10. But after iii days, Mechir xiv, an order was given of the same Emperor Julian, also of the Vicar Modestus, to Gerontius prefect, ordering all Bishops hitherto defeated by factions and exiled to return to their towns and provinces. Now this letter was published on the following day Mechir xv, while subsequently an edict also of the prefect Gerontius was published, by which the Bishop Athanasius was ordered to return to his Church. And xii days after the publication of this Edict Athanasius was seen at Alexandria, and entered the Church in the same month Mechir, xxvii day, so that there is from his flight which took place in the times of Syrianus and Hilary till his return, when Julianus...Mechir xxvii. He remained in the Church until Paophi xxvi, Coss. Mamertinus and Nevitta (Oct. 23, 362), viii whole months.
11. Now on the aforesaid day, Paophi xxvii, he [the prefect] published an Edict of the Emperor Julianus, that Athanasius, Bishop, should retire from Alexandria, and no sooner was the Edict published, than the Bishop left the town and abode round about Thereu®. Soon after his departure Olympus the prefect, in obedience to the same® Pythiodorus, and those who were with him, most difficult persons, sent into exile Paulus and Astericius, presbyters of Alexandria, and directed them to live at the town of Andropolis.
VIII. 12. Now Olympus the same prefect, in the month Mensor, xxvi day, Coss. Julianus Augustus IV. and Sallustius (Aug, 20, 363), announced that Julian the Emperor was dead, and that Jovianus a Christian was Emperor. And in the following month, Thoth xviii, a letter of the Emperor Jovianus came to Olympus the prefect that only the most high God should be worshipped, and Christ, and that the peoples, holding communion in the Churches, should practise religion. Moreover Paulus and Astericius, the aforesaid presbyters, returned from exile at the town of Andropolis, and entered Alexandria, on the x day of Thoth, after x months.
13. Now Bishop Athanasius, having tarried as aforesaid at Thereon, went up to the higher parts of Egypt as far as Upper Hermopolis in the Thebaid, and as far as Antinoopolis. And while he was staying in these places, it was learned that the Emperor Julian was dead, and that Jovian a Christian was Emperor. So the Bishop entered Alexandria secretly, his arrival not being known to many, and went by sea to meet the Emperor Jovian, and afterwards, Church affairs being settled '*, received a letter, and came to Alexandria and entered into the Church on the xix day of Athyr™ Coss, Jovianus and Varronianus. From his leaving Alexandria according to the order of Julian until he arrived on the aforesaid xix day of Athyr™ after one year and ili months, and xxii days.
IX. Now at CP. Eudoxius of Germanicia held the Church, and there was a division between him and Macedonius; but by means of Eudoxius there went forth another worse heresy from the spurious [teaching] of 9 Compare ‘Chereu’ in 74. Ant. 86. 10 The previous reference to him has dropped out; ‘see Fest. Jud. xxxv. 10a TJsed by Soz, Vi. 5. 11 Read Mechir, i.e. Feb. 14, 364.
a ee ree ee eee eee the Arians, Aetius and Patricius’® of Nicza, who communicated with Eunomius, Heliodorus, and Stephen. And Eudoxius adopting this, communicated with Euzoius, Bishop at Antioch, of the Arian sect, and they deposed on a pretext Seleucius *” and Macedonius, and Hypatian™*, and other xv Bishops belonging to them, since they would not receive ‘Unlike’ nor ‘Creature of the Uncreated.’ Now their Exposition is as follows:— Exposition of Patricius™* and Aetius, who communicated with Eunomius, Heliodorus, and Stephen.
These are the attributes of God, Unbegotten, without origin, Eternal, not to be commanded, Immutable, Allseeing, Infinite, Incomparable, Almighty, knowing the future without foresight; without beginning™®. Thesedo not belong to the Son, for He is commanded, is under command, is made from nothing, has an end, is not compared [with the Father], the Father surpasses Him...of Christ is found: as pertaining to the Father, He is ignorant of the future. He was not God, but Son of God; God of those who are after Him: and in this He possesses invariable likeness with the Father, namely He sees all things because all things...because He is not changed in goodness; [but] not like in the quality of Godhead, norin nature. But if we said that He was born of the quality of Godhead, we say that He resembles the offspring of serpents’, and that is an impious saying: and like as a statue produces rust from itself, and will be consumed by the rust itself, so also the Son, if He is produced from the nature of the Father, will consume the Father. But from the work, and the newness of work, the Son is naturally God, and not from the Nature, but from another nature like as the Father, but not from Him. For He was made the image of God, and we are out of God, and from God. Inasmuch as all things are from God, and the Son also, as if from something [else]. Like as iron if it has rust will be diminished, like as a body if it produces worms is eaten up, like as a wound if it produce discharges will be consumed by them, so [thinks] he who says that the Son is from the Nature of the Father; now let him who does not say that the Son is like the Father be put outside the Church and be anathema. If we shall say that the Son of God is God, we bring in Two without beginning: we call Him Image of God; he who calls Him ‘out from God’ Sabellianises. And he who says that he is ignorant of the nativity of God Manicheanizes: if any one shall say that the Essence of the Son is like the Essence of the Father unbegotten, he blasphemes. For just as snow and white lead are similar in whiteness but dissimilar in kind, so also the Essence of the Son is other than the Essence of the Father. But snow has a different whiteness...
Be pleased to hear that the Son is like the Father in His operations; like as Angels cannot comprehend the Nature of Archangels, let them please to understand, nor Archangels the Nature of a Cherubin, nor Cherubins the Nature of the Holy Spirit, nor the Holy Spirit the Nature of the Only-begotten, nor the Only-begotten the nature of the Unbegotten God.
14. Now when the Bishop Athanasius was about coming from Antioch to Alexandria, the Arians Eudoxius, Theodore, Sophronius, Euzoius and Hilary took counsel and appointed Lucius, a presbyter of George, to seek audience of the Emperor Jovian at the Palace, and to say what is contained in the copies™3*, Mow here we have omitted some less necessary matter, 114 Can this be the Hypatius of Philst. ix. 19? For Heliodorus and Stephen, see Hist. Ar. p. 2943 de Syn. 123 Theod. Hf.£, ii, 28, and Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 226, 180 note.
1rb j,e. Eleusius.
re j,e, Eustathius, 12 Lat. ‘dominio’ for apyy.
_ 729 Cf. Matt. iii. 7. 13 Text imperfect, ‘ Externo autem conniventes oculos egressi.’ 13 i.e. the memoranda priated as Appendix to Letfer 56. § 14 is used, but badly, by Soz. vi. 5.
INTRODUCTION: HISTORIA ACEPHALA.
X. 15. Now after Jovian, Valentinian. and Valens having been somewhat rapidly summoned to the throne, a decree of theirs, circulated everywhere, which also was delivered at Alexandria on Pachon x, Coss. Valentinian and Valens (May 5, 365), to the effect that the Bishops deposed and expelled from their Churches under Constantius, who had in the time of Julian’s reign reclaimed for themselves and taken back their Bishopric, should now be cast out anew from the Churches, a penalty being laid on the courts of a fine of ccc pounds of gold, unless that is they should have [ba]nished the Bishops from the Churches and towns. On which account at Alexandria great confusion and riot arose, insomuch that the whole Church was troubled, since also the officials were few in number with the prefect Flavian and his staff: and on account of the imperial order and the fine of gold they were urgent that the Bishops should leave the town; the Christian multitude resisting and gainsaying the officials and the judge, and maintaining that the Bishop Athanasius did not come under this definition nor under the Imperial order, because neither did Constantius banish him, but even restored him. Likewise also Julian persecuted him; he recalled all, and him for the sake of idolatry he cast out anew, but Jovian brought him back. This opposition and riot went on until the next month Payni, on the xiv day; for on this day the prefect Flavian made a report, declaring that he had consulted the Emperors on this very point which was stirred at Alexandria, and so they all became quiet in a short time 73%, XI. 16. iv months and xxiv days after, that is on Paophi viii, the Bishop Athanasius left the Church secretly by night, and retired to a villa near the New River 3°. But the prefect Flavian and Duke Victorinus not knowing that he had retired, on the same night arrived at the Church of Dionysius with a force of soldiers: and having broken the back door, and entered the upper parts of the house in search of the Bishop’s apartment, they did not find him, for, not long before he had retired, and he remained, staying at the aforesaid property from the above day, Paophi viii, till Mechir vi, that is iv whole months (Oct. 5—Jan. 31). After this, the Imperial notary Bresidas, in the same month Mechir came to Alexandria with an Imperial letter, ordering the said Bishop Athanasius to return to Town, and hold the Churches as usual; and on the vil day of the month Mechir, after Coss, Valentinian and Valens, that is Coss. Gratian and Degalaifus, the said notary Bresidas with Duke Victorinus and Flavian the Prefect assembled at the palace and announced to the officers of the courts who were present, and the people, that the Emperors had ordered the Bishop to return to town, and straightway the said Bresidas the notary went forth with the officers of the courts, and a multitude of the people of the Christians to the aforesaid villa, and taking the Bishop Athanasius with the Imperial order, led him in to the Church which is called that of Dionysius on the vii day of the month Mechir.
XII. 17. From Coss. Gratian and Dagalaifus (366) to the next consulships of Lupicinus and Jovinus (367) and that of [Valentinian II. and] Valens II. on Payni xiv (June 8, 368) in [this] Consulship x1 [years of the Bishopric] of Athanasius are finished. Out of which [years] he abode at Treveri in Gaul [ii years iv months 13 §§ 15, 16 are used by Soz. vi. 12, 13¢ j.e. in the western suburb.
xi days™, and in Italy and the West] xc months and iti days. At Alexandria [and] in uncertain places in hiding, when he was being harassed by Hilary the notary and the Duke, Ixxii months and xiv days. In Egypt and Antioch upon journeys xv months and xxii days: upon the property near the new river iv months, The result will be exactly vit months and xvii years and? xx days. Moreover, he remained in quiet at Alexandria xxii years and v months x days. But also, he twice stayed a little time outside Alexandria in his last journey and at Tyre and at CP. Accordingly, the result will be as I have stated above, xl years of the episcopate of Athanasius until Payni [x]iv, Coss. Valentinian and Valens. And in the following consulate of Valentinian and Victor, Payni xiv, i year, and in the following consulships of Valentinian [III] and Valens III Payni xiv, and in the following Consulships of Gratian and Probus, [and the next of Modestus and Arintheus], and another consulship of Valentinian [IV] and Valens IV, on Pachon viii he falls asleep (May 3, XIII. 18. Now in the aforesaid consulship of Lupicinus and Jovinus, Lucius being specially desirous to claim for himself the episcopate of the Arians a long time after he had left Alexandria, arrived in the aforesaid consulship, and entered the town secretly by night on the xxvi day of the month Thoth (Sept. 24, 367): and as it is said, abode in a certain small house, keeping in hiding for that day. But next day he went to a house where his mother was staying; and his arrival being known at once all over the town, the whole people assembled and blamed his entry. And Duke Trajanus and the Prefect were extremely displeased at his irrational and bold arrival, and sent officials to cast him out of the town. So the officials came to Lucius, and considering all of them that the people were angry and very riotous against him they feared to bring him out of the house by themselves, lest he should be killed by the multitude. And they reported this to the judges. And presently the judges themselves, Duke Trajan, and the Prefect Tatianus [came] to the place with many soldiers, entered the house and brought out Lucius themselves at the vii hour of the day, on the xxvii day of Thoth. Now while Lucius was following the judges, and the whole people of the town after them, Christians and Pagans, and of divers religions, all alike with one breath, and with one mind, and of one accord, did not cease, from the house whence he was led, through the middle of the town, as far as the house of the Duke, from shouting, and hurling at him withal insults and criminal charges, and from crying, ‘Let him be taken out of the town.’ However, the Duke took him into his house, and he stayed with him for the remaining hours of the day, and the whole night, and on the following the xxviii of the same month, the Duke early in the morning, and taking him in charge as far as Nicopolis 3, handed him over to soldiers to be escorted from Egypt.
19. Now whereas Athanasius died on the viii of the month Pachon, the v day before he fell asleep, he ordained Peter, one of the ancient presbyters, Bishop, who carried on the Episcopate, following him in all things. After whom Timothy his B[rother] succeeded to the Episcopate for iv years. After him Theophilus from [being] deacon was ordained Bishop (385). The End. SS ee eee eee « Migne xi. (misprint). 2 The following 14 words are left out by an error in Sievers. 3 A short distance east of Alexandria, see Dict. Gr. and Rom. Geog. s v.
Kk2 B. THE ES TAL. LEE Roe AN DEH ELE INDEX, « Or Chrontcon Athanasianum.
Tur latter document is from the hand, it would seem, of the original collector of the Easter Letters of Athanasius (yet see 2v/r. note 6*). He gives, in a paragraph corresponding to each Faster in the episcopate of Athanasius, a summary of the calendar data for the year, a notice of the most important events, and especially particulars as to the Letter for the Easter in question, viz., Whether any peculiar circumstances attended its publication, and whether for some reason the ordinary Letter was omitted.
The variations of practice which had rendered the Paschal Feast a subject of controversy from very early times (see Dict. Christ. Antig. EasTER) had given rise to the custom of the announcement of Easter at a convenient interval beforehand by circular letters. In the third century the Bishops of Alexandria issued such letters (e.g. Dionysius in Eus. HE. vii. 20), and at the Council of Niczea, where the Easter question was dealt with (ad Afros. 2), the Alexandrian see was requested to undertake the duty of announcing the correct date to the principal foreign Churches as well as to its own suffragan sees, (This is doubted in the learned article Pascua Letrers D.C.A. p. 1562, but the statement of Cyril. Alex. in his ‘ Prologus Paschalis is express: cf. Ideler 2, 259. The only doubt is, whether the real reference is to Sardica, see Index xv. and Ep. 18.) This was probably due to the astronomical learning for which Alexandria was famous ‘4. At any rate we have fragments of the Easter letters of Dionysius and of Theophilus, and a collection of the Letters of Cyril 4*.;: The Easter letters of Athanasius were, until 1842, only known to us by allusions in Jerome (de V. illustr. 87) and others, and by fragments in Cosmas Indicopleustes purporting to be taken from the 2nd, sth, 6th, 22nd, 24th, 28th, 29th, goth, and 45th. Cardinal Mai had also shortly before the discovery of the ‘Corpus’ unearthed a minute fragment of the 13th. But in 1842 Archdeacon Tattam brought home from the Monastery of the Theotokos in the desert of Skete a large number of Syriac MSS., which for over a century European scholars had been vainly endeavouring to obtain. Among these, when deposited in the British Museum, Cureton discovered a large collection of the Festal Letters of Athanasius, with the ‘ Index,’ thus realising the suspicion of Montfaucon (Migne xxvi.) that the lost treasure might be lurking in some Eastern monastery. Another consignment of MSS. from the same source produced some further portions, which were likewise included in the translation revised for the present volume 5.
(1) Number of Festal Letters of Athanasius.—This question, which is of first-rate importance for the chronology of the period, must be regarded as settled, at any rate until some discovery which shall revolutionise all existing data. The number 45, which was the maximum known to antiquity 5*, is confirmed by the Index, and by the fact that the citations from Cosmas (see above) tally with the order of the Letters in this Syriac version in every case where the letter is preserved entire, while Letter 39, preserved by a different writer, also tallies with the reference to it in the Index. It is therefore unassailably established on our existing evidence that the last Easter letter of Ath. was his ‘45th,’ in other words that 45 is the fu/l or normal number of his festal letters. This @linches the reckoning of the /zdex and Hist. Aceph. that he was bishop for 45 Easters (329—373 inclusive), i.e. for parts of 46 years (328—373 inclusive). Moreover it corroborates, and is rivetted firm by, the statement. of Cyril. Alex. #/. 1, that Athan. graced the see of Alexandria ‘ fully 46 years.’ ‘Il le dit en voulant faire son eloge: de sorte qu'il y a tout lieu de croire qu’il n’a point passé les 46 ans: car pour peu gwil fust entré dans la 47™° année, S. Cyrille auroit d# naturellement luy donner 47 ans®. So Tillemont (viii. 719), whose opinion is all the more valuable from the fact that he is unable to harmonise it with his date for the accession of Ath., and accordingly forgets, p. 720 (swb. fiz.), what he has said on the previous page.
_ But we observe that many of the 45 Letters are represented in the ‘corpus’ by blanks. This is doubtless often the result of accidental loss. But the Index informs us that in several years, owing to his adversities, ‘the Pope was unable to write.’ This however may be fairly understood to refer to the usual public or circular letter. Often when unable to write this, he sent a few cordial lines to some friend (Letter 12) or to the clergy (17, 18) or people (29? see notes there) of Alexandria, in order that the true Easter might be kept (cf. the Arian blunder ' in 340, Jd. xii, with the note to Serapion Letter 12 from Rome). But occasionally the Index is either corrupt or mistaken, e.g. No. xiii, where the Pope is stated to have written no letter, while yet the ‘ Corpus’ contains one, apparently entire and of the usual public kind. We may therefore still hope for letters or fragments for any of the ‘ missing’ years.
4 So Leo Magnus (24. ad Marcian. Imp.) ‘apud gyptios huius supputationis antiquitus tradita peritia.’”
42 We trace differences of opinion in spite of the authority of the Alexandrian Pope in ‘ Index’ xii, xv, xxi, and Z/. 18.
5 Further details in Migne, P.G. xxvi. 1339 sgg. and Preface (by Williams?) to Oxford Transl. of Fest. Eff. (Parker, 1854.)
5® The very late Arabic Life of Ath. alone gives 47 (Migne xxv. p. ccli.), a statement which we may safely ignore in view of the general character of the document which is ‘crowded with incredible trivialities and follies’ (Montf.), outbidding by far the ‘ unparalleled rubbish’ (id.) of the worst of the Greek biographies (see Migne xxv. p. liv. sg.).
6 The italics are ours. Cf. Rufin. A.A. ii. 3, ‘xlvi anno sacerdotii sui.”
INTRODUCTION: FESTAL LETTERS, AND INDEX. 501 co er a a (2) The Festal Letters are fully worthy to rank with any extant writings of Athanasius. The same warmth, vigour, and simplicity pervades them as we find elsewhere in his writings, especially in such gems as the letter to Dracontius (Zp. 49). Their interest, however (apart from chronology), is mainly personal and practical. Naturally the use and abuse of Fast and Festival occupy a prominent place throughout. Repeatedly he insists on the joyfulness of Christian feasts, and on the fact that they are typical of, and intended to colour, the whole period of the Christian’s life. We gather from 7%. 12 that Lent was kept less strictly in Egypt than in some other Christian countries. He insists not only upon fasting, but upon purity and charity, especially toward the poor (Z/. 1. 11, cf. HP. 47. 4, &c.). We trace the same ready command of Scripture, the same grave humour in the unexpected turn given to some familiar’ text (Zp. 39) as we are used to in Athanasius. The Eucharist is a feeding upon the Word (4- 3), and to be prepared for by amendment of life, repentance, and confession of: sin (ie. to God, Z. 7. 10). Of special importance is the Canon of Holy Scripture in ZA. 39, on which see Prolegg. ch. iv. § 4.
It should be observed that the interval before Easter at which notice was given varied greatly. Some letters (e.g. 1, 2, 20) by a natural figure of speech, refer to the Feast as actually come; but others (17, 18) were certainly written as early as the preceding Easter. Letter 4.
v was written not long before Lent, but was (§ 1) unusually late. The statement of Cassian! referred to below (note to Z. 17) is therefore incorrect at any rate for our period.
(3) The Index to the Festal Letters.—This chronicle, so constantly referred to throughout this volume, is of, uncertain date, but probably (upon internal evidence) only ‘ somewhat later’ (Hefele, Z. Zr. vol. ii. p. 50) than! Athanasius himself. Its special value is in the points where it agrees with the Hist. Aceph. (supr. Prolegg. ch. v.),' where we recognise the accredited reckoning of the Alexandrian Church as represented by Cyril and Proterius' (see Tillem. 22 supr.). The writer undoubtedly makes occasional slips (cf. Zudex iii. with Letter iv. and p. 512, note I, Zuzdex xiii. with Letter © xiii.!), and the text would be a miracle if it had come down to us uncorrupt (see notes passim): but on the main dates he is consistent with himself, with the Chron. Aceph. and (so far as they come in contact) with the notices of the Alexandrian bishops above mentioned.
The writer’s method, however, must be attended to if we are to avoid a wrong impression as to his accuracy. Firstly, his year is not the Julian but the Egyptian year (7/7. Table C) from Aug. 29 to Aug. 28. Each year is designated by the zew consuls who come into office in the fifth month. Secondly, in each year he takes a leading event or events, round which he groups antecedent or consequent facts, which often belong to other years. Two or three examples will make this clear. (a) Year Aug. 30, 335—Aug. 28, 336: leading event, exile of, Athanasius (he reaches CP. Oct. 30, 335, leaves for Gaul [Feb. 7], both in the same Egyptian year).’ Antecedent: His departure for Tyre July 11, 335, at end of previous Lgyptian Year. (8) The ‘eventful’ year, Aug. 337—Aug. 338: leading event, triumphant return of Athanasius from Gaul, Oct. 21, 337. '‘Antecedent: death of Constantine on previous 22nd of May (i.e. 3377). (y) Year 342-3: leading event, Council of Sardica (summons issued, at any rate, before end of Aug. 343). Consequent events: temporary collapse of Arian party and recantation of Ursacius and Valens (344—347? Further examples in Gwatkin, Studies, p. 105). ‘Bearing this in mind, the discriminating student will derive most important help from the study of the Index: when its data agree with those derived from other good sources, they must be allowed first-rate authority. This is the principle followed in the Prolegomena (ch. v.) and throughout this volume. On the main points in dispute, as shewn above, we have to reckon with a compact uniform chronological system, checked and counter-checked by careful calculations (Hist. Aceph.), and transmitted by two independent channels; in agreement, moreover, as concerns the prior and posterior limits, with the reckoning adopted by the successors of Athanasius in the see.
N.B.—The ¢ranslation of the Index and Festal Letters is revised by Miss Payne Smith from that contained in the Oxford ‘ Library of the Fathers.’ A German translation by Larsow was published at Berlin 1852. The’ Latin Version (from an Italian translation) of Card. Mai is in Migne, xxvi. 1351 sgq.
The following Tables bear specially on the Festal Index.
TABLE C. The Egyptian Year.
After the final settlement of Egypt by Augustus as a province of the Roman Empire, the use of the Julian form of computation was established in Alexandria, the first day of the new Calendar being fixed to the 29th of August, the 1st of Thot of the year in which the innovation took place; from which period, six, instead of five, supplementary days were added at the end of every fourth year; so that the form of the Alexandrian year was as follows. Zhe months from Phamenoth 5 (Mar. 1) onwards are unaffected by leap-year.
\ Thot 7 a:. 29 August Pharmuthi 6. 27 March Paophi. - A. 28 September Pachon es 7. 26 April Athyr. °.. 28 October Paoni(Payni)...26 May Choiak.: °. 27 November Epiphi c. 25 June Tybi fs:. 27 December Mesori., o. 25 July Mechir.: 5. 26 January Epagomena.:. 24 August Phamenoth.:. 25 February N.B.—In leap-years, the Diocletian year (see p. 503, note 4) began on the previous Aug. 30, which was accordingly the First of Thot, owing to the additional ‘ epagomenon ’ which preceded it. Accordingly all the months zo Phamenoth inclusive begin a day late. Then, the Julian intercalary day coming in as Feb. 29, Pharmuthi and the succeeding months begin as shewn above. (See Ideler, vol. 1, pp. 161, 164, also 140, 142.)
6 Soine phenomena might suggest (Hefele, ii. 88, note) that the Zzdex was originally prefixed to another collection of the letters, and was copied by a collector or transcriber of our present corpus; cf. Index xiii., note 17”, and p. 527, note 1. 7 Misunderstood by Hefele, vol. ii. p. 88 (Z. 7'ra.).
— TABLE D.
OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE INDEX TO THE PASCHAL LETTERS.
N.B.—The Year of our Lord, the Golden Numbers, and Dominical Letter, and the date of Easter according to the Modern Reckoning, are added. The age of the Moon on Easter-day is apparently given from observations or reckoned by some lost system (see dex x, xxil.); n about one case out of three it varies from the modern reckoning, perhaps once or twice from corruption of text. The Epact is a day too little for 342, 344, Epact Easter Day. unda’ Number | Yer | Yes Se EE | tee ei ee Letter. Diocl. jour Lord.| Egyptian Roman Modern Lunar Jon Mar,| Concur- | Indict®. |Numbers. Calendar. Calendar. Reckoning Month.| 22). rentes.