rest is missing here]…

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

…that one must understand the port of the city of Rome, not the port of Ravenna. For Alaric, after Attalus had been stripped of the empire, is said to have come to Ravenna: which indeed even Sozomen and Zosimus confirm. Certainly, Sozomen writes clearly that Alaric occupied the port of Ravenna, which is called Classis, after the deposition of Attalus (a).

(72) He was planning a treaty. Gothofredus is mistaken here, who received these words of Philostorgius about Attalus, since they are to be understood about Alaric. For Alaric, when he had it in mind to enter into peace with the Emperor Honorius, decided that Attalus, who seemed ready to offer an impediment to this plan, must be removed from the middle. Nor was Honorius ever going to enter into peace with Alaric, unless Attalus was first deposed.

(73) Not worthy. In the manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart, the same has been written in the margin in the same hand; I read "not worthy," or "not worthy." The former correction pleased Lucas Holstenius. For he placed it at the side of his codex. The latter, however, [is] more proper.

(74) He marches as an enemy. In the manuscript codex of Bochart it is written "he marches as an enemy." It is perhaps to be written "as an enemy." Nor do I doubt that Philostorgius left it written thus.

(75) His wife's brother. In the manuscript codex of Jacobus Gothofredus, nine lines were missing, as Gothofredus himself testifies. Lucas Holstenius, however, noted in the margin of his codex that there was a lacuna here in the manuscript Scorialensis codex. However, from the words which immediately follow, it is sufficiently apparent that many things are missed here. Certainly in the manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart, a blank space was left here of nine lines, just as in the codex of Gothofredus. We have attempted to supply that lacuna from conjecture: about which I would like the learned to judge.

(76) Of the barbarian race of the Sarmatians. I judge that this ought to be understood concerning the former wife of Adaulfus, whom Adaulfus repudiated in order to take Placidia as his wife. The reason for the repudiation, however, is brought forward here by Philostorgius, that she was sprung from the barbarian race of the Sarmatians. Furthermore, Adaulfus had begotten children from this former spouse, whom Sigerichus, afterwards elevated to the kingdom of the Goths, cruelly killed, as Olympiodorus narrates. I will not conceal, however, that in the manuscript copy of Bochart it is written... ^D. Which reading, if we follow it, these things will not be understood concerning the wife of Adaulfus, but concerning Adaulfus himself and the Goths, whom Philostorgius writes were Sarmatians by origin.

(77) And to be yoked then to the earthen race. Philostorgius alludes to that dream of King Nebuchadnezzar, which is reported in the second chapter of Daniel, where the feet of that statue which Nebuchadnezzar had seen in his dream are said to have been forged partly of clay, partly of iron. Philostorgius therefore says that this prophecy was completed twice in the times of Honorius. And truly the first time, when it was completed, had been related in the upper lacuna. But he adds that it was completed for the second time, then when Adaulfus, king of the Goths, joined Placidia, the sister of Honorius, to himself in marriage. Now, therefore, it must be divined by us when Philostorgius wrote that this prophecy of Daniel was first completed. Formerly indeed I had conjectured that Philostorgius supposed this prophecy was first completed, then when Adaul-

VARIORUM. (a) Pagi, at the year of Christ 410, n. 4, 5, agrees with Gothofredus. The same place which is called Classis in Sozomen, p. 573, as Cluverius happily corrected the place, Ital. Antiq. lib. 1, c. 28, where it is commonly read "the Alps," with no sense. Classis is, of course, a town situated in the port of Ravenna. In the same place of Sozomen, for [sixty] it reads [thirteen] stades. W. Lowth.

^A and not only that, but also when again Adaulfus, nourishing hopes that he himself, having conquered ^B Adaulfus, might marry Placidia. Not much time passed, and after staging many dramatic acts, Adaulfus was slain by one of his own household out of anger. Following this, the barbarians made a treaty with Honorius, and they themselves handed over his own sister and Attalus to the emperor, having been welcomed with provisions and having received a portion of the land of the Gauls for cultivation.

5. Rome restored. After these events, Rome, recovering a little from its most grievous evils, began to be frequented by inhabitants. And when the emperor had arrived there, he approved the restoration of the city both by hand and by tongue. And when he had ascended the tribunal, he ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ...betrothed Placidia to himself as wife. But now, having examined the matter more attentively, this conjecture does not please: for since betrothals and nuptials refer to one and the same thing, they cannot be accepted as two different fulfillments of one prophecy. It is necessary, therefore, to seek another. I think, therefore, that Philostorgius wrote in that former lacuna that the prophecy of Daniel was first fulfilled at the time when Adaulfus, king of the Goths, made peace with Honorius, and leaving Italy, returned to the Gauls. Which indeed, Sigonius in book XI of *De imperio occidentali* thinks happened in the year of Christ 412.

(78) *With Placidia he consorted.* It seems one should write *consorted* [synēpeto]. In the manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart it is written in the margin, "perhaps *consorted*." But in the text it is written *he followed* [synēpeto]. Moreover, writers disagree regarding the nuptials of Placidia and Adaulfus. Sigonius indeed writes that Adaulfus, when he had been created king of the Goths in place of Alaric, before all else betrothed Placidia to himself in the year of Christ 411; then, at the end of the same year, he celebrated nuptials with Placidia at the city of Forum Cornelii in Aemilia. In which he follows the opinion of Jordanes, who writes the same in *Getica*. But Olympiodorus in the eleventh book of his *History*, and Idatius in his *Chronicle*, report that these nuptials were celebrated at Narbonne in Gaul in the year of Christ 412. At which time Idatius says the other prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled, by which it was predicted that the daughter of the king of the South would be joined to the king of the North.

(79) *The testaceous nature.* Gothofredus noted in his codex that two lines are missing. But in our copies, namely the Scoriacensis and the Bochartianus, about eight or nine lines are missing; which indeed I think can be thus conveniently supplied... If not the same words, at least this was the sense of Philostorgius, which translated into Latin sounds thus: For Philostorgius says the "earthenware" is the Roman Empire, but the "iron" is the nation of the Goths. After these events, when Adaulfus had violated the peace which he had made with the Romans, Constantius, master of the soldiers, was sent against him with an army: secretly harboring this hope in his mind, etc. From these things it is clear how much Gothofredus was mistaken, who a little before for *testaceous* [ostrakinō] amended [it] to *Ostrogothic* [ostrogothinō]. Than which amendment nothing more inept can be imagined, since that "earthenware," as we saw above, does not designate the Goths, but rather the Romans, ^D because they were at that time unwarlike and weak. Add that it cannot be said in Greek; it should have been said [in another way].

(80-90) *Against the enemy Adaulfus.* I have emended this passage from the Scoriacensis manuscript codex, which explicitly has written *having conquered*. In the manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart it is read in the margin written by the same hand, I read *against the enemy*.

(91) *By hand and by tongue.* One may rightly ask what Philostorgius means: that Honorius the emperor entered Rome and approved the restoration of the city by hand and by tongue? Does he understand by "hand" a sign given by Honorius with outstretched hand, or does he rather understand the constitution of Honorius, subscribed by his hand, by which he urged Roman citizens to restore the city's walls?

(92) *The first step to him.* Holstenius noted in his codex that for *he ascended* [anebās] it should perhaps be written [another way]. And he restored the corrupted [passage] in this way: "About to ascend the tribunal," instead of "first step," he supposed "to be ascended" [to Attalum—or, 'to ascend to Attalus']. I, however, think the article *the* [ho] should be expunged, as superfluous. That also in the Holstenius version can be faulted—that he interpreted the verb *ascending* [anebās] as "about to ascend the tribunal," when nevertheless the Greek word...

VARIORUM. (a) *Rome is re-inhabited.* Thus also Olympiodorus: After Rome was captured by the Goths, Albinus, the prefect of the city, because it was already returning to its former state, wrote that the portion of the public grain (which was distributed individually to the Roman people) provided for the people did not suffice, the city's multitude having now increased, and that the count of citizens was set in one day at fourteen thousand. Albinus, however, was prefect of the city in this year (414), as is clear from the last law of the Theodosian Code. *On Shipmasters*, by which Honorius took counsel for the grain supply of the city of Rome, and that on the occasion of his Vicennalia. Prosper in his *Chronicle* reports the punishment and exile of Attalus to the year of Christ 418, which for us is 416.

^A [he ordered] him to cross, and he ordered him to pass to the first step of it. After this, he cut off the two fingers of his right hand, of which one is called the thumb, and the other the index; and he banished him to the island of Lipara, without inflicting any other punishment upon him, nay, even providing him with all things necessary for life.

6. Jovian, Sebastianus, Heraclianus, tyrants.—During the same time Jovian rebelled against the emperor, and was shortly suppressed. Sebastianus also, his brother, having coveted the same things, paid the same penalty. But Heraclianus, having imitated these men, and having embarked upon a greater mockery of fortune, obtained a more illustrious end, for divine Providence— ^{B C} [the missing text pertains to the aforementioned tyrants] ^D

^A openly proclaims that it leaves nothing in disorder, nor does it delight in tyrants; but that it also lends its aid to those who defend a legitimate emperor.

7. Theodosius the Younger and Pulcheria. — Upon the death of Arcadius, his son Theodosius, while still a mere child, is declared successor to the eastern empire. His sister Pulcheria lived with him in the palace, administering and directing the imperial decrees.

8. The sun is eclipsed. Drought. — When Theodosius had already entered upon the years of adolescence, on the nineteenth day of the month of July, about the eighth hour of the day, the sun was eclipsed to such a degree that stars were even seen, and such a drought followed this eclipse of the sun that an unusual mortality of many men and of other animals spread everywhere throughout the world. Furthermore, at the time when the sun was eclipsed, a certain brightness appeared in the heaven, bearing the likeness of a cone, which some, through ignorance, called a comet. For in the things which that brightness showed to us, there was nothing similar to a comet; for that light neither ended in a mane, nor did it present the appearance of a star at all; but it seemed to be the huge flame of some lamp ^B subsisting by itself, with no star underneath providing the likeness of a wick. Moreover, its motion was far different from the motion of comets; for, having moved from where the sun rises at the equinox, it passed over the last star placed toward the tail of the Bear slowly VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

I affirm that this passage is to be understood as referring to justice and providence, as may be manifestly gathered from what follows. Therefore, after the word, one must add entirely, or rather. In the manuscript codex of Samuel Bochart, it is written in the margin by the same hand: Deest, etc. That is, Divine providence clearly declaring that it does not desert a legitimate empire, even if one that is badly ordered. This conjecture, whether of Bochart or of someone else, certainly does not displease me. The passage could also be corrected and supplemented in this way: It must be added, as is evident from what precedes. And thus I have found it corrected by conjecture in the margin of the Bochartian codex.

Also, a divine annotation of the most sacred and most pious emperor was read after prayer. In the Greek, after this, the emperor's annotation is read, which was appended to Eutyches' petition for relief in these words: Let them be deposed before the most reverend bishops, etc.; but on page 116 of the first action of the same council, it is called a sacred sub-notation, as is written in Nicephorus, in chapter 36 of book XII.

It is written in Nicephorus in the passage cited above, where Langus translates, bearing a resemblance to a cone or a limit. I remember rarely reading this word. See Suidas under *paradyomenon*. ^C

It is read in the Scoriacensian manuscript just as it is also read in Nicephorus, as is also true of comets, there was nothing similar to comets. It would be better, however, to write in the same way as comets.

Some have had the form of a star for its rays. Langus translated this passage in this way: Nor did its rays assume the form of any star. Jacob Gothofred has compiled Langus's interpretation, as is his habit. Yet Philostorgius does not say that. But he says that that flame appeared like a great lamp by itself, with no star underneath, subsisting like a wick. What the Greek-Latin gloss teaches is: *phlomos*, smoke. Where *phlomos* is the same as what in Greek is *phlomos*. Suidas says, an herb which they also use instead of a wick. The same is held by Hesychius: *phlomos*, he says, which is the same as *tryallis*.

VARIORUM.

All agree that the solar eclipse just mentioned occurred when Honorius was consul for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth time, which was the year of our Lord 418. Therefore, Theodosius, who was born in the year of our Lord 401, had entered his eighteenth year. Gothofred. ^D

^A having passed the tail of the Bear, it gradually proceeded toward the west. But after it had measured the whole sky, it finally disappeared, when its course had lasted for more than four months. Moreover, its vertex was at one time sharpened into a great length, so that it exceeded the mode and measure of a cone; at another time it returned to the measure of a cone. Furthermore, it presented other prodigious appearances, which showed that it differed from the nature of ordinary signs. It began from midsummer and continued almost until the end of autumn. And this was indeed a sign of great wars and of an incredible mortality of men. In the following year, earthquakes began, which could not easily be compared with the previous ones. And at the same time as the earthquakes, fire also sent down from heaven cut off all hope of safety; yet it caused no slaughter of men. For the divine kindness, having sent forth a violent wind, drove the fire away from all sides and cast it into the sea. And it was possible to see a strange sight: the waves of the sea, ^B as if they were certain thickets and forests, burning for a long time, until the flame was completely extinguished in the sea.

9. Moreover, in many places where earthquakes occurred, the rooftops of houses were seen to be separated from each other with great crashes and fissures, so that even those who were inside the houses could clearly see the sky with their own eyes. And after such a separation, they were again joined and fastened together in such a way that they left no indication of that which had occurred. The same disaster also happened to the floors of houses in diverse places. For granaries also crushed those who lived beneath them, pouring down a heap of grain upon them through sudden gaps; and then the ground was again made so firmly shut that all were at a loss as to whence that lethal grain had flowed down. Furthermore, other such new and unusual cases occurred at that time, which most clearly showed that these things did not happen in a natural way and order, as the Gentiles falsely opine; but that the scourges of divine indignation were sent upon men. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONES.

(9) *Ἐπὶ πλεῖστον*. Langus interprets this badly, for he translates the whole passage thus: *And it was a new spectacle to see the waves of the sea themselves burning with fire for a very long time, just as certain maritime regions.* Gothofred, however, interpolated Langus’s interpretation thus: *It was a wonderful spectacle to see, the waves of the sea burning with fire for a very long time, as if they were certain maritime regions.* But *ἐπὶ πλεῖστον* signifies "for a long time," or certainly, "for a very long space." For either *χρόνον* (time) or *τόπον* (place) is to be understood. Furthermore, those words are not "maritime regions," as Langus interpreted; but rather "thicket-covered places," as Holstenius noted on the side of his own codex.

(10-1) *Καὶ ἀῤῥαγμῶν*. It is printed this way in Nicephorus; yet the reading of Bochart’s codex pleases me more, *per simplex* [ῤ], that is, "fissures." Hesychius [defines it accordingly].

(2) *Καὶ γὰρ σιτοβόλων*. My danger is "granaries," that is, *horrea*. Hesychius: *Σιτοβόλες* (grain-stores). *Όρια* is a Latin word, *horrea*. *Σιτοβόλες* are also read in Suidas under the word *Σιτοβόλες*. Where Suidas notes that both signify the same thing, namely, barns or storehouses. Certainly, in the Greco-Latin Glosses one reads: *granarium*. ^D It is therefore poorly printed in Nicephorus as *σιτοβόνων* for *σιτοβόλων*. The author of the Life of St. Athanasius calls them *publica horrea* (public granaries). Palladius also uses this word in the *Lausiaca*, where he speaks of Severianus. And Philo, in book V of his *Mechanics*, where he teaches how they are to be constructed if there is a lack of materials.

(5) *Διὰ τῶν πάλων*. Where Langus interprets "through gaping cracks." Gothofred followed Langus’s interpretation, according to his custom. I, however, prefer to translate it as *tabulata* (floorboards), for *πάτος* signifies a floor, as the Greco-Latin Glosses teach. *Πάλοι* are therefore in this place "plankings," which in French we call *plancaria*: which, when they had been torn asunder by the earthquake, the grain that was in the granaries was poured down onto those who were living beneath. Certainly, what Philostorgius called *πάλον* in this place, he immediately calls *ἔδαφος* (floor).

(4) *Ἀπεῤῥύη σῖτος*. In Bochart’s manuscript codex it is read *ἀπεῤῥύκει*, and on the margin these things are noted: *In the manuscript it is obliterated.*

^A 10. Whence it comes that the earth moves. — Philostorgius attempts to show by various arguments that earthquakes are caused neither by the inundation of waters, nor by the force of winds enclosed within the recesses of the earth, nor again by any inclination of the earth, but that they occur solely by the will of God for the conversion and emendation of sinners. And he says that he asserts these things constantly, because neither of the aforementioned elements can perform such events by its natural power. But if God so wills, even the smallest drop fallen from heaven or the lightest snow could most easily move Olympus in Macedonia or any other of the highest mountains: since we see that God has frequently used these things for the emendation of the human race. For even the Red Sea, although He could easily have parted it suddenly, He first lashed and drove it with a violent south wind, and only then divided it: not that any such power is implanted in the south wind by nature, but that divine power used it to execute His own will. But also, striking with a rod, He drew forth fountains of water from the rock. And the currents of the Jordan healed leprosy: not that their nature has the power to work these things, but because the Creator has full and complete power to transmute individual creatures to whatever use He may wish.

^B 11. Lucianus, author of a new sect at Constantinople. — After the death of Eudoxius, who had presided over the Eunomian sect in Constantinople, Lucianus, the son of the sister of Eunomius, is substituted in his place. They say, moreover, that when he had slipped into avarice and related vices, and feared punishment on that account, he broke away from the sect of the other Eunomians; but that he stood forth as the leader of his own faction, and ruled over a multitude not to be despised, since all the wicked and those entangled in diverse vices had flocked to him.

12. The brief reign of Constantius. — Honorius the emperor took Constantius, the master of the soldiers, into the partnership of the empire on account of the honor of his kinship, since Placidia had already borne a son to him, Valentinian, upon whom indeed Honorius conferred the dignity of most noble. Therefore, the images of Constantius, as was the custom of those who had recently been promoted to the empire, were sent to the East. But Theodosius, since he disapproved of the Augustan title of Constantius, did not admit his images. ^C And when Constantius was preparing for war on account of this insult, death supervening freed him from life and cares at the same time, when he had reigned for six months.

13. The death of Honorius. The tyrant Joannes. Aspar. — In the consulship of the Emperor Theodosius for the tenth time and Honorius for the thirteenth, the same Honorius died of dropsy. And Joannes, having seized the tyranny...

sent an embassy to Theodosius; but the business having been rendered ineffective, and the envoys having been treated with insult, they were sent away to different places around the Propontis. Theodosius, however, sent Placidia and the third Valentinianus ^A (for after the death of Constantius, they had been brought back to Byzantium) to Thessalonica. And there he conferred the dignity of Caesar upon his cousin, and committed the administration of the war against the tyrant to the general Ardaburius and his son Aspar. These, taking Placidia and Valentinianus with them, crossed Pannonia and Illyricum and took the city of Salona in Dalmatia by force. Thereafter, Ardaburius moved against the tyrant with a naval fleet. But Aspar, taking the cavalry forces and stealing away their perceptions by the speed of his onset, became master of the great city of Aquileia, accompanied by Valentinianus and Placidia. Thus did he take the great city without toil. But a violent wind caught Ardaburius ^B and carried him, together with two other triremes, into the hands of the tyrant. The tyrant, thinking of entering into a treaty, received Ardaburius with humanity. Enjoying great liberty there, he encouraged the tyrant's officers—who were already inclined toward defection—to plot against the tyrant; and he signaled to his son Aspar to arrive, as if for a success already prepared. He arrived quickly with the horsemen, and after a light engagement, Joannes was captured by the betrayal of those around him, and was sent away to Aquileia to Placidia and Valentinianus. There, having his right hand first cut off ^C, he was then beheaded, having tyrannized for a year and a half. Then Theodosius, having sent Valentinianus off, proclaimed him emperor.

14. That Aetius, the lieutenant of the tyrant Joannes, arrived three days after his death bringing with him five thousand barbarian mercenaries; and after an engagement had taken place between him and the forces around Aspar, a great slaughter of both sides occurred. Thereafter, Aetius entered into a treaty with Placidia and Valentinianus, and received the dignity of count; and the barbarians, having received gold, relinquished their anger and ^D armies.

they laid down their arms, and having given hostages and received guarantees, they departed to their own haunts. ^A The end of the excerpts from the present book of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius.

SUPPLEMENTA PHILOSTORGIANA

Concerning Josephus, Phlegon, and Dion, from Suidas in the entry on Phlegon.

Philostorgius says that Justus treated the matters concerning the Jews at greater length and more copiously; but that Phlegon and Dion mentioned them briefly, and inserted them as it were incidentally into their history. ^B However, it is evident that he took no care for those things that lead to piety and other virtues, just as neither did they. On the contrary, Josephus also seems to be like one who is fearful and cautious, lest he offend the Greeks.

Concerning Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theophilus the Indian. From one of the first six books, as referred to by Photius in the Bibliotheca, n. 40.

But as regards miracles and his life, he extols Eusebius of Nicomedia (whom he also calls "the Great") and Theophilus the Indian, and many others.

Concerning those who stood with Arius in the Council of Nicaea, from Nicetas in the *Thesaurus of Orthodox Faith*, book v, chap. 7, near the end.

Moreover (as Philostorgius is the author in the first book of his history), these men, whose names follow, stood with Arius in the Council of Nicaea, being bishops: from upper Libya, Sentianus of Boreum, Dachius of Berenice, Secundus of the Theuchirians, Zopyrus of Barca, another Secundus of Ptolemais, Theon of Marmarica; from the Egyptian Thebes, Melitius; from Palestine, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Caesarea, who was called "of Pamphilus"; from Phoenicia, Paulinus of Tyre, Amphion of Side; from Cilicia, Narcissus of Irenopolis, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Tarcodimatus of Aegae; from Cappadocia, Leontius, Longianus, and Eulalius; from Pontus, Basilius of Amasea, Melitius of Sebastopolis; from Bithynia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Magnus by surname, who had been intimate with Lucian the martyr and was famous for his miracles, as one who—to the greatest degree—had even obtained the surname of "Great."

Concerning the variety of subscriptions in the Council of Nicaea, from Nicetas in the *Thesaurus of Orthodox Faith*, book v, c. 8.

Philostorgius, toward the end of the first book, is the authority that those who had subscribed to the Nicene faith, some had indeed written the word *homoousion* in the region of their signatures, but others, instructed by Eusebius, had substituted the blasphemous word *homoiousion* in place of *homoousion*, except for Secundus and Theonas, who were also banished to Illyricum along with Arius and his presbyters.

Concerning the repentance of certain Arians, because they had subscribed to the Council of Nicaea: which Nicetas reports in the *Thesaurus of Orthodox Faith*, book v, c. 8.

Philostorgius, at the beginning of the second book, writes that Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris, moved by repentance for what they had subscribed, came to the emperor and used these words before him: "We have acted wickedly, O emperor, in this matter."

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

(11) *Justus*. I have corrected this from conjecture. For in Suidas’ lexicon, from which this passage of Philostorgius is described, one reads today ὅσον. Certainly, the name of the historical writer is entirely missing here. Therefore, either the name "Justus" must be substituted here, or "Josephus." The words of Philostorgius that follow seem to persuade us rather to substitute the name "Josephus." For it follows, etc. From these words it is gathered that a little before there had been a discourse concerning Josephus. Let the studious reader choose whichever he wishes. Moreover, this fragment of Philostorgius is taken from the proem of his Histories. In this place, Philostorgius was commemorating all the writers of sacred history. And first, indeed, he recounted Moses, then the writer of the history of the Maccabees; finally, in the last place, he mentioned Justus and Josephus as writers of Jewish affairs.

^A And it came to pass that the emperor, struck with fear of you, gave his assent to the impious; whence it happened that the emperor, becoming enraged, banished them to the Galatias—or the western Gauls—and ordered the Arians to depart from their respective homelands.

Concerning Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch: what Nicetas reports in his *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith*, book V, ch. 9.

Concerning Aetius and Eunomius, from one of his six books, as reported by Photius in his *Bibliotheca*, n. 40.

Concerning Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, from Photius in his *Bibliotheca*, n. 40.

Concerning Aetius, from Photius' *Bibliotheca*, n. 40.

Concerning Basil, from Photius' *Bibliotheca*, n. 40.

Concerning Leontius, Bishop of Tripoli, from Suidas.

Concerning the Jordan and Paneas, which John of Antioch has.

that same mountain. ^A From both of these flows a river, the one called Jorates, the other Danites. Being carried through the mountain, when they descend into the plain, they there unite and form one very great river, the Jordan. At the same time, mingling both its stream and its name, it passes through the Lake of Tiberias, cutting through its middle, and flowing through the whole of it in its own channel ^B until it reaches the opposite shore; being always equal and similar to itself. Thence, flowing through Palestine, it falls entirely into the sea which is called Dead, and disappears.

De Apollinario, Basilio, et Gregorio Nazianzeno, quod ipsissimis Philostorgii verbis recitatis habet Suidas tribus locis, in v. Ἀπολλινάριος, Βασίλειος, Γρηγόριος.

For Apollinarius flourished in those times in Laodicea of Syria, and Basil in Caesarea of Cappadocia, and Gregory in Nazianzus; and this place is a station of the same Cappadocia. These three men were then championing the consubstantial (homoousion) against the heteroonsion, far surpassing all who had stood at the head of that heresy before them and those who followed up to my own time; so that in comparison with them, Athanasius was judged a child. ^C For in the kind of learning which is called external (or profane), they had progressed very far; and of the Holy Scriptures, whatever contributed to reading and ready memory, they possessed great knowledge, and among them most especially Apollinarius; for this man was even able to understand the Hebrew language. Moreover, each of them was most capable in his own way of writing: Apollinarius indeed was far superior in the genre of discourse that is most suitable for commentaries; Basil, however, was most brilliant in the panegyrical genre. But the speech of Gregory, when compared with either, held the more sublime place in writing. For he was more copious in speaking than Apollinarius, but more stately than Basil. Since, however, they were endowed ^D with such power of speaking and writing, they displayed no less a character apt for attracting the multitude to their sight: so that from those by whom they were seen, and among whom they spoke, and whatever writings they circulated, they drew all into their own communion, insofar as they could be easily captured by any of these methods.

VALESII ANNOTATIONES.

(12) Ὧν ἐξ ἑκατέρας. Pessime hunc locum Joannis Antiocheni verterat Jacobus Gothofredus: cujus nos versionem hoc loco emendavimus. Sic enim interpretatus est: E quo utrinque effunditur fluvius; cum vertendum esset, ex utroque horum fontium profuit amnis: alter Jorates, alter Danites dictus. Non animadvertit scilicet Gothofredus subaudientione locum hunc sanavi hoc modo: τῷ οἰκείῳ ὁλκῷ. Emendationem nostram confirmant Suidas et Hesychius, qui viam et tractum seu impetum fluminis significare scribunt. Facessat igitur conjectura Gothofredi.

FRAGMENTS OF PHILOSTORGIUS

From Suidas under the word Agapetus

^AAgapetus, bishop of Synnada, whom Eusebius of Caesarea, son of Pamphilus, celebrates with great praise, recording his unusual and extraordinary miracles; such as the moving of mountains and rivers to another place, and the raising of the dead to life. He further states that the Emperor Maximinus wished to put him to death while he was still a soldier, on account of his being a Christian, having discovered that many, struck with admiration by the wonders performed by Agapetus, were abandoning the worship of the Gentiles and turning to the Christian faith.

From Suidas under the word Aetius

Aetius, the master of Eunomius, was born in the Syrian city of Antioch to poor and lowly parents. His father, who had been enrolled in the cohortal militia and had met with adverse fortune, died, leaving him a mere boy. Being reduced to extreme poverty, Aetius took up the trade of a goldsmith and attained the highest perfection in that art. But since his natural aptitude aspired to higher disciplines, he applied his mind to the study of logic. ^B And indeed, he became a student of Paulinus, who had shortly before moved from the city of Tyre to Antioch, while Constantine was still holding the imperial power. When Aetius heard him, he displayed no small force of intellect in the disputes he held against his opponents; and it was already the case that his vigor could hardly be sustained by most. When Paulinus had died and Eulalius had taken up the governance of the Antiochene see as the twenty-third from the apostles, many of those who had been refuted by Aetius—taking it hard that they had been defeated and worsted by a mere craftsman and adolescent—formed a conspiracy and drove him out of Antioch. ^C Driven out, Aetius took himself to Anazarbus. And since he was already being filled with every power, he always brought forth fruits greater than the elements and instructions he had received from others. In the meantime, he did not cease to reprove and refute others, while he himself remained dressed in a cheap cloak, and lived on a meager and impoverished diet.

From Suidas under the word Auxentius

Auxentius, bishop of Mopsuestia, was one of those called Confessors. He was from the number of those who served illustriously in the palace of the Emperor Licinius, being one of his secretaries, whom the Romans call Notaries. ^D

NOTES OF VALESIUS

(14) Eusebius of Caesarea. Suidas has lapsed by putting Eusebius in place of Philostorgius. For Eusebius of Caesarea nowhere makes mention of Agapetus, the bishop of Synnada, in his Ecclesiastical History. Philostorgius, however, makes mention of him in Book II, chapter 2, where almost the same things are read as those in Suidas.

(15) See Philostorgius, Book II, chap. 2.

(16) See Philostorgius, Book III, chap. 15.

VARIOUS NOTES

(a) *Non mediocrem impietatis vim* (no small force of impiety). This should be translated: "no small force of impiety." W. Lowth.

^A His confession, however, was of this kind: In a certain courtyard of the imperial palace there was a fountain, and above the fountain a statue of Bacchus, encircled by a large vine, which rendered the whole place covered and shady. When Licinius had come there for the sake of recreation—with Auxentius himself and several others from his palace following him—he cast his eyes upon the vine and beheld a cluster of grapes of unusual size and beauty hanging from the branches. He ordered Auxentius to cut it down. He immediately grasped the knife which he carried fastened to his breeches and cut the cluster, suspecting nothing. Then Licinius, turning to him, said: "Place this cluster, then, at the feet of Bacchus." To this, Auxentius replied: "By no means, O emperor; for I am a Christian." Upon hearing this, Licinius said: "Depart then, discharged from military service; for one of these two things you must do." Auxentius, without the slightest hesitation, laid aside his belt, and, being thus ungirded, departed the palace with a willing mind. ^B Not long afterward, the bishops ordained him bishop of Mopsuestia. His younger brother was Theodore, a man who had studied rhetoric at Athens. He, too, later obtained the bishopric of the church of Tarsus by lot. For indeed Aetius, having previously been accustomed to teach, by himself, both Eunomius himself and others who were of greater merit, once he promoted Eunomius to the office of teaching, desired him thenceforth to be the master and teacher in his stead, both for others and especially for those who were in need of more perfect doctrine and instruction; for he himself was most excellent at imparting principles and elements to others, but Eunomius was considered to be by far his superior in elaborating and promoting the elements which had been delivered, and in interpreting them both clearly and magnificently ^C(17).

From Suidas, under the entry "Eudoxius"

Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch, was a native of Arabissus, a town of Lesser Armenia. His father, Caesarius, had won the crown of martyrdom under the emperor Maximinus, although he had previously appeared more addicted to pleasures. Yet he desired to wash away the stains of his former life with the blood of his martyrdom. For when the executioners had pierced both of his feet with six large nails, they threw him into a funeral pyre; but because he had immediately expired while approaching the fire, his relatives removed his corpse—still half-burned and whole—from the pyre and buried it in a certain field ^D that is called Subel (18).

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ...can be proven by many arguments to be described from the History of Philostorgius. For the style clearly smacks of Philostorgius: for instance, in this passage they are called bishops. That, indeed, you would find difficult to discover elsewhere than in Philostorgius. Furthermore, the things which are added toward the end concerning Aetius and Eunomius clearly indicate that the author of this fragment is Philostorgius. For who else would commemorate the gifts and praises of those heretics so ambitiously? ...we must [assume], for Aetius was not the master of Eudoxius, but of Eunomius. Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch, indeed had the martyr Lucian as his master in divine Scripture, as Philostorgius reports in book II, chap. 15. However, I would rather believe that Eudoxius was a disciple of the disciples of Lucian: for since Eudoxius died at the end of the reign of Valens, how he could have been a disciple of the martyr Lucian, who suffered in the reign of Maximinus, I indeed do not see. Eudoxius seems to have had Asterius the Cappadocian, who was one of the disciples of Lucian, as his master, as Philostorgius indicates in book IV, chap. 4.

FRAGMENTA. Ex eodem Suida in voce Θεόφιλος

^A This Theophilus, having returned from India, dwelt in Antioch, having no private or particular church of his own, but being a bishop common to all, so that he might freely visit all churches at his discretion as if they were his own, since the emperor showed him the greatest honor and reverence, and all others to whom he had access received him with the utmost eagerness and admired the excellence of his virtue. It was indeed of such a kind and so great in him that no one could describe it in words; for he was a sort of image of the apostles. They say also that he once raised a certain Jew from the dead at Antioch. Thalassius affirms this, he who was with him for a long time and is beyond suspicion of falsehood in such matters; and he also has not a few ^B witnesses of this occurrence who lived at the same time.

Item ex Suida in voce Λεόντιος

Leontius, bishop of Tripolis in Lydia, was by race a Mysian, from those who dwell by the Ister, whom Homer calls "close-fighters." The impious Philostorgius associates such a Leontius with his own faction in the seventh book of his History, as though he were addicted to the Arian heresy which he himself professed. It is said that when this man had an only son and saw that he showed no signs of good character for virtue, he prayed, while the boy was still a youth, and caused him to die; thinking it ^C best that he should meet death before committing any shameful deed or flagrant sin, and be safely removed from the uncertain and perilous hazards of this life. They usually called him a "rule of the Church." He was also free in his opinion and straightforward toward everyone. Once, when a synod of bishops had gathered and Eusebia Augusta, the wife of the Emperor Constantius, was uplifted with haughty pride and was being greeted by all the bishops, he alone, regarding the Augusta as of little account, remained at home. The Augusta, bearing this act ill and burning with anger, sent one of her ministers to him, partly complaining, and partly striving to win him over with flatteries and promises. "I will build you," she said, "a most magnificent church, and I will bestow wealth upon you, if you come to visit me." But he replied: "If you wish to accomplish any of these things which you promise me, O Augusta, know that you will be doing it for the benefit of your own soul rather than for me. But if you desire me to come to greet you, I shall indeed come, provided that the reverence which is due to bishops is observed, so that I may enter, and you, stepping down immediately ^D from your lofty throne, shall modestly come to meet me, and submit your head to my hands, asking for a blessing from me. Then, that I might sit, while you stand with reverence; and after I have commanded it, you shall sit, when I give the signal. If you choose it in this way, I shall come to you; but if in another way, you could not give so much, nor would you be able to provide things so great, that you could induce us, who have been deprived of the honor due to bishops, to insult the divine mystery of the priesthood."

^A When these things were reported, the queen was inflamed in a wondrous manner, quite unable to bear that such a response from Leontius should be brought to her. When she had swelled with great anger and was deeply moved in spirit, and had uttered threats with a woman's levity and impatience, she related the matter to her husband, demanding vengeance. But he, on the contrary, deemed the freedom of spirit in Leontius to be worthy of praise, and he calmed his wife’s anger and sent her back to her chamber. On another occasion, while Constantius was presiding over an assembly of bishops and wishing to govern the churches according to his own will—with everyone receiving the emperor's words with applause and admiration, and affirming that all things said by him were right—Leontius alone remained silent. When the emperor asked him for what reason he alone of all remained silent, Leontius replied: "I am amazed," he said, "that you, who are appointed to administer other affairs, should undertake to manage entirely different ones; and though the care of military and civil matters is entrusted to you, you nevertheless command bishops regarding matters that pertain only to bishops." Upon hearing this, Constantius, suffused with bashfulness and shame, ceased from then on to act and command with imperial authority in such matters. Such was the freedom of speech with which Leontius was endowed (22).

Item from Suidas under the entry 'Demophilus'

^B Demophilus, bishop of Constantinople, was a man accustomed to confound all things at once with an insane impulse; and, like a rapid and rushing torrent, he rolled together a great deal of mud and filth in his sermons, as anyone may easily detect from the first address he delivered at Constantinople. In that discourse, it is likely that he had been more accurate and careful, since such speeches are usually recorded by shorthand writers. Certainly, in his commentaries which still exist today, he discourses on many things that are confused and indistinct, and speaking of the Father and the Son, he pronounces in express terms as follows: "The Son was generated only by the will of the Father, without time and without mediation, so that he might become a minister and servant of the Father’s commands." For since God, who foreknows what he was about to do, saw that those things ^C which he was to create could not endure, inasmuch as they would be of a pure and unmixed order, just like God himself who had made them—for it was absolutely necessary that either all things should be gods according to the dignity of Him who had created them, from which it would follow that there would be many gods; or else it was necessary that, after they had been made, they should immediately be dissolved, just like wax brought near a most intense fire—therefore the Son stood as a mediator between the creatures that were to be created and the Father from whom he was generated, so that, by lowering himself and descending to the things that were being created, he might fulfill the will of the Father, and act as a mediator between God and us, who were created through him. But he escaped notice, in that through these things he was falsely accusing the God of all of weakness and envy. ^D And as for Demophilus, he was one who confound and threw into disorder all things, and most especially ecclesiastical dogmas.

and joining and associating with those things which were to be created, he fulfilled the will of the Father, and was a mediator between God and us who were made through him. But Demophilus does not perceive that by these words he falsely attributes infirmity and envy to the supreme God of all, and makes the Son of a worse condition than all other creatures. For the Father must necessarily have been weak, according to the opinion of Demophilus, since, having willed to bestow being upon all things, he was thereafter unable to accomplish it. Nor would he have been free from envy if, when it was in his power to make all creatures gods, he had studiously taken care that his creatures should not be of the same condition and dignity as himself. Now, as for the Son, there is no creature that would not appear rightfully and deservedly to be better and more blessed than he; if indeed he was made not for his own sake, but for the contemplation and use of the creatures. For whatever is made for the benefit of others must necessarily be inferior to those for whose sake it was made. Many other ravings of this sort he also brings forward. [VALESII ANNOTATIONES.]

YEAR OF OUR LORD 425. ST. ATTICUS BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE. NOTICE. (Acta SS. Bolland., Aug. vol. I, p. 52.)

1. Sozomen, lib. vii, cap. 27, defines the time of the ordination of Atticus: "And when Arsacius had administered the Church of Constantinople for a short space of time, he departed from this life; and since many were seeking his succession, four months after his death Atticus was ordained, a presbyter of the clergy of Constantinople, who had been one of the conspirators against John." If Arsacius died in the year 405, on the 11th of November, as we reported above from Socrates, and according to Sozomen Atticus was ordained four months after his death, Atticus ought to have succeeded Arsacius around the month of March of the following year. But since Socrates assigns sixteen, and Palladius only fourteen, months of government to Arsacius, nothing certain can be determined about the precise month or day of his election; but it only follows that Atticus occupied the Constantinopolitan see at the beginning of the year, as is inferred from the things said above, and confirmed by the testimony of Socrates, who in book vi, chapter 20, expresses the year of this ordination thus: "When many were seeking the episcopate, and for this reason much time had elapsed, in the following year, when Arcadio was consul for the sixth time and Probus, [whose consulship fell in the year 406], Atticus, a religious man, was promoted to the episcopate."

2. Although Atticus is called a religious man by Socrates, we do not on that account deny that his religion and his other virtues were contaminated by certain blemishes: for he not only accused John Chrysostom in the conciliabulum at the Oak, but he also illegitimately invaded the see of Constantinople while the holy prelate was still living, and persecuted his supporters with indiscreet zeal, so that by Palladius, page 95, he is called "the architect of all the plots against John." But it appears that he expiated this fault by repentance and revocation, as we shall endeavor to show shortly against Tillemont. Certainly, Atticus afterwards inserted the name of St. John Chrysostom into the sacred tablets, as is recorded in the *Historia tripartita*, lib. xii, cap. 2, in these words: "Moreover, Bishop Atticus, the cause..."