ance (Feb. 24, 357™, third Friday in Lent). for the second bishopric in Christendom.
After a further delay of ‘eight months and eleven days’ George, the new bishop, made his appear- His previous career?* and character?3 were strange qualifications He had been a pork-contractor at Constantinople, and according to his many enemies a fraudulent one; he had amassed considerable wealth, and was a zealous Arian.
His violent temper perhaps recommended him as a man likely to crush the opposition that was expected. The history of his episcopate may be briefly disposed of here. force. At Easter he renewed the violent persecution of bishops, clergy, virgins, and lay people.
11 This date, coming from the common source of the Historia Acephala and Festal Index (i.e. from the accredited Alexandrian chronology of the period), must be accepted unless there is cogent proof of its incorrectness. No such proof is offered: we have no positive statement to the contrary, but only (1) the fact that the intrusion of George is related, dZo/. Fug. 6, immediately after an attack on the great church, possibly the coup de main of Syrianus, but more probably that ofp. 290, note 9, without any hint of a long interval. This is true, and zf there were no evidence the other way might justify a guess that George came in Lent, 356; but no one would claim that the passage is conclusive by itself; (2) the ‘improbability’ of George delaying his arrival so long. Improbability is a relative term; we know too little of George’s consecration or movements to justify its use in the present connection. All the evidence goes to shew that the court party were far from sanguine as to the nature of his reception, and that their misgivings were well-founded. The above con- siderations look very small when we compare them with the mass of positive evidence the other way. (1.) The civil Governor had changed: Maximus held the post on Feb. 8, 356 (st. Av. 81, &c.), Cataphronius when the churches were transferred to the party of George, see below, 6. (2.) The military Commander had changed: Syrianus was replaced by Sebastian, who appears just after the transfer of churches, Hzst. Av. 55—60 (Dr. Bright in D.C.B. i. 194, ote, seems to admit that Sebastian belongs to a later date than the Lent of 356). (3.) The Wednesday (and Thursday) of Hist. Ar. 55 were not ‘in Lent.’ They suit the data of Hist. Aceph. perfectly well. (4.) Had George arrived before Easter 356, Athan. would have heard of it ‘in the Desert,’ Afol. Const. 27; but he has only heard of his nomination evoudcOn 28, pro- bably from the letters given in §§ 30, 31). (5.) The Letter to the Egyptian bishops was written from Libya or Cyrenaica, when the coercion of the episcopate had begun: it postulates some time since his expulsion, but George was then (§ 7) only in contempla- tion. (6.) There is no evidence that the coup de main of Syrianus was other than unpopular in the city. This was reported to Const., who after the (Easter) outrages on the Virgins (AZ. Const. 27; Hist. Ar. 48), and @/ter the expulsion of the sixteen bishops (Hist. Ar. 54, this was probably about Easter, AZ. Const. 27) sent Heraclius (with the ‘ discreditable’ letter), 72 whose contpany (Hist. Ar. 55) the new Prefect Cataphronius first appears. This let loose the refuse of the heathen population as described, ib, 55—60. (7.) Here the precise statement of the Hist, Aceph.
He entered upon his See in Lent, 357, with an armed In the week fits in exactly. The Presbyters and people of Ath. remained in possession of the Churches until the arrival of the new Prefect, with Count Heraclius,on June 10. (8.) Heraclius is expressly called the Jrecursor of George (p. 288), and is evidently sent to disarm the reported hostility of the (even heathen) public to the appointment. It may be added that if we are to take ‘pro- babilities’ into account, it is easier to imagine a reason for a court nominee like George having been slow to take up a dangerous post, than for the Alexandrian chronologists of the day having invented a year’s interval when none had existed. Montfaucon had already noticed that ‘a good deal must have happened’ be- tween the irruption of Syrianus and the entry of George. The data of Athanasius are for the first time clearly explained by the light thrown on them by the chroniclers. I should also have urged the fact that the commemoration of George’s Pentecost Martyrs on May 21 in the Roman Martyrology szits 357 and not 356, had I succeeded in tracing the history of the entry, which has, however, so far eluded my efforts.
12 We are quite in the dark as to when, and by whom, George was consecrated bishop. The statement of Sozomen iv. 8, that he was ordained by a council of thirty bishops at Antioch, in- cluding Theodore of Heraclea, who had died before the exile of Liberius in 355 (Thdt. AZ. ii. 16, p. 93. 13), is involved in too hopeless a tangle of anachronisms to be of any value for our enquiry. But that George was ordained in Antioch is in itself likely enough, and if so, his ordination would probably follow close upon the expulsion of Athanasius. But the repeated as- surances of Ath. that George came /rom court would imply that after his ordination George went to Italy. That at once puts his arrival in Alxa, in Lent 356 out of the question.
13 The statements of Ath. as to George are made at second- hand, and must be taken cw gvano. He is ‘notoriously wealthy,’ yet ‘hired’ by the Arians. (Cf. p. 249; but apparently he combined wealth and avarice.) That he was ‘a heathen’ is certainly untrue. His ‘ignorance’ is equally so: we know that he was a well-read man and possessed a remarkably good library (D.C.B. ii. 638). That he had ‘the temper of a hangman’ (p. 227) is in keeping with all that we know of him, and as to his general character, the statements of Athanasius and other churchmen are not stronger than Amm. Marcell. XXII. xi. 4 (cf. Gibbon, ili. 171 sgg., ed. Smith, but correct his ex d’esprit on “S. George and the Dragon’ by Bright, in D.C.B. uz supra; ' yet see Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. vii. I11.).
THIRD EXILE. STATE OF PARTIES. Nii after Pentecost he let loose the cruel commandant Sebastian against a number of persons who were worshipping at the cemetery instead of communicating with himself; many were killed, and many more banished. ‘The expulsion of bishops (‘over thirty,’ p. 257, cf. other reff. above) was continued (the various data of Ath. are not easy to reconcile, the first 16 of p. 257 may be the ‘sixteen’ of p. 248, before Easter, 356: we miss the name of Serapion in all the lists!) Theodore, Bishop of Oxyrynchus, the largest town of middle Egypt, upon submitting to George, was compelled by him to submit to reordination. The people refused to have anything more to do with him, and did without a bishop for a long time, until they obtained a pastor in one Heraclides, who is said to have become a ‘ Luciferian.’ (Cf. Zz. Prec., and Le Quien ii. p. 578.) George carried on his tyranny eighteen months, till Aug. 29, 358. His fierce insults against Pagan worship were accompanied by the meanest and most oppressive rapacity. At last the populace, exasperated by his ‘adder’s bites’ (Ammian.), attacked him, and he was rescued with difficulty. On Oct. 2 he left the town, and the party of Athanasius expelled his followers from the churches on Oct. 11, but on Dec. 24, Sebastian came in from the country and restored the churches to the people of George. On June 23, 359, ‘the notary Paul’ (‘in complicandis calumniarum nexibus artifex dirus, unde ei Catene inditum est cognomentum,’ Ammian. Marc. XIV. v., XV. iii.), the Jeffreys of the day, held a commission of blood, and ‘vindictively punished many™.’ George was at this time busy with the councils of Seleucia and Constantinople (he was not actually present at the latter, Thdt. #. Z. ii. 28), and was in no hurry to return. At last, just after the death of Constantius, he ventured back, Nov. 26, 361, but on the proclamation of Julian on Nov. 30 was seized by the populace and thrown into chains; on Dec. 24, ‘impatient of the tedious forms of judicial proceedings,’ the people dragged him from prison and lynched him with the utmost ignominy.
Athanasius meanwhile eluded all search. During part of the year 357—358 he was in concealment in Alexandria itself, and he was supposed to be there two years later (Fest. Ind. XXX., xxxll.; the latter gives some colour to the tale of Palladius—cf. Soz. v. 6—of his having during part of this period remained concealed in the house of a Virgin of the church), but the greater part of his time was undoubtedly spent in the numberless cells of Upper and Lower Egypt, where he was secure of close concealment, and of loyal and efficient messengers to warn him of danger, keep him informed of events, and carry his letters and writings far and wide. The tale of Rufinus (i. 18) that he lay hid all the six years in a dry cistern is probably a confused version of this general fact. The tombs of kings and private persons were at this time the common abode of monks (cf. p. 564, note 1; also Socr. iv. 13, a similar mistake). Probably we must place the composition of the Zzfe of Antony, the great classic of Monas- ticism, at some date during this exile, although the question is surrounded with difficulties (see pp. 188 sgg.). The importance of the period, however, lies in the march of events outside Egypt. (For a brilliant sketch of the desert life of Athanasius see D.C.B. 1. 194 sg.; also Bright, flist. Treatises, p. Ixxiv. sq.)
(2.) With the accession of Constantius to sole power, the anti-Nicene reaction at last had a free hand throughout the Empire. Of what elements did it now consist? The original reaction was conservative in its numerical strength, Arian in its motive power. The stream was derived from the two fountain heads of Paul of Samosata, the ancestor of Arius, and of Origen the founder of the theology of the Eastern Church generally and especially of that of Euse- bius of Czsarea. Flowing from such heterogeneous sources, the two currents never thoroughly mingled. Common action, dictated on the one hand by dread of Sabellianism, manipulated on the other hand by wire-pullers in the interest of Arianism, united the East till after the death of Constantine in the campaign against the leaders of Niczea. Then for the last ten years of the life of Constans, Arianism, or rather the Reaction, had its ‘stationary period’ (Newman). The chaos of creeds at the Council of Antioch (sur. p. xliv.) shewed the presence of discordant aims; but opposition to Western interference, and the urgent panic of Photinus and his master, kept them together: the lead was still taken by the Arianisers, as is shewn by the continued prominence of the fourth Antiochene Creed at Philippopolis (343), Antioch (344), and Sinmium (351). But the second or Lucianic Creed was on record as the protest of the conservative majority, and was not forgotten. Yet until after 351, when Photinus was finally got rid of and Constantius master of the world, the reaction was still embodied in a fairly compact and united party. But now the latent heterogeneity of the reaction began to make itself felt. Differing in source and motive, the two main currents made in different directions. The influence of Aristotle and Paul and Lucian set steadily toward a harder and more consistent Arianism, that of Plato and the Origenists toward an understanding with the Nicenes.
(a.) The original Arians, now gradually dying out, were all tainted with compromise and political sub- serviency, Arivs, Asterius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the rest (Secundus and Theonas are the solitary exception), were all at one time or another, and in different degrees, willing to make concessions and veil their more objectionable tenets under some evasive confession. But in many cases temporary humiliation produced its natural result in subsequent uncompromising defiance. This is exemplified in the history of VALENS and neem mre teenies se et ee ee Pee Bee nie frota a similae commision a | Antioch, bom whehce leo" x Comitatu Principisy Arm. 2021, Scythopolis. He was apparently aided in both places by Modestus | xi., he returned to Alxa. in 361, evidently betore he had heaid the Comes Orientis. From Liban. Z/. 205, we gather, to the | of the Emperor's death. (Sievers, pp. 138 sq.) credit of George, that he was the intermediary of requests for 7 liv PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 8 (2).
Ursacius after 351. Valens, especially, figures as the head of a new party of ‘ ANOMGANS’ or ultra-Arians. The rise of this party is associated with the name of AETIUS, its after-history with that of his pupil eee bishop of Cyzicus from 361. It was marked by a genuine scorn for the compromises of earlier Arianism, oe which it differed in nothing except its more resolute sincerity. The career of Aetius (D.C.B. i. 50, sgq.) was t e of a struggling, self-made, self-confident man. A pupil of the Lucianists (suv, p. xxviil, ), he shrunk from none 2 the irreverent conclusions of Arianism. His loud voice and clear-cut logic lost none of their effect by fear o offending the religious sensibilities of others. In 350 Leontius ordained him deacon, with a licence to preach, at Antioch; but Flavian and Diodorus (see above, § 7) raised such a storm that the cautious bishop felt obliged to suspend him. On the appointment of George he was invited to Alexandria, whither Eunomius was attracted by his fame as a teacher. His influence gradually spread, and he found many kindred spirits among the bishops. The survivors of the original Arians were with him at heart, as also were men like Eudoxius, bishop of Caan icia (of Antioch, 358, of CP. 360), who fell as far behind Aetius in sincerity as he surpassed him in prea e the Anomceans (dvduows) were numerically strong, and morally even more so; they were the wedge bh h eventually broke up the reactionary mass, rousing the sincere horror of the Conservatives, commanding t | sometimes dissembled but always real sympathy of the true Arians, and seriously embarrassing the politica Arians, whose one aim was to keep their party together by disguising differences of principle under some con- venient phrase. -; dant) J (2.) This latter party were headed by Acacius in the East and in the West by VALENS, who while in reality, as stated above, making play for the Anomcean cause, was diplomatist enough to use the influential ‘ party of no principle’ as his instrument for the purpose. Valens during the whole period of the sole reign of Constantius (and in fact until his own death about 375) was the heart and soul of the new and last phase of Arianism, namely of the formal attempt to impose an Arian creed upon the Church in lieu of that of Nicza. But this could only be done by skilful use of less extreme men, and in the trickery and statecraft necessary for such a purpose Valens was facile princeps. His main supporter in the East was ACACIUS, who had succeeded to the bishoprick, the library, and the doctrinal position of his preceptor Eusebius of Czesarea. The latter, as we saw (p. xxvii. note 5), represented ‘the extreme left’ of the conservative reaction, meeting the right wing, or rather the extreme concessions, of pure Arianism as represented by its official advocate Asterius, whom in fact Eusebius had defended against the onslaught of Marcellus. In so far then as the stream of pure Arianism could be mingled with the waters of Conservatism, Acacius was the channel in which they joined. Eusebius had not been an Arian, neither was Acacius; Eusebius had theological convictions, but lacked clearness of perception, Acacius was a clear-headed man but without convictions; Eusebius was substantially conservative in his theology, but tainted with political Arianism; Acacius was a political Arian first, and anything you please afterwards. On the whole, his sympathies seem to have been conservative, but he manifests a rooted dislike of principle of any kind. He appoints orthodox bishops (Philost. v. 1), but quarrels with them as soon as he encounters their true mettle, Cyril in 358, Meletius in 361; he befriends Arians, but betrays the too honest Aetius in 360. His ecclesiastical career begins with the council of four creeds in 341; in controversy with Marcellus he developed the concessions of Asterius till he almost reached the Nicene standard; he hailed effusively the Anomcean Creed of Valens in 358 (Soz. iv. 12), and in 359-60 forced that of Nike in its amended form upon the Eastern Church far and wide, He is next heard of, signing the ‘Ooodcioy, in 363, and lastly (Socr. iv. 2) under Valens is named again along with Eudoxius. The real opinions of a man with such a record are naturally not easy to determine, but we may be sure that he was in thorough sympathy with the policy of Constantius, namely the union of all parties in the Church on the basis of subserviency to the State.
The difficulty was to find a formula. The test of Niczea could not be superseded without putting something in its place, which should zzclude Arianism as effectually as the other had excluded it. Such a test was eventually (after 357) found in the word guo.os*5, It was a word with a good Catholic history. We find it used freely by Athanasius in his earlier anti-Arian writings, and it was thoroughly current in conservative theology, as for example in Cyril’s Catecheses (he has duoiov kara Tas ypupds and buo.ov kara mévta). It would therefore permit even the full Nicene belief. On the other hand many of the more earnest conservative theologians had begun to reflect on what was involved in the ‘likeness’ of the Son to the Father, and had formulated the conviction that this likeness was essentia/, not, as the Arians held, acquired. This was in fact a fair inference from the ovolas anapdhAaktov eixdva of the Dedication Creed. This question made an agreement between men like Valens and Basil difficult, but it could be evaded by keeping to the simple duo.v, and deprecating non-scriptural precision. Lastly, there were the Anomceans to be considered. Now the duoioy had the specious appearance of flatly contradicting this repellent avowal of the extremists; but to Valens and his friends it had the substantial recom- mendation of admitting it in reality. ‘Likeness’ isa relative term. If two things are only ‘like’ they are zpso facto to some extent unlike; the two words are not contradictories but correlatives, and if the likeness is not essential, the unlikeness is. So far then as the ‘Homcean’ party rested on any doctrinal principle at all, that principle was the principle of Arius; and that is how Valens forwarded the Anomcean cause by putting him- self at the head of the Homceans. His plan of campaign had steadily matured. The deposition of Photinus in 351 had sounded the note of war, Arles and Milan (353-5) and the expulsion of Athanasius (356) had cleared the field of opponents, George was now in possession at Alexandria, and in the summer of 357 the triumph of Arianism was proclaimed. A small council of bishops met at Sirmium and published a Latin Creed, insisting strongly (1) on the unique Godhead of the Father, (2) on the subjection of the Son ‘along with all things subjected to Him by the Father,’ and (3) strictly proscribing the terms éuoovc.ov, 6uotrovctov, and all discussion of ovata, as unscriptural and inscrutable.
This manifesto was none the less Anomeean for not explicitly avowing the obnoxious phrase. It fordids the definition of the ‘likeness’ as essential, and does not even condescend to use the Soy at all. The Nicene definition is for the first time overtly and bluntly denounced, and the ‘conservatives ’ are commanded to hold their peace. The ‘Sirmium blasphemy’ was indeed a trumpet-blast of defiance. The echo came back from the Homeeans assembled at Antioch, whence Eudoxius the new bishop, Acacius, and their friends addressed the 15 We cannot fix the date when this word was first adopted | cov was adopted as a protest against the bald dmovoy, the latter as ashibboleth. It occurs, but not conspicuously, in the ‘Macros- | must have been current dong before 357, when the former was tich’ of 344, but not in any other creed till the ‘dated’ symbol | proscribed. I incline to regard the djovov (as a test word) as of 359. Butif (as Kriiger, Luci, p. 42, note, assumes) the ouovov- | a ater rival to the énovovcror.
_ THIRD EXILE. RISE OF THE SEMI-ARIANS. lv apa with a eee thanks. But the blast heralded the collapse of the Arian cause; the Reaction ‘fell Be Pesci) NEesen a nett en a pore a its he iematkin, p: 158, necveye peaoune should ‘Milan had spared, meet in synod and oe the oe hi _ S ae os cates ee ee amt eee Arianism, for the first time with thorough spontanei Te eer ec ds ie Bi eas , 5 gh spontaneity. Times were changed indeed; the East was at war with the West, but on the side of orthodoxy against Arianism.
_ (c) We must now take account of the party headed by Basi of ANcyRa and usually (since Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated as Sem1-Arrans. Their theological ancestry and antecedents have been already sketched (pp. xxvii., xxxv.); they are the representa- tives of that conservatism, moulded by the neo-Asiatic, or modified Origenist tradition, which warmly condemned Arianism at Nicea, but acquiesced with only half a heart in the test by which the Council resolved to exclude it. They furnished the numerical strength, the material basis so to Call it, of the anti-Nicene reaction; but the reaction on their part had not been Arian in principle, but in part anti-Sabellian, in part the empirical conservatism of men whose own principles are vague and ill-assorted, and who fail to follow the keener sight which distinguishes the higher conservatism from the lower. They lent themselves to the purposes of the Eusebians (a name which ought to be dropped after 342) on purely negative grounds and in view of questions of personal rights and accusations. A positive doctrinal formula they did not possess. But in the course of years reflexion did its work. A younger generation grew up who had not been taught to respect Niczea, nor yet had imbibed Arian principles. Cyril at Jerusalem, Meletius at Antioch, are specimens of a large class. The Dedication Creed at Antioch represents an early stage in the growth of this body of conviction, conviction not absolutely uniform everywhere, as the result shews, but still with a distinct tendency to settle down to a formal position with regard to the great question of the age. There was nothing in the Nicene doctrine that men like this did not hold: but the zvord éuoovcrov opened the door to the dreaded Sabellian error: was not the history of Marcellus and Photinus a significant comment upon it? But if ovcia meant not individuality, but specific identity (supr., p. Xxxi. sg.) even this term might be innocently admitted. But to make that meaning plain, what was more effective than the insertion of an zofa? ‘Opovovawos, then, was the satisfactory test which would banish Arius and Marcellus alike. Who first used the word for the purpose, we do not know, but its first occurrence is its prohibition in the ‘blasphemy’ of Valens in 357. The leader of the ‘semi-Arians’ in 357 was Basil of Ancyra, a man of deep learning and high character. George of Laodicea, an original Arian, was in active but short-lived “6 alliance with the party, other prominent members of it were Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste (Sivas), Eleusius of Cyzicus, Macedonius of Constantinople, Eusebius of Emesa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Mark of Arethusa, a high-minded but violent man, who represents the ‘left’ wing of the party as Cyril and Basil represent the ‘ right.’
Now the ‘trumpet-blast’ of Valens gave birth to the ‘Semi-Arians’ as a formal party. An attempt was made to reunite the reaction on a Homcean basis in 359, but the events of that year made the breach more open than ever. The tendency towards the Nicene position which received its impulse in 357 continued unchecked until the Nicene cause triumphed in Asia in the hands of the ‘ conservatives’ of the next generation.
Immediately after the Acacian Synod at Antioch early in 358, George of Laodicea, who had reasons of his own for indignation against Eudoxius, wrote off in hot haste to warn Basil of the fearful encouragement that was being given to the doctrines of Aetius in that city. Basil, who was in communication (through Hilary) with Phoebadius and his colleagues, hac invited twelve neighbouring bishops to the dedication of a church in Ancyra at this time, and took the opportunity of drawing up a synodical letter insisting on the Essential Likeness of the Son to the Father (Ju0.0v az’ ovclay), and eighteen anathemas directed against Marcellus and the Anomceans. (The censure of dnootcoy ravroovoroy is against the Marcellian sense of the duoovotov). Basil, Eustathius, and Eleusius then proceeded to the Court at Sirmium and were successful in gaining the ear of the Emperor, who at this time had a high regard for Basil, and apparently obtained the ratification by a council, at which Valens, &c., were present, of a composite formula of their own (Newman’s ‘semi-Arian digest of three Confessions ) which was also signed by Liberius, who was thereupon sent back to Rome. (Soz. iv. 15 is our only authority here, and his account of the formula is not very clear: he seems to mean that two, not three, confessions were combined. (Cf. p. 449, note 4.) On the whole, it is most probable that the ‘fourth’ Antiochene] formula in its Sirmian recension of 351 is intended, perhaps with the addition of twelve of the Ancyrene anathemas. (The question of the signatures of Liberius need not detain us. ). The party of Valens were involved in sudden and unlooked-for discomfiture. Basil even succeeded in obtaining a decree of banishment against Eudoxius, Aetius, and ‘ seventy others (Philost. iv. 8). But an Arian deputation from Syria procured their recall, and all parties stood at bay in mutual bitterness. Now was the opportunity of Valens.
He saw the capabilities of the Homcean compromise, as yet embodied in no creed, and resolved to try it: and his experiment was not unsuccessful.
All parties alike seem to have agreed i i i i i es of the see for 6 tly it began with the quarrel over the election to the | elector being ignored, and may have had hopes oO e fo Ceres ee udontus managed to seize after the | himself. See Soz. iv. 133 but Philost. iv. 5 with much less likeli- death of Leontius. George was aggrieved at his rights as an hood puts this down to Basil.
upon the necessity for a council of the whole Church (on the origin of the proposal, and for other details, see p. 448). But Valens was determined what the result of the council must be. Accordingly he prevailed on the Emperor to divide it, the Western Synod to meet at Ariminum, the Eastern at ‘Rocky Seleucia,’ a mountain fortress in Cilicia where there happened to be plenty of troops. The management of the latter was entrusted to Acacius; at Rimini Valens would be present in person. In event of the two synods differing, a delegation of ten bishops from each was to meet at Court and settle the matter. The Creed to be adopted had also to be arranged before- hand, and for this purpose, to his great discredit, Basil of Ancyra entered into a conference (along with Mark of Arethusa and certain colleagues) with Valens, George of Alexandria, and others of like mind. The result was the ‘Dated Creed’ (May 22, 359) drawn by Mark, prohibiting the word ovcta (in a gentler tone than that of the creed of Valens in 357), but containing the definition duo.wyv xara wayra (‘as also the Scriptures teach,” see above, on Cyril, p. xlix.), words which Valens and Ursacius sought to suppress. But Constantius insisted on their re- tention, and Basil emphasised his subscription by a strongly-worded addition. Moreover in conjunction with George of Laodicea he drew up a memorandum (Epiph. 72. eee vindicating the term odcla as implied in Scripture, insisting on the absolute essential likeness of the Son to the Father, except in respect of the Incarnation, and repudiating the idea that ayevyyota is the essential notion of Godhead. Such a protest was highly significant as an approach to the Nicene position, but Basil must have felt its inefficiency for the purpose in hand. Had the creed been anything but a surrender of principle on his part, no explanatory memoranda would have been needed.