Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:02:06.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul of Constantinople

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

W. Telfer
W. Telfer
Affiliation:
Selwyn College, Cambridge, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The story of Paul, the first man to be consecrated as bishop of Constantinople, has come down to us only in fragments. Le Nain de Tillemont made the first modern attempt to fit the fragments together into a biography. His work is characterized by a sagacity not always exhibited by more recent writers. An addition was made to the fragments previously known by the discovery of passages referring to Paul in the ‘codex Theodosianus’ belonging to the Chapter Library of Verona. This material was brought into use by E. Schwartz in the ninth of his now-famous articles “Zur Geschichte des Athanasius,” where he touches on Paul as an associate of Athanasius. The passages in the ‘codex Theodosianus’ are in Latin, but they derive ultimately from an Alexandrine work of ecclesiastical history otherwise almost wholly lost. This work, to judge from internal evidences, was composed in 368 to celebrate the forty-years' episcopate of Athanasius, and its theme might be called “The contendings for the faith of the bishops of Alexandria.” It is not obvious why such a work should contain anything about either Paul or Constantinople. And a comparison of the Paul passages with those that concern themselves with Alexandrine history is much to the disadvantage of the former.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 1950 , pp. 31 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Those known to historians from the first are: Socrates, H.E., ii,6.7.12.13.15–18.20.22.23.26.27, and v,9. Sozomen, H.E., iii,3.4.7–10.13.24, iv,2.3, and vii,10. Theodoret, H.E., ii,5. Hilary, Hist. frag. iv,1. Athanasius, De fuga, 3. Hist. Ar. 7. Apart from the events of 342 none of these sources offers assured chronology.

2 Mémoires, vii (1706) 251–260.

3 The article Paulus (18) in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, appearing over the initials of Canon W. M. Sinclair is so slipshod as to be useless. V. Schultze, Altchristliche Städte u. Landschaften, I, Konstantinopel (1913), 44–48 uses some violence on the fragments, and declares the problem of fitting them insoluble. (44, Note 5).

4 Codex LX(58), described by Telfer, W. in Harvard Theological Review, XXXVI (1943) 169–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Nachrichten v. d. Kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, (Phil. hist. Kl.) 1911, 475–9, 511–16 (hereafter cited as Schwartz.l.c.).

6 No. 257 in the Bibliotheca (P.G., civ, 120–132) (B.H.G., 1472).

7 P.G., cxvi, 884–96. (B.H.G., 1473).

8 H.E., iv, 3.

9 P.G., cxv, 1289–92.

10 L.c, 1292AB.

11 Überlieferung u. Bestand der hagiographischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche, Texte u. Untersuchungen, 4te Reihe, 50 and 51 (1937–8).

12 Op. cit, 50, 170, 349–51, 353–5, 372–3, 462–3.

13 50, 117.

14 51, 387.

15 Analecta Bollandiana, LXIV (1946) 132–175. “Una pagina di storia Bizantina del secolo iv, il Martirio dei Santi Notari.”

16 The text of the recensions is given on pp. 169–175.

17 The detailed argument is on pp. 152–164.

18 Cinq Leçons sur la méthode hagiographique, (Subsidia Hagiographica 21) 1934, Chapter 1.

19 Mélanges Cabrières (1899), I, 100–108.

20 Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (hereafter cited as C.S.H.B.), Chronicon Paschale, (Edn.L.Dindorf, 1832) I, 535.

21 Analecta Bollandiana, l.c., p. 170, lines 25–30.

22 P.G., cxv, 1292B.

23 Analecta Bollandiana, l.c., p. 171.

24 Mélanges Cabrières, l.c., pp. 104–5.

25 H.E., ii, 29.

26 Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, LXV (S. Hilarii Ep. Pictaviensis Opera Pars IV. Edn. A. L. Feder. 1916) 48–78, hereafter cited as Feder. The Paul passages are p. 50 line 18–p. 51 line 8, p. 54 line 24–p. 55 line 25, p. 55 lines 10–11, p. 56 lines 18–22, p. 57 lines 20–23, P. 58 lines 8–ii, p. 61 lines 9–30, p. 63 lines 23–27, p. 66 lines 4–11 and 30, p. 67 lines 1–7.

27 Section 7. P.G., xxv, 701.

28 Section 3. P.G., xxv, 648D.–649A.

29 For these in general, see Geppert, F., Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates (1898)Google Scholar and Schoo, G., Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos, (1911)Google Scholar respectively iii, 4 in the original, and xi in the new, Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche (Ed. N. Bonwetsch and R. Seeberg).

30 So Auxanon told Socrates, H.E., ii, 38.

31 The passages are Socrates ii, 6 (excepting the last sentence) 13 (with the end of 12) and 16 (excepting the last two sentences). P.G., lxvii, 192–3, 208–9, 213–7. Sozomen iii, 3 and part of 4, part of 7, 9 (except the last section) P.G., lxvii, 1037–40, 1049–52, 1056. Socrates ii, 27 and Sozomen iv, 2 and 3, treating of the persecuting tactics of Macedonius, seem also to derive from Novatian sources. A further possible indication of Novatian authorship of the trilogy is the phrase which appears in Socrates, in N3, οἵ τε τῆς ὁμοουσίον πίστεως. Socrates, left to himself, would have said ἐκκλησιαστικοί. The author of N is never interested in either Paul or Macedonius, but only in the harm they did to Constantinople.

32 See Batiffol, P., Byzantinische Zeitschrift t. vii (1898), 265–284Google Scholar.

33 Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller (hereafter cited as G.C.S.) XVII (i), 235. (Edn. R. Helm. 1913).

34 Seeck, O., Jahrb. f. klass. Philologie, 1889Google Scholar, Heft 8 und 9., argues that the ancient chronicle in question has survived almost entire, between Socrates and other early chronicles.

35 George Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium i 528. (C.S.H.B., Edition I. Bekker. 1838) τῷ κά ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας Κωνσταντἰου.

36 G.C.S. xxviii, 106–137. (Edn. G. Löschcke and M. Heinemann, 1918). H.E. ii, 38.13 merely repeats ii, 28.13, for effect.

37 H.E., ii, 5.4 (op. cit. 44).

38 P.G., civ, 105–120.

39 This development is treated by Fischer, Francis, De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum catalogis, in Commentationes Philologicae Ienenses, iii (1884) 265–333Google Scholar.

40 Edn. R. Helm, p. 232.

41 Eunapii Vitae Sophistarum, (2nd) Edn. J. F. Boissonade (1849), 462, lines 45–7.

42 H.E., ii, 9. G.C.S. xxi, (Edn. J. Bidez, 1913) 22, lines 2 and 28, with 82, line 2, where Julian transfers τὰ σιτηρέσια τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῖς τῶν δαιμονίων θεραπευταῖς. This volume is cited hereafter as Bidez.

43 The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, G. Brett, W. J. Macaulay and R. P. K. Stevenson, 1947, reporting the excavations carried out by the Walker Trust, 1935–38. These established the identity of the Great Palace with that begun by Constantine.

44 Socrates, H.E., ii, 6 (end), in which the division between Nicenes and Arians is read back into the times of Alexander.

45 Archives des Missions Scientifiques, iii, (1876) 256–57. (C. I. G. 8833). L. Duchesne and Ch. Bayet argue that Paul cannot be the person in question because he would have been qualified as martyr. But he is never so qualified, and the title ὁ ὁμολογητής, which he often receives, would come after, and not before, that of archbishop of Constantinople.

46 This visit is recorded in Ap. c. Ar. 60 and 65 and in the Index to the Festal Letters of Athanasius, under the year 330–331. The heading of the Fourth Letter shows that it took place, however, in the following winter. A. Robertson (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, iv, 132, Note 2) in his translation of the works of Athanasius, calls Psammathia a suburb of Nicomedia, following footnote d. on p. 31 of the Festal Epistles of S. Athanasius, Oxford Library of the Fathers, 1854. But George Codinus, De aedificiis Constantinopolitanis (C.S.H.B., Edn. I. Bekker, 1843) p. 109, shows that it was a suburb of Constantinople.

47 Festal Index, under the year 335–36.

48 Ap. c. Ar., 87, compared with Ap. c. Ar., 78 (end).

49 H.E., ii, 2.

50 H.E., x, 12, which speaks of eunuchs but does not name Eusebius (G.C.S., ix(1), 967–8. Edn., E. Schwartz, 1903).

51 P.G., civ,117A. Photius remarks that the Politeia contains much that is useful on the life of Constantine.(105B.)

52 H.E., i, 9. Bidez, p. 11, lines 1–3.

53 Ap. c. Ar., 84.

54 De Synodis, 22.

55 Ap. c. Ar., 84.

56 Vita Constantini, iv, 43.

57 Ep. liv., written in 362. The Encyclical to the Bishops of Egypt, 19, written in 356, contains a shorter and more restrained version of the story.

58 The best edition of this letter is that of H. G. Opitz, who prints it as Urkunde 34 in his (G.C.S.) Athanasius Werke, iii, 1 (1935), 69.

59 C. Hole, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, gives three persons under the name of Macarius. They are one and the same person, and this creation of three Macarii is simply due to supposition that Arius died in 336.

60 Harold Idris Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (1924), Letter No. 1914, which retails news from about middle May 335, while seeming itself to be written early in July (since the ship of Athanasius lies waiting: he actually sailed on July 11).

61 J. B. de Rossi and L. Duchesne, Martyrologium Hieronymianum, in Acta Sanctorum, Novembris tomus II, p. 112.

62 No weight attaches to the statement of Socrates, H.E., ii, 5 and 6, that Paul succeeded “about 340.”

63 Mansi, J. D., Sanctorum Conciliorum Collectio, ii (1759), 1316Google Scholar.

64 Chadwick, H., Journal of Theological Studies, xlix (1948), 27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 H.E., iii, 3.

66 The synod of Tyre finished on 8 September, after receiving the report of the Commission. Athanasius left Tyre, presumably, before it set out; perhaps therefore early in August. His secret departure may have saved him confinement pending the conclusion of the Commission's work.

67 Analecta Bollandiana, lxiii (1945), 131–9.

68 The Festal Index gives ii Athyr as the date of arrival, and x Athyr as the date of the departure of Athanasius for Trier, on the morrow of the trial.

69 H.E., ii, 28.

70 Theodoret, H.E., i, 28.

71 Letter of Julius, in Athanasius, Ap. c. Ar., 35.

72 Letter of Constantine, Ap. c. Ar., 86. Account of the trial, Ap. c. Ar., 9 and 87.

73 H.E., i, 33–35.

74 Ap. c. Ar., 87.

75 H.E., i, 35.

76 Vita Constantini, iv, 45.

77 H.E., viii, 50 (P.G. cxlvi, 200D).

78 “Athanasii vita acephala.” Zeitschrift f. d. historische Theologie, xxxviii (1868), 98Google Scholar.

79 Vita Constantini, iv, 46.

80 Ap. c. Ar., 9.

81 H. E., i, 35.

82 H. E., ii, 5.

83 Ap. c. Ar., 9.

84 See Constantine's letter to the Alexandrines, Ap. c. Ar., 61. “Those who have the law of God for their guide, in addition to their natural advantages” should, by their superior understanding, be able to overcome dissensions.

85 Letter to Aelafius, Optatus, c. Donatistes, i, 22, C.S.E.L. xxvi, (Edn. C. Ziwsa, 1893) 204–16. “contentiones … ex quibus forsitan commoveri possit summa Divinitas, non solum contra humanum genus, sed etiam in me ipsum, cujus curae nutu suo coelesti terrena omnia moderanda commisit”

86 Vita Constantini, ii, 66., where he speaks as if he had conquered Licinius for no other reason than to open the way to an ecclesiastical settlement of the Donatist schism.

87 He was later, after conversion, an ecclesiastical author.

88 Mathesis, II, 30, 5. (Edn. W. Kroll and F. Skutsch, 1897–1913) I. 86.

89 I. A. Richmond and R. P. Wright restore the inscription of Hadrian on Tyneside as “imposita necessitate imperii intra fines conservati divino praecepto.” Archaeologia Aeliana. 4th Series, xii, 93–120.

90 ἥ τɛ ῾Pωμαίων ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ ɛὐσɛβὴς διδασκαλία twin roots of blessing to the world. Eusebius, Tricennalian Oration, Section 16.

91 Constantine the Great. (London. 1930).

92 Setton, K. M., The Christian attitude towards the Emperor in the 4th Century, (Columbia University Press, 1941)Google Scholar, who calls attention to the views of Firmicus Maternus already mentioned.

93 Setton, op. cit., c.iv, examines the attitude of Athanasius towards the Emperor Constantine and his successors.

94 Vita Constantini, iv, 48.

95 Vita Constantini, iii, 23.

96 It appears from the encyclical of the bishops of Egypt (Ap. c. Ar., 5) in 338 that the Eusebians had begun, at that time, to lay the acts of magistrates as a charge against Athanasius.

97 Thus likewise the Westerns at Sardica write to Constantius that, before considering any ecclesiastical issue, he shall reflect “Catholicus sum.” Feder, p. 182, line 12.

98 See the comment of Eusebius of Caesarea on the behavior of the Egyptians as they entered the synod of Tyre: ɛἰ γὰρ ὦδɛ τυραννɛῖτɛ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ὑμῶν πατρίδι. Epiphanius, Panarion, 68.8, G.C.S., xxxvii (Edn. K. Holl, 1931), 149.

99 Apol. ad Constantium, 30.

100 Socrates, H.E., iv, 13, speaks of Athanasius hiding for four months ἐνμνηɛίῳ πατρῷῷ, which would imply a family catacomb. In the Festal Index and Historia Acephala we read of a villa, garden or estate on the New River, as a place to which he retired at need.

101 Feder p. 181 line 14 — p. 182 line 2.

102 For the bishops as judices, Feder, p. 56 cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 68.8 (ὁ Κωνσταντίνος) ἐκέλευσε δὲ δικάζειν Εὐσέβιον τὸν Καισαρείας καὶ ἃλλους τινάς. Likewise Athanasius is defendant (Εὐσέβιον καθεζόμενον και δικάζοντα καὶ Ἀθανάσιον ἐστώτα. So Rufinus, H.E., x, 18 speaks of the woman who slandered Athanasius at Tyre: conversa ad judices obtestari fidem dei coepit vera se dicere.

103 There still remained for Easterns as well as Westerns a line of demarcation between dogma and law, which tended to be blurred by Constantius, and was reaffirmed by Leontius, bishop of Tripolis in Lydia, as related of him by Suidas, in the words addressed to Constantius, θαυμάζω ὅτι εἰς ἔτερα διέπειν ταξθειν ταχθεὶς ἑτέροις ἐπιχειρεῖς. Suidae Lexicon, Edn. A. Adler, III (1933) 246.

104 Eusebius, Contra Marcellum, ii, 4. (end), P. G., xxiv, 821D.

105 Sozomen, H. E., ii, 33.

106 Contra Marcellum, ii, 4., P.G.xxiv.824B, arguing that it aimed at getting the Emperor on his side against the orthodox bishops.

107 Eusebius, Vita Constantini, iv, 70 and 71.

108 Op. cit., iv, 62.

109 George Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium (C.S.H.B. Edn. I. Bekker, 1838). I, 520.

110 H.E., ii, 10. Bidez, p. 22.

111 H.E., i, 19.

112 The Chronographia of Theophanes, in recording the baptism of Constantine, calls Eusebius bishop of Constantinople. This is in conflict with the entry of a three-year episcopate of Paul, which appears under 335. It suggests use of a succession list begun before 381.

113 Constantine Junior, though born out of wedlock, was apparently his father's favorite, and had been treated all along as eldest son.

114 Chronicon Paschale, (C.S.H.B. Edn. L. Dindorf, 1832) I, 534. The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria are not such as to contribute to accurate history. But in recording the partition of the Empire, they make Constantine reign in Constantinople, Constantius in Antioch, and Constans in Rome.

115 Schwartz, l.c., p. 472, Note 1.

116 Histoire des Empereurs, iv (1704), 317 and (Note 2) 666.

117 O. Seeck, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, xvii, 39 ff.

118 H.E., x, 16.

119 Cambridge Medieval History, I, 56.

120 A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, iv, 346.

121 Feder, A. L., Studien zu Hilarius von Poictiers, in Sitzungsberichte d. Kgl. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, clxii (1910) Pt. 4, p. 184Google Scholar.

122 See the chronological argument of Professor Baynes, N. H. in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, xii (1925), pp. 65–9Google Scholar. The Theodosian Code shows Constantine Junior in Pannonia on 12 June.

123 Apol. ad Constantium, 5.

124 The plight of Constantius at this juncture, with Armenians deserting him and Roman discipline broken, is described by Julian, Or. 1. 20.

125 Apol. ad. Constantium, 5.

126 We know from Ap. c. Ar., 6 that the translation of Eusebius was news in Egypt at the close of 338 or early in 339.

127 See Socrates H.E., ii, 7. It is possible that the same synod consecrated Gregory to replace Athanasius; Philostorgius, H.E., ii, 11. (Bidez, p. 24) records this as the work of a synod other than Tyre, called by the Emperor's leave. The Festal Index records Gregory's entry into Alexandria as bishop in March 339.

128 The text is in Ap. c. Ar., 20–35.

129 Ap. c. Ar., 33.

130 Ap. c. Ar., 47 shows Asclepas laying before the synod of Sardica documentary evidence of his right to his bishopric.

131 Socrates, H.E., ii, 12, whose list of bishops agrees with that in P2.

132 H.E., ii, 15 (end).

133 Thus S, while attacking Paul with violence, says no word of Macedonius as rightful bishop.

134 Ap. ad Const., 36. πάλιν ἠναισχύντουν οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον τάς τε έκκλησίας ἐτάραττον καὶ πολλοῖς ἐπεβούλευον. Hence the West had to take fresh action. Schwartz, without knowledge of P, guessed that the Eusebius in Tunc temporis was the Chamberlain, arguing that there was no ground for the Eusebian plot against Paul till after the party-leader's death. (Schwartz, loc. cit., page 516, Note 1.)

135 See Appendix, “Date of Sardica.”

136 Feder, p. 61, lines 23–30, for Maximin; p. 72 for Asclepas, and p. 51 for five other Western leaders.

137 Schwartz, l.c., p. 476, suggests that they knew of the Hermogenes riot, which he supposed to have taken place very early (say January) in 342, and that they did not mention him, because his cause was beyond recovery. Against this is their subsequent support of Paul.

138 The article, Hermogenes, in Pauly-Wissowa, by Schwartz, says that the Hermogenes incident took place early in the year. The sole ground for this seems to be a conjecture that the force commanded by Hermogenes was being sent from Antioch to reinforce the Danubian army. There is no evidence to show this, and as it was mid-winter when Constantius arrived to avenge Hermogenes, the riot must have been in the autumn.

139 N2, represented in Socrates, H.E., ii, 13 and Sozomen H.E., iii, 7.; (Socrates also draws upon a chronicle which names the consuls for 342, and records the victory of Constans over the Franks) Ammianus Marcellinus, mentioning Herculanus, son of Hermogenes, in Rerum Gestarum, xiv, 10, where he makes brief reference to the death of the father, described at length in one of the lost books; Libanius, who was himself present in Constantinople at the time of the riot, and describes his personal experiences in Or. i, 44, and the action of Constantius in Or. lix, 94; and the Hieronymian Chronicle (Edn. R. Helm, p. 235) where we have the entry for 342, Hermogenes magister militiae Constantinopoli tractus a populo ob episcopum Paulum, quem regis imperio et arianorum factione pellebat.

140 Socrates, ὀμπίπρησι μὲν αὐτοῦ τὴν οίκιὰν δὲ σύραντες ἀπέκτειναν. Ρ, ίδόντες δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι συνέσχον τὸν κόμητα Ἑρμογέινην καί σύραντες αὐτόν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πόλεως ἀπέκτειναν. We may suspect that διὰ τὴς πὸλεως stood in the text of N after σύραντες, and that this provided the incentive for Sozomen's embroidery.

141 This may be deliberate abstention. In Or. lix he refers to arguments by Senators, refuted by Constantius, which may well have involved the question of Paul.

142 H.E. iv, 3.

143 Wounded, according to Libanius. P3, calling the proconsul ό ἔπαρχος τῆς πόλɛως, the equivalent of Praefectus urbis, is mildly anachronistic, since the Prefecture only dates from 359. The anachronism may be due to substitution, by the hagiographer, of the title familiar to him, for ὁ ἄ ρχων in the text of P.

144 Libanius, Or. lix.

145 For example, Sozomen does not even mention the σιτηρέσια.

146 This was first argued by De Valois in his note to Socrates, H.E., ii, 15.

147 Athanasius, Hist. Ar., 18.

148 This lends point to the address of Libanius’ 59th oration, on the Persian war, to Constans and Constantius.

149 Palanque, J. R., Essai sur la Préfecture du Prétoire du Bas-Empire (1933), pp. 20–22Google Scholar.

150 S.v. Byzantion, Pauly-Wissowa, iii, 1122.

151 George Codinus, De originibus Constantinopolitanis, and De Signis, (C.S. H.B., Edn. I. Bekker, 1043) pp. 12, 36, and 38.

152 In Socrates, H.E., ii, 16, Philip, after ordering Paul to Thessalonica, adds the ironical leave ἀδɛῶς τɛ έπιβαίνɛιν καὶ κατά τὰς ἄλλας τῶν ἐν Ἰλλυριοῖς πόλɛις, meaning “or anywhere else you like, in Illyria.

153 H.E., ii, 17. The point is not reproduced in Sozomen. In the middle fourth century the directest route from Thessalonica to Rome via Dyrrachium was still in use.

154 Socrates, H.E., ii, 22.

155 Schwartz, E. argues to the same effect in an article Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts, Z.N.T.W. (1935), xxxiv, 139, Note 4Google Scholar.

156 H.E., iii, 12.

157 H.E., ii, 8.

158 H.E., ii, 23.

159 L.c.

160 καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐν ίδιαζούσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῆς πόλɛως τάς συνόδους ποιούμɛνος.

161 Soz., H.E., vii, 10.

162 Socrates records the final exile of Paul two chapters before the submission of Vetranio, December 350, but it would be rash to conclude that this was based on sound chronology.

163 Athanasius, De fuga, 3, also lays the responsibility for Paul's sentence on Philip.

164 So A, supported by De fuga, 3. The version in P can hardly be dependent on Athanasius. The story in De fuga, beginning διώζαντɛς καὶ ɛὺρόντɛς, has been taken to mean that Paul fled from Constantinople. But this language is meant to be picturesque, that “the quarry was tracked down” at Cucusus does not tell against the plain statement of exile to Cucusus in A.

165 L.c., p. 173.

166 H.E., iv, 2.

167 Socrates, H.E., v, 9, without other support. The second Vita Pauli (P.G. cxvi, 884–896A) substitutes Cucusus, and asserts Paul's martyrdom in the words ἕνθα καὶ τῷ δι᾽ ἀγχόνης τῶν δυσβῶν νύκτωρ έπσισɛνδόντων τɛλɛιοῦται μαρτυρίῳ (892C).

168 P.G. civ, 129D–131A.

169 H.E., ii, 27 and 38, while including all Homoousians among the victims of Macedonius, seem to rest on Novatian evidence. Union was “nearly effected” between Paulists and Novatians, at this time, according to Sozomen, H.E., iv, 20, while iv, 2 agrees in details with P.

170 H.E., iv, 9 (Bidez., p. 62).

171 Sozomen, H.E., iv, 26, is in general terms. For the persecuting alliance of Eusebius the Eunuch with Eudoxius we learn for the first time from P8.

172 H. E., ii, 20.

173 H.E., iii, 23.

174 Osservazioni letterarie, iii (1738), 1–92.

175 Zeitschrift f. d. historische Theologie, xxxviii (1868), 92–95Google Scholar.

176 Nachrichten v. d. Kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1904 (Phil. —hist. Kl.), 341.

177 Christliche und Jüdische Ostertafeln (1905), No. viii in Abhandlungen d. Kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.

178 von Sardika, Zur Synode, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, lxxxii (1909), 279–297Google Scholar.

179 Schwartz, l.c., 515 ff.

180 Geschichte der Altenkirche, iii, 195.

181 Histoire de l'Eglise, iii, 123, Note 3.

182 Les Origines chrétiennes dans les provinces Danubiennes, in Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes, Fasc. 112., (1918) 229–231.

183 Hist. Ar., 21.

184 Festal Index, to Letter for Easter 346.