understand that one assimilated to God by virtue and will is liable also to the purpose of changing; but the Word is not thus, unless He 1s ‘like’ in part, and as we are, because He 1s not like [God] in essence also. But these characteristics belong to us, who are originate, and of a created nature. For we too, albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God, the Lord granting us this grace, in the words, ‘ Be ye merciful as your Father is merciful:’ ‘be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect ®.’ But that originate things are changeable, no one can deny, seeing that angels transgressed, Adam disobeyed, and all stand in need of the grace of the Word. But a mutable thing cannot be like God whois truly unchangeable, any more than what is created can be like its creator. This is why, with regard to us, the holy man said, ‘ Lord, who shall be likened unto thee9,’ and ‘who among the gods is like unto thee, Lord*;’ meaning by gods those who, while created, had yet become partakers of the Word, as He Himself said, ‘If he called them gods to whom the word of God came?’ But things which partake cannot be identical with or similar to that whereof they partake. For example, He said of Himself, ‘I and the Father are one 3,’ implying that things originate are not so. For we would ask those who allege the Ariminian Synod, whether a created essence can say, ‘what things I see my Father make, those I make also +.’ For things originate are made and do not make; or else they made even themselves. Why, if, as they say, the Son is a Creature and the Father is His Maker, surely the Son would be His own maker, as He is able to make what the Father makes, as He said. But such a supposition is absurd and utterly untenable, for none can make himself.
8. Zhe Son’s relation to the Father essential, not merely ethical.
Once more, let them say whether things originate could say 5, ‘all things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine.’ Now, He has the prerogative of creating and making, of Eternity, of omnipotence, of immutability. But things originate cannot have the power of making, for they are creatures; nor eternity, for their existence has a beginning; nor of omnipotence and immutability, for they are under sway, and of changeable nature, as the Scriptures say. Well then, if these prerogatives belong to the Son, they clearly do so, not on account of His virtue, as said above, but essentially, even as 8 Luke vi. 36; Matt. v. 48. 5 Psolxxxiticerplexon. x Ps. Ixxxvi, 8. 2 John x. 35. 3 Ib. x. 30. 4 Ib. v. 19: the word motew is taken in the sense of making. S John xvi. 15.
TO THE BISHOPS OF AFRICA.
the synod said, ‘He is of no other essence’ but of the Father's, to whom these prerogatives are proper. But what can that be which is proper to the Father’s essence, and an offspring from it, or what name can we give it, save ‘coessential?’ For that which a man sees in the Father, that sees he also in the Son; and that not by participation, but essentially. And this is [the meaning of] ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ Here especially once more it is easy to shew their folly. If it is from virtue, the antecedent of willing and not will’ ing, and of moral progress, that you hold the Son to be like the Father; while these things fall under the category of quality; clearly you call God compound of quality and essence. But who will tolerate you when you say this? For God, who compounded all things to give them being, is not compound, nor of similar nature to the things made by Him through the Word. Far be the thought. For He is simple essence, in which quality is not, nor, as James says, ‘any variableness or shadow of turning ©.’ Accordingly, if it is shewn that it is not from virtue (for in God there is no quality, neither is there in the Son), then He must be proper to God’s essence. And this you will certainly admit if mental apprehension is not utterly destroyed in you. But what is that which is proper to and identical with the essence of God, and an Offspring from it by nature, if not by this very fact coessential with Him that begat it? For this is the distinctive relation of a Son to a Father, and he who denies this, does not hold that the Word is Son in nature and in truth.
9. The honest repudiation of Arianism involves the acceptance of the Nicene test.
This then the Fathers perceived when they wrote that the Son was coessential with the Father, and anaihematised those who say that the Son is of a different Subsistence?: not inventing phrases for themselves, but learning in their turn, as we said, from the Fathers who had been before them. But after the above proof, their Ariminian Synod is superfluous, as well as any 7 other synod cited by them as touching the Faith. For that of Niczea is sufficient, agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, in which too their fathers signed, whom they ought to respect, on pain of being thought anything but Christians. But if even after such proofs, and after the testimony of the ancient bishops, and the signature of their own Fathers, they pretend as if in ignorance to be alarmed at the phrase a 6 James i. 17. 7 bnoatacts. 74 Omit 7 with most MSS.
‘ coessential,’ then let them say and hold, in simpler terms and truly, that the Son is Son by nature, and anathematise as the synod enjoined those who say that the Son of God is a Creature or a thing made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He was not, and that He is mutable and liable to change, and of another Subsistence. And so let them escape the Arian heresy. And we are confident that in sincerely anathematising these views, they zfso facto confess that the Son is of the Father’s Essence, and coessential with Him. For this is why the Fathers, having said that the Son was coessential, straightway added, ‘but those who say that He is a creature, or made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He was not,’ the Catholic Church anathematises: namely in order that by this means they might make it known that these things are meant by the word ‘coessential.’ And the meaning ‘Coessential’ is known from the Son not being a Creature or thing made: and because he that says ‘coessential’ does not hold that the Word is a Creature: and he that anathematises the above views, at the same time holds that the Son is coessential with the Father; and he that calls Him ‘coessential,’ calls the Son of God genuinely and truly so; and he that calls Him genuinely Son understands the texts, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father 8.’
10. Purpose of this Letter; warning against Auxentius of Milan.
Now it would be proper to write this at greater length. But since we write to you who know, we have dictated it concisely, praying that among all the bond of peace might be preserved, and that all in the Catholic Church should say and hold the same thing. And we are not meaning to teach, but to put you in mind. Nor is it only ourselves that write, but all the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas, some ninety in number. For we all are of one mind in this, and we always sign for one another if any chance not to be present. Such being our state of mind, since we happened to be assembled, we wrote, both to our beloved Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, giving an account of Auxentius? who has in- 9 Auxentius (not in D.C.B.) was a native of Cappadocia (Hist. Ar. 75), and had been ordained presbyter at Alexandria by Gregory (next note), Upon the expulsion of the somewhat weakkneed Dionysius after the council at Milan (355) he was appointed to that see by Constantius, although according to Athanasius. (sez supr.) he knew no Latin, nor any thing else except irreligion (‘a busybody rather than a Christian’). He took a leading part along with Valens and others at the Council of Ariminum (de Syn. §, 10) and was included in the deposition of Arian leaders by that synod. Under the orthodox Valentinian he maintained his see in truded upon the church at Milan; namely that he not only shares the Arian heresy, but is also accused of many offences, which he committed with Gregory*, the sharer of his impiety; and while expressing our surprise that so far he has not been deposed and expelled from the Church, we thanked [Damasus] for his piety and that of those who assembled at the Great Rome, in that by expelling Ursacius and Valens, and those who hold with them, they preserved the harmony of the Catholic Church. Which we pray may be preserved also among you, and therefore entreat you not to tolerate, as we said above, those who put forward a host of synods held concerning the Faith, at Ariminum, at Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace, those in Constantinople, and the many irregular ones in Antioch. But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Niczea alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting spite of the efforts of Philaster, Evagrius, and Eusebius of Vercella, and in spite of the condemnations passed upon him by various Western synods (362—371, see ad Efict. 1). In 364, Hilary travelled to Milan on purpose to expose him before Valentinian. In a discussion ordered by the latter, Hilary extorted from Auxentius a confession which satisfied the Emperor, but not Hilary himself, whose persistent denunciation of its insincerity caused his dismissal from the town, Auxentius seems after this to have intrigued to obtain Illyrian signatures to the creed of (Niké or Ariminum (Hard. Conc. 1. pp. 771, 773). Upon his death cl Ambrose was elected bishop of Milan, but was confronted by the Arian party with a rival bishop in the person of a second Auxentius, said to have been a pupil of Ulfilas.
10 The intrusive bishop of Alexandria, 339—346. He had ordained his fellow-countryman Auxentius (Hilar. zz Aux. 8).
ADEAEROS: against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so ye hold them fast **.’
11. Godhead of the Spirit also involved in the lVicene Creed.
For this Synod of Niczea is in truth a proscription of every heresy. It also upsets those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and call Him a Creature. For the Fathers, after speaking of the faith in the Son, straightway added, ‘ And we believe in the Holy Ghost,’ in order that by confessing perfectly and fully the faith in the Holy Trinity they might make known the exact form of the Faith of Christ, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. -For it is made clear both among you and among all, and no Christian can have a doubtful mind on the point, that our faith is not in the Creature, but in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ His Only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Ghost; one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into which, and in it united to the Deity, we believe that we have also inherited the kingdom of the heavens, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory aad the power for ever and ever. Amen.
ur y Cor. xi. 2.
Fite eR See h- ATHANASTUS, WITH TWO ANCIENT CHRONICLES OF HIS LIFE.
THE Letters cannot be arranged in strict sequence of time without breaking into the homogeneity of the corpus of Easter Letters. Accordingly we divide them into two parts: (x) all that remain of the Easter or Festal Epistles: (2) Personal Letters. From the latter class we exclude synodical or encyclical documents, or treatises merely inscribed to a friend, such as those printed above pp. 91, 149, 173, 222, &c., &c., the ad Serapionem, ad Marcellinum, &c. ‘There remain a number of highly interesting letters, the survivals of what must have been a large correspondence, all of which, excepting six (Nos. 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 61), now appear in English for the first time. They are arranged as nearly as possible in strict chronological order, though this is in some cases open to doubt (e.g. 60, 64, &c.). They mostly belong to the later half of the episcopate of Athanasius, and are therefore placed after the Festal Collection, which however itself extends to the end of the Bishop's life. The immemorial numbering of the latter collection is of course retained, although many of the forty-five are no longer to be found.
Prefixed to the Letters are two almost contemporary chronicles, the one preserved in the same MS. as Letters 46, 47, the other prefixed to the Syriac MS., which is our sole channel for the bulk of the Easter Letters. A memorandum appended to Letter 64 specifies certain fragments not included in this volume. The striking fragment Adis suis has been conjecturally placed among the remains of Letter 2y.
For the arrangement of the Letters, the reader is referred to the general Table of Contents to this volume. We now give A. The Astoria Acephala or Maffeian fragment, with short introduction. B. The Chronicon Previum or Festal Zndex, with introduction to it and to the Festal Letters.
A.
The Historia Acephala. This most important document was brought to light in 1738 by the Marchese F. Scipio Maffei (+ 1755}, from a Latin MS. (uncial parchment) in the Chapter Library at Verona. It was reprinted from Maffei’s Osservaziont Letterarie in the Padua edition of Athanasius; also in 1769 by Gallandi (Lil. Patr. vy. 222), from which edition (the reprint in Migne, xxvi. 1443 sgg. being full of serious misprints) the following version has been made. ‘The Latin text (including letters 46, 47, and a Letter of the Council of Sardica) is very imperfect, but the annalist is so careful in his reckonings, and so often repeats himself, that the careful reader can nearly always use the document to make good its own gaps or wrong readings. Beyond this (except the insertion of the consuls for 372, § 17 ad fin.) the present editor has not ventured’ to go, The importance and value of the fragment must now be shewn.
The annalist evidently writes under the episcopate of Theophilus, to which he hurriedly brings down his chronology after the death of Athanasius (§ 19). At the fortieth anniversary of the episcopate of Athanasius, June 8, 368, he makes a pause (§ 17) in order to reckon up his dates. This passage is the key of the whole of his chronological data. He accounts for the period of forty years (thus placing the accession of Ath. at June 8, 328, in agreement with the Index), shewing how it is exactly made up by the periods of ‘exile’ and of ‘quiet’ previously mentioned. To ‘quiet’ he assigns ‘xxii years v months and x days,’ to ‘exile’ xvii years vi months xx days; total xl years. He then shews how the latter is made up by the several exiles he has chronicled. As the text stands we have the following sum: Taste A. Exiles (1) xc months iii days (re 4. ° \Porrl, Ay Vier s (ae ay ect, (ee ee, ‘exact result’ xvii years vimonths xx days.
Now the exact result of the figures as they stand is 182 months, 9 days, ze. 15 years 2 months and 9 days, or 2 years 4 months and 11 days too little. Moreover of the well-known ‘ five exiles,’ only four are accounted for. An exile has thus dropped out, and an item of 2 years 4 months 11 days. Now this corresponds exactly with the interval from Epiphi 17 (July 11), 335 (departure for Tyre, Fest. Znd, viii), to Athyr 27 (Nov. 23), 337 1 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay | carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zertsch. Hist, Theol. 1868), where he now | from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers’ discussion has been} whole (§ 17).
(return to Alexandria / 7.x). The annalist then (followed apparently by Theodt. 2. £. i 1) reckoned ane first exile at the above figure. But what of the first figure in our table, xc months iii days? It again exactly ‘coincides with the interval from Pharm. 21 (Apr. 16, Easter Monday), 339 to Paophi 24 (Oct. 21), 346, on which day (§ 1) Athan. returned from his second exile. This double coincidence cannot be an accident. It demonstrates beyond all dispute that the missing item of ‘ann. li, mens. Iv, d. xii’ has dropped out after Treveris in Galliis,’ and that ‘mens. xc, dies iii’ relates to the second exile, so that, in § 1 also, the annalist wrote not ‘annos vi? but ‘annos vi menses vi dies tit,’ which he repeats § 17 by its equivalent ‘mens. xc, d. iii, while words have dropped out in § 1 to the effect of what is supplied in brackets. (Hefele, ii. 50, Eng. Tr., is therefore in error here). Wate I would add that the same obvious principle of correcting a clearly corrupt figure by the writer’s own subsequent reference to it, enables us also to correct the last figures of § 2 by those of § 5, to correct the items by the sum total of §§ 6, 7, and lastly to correct the corrupt readings ‘ Gregorius’ for Georgius, and ‘ Constans for Constantius, by the many uncorrupt places which shew that the annalist himself was perfectly aware of the right names. 1 4p; In one passage alone (§ 13 ‘ Athyr’ twice for Mechir, cf. Fest. 7nd. viii) is conjecture really needed;_ but even here the consuls are correctly given, and support the right date. wos We are now in a position to construct tables of ‘exiles’ and ‘quiet’ periods from the //zs/oria as corrected by itself.
TABLE B. Lxiles, &c., of Athanasius. Exiles lasted beginning Quiet periods begin lasting Xvil vi Xx Total Exiles Total ‘ quiet’ (to June 8, 368) Xxii Vege N.B. In the above Table, (a) denotes dates or figures directly zmplied in the existing text, (b) those implied by it 2 combination with other sources, (c) those based on conjectural emendation of the existing text. All unmarked data are expressly given.
Table B shews the deliberate and careful calculation which runs through the system of our annalist. Once or twice he indulges in a round figure, exiles I and 5 are each a day too long by the Egyptian calendar, and this is set off by his apparently reckoning the fifth quiet period as two days too short. But the writer clearly knew his own mind. In fact, the one just ground on which we might distrust his chronology is its systematic character. He has a thorough scheme of his own, which he carries out to a nicety. Now such a chronology is not necessarily untrustworthy. Its consistency may be artificial; on the other hand, it may be due to accurate knowledge of the facts. Whether this is so or not must be ascertained partly from a writer’s known opportunities and capacity, partly from his agreement or discrepancy with other sources of knowledge.
Now our annalist wrote in the time of Theophilus (385—412), and may therefore rank as a contemporary of Athanasius (cf. Prolegg. ch. v.) His opportunities therefore were excellent. As to his capacity, his work bears every trace of care and skill. He is no historian, nor a stylist, but as an annalist he understood what he was doing. As to agreement with other data, we remark to begin with that it was the publication of this fragment in the 18th century that first shed a ray of light on the Erebus and Chaos of the chronology of the Council of Sardica and its adjacent events; that it at once justified the critical genius of Montfaucon, Tillemont and others, against the objections with which their date for the death of Athanasius? was assailed, and here again upset the confused chronological statements of the fifth-century historians in favour of the incidental evidence of many more primary authorities3. But most important of all is its confirmation by the evidence of the Festal Letters discovered in 1842, and especially by their /zdex, the so-called ‘Chronicon Athanasianum.’ It is evident at a glance that our annalist is quite independent of the Zzdex, as he gives many details which it does not contain. But neither can the 7mdex be a compilation from the annalist. Each writer had access to information not embodied in the other, and there is no positive evidence that either used the other in any way.
When they agree, therefore, their evidence has the greatest possible weight. Their main heads of agreement are indicated in the Chronological Table, Prolegg. sib jin.
It remains to notice shortly the two digressions on the doings of Eudoxius and the Anomceans (8§ 2, 12 of Migne, paragraphs II, IX of Gallandi). Here the annalist is off his own ground, and evidently less well informed. In § 2 we learn nothing of interest: but the ‘Ecthesis’ of the Anomceans in par. IX is of importance, and only too evidently authentic. It still awaits a critical examination, and it is not easy to give it its exact place in the history of the later Arianism. Apparently it belongs to the period 360—364, when the Anomceans were organising their schism (Gwatkin, pp. 226, 180) the names being those of the ultra-Arians condemned by the Homeeans in 360 (Prolegg. ch. ii § 8 fv.).
‘The contrast between the vagueness of statement in these digressions, and the writer’s firmness of touch in dealing with Alexandrian affairs is most significant.
The fragment runs as follows: HISTORIA ACEPHALA. 2. And it came to pass after the death of Gregory ; ___ | that Athanasius returned from the city of Rome and the I. 1. The Emperor Constantius also wrote concerning | parts of Italy, and entered Alexandria Paophi xxiv, the return of Athanasius, and among the Emperor’s! Coss. Constantius IV, Constans III (October 21, 346); letters this one too is to be found. that is after [vii] years vi [months and iii days, | and 2 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest. Ind. gives Ma if A i ied i i nnalist lays est. Ind. s May 2, | if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, th i the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. | be chosen for his commnation, wile oe eee eee vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, | literally exact. 3 See Tillem. viii. 710 sog.
INTRODUCTION: HISTORIA ACEPHALA.
remained quiet at Alexandria ix’ years iii? months [and xix days].
II. Now after his return, Coss. Limenius3 and Catulinus (349), Theodore 3*, Narcissus3, and George, with others, came to Constantinople, wishing to persuade Paul to communicate with them, who received them not even with a word, and answered their greeting with an anathema. So they took to themselves Eusebius of Nicomedia 3‘, and laid snares for the most blessed Paul, and lodging a calumny against him concerning Constans and Magnentius, expelled him from CP. that they might have room there, and sow the Arian heresy. Now the people of CP., desiring the most blessed Paul, raised continual riots to prevent his being taken from the city, for they loved his sound doctrine. The Emperor, however, was angry, and sent Count Hermogenes to cast him out; but the people, hearing this, dragged forth Hermogenes through the midst of the town. From which matter they obtained a pretext against the Bishop, and exiled him to Armenia. Theodore and the rest wishing to place in the See of that Town Eudoxius, an ally and partisan of the Arian heresy, ordained [Bishop] of Germanicia, while the people were stirred to riot, and would not allow any one to sit in the See of blessed Paul,—they took Macedonius, a presbyter of Paul, and ordained him bishop of the town of CP., whom the whole assembly of bishops condemned, since against his own father he had disloyally received laying on of hands from heretics.
However, after Macedonius had communicated with them and signed, they brought in pretexts of no importance, and removing him from the Church, they instal the aforesaid Eudoxius of Antioch 34, whence [the partakers] in this secession are called Macedonians, making shipwreck concerning the Holy Spirit.
III. 3. After this time Athanasius, hearing that there was to be disturbance against him, the Emperor Constantius 4 being in residence at Milan (353), sent to court a vessel with v Bishops, Serapion of Thmuis, Triadelphus of Nicotas, Apollo of Upper Cynopolis, Ammonius of Pachemmon,...and iii Presbyters of Alexandria, Peter the Physician, Astericus, and Phileas. After their setting sail from Alexandria, Coss. Constantius VI Augustus, and Constantius4 Cesar Il, Pachom xxiv (May 19, 353), presently four days after Montanus of the Palace entered Alexandria Pachom xxviii, and gave a letter of the same Constantius* Augustus to the bishop Athanasius, forbidding him to come to court, on which account the bishop was exceedingly desolate, and the whole people much troubled5. So Montanus, accomplishing nothing, set forth, leaving the bishop at Alexandria. ) 4. Now after a while Diogenes, Imperial Notary, came to Alexandria in the month of Mensor (August, 355) Coss. Arbetion and Lollianus: that is li years and v months5* from when Montanus left Alexandria. And Diogenes pressed every one urgently to compel the bishop to leave the town, and afflicted all not a little. Now on the vi day of the month Thoth, he made a sharp attempt to besiege the church, and he spent iv months in his efforts, that is from the month Mensor, or from the [first] day of those intercalated until the xxvi day of Choiac (Dec. 23). But as the people and the judges strongly resisted Diogenes, Diogenes returned without success on the xxvi day of the 2 eo eS ee , infr.; text ‘xvi.’ 2 Corrected from §; tent 6 months Z vite ‘ Hypatius.’ 3 Of Heraclea. b: rcs : CT Or Ge. Tenis On his death Paul was restored, but Maccdonius appointed by the Arians. This was in 341-2. The final expulsion and death of Paul was about the date given in the text; but the events of several years are lumped together without clear distinction. 34 In 360.: 4 Text ‘Constans.’ This passage (3—5), is used by Soz. iv. 9.
5 Fatigatus,’ Soz. érapaxeycar. 5a Cf. AZol. Const. 22; sead ii years ii months.
VOL. IV. K said month Choiac, Coss. Arbetion and Lollianus, after iv months as aforesaid.
IV. 5. Now Duke Syrianus, and Hilary the Notary, came from Egypt to Alexandria on the tenth day of Tybi (Jan. 6, 356) after Coss, Arbetion and Lollianus. And sending in front all the legions of soldiers throughout Egypt and Libya, the Duke and the Notary entered the Church of Theonas with their whole force of soldiers by night, on the xiii day of Mechir, during the night preceding the xiv. And breaking the doors of the Church of Theonas, they entered with an infinite force of soldiers. But bishop Athanasius escaped their hands, and was saved, on the aforesaid xiv of Mechir®. Now this happened ix years iii months and xix days from the Bishop’s return from Italy. But when the Bishop was delivered, his presbyters and people remained in possession of the Churches, and holding communion iv months, until there entered Alexandria the prefect Cataphronius and Count Heraclius in the month Pahyni xvi day, Coss. Constantius? VIII and Julianus Ceesar I (June 10, 356).
V. 6. And four days after they entered © the Athanasians were ejected from the Churches, and they were handed over to those who belonged to George?, and were expecting him as Bishop. So they received the Churches on the xxi day of Pahyni. Moreover George? arrived at Alexandria, Coss. Constantius4 IX, and Julianus Cesar II, Mechir xxx (Feb. 24, 357), that is, eight months and xi days from when his party received. the Churches. So George? entered Alexandria, and kept the Churches xviii whole months: and then the common people attacked him in the Church of Dionysius, and he was hardly delivered with danger and a great struggle on the i day of the month Thoth, Coss. Tatianus and Cerealis (Aug. 29, 358). Now George? was ejected from Alexandria on the x® day after the riot, namely v of Paophi (Oct. 2). But they who belonged to Bishop Athanasius, ix days after the departure of George, that is on the xiv of Pafophi], cast out the men.of George’, and held the Churches two months and xiv days; until there came Duke Sebastian from Egypt and cast them out, and again assigned the Churches to the party of George on the xxviii day of the month Choiac (Dec. 24).
7. Now ix whole months after the departure ot George from Alexandria, Paulus the Notary arrived Pahyni xxix, Coss. Eusebius, Hypatius (June 23, 359), and published an Imperial Order on behalf of George, and coerced many in vengeance for him. And [ii years and] v months after, George came to Alexandria Athyr xxx (Coss. Taurus, and Florentius) from court (Nov. 26, 361), that is iii years and two months after he had fled. And at Antioch they of the Arian heresy, casting out the Paulinians from the Church, appointed Meletius. When he would not consent to their evil mind, they ordained Euzoius a presbyter of George? of Alexandria in his stead.
VI. 8. Now George, having entered Alexandria as aforesaid on the xxx Athyr, remained safely in the town iii days, that is [till] iii Choiac. For, on the iv day of that same month, the prefect Gerontius announced the death of the Emperor Constantius, and that Julianus alone held the whole Empire. Upon which news, the citizens of Alexandria and all shouted against George, and with one accord placed him under custody. And he was in prison bound with iron from the aforesaid iv day of Choiac, up to the xxvii of the same month, xxiv days. For on the xxviii day of the same month early in the morning, nearly all the people of that town led forth George from prison, and also the Count who was with him, the Superintendent of the building of the k Church which is called Czesareum, and killed them both, and carried their bodies round through the midst of the town, that of George on a camel, but that of Dracontius, men dragging it by ropes; and so having insulted them, at about the vii hour of the day, they burnt the bodies of each.
VII. 9. Now in the next...day of Mechir the x day of the month, after Coss. Taurus and Florentius (Feb. 4, 362), an order of the Emperor Julian was published commanding those things to be restored to the idols and temple attendants and the public account, which in former times had been taken away from them.