He writes that when Constantine had reached the thirty-second year

kopecek, A history of Neo-Arianism [Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979], 31–32).

42. The phrase “[preserved their] heresy” translates ἀσέβειαν; perhaps read εὐσέβειαν: “orthodoxy.” “They recovered from this change”: ἀνενεχθῆναι δὲ τῆς μεταβολῆς. It has been suggested to read τῇ μεταβολῇ (Bidez, Philostorgius, 347), but the following words ἐκεῖθεν ἀνενεχθέντα suggest that the preceding genitive is correct.

43. On Asterius’s doctrine, see Bardy, recherches sur Lucien d’Antioche, 328–57; Maurice Wiles, “Asterius: A New Chapter in the History of Arianism,” in Arianism:

historical and Theological reassessments (ed. R. C. Gregg; Cambridge, Mass.: Philadel-

phia Patristic Foundation, 1985), 111–51; Vinzent, Asterius von Kappadokien; idem, “Gottes Wesen, Logos, Weisheit und kraft bei Asterius von kappadokien und Markell von Ankyra,” Vc 47 (1993): 170–191; idem, “Die Gegner im Schreiben Markells von Ankyra an Julius von Rom,” ZKG 105 (1994): 285–328. What one makes of Asterius depends to some extent on whether one accepts the ascription to him of the com- mentaries edited by Marcel Richard, Asterii sophistae commentariorum in psalmos

quae supersunt (Oslo: Brøgger, 1956). Recent scholarship doubts the authorship; see

Wolfram kinzig, in search of Asterius: studies on the Authorship of the homilies on the

Psalms (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), reviewed by karl-Heinz uthe-

mann, Vc 45 (1991): 194–203. kinzig’s reply is in “Asterius Sophista oder Asterius Ignotus,” Vc 45 (1991): 388–98.

Philostorgius is quite right in ascribing to Asterius the view that the Son is an exact image of the Father’s substance: ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας. Epiphanius (Pan. 72.6.1) quotes him likewise: the only-begotten Word and firstborn of every creature is the οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα of the Father. The importance of his doctrine is clearly implied by Athanasius’s treatment of him. Despite what Philostorgius says, however, Wiles doubts that Aste- rius changed what was primitive Arianism. If he had, would not Athanasius have said so? For the Eunomians, the very notion of an image of God’s ingenerate substance was a contradiction, and Philostorgius resented Asterius for expounding a doctrine that (as he thought) had encouraged the homoeans to come round to the confes- sion of “like in substance” (cf. 4.4). “It seems at least possible that Philostorgius may have created an early Arianism in the image of his own later neo-Arianism, and then

of his reign, he was poisoned to death by his brothers in Nicomedia.44 _As

the end drew near and he became aware of the plot, he drew up a will that demanded that his murderers be punished; he ordered that the first of his sons to arrive should execute it, for fear lest they too should come to the same end at their hands, and he gave the will to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius,

found Asterius lacking by that imaginary standard” (Wiles, “Asterius: A New Chap- ter,” 113).

The fragments that remain of Asterius’s writings do not reveal clearly how he coordinated his doctrines of the image, on the one hand, and of ingenerateness as God’s exclusive characteristic, on the other (cf. Vinzent, Asterius von Kappadokien, 63–71). It is ironic that the term “exact image” was coined by none other than Alex- ander of Alexandria and taken up by Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea (see Raniero Cantalamessa, “Cristo ‘Immagine di Dio,’” rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 16 [1980]: 345–48). “Ingenerateness,” by contrast, became the Eunomian watchword. Small wonder, then, that Vinzent judges that Asterius was more influential than Arius himself on later “Arianism” (Asterius von Kappadokien, 31–32).

Philostorgius evidently thinks of Lucian (d. 312) as a witness to true Christian doctrine, which was later perverted by some of those supposedly his followers. One’s opinion on Lucian’s views will largely depend on how closely one connects him with the Creed of the Council of Antioch of 341, since the few fragments of his that remain (collected in Martin J. Routh, reliquiae sacrae [5 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1846], 4:3–10) do not suffice to allow any inference about doctrinal influence on “Arian- ism” of any variety. The fact that the creed draws upon Asterius, who according to Philostorgius had corrupted Lucian’s doctrine, makes its connection with the martyr improbable; see Hans Christof Brennecke, “Lukian von Antiochien in der Geschichte des arianischen Streites,” in Logos: Festschrift für Luise Abramowski (ed. Hans Christof Brennecke, Ernst Ludwig Grasmück, and Christoph Markschies; BZNW 67; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 187–88. Bardy, recherches sur Lucien d’Antioche, 85–132, thinks otherwise. See also J. N. D. kelly, Early christian creeds (London: Longman, 1972), 271.

The “Lucianists,” then, if not students of the martyr’s doctrine, may be under- stood as that group of homoeans from Asia Minor and Syria who encouraged his cult, which was centered on his burial place in Drepanum, situated in the province of which Eusebius of Nicomedia was metropolitan (Arius, from elsewhere, is not included by Philostorgius among the Lucianists, however much he may have claimed membership [Opitz, urkunden zur Geschichte, 1.5]). The martyr’s shrine enhanced the standing of Eusebius and his circle, and the latter’s famous resistance to the consubstantialist doctrine made it easy to transfer to Lucian that brand of Christian monotheism that would have its systematic exposition in Aetius and Eunomius (Brennecke, “Lukian von Antiochien,” 184–88). Such appears to be the history of doctrine still faintly vis- ible beneath Photius’s epitome.

44. The story of Constantine’s poisoning by his brothers is also mentioned in 2.4 and 2.4b and told as well in Cedrenus 297A, Zonaras 13.4.26, and Bios 654.4.

however, suspected that the emperor’s brothers might look for the will and want to find out what it contained, so he placed the document in the dead man’s hand and hid it in the folds of his robe. And when they came looking for it, as he had thought they would, he acknowledged that he had indeed received it but had put it back into his hands. Then later he removed the document and handed it over to his son Constantius, who arrived before the others and who wasted little time in executing his father’s orders.45

16a [AP 7]. The Christ-loving emperor Constantine advanced to the

thirty-first year of his reign and arrived at the thirty-second, when he

learned that the Persians were preparing for war against him.46 _{He therefore}

arose from his own city and made his way as far as Nicomedia in Bithynia. There he died from a plot hatched by his brothers, who administered poison to him, a death foretold by a comet, they say.47 _{Constantine’s brothers on his}

father’s side were Dalmatius, Hannibalianus, and Constantius. For he was the only son his father Constans had from Helena while he was still in private life, while from Theodora, the daughter of Maximian, surnamed Herculius, he had other sons, the aforementioned Dalmatius, Hannibalianus, and Constan- tius.48 _{Constantine honored them with the titles of “Caesar” and nobilissimus.}

45. The allusion in 2.4b to Constantine killing his brothers is picked up here with the story of his will, which made its executor an executioner. Rufinus (hist. eccl. 10.12) tells of Constantine entrusting his will to an Arian presbyter, but there the testament simply bequeaths the empire to his successors; nothing is said about vengeance. How- ever, his intentions about the disposition of his realm, whether put into testamentary form or not, are clearly revealed in the measures he took during his life in appointing as Caesars his sons Constantine (with Crispus) in 317, Constantius in 324, Constans in 333, and his nephew Dalmatius, son of his half-brother of the same name, in 335. The territories their father eventually assigned them to administer are those given in 2.16b, with Dalmatius given the lower Danube (cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Later roman

Empire, 284–602: A social, Economic, and Administrative survey [2 vols.; Oxford:

Blackwell, 1964], 1:84–85), a division perhaps reminiscent of the former Tetrarchy. On the titles Constantine gave his half-brothers, cf. S II 5; Zosimus 2.39.2; Paschoud,

Zosime, 1:246.

46. On the impending Persian campaign, see Eusebius, Vit. const. 4.55–57. 47. On Constantine’s death, see Vit. const. 4.61–64; A7.13, 13a, d, e; Theophanes 50B; chron. pasch. P286C; Aurelius Victor 41.16; Malalas 13.14. He died on 22 May 337. The comet is mentioned in Aurelius Victor and Eutropius 10.8.2.

48. Constantine I’s father, Constantius I (referred to as “Constans” in 2.16a), was of modest origins and rose through the ranks of the army, Constantine being born to him ca. 275 from Helena, who was of even humbler background. The description of her here accords with that elsewhere: Anon. Val. 2 (helena matre vilissima); Ambrose,

One of them, Constantius, had as sons Gallus and Julian from his wedded wife; Julian was surnamed “the Apostate” because he renounced Christ and went over to pagan worship.

[AP 41: Julian speaks]. You know … that our family is especially suited to rule. For my father Constantius was born to my grandfather Constans from Theodora, Maximian’s daughter. Constantine, however, was born to him from Helena, a common woman no better than a harlot, and that while he had not yet become Caesar but was still of private station. Constantine, then,

17; Bill Leadbetter, “The Illegitimacy of Constantine and the Birth of the Tetrarchy,” in constantine: history, historiography, and Legend (ed. Samuel S. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat; London: Routledge, 1998), 78–85.

The statement that he was not yet Caesar at Constantine’s birth is certainly true, but that he was still of private station then seems unlikely, given that he was praeto- rian prefect in 289 and had had to work his way up the ranks. Bios 308.4–5, 15–17 says that he was a tribune when he met Helena; that squares with his career in Anon.

Val. 1: “protector primum, inde tribunus, postea praeses Dalmatiarum fuit.” But his

ascent into the higher circles of the Tetrarchy apparently entailed his repudiation of Helena and marriage to Theodora, daughter or stepdaughter of Maximian, the western Augustus, which probably took place before 289. He became Caesar in 293. Theodora bore him six children, the three sons among whom, Constantine’s half- brothers, are listed in 2.16a.

Shortly after Constantine’s death, most of the descendants of his stepmother Theodora were massacred by the army, including two of his half-brothers and the Caesar Dalmatius. Despite what Julian is made to say in 2.16a about both of his uncles being killed, in his Ep. ad Ath. 270C–D, he speaks instead of the murder of his father (Julius Constantius) and of an uncle, presumably Dalmatius (Socrates 3.1.6 does not mention Hannibalianus as one of the victims).

The motive for the slaughter seems to have been the desire of the army to exclude from power anyone not descended from Constantine himself. The story of the poi- soning of Constantine by his brothers, and of the will, seems designed to absolve Constantius II of all blame for the deaths of his relatives (cf. Giuseppe Zecchini, “Filostorgio,” in Metodologie della ricerca sulla tarda antichità [ed. Antonio Garzya; Naples: D’Auria, 1989], 581). Modern scholarship usually discounts it (although see Michael DiMaio and Duane W.-H. Arnold, “Per Vim, Per caedem, Per Bellum: A Study of Murder and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Year 337 A.D.,” Byzantion 62 [1992]: 158–211, for an imaginative reconstruction). There is, however, insufficient evidence that Constantius himself was directly responsible for the massacre (cf. Joe W. Leedom, “Constantius II: Three Revisions,” Byzantion 48 [1978]: 132–45), although it has been asked if he did all he could to restrain the soldiers. Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, or. 4.21; Ammianus 21.16.8; Athanasius, h. Ar. 69.1; Libanius, or. 18.31; Jerome, chron. 338; Eutropius 10.9.1; Epit. caes. 41.18; Zosimus 2.40; Theophylact 7 (PG 126:161B); Pas- choud, Zosime, 1:246–47.

seized power in his arrogance and unjustly put to death my father and both his brothers.

16b [Opitz, Vit. const. 64]. Constantine in the twenty-eighth year of his reign proclaimed his youngest son Constans Caesar and placed him between his two brothers, giving him Italy. For he had honored his oldest son Con- stantine with the rank of Caesar in the twelfth year of his reign, setting him over upper Gaul; Constantius as well he had invested with the title of Caesar in the nineteenth year of his reign, bidding him govern the east.

17. Our enemy of God accuses the Christians of worshiping with sacri- fices the image of Constantine set up upon the porphyry column, of paying homage to it with lamp-lighting and incense or praying to it as to a god, and of offering it supplications to avert calamities.49

18. He says that when Constantine the Great had died and those lan- guishing everywhere in exile received permission to return, Athanasius too arrived in Alexandria from Gaul. Learning that Gregory had died,50 _{he made}

his way just as he was straight from the ship to the church and resumed the throne, having no regard for those who had excommunicated him.

49. See 25 n. 29. On the homage paid to Constantine’s statue (with lighted candles), cf. chron. pasch. P285A–C. The porphyry column on which it was set was brought from Rome; it was later thought that the statue on top of it had been imported from elsewhere (Leo Grammaticus 87.13–18). It held a spear in its right hand and in its left a globe, and it wore a crown of seven rays. The image was perhaps deliberately ambiguous, being normal in imperial representation, but also suggestive of the sun-god or Mithras. The statue was feted yearly with hymns, acclamations, and a procession in a ceremony that perhaps only gradually assumed an undisguisedly Christian character. See soc 1:Hesychias, 41; soc 2:2.49; 2:1.45; 2:1.57; 2:2.45; Averil Cameron and Judith Herrin, constantinople in the Early Eighth century: The Parasta-

seis syntomoi chronikai (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 242–45.

50. See the second paragraph in 29 n. 38. Gregory had not only not died but had not yet even been appointed. Constantine II’s letter to the church of Alexandria announcing Athanasius’s return is dated 17 June 337; cf. Athanasius, c. Ar. 87.3–7; h.

Book 3

1. He says that Constantine, the oldest of Constantine’s sons, plotted against his brother Constans, whose generals engaged him in battle. He per- ished, and his portion of the realm was annexed to Constans’.1

1a [AP 8]. Constantine the Great was scarcely dead when the Roman empire was divided into three realms; it was his sons Constantine, Con- stantius, and Constans who divided it up.2 _{To the oldest, Constantine, were}

allotted upper Gaul, the regions beyond the Alps, the British Isles, and the territory as far as the western ocean. To Constans as the youngest went Lower Gaul or Italy and Rome itself. Constantius, the second-born of Constantine’s sons, who was then engaged in the affairs of the east in the struggle with the Persians, received the eastern portion. He made Byzantium, renamed Con- stantinople and New Rome, into an imperial capital and made tributary to his realm and government all the territory from Illyricum to the Propontis that

was subject to the Romans, as well as Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Egypt,

and all the islands.

[AP 9]. As was said, when there were three emperors, each of whom was governing his own portion, the oldest of them, Constantine, arose from

1. What let to the quarrel between Constantine II and Constans, and to the death of the former in 340, is not completely clear. The older brother seems to have treated the younger as subject to him, while Constans chafed under this and disobeyed, until finally Constantine demanded a formal division of their territory, which he had regarded as a common realm, claiming Italy and Africa as his by right. But when he invaded Italy, he was ambushed and killed near Aquileia, his body being thrown into the Alsa River. Cf. A7.13a and A7.14; Julian, or. 2.94B–D; consul. const. 340; Aurelius Victor, 41.22; Epit. caes. 41.22; Eutropius 10.9.2; Jerome, chron. 340; Rufinus, hist.

eccl. 10.16; Socrates 2.5; Sozomen 3.2.10; Zosimus 2.41; Zonaras 13.5.7–13; comp. chron. 53.24–54.3; Cedrenus 297B–C; J.-R. Palanque, “Collégialité et partages dans

l’empire romain aux IVe et Ve siècles,” revue des études anciennes 46 (1944): 54–58; Paschoud, Zosime, 1:245, 248.

2. Constantine’s three surviving sons (see the last two paragraphs to 34 n. 48) were proclaimed Augusti and proceeded to a threefold division of the realm at a con- ference in Pannonia in the autumn of 337.

his own territory, went up to the region inherited by his youngest brother while he was away on a journey to Rome, and attempted an injustice against him. He laid a charge against him in his absence, to the effect that their ter- ritories had not been divided properly and that he had appropriated most of the realm belonging to him. But the generals and guardians of the country appointed by Constans said that they could make no change, great or small, without his consent and decision, for that would be wrong. So he prepared for war and took up arms against someone who had done no wrong, but in the battle it was Constantine who fell, and in his desire for the portion belonging to others he lost even what had seemed to be his sure possession.

[AP 10]. His people’s sympathies therefore went over to Constans, and the entire western realm became subject to him, although he had never desired it; but such was the judgment of God, who said, “Do not move your ances- tral boundaries or seize your neighbor’s furrow.”3 _{For those who act wickedly}

against their neighbors bring ruin upon themselves, drawing God’s justice upon them. Constans therefore ruled over the entire western realm, joining the two inheritances together and making both portions one realm.

2. He heaps praise upon Constantius and says that he built the church in Constantinople that is justly called “the great.” In addition, he brought the

apostle Andrew over from Achaia to the church that he had built and that

is called after the apostles in common. Next to it he erected his father’s tomb.

Not only that; he also translated the evangelist Luke from Achaia to the

same sacred precinct. The apostle Timothy as well he likewise brought over

from Ephesus in Ionia to that same renowned and august house.4

3. The quotation about “ancestral boundaries” is from Deut 19:14. Cf also Prov 22:28; 23:10.

4. The “great church” is Hagia Sophia. It is disputed whether Constantine or Constantius laid its foundations; cf. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 397–99. It was dedicated on 15 February 360, burned down on 20 June 404, was rebuilt and rededi- cated on 10 October 415, was burned down again during the riots on 15 January 532, and was completely rebuilt by Justinian. Cf. A7.31.2; Jerome, chron. 360; Socrates 2.16.16; 2.43.11; chron. pasch. P293D; 294B–C; Cedrenus 298D; Zonaras 14.6.19, 30;

Vita Pauli in Photius, Bibliotheca Codex 257.475b27–28. As 3.2a notes, Hagia Sophia

was next to the senate building in the Augusteum (see Raymond Janin, constantinople

Byzantine: Développement urbain et répertoire topographique [Paris: Institut français

d’études byzantines, 1964], 155).

Contrary to 3.2, it was Constantine who built the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. He planned it, in fact, to be his sepulchre, his tomb in the center flanked by the apostles’ coffins on either side amid the splendor of light and gold (Eusebius, Vit. const. 4.58–60). He was in fact buried there (Vit. const. 4.70), but, as 3.2 indicates, Constantius (doubtless prompted by his episcopal advisers) had other

2a [AP 17]. Our historian writes about Constantius and the martyr [Artemius] that not only could it be said of Constantius that he was eagerly attentive to divine matters, even if, led astray by Eusebius, the heretical and most godless bishop of Nicomedia, he went over to the Arian sect; but he was also in other respects moderate, particularly careful about decency, and outstanding in his exercise of self-restraint in diet and in other respects. He also had a very great concern for the churches, eager as he was to far outdo his father by his efforts in this regard. He constructed the great church next to the senate in his father’s city right from its foundations.5 _{To honor his father’s}

tomb, he built a great church as a place of worship there, translating the