The relation of the Son to the Father is essential, according to Dionysius.
For let not any Arian suppose that he says even anything of the following kind: The Son coexists with the Father, so that while the names are correlated, the things are widely removed; and whereas the Son did not always coexist with the Father, since the Son came into being, God received from that fact the additional name of Father, and His coexistence with Him dates from that time as happens in the case of men. On the contrary, let him observe and bear in mind what we have said before, and he will see that the faith of Dionysius is correct. saying, ‘ For there was no time when God was not Father,’ and again, ‘God at any rate is For in light eternal without beginning nor ever to end, accordingly the brightness is eternally coexists with Him, without begotten, shining in His nould make it impossible for any one to entertain any such suspicion against ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
Salma eerraeaiaccss ea him. Moreover the examples of the well and the river, and the root and the branch, and the breath and the vapour, put to shame the adversaries of Christ when they reiterate the contrary against him.
23. Dionysius did not hold that there are two Worits.
But since in addition to all his own ini- quities Arius has raked up this expression also as if from a dunghill, adding that, ‘The Word is not the Father’s own, but the Word that is in God is different, while this one, the Lord, is outside of and has nothing to do with the Essence of the Father, and is only called “Word” conceptually’, and is not by nature and of a truth Son of God, but is called Son, He too, by adoption, as a creature;’—and since saying thus he boasts among the igno- rant as though here too he has Dionysius as His partisan;—look at the faith of Dionysius on these points also, how he contradicts these perversities of Arius. For in the first book he writes as follows: ‘Now I have said that God is the well of all that is good: while the Son has been described as the river which proceeds from Him. For word is an efflux of intelli- gence, and, to borrow language applicable to men, the intelligence that issues by the tongue is derived from the heart through the mouth, coming out different from the word in the heart. For the latter remains, after sending forth the other, as it was. But the other is sent forth and flies forth, and is borne in every di- rection. And so each is in the other, and each distinct from the other: and they are one, and at the same time two. Likewise the Father and the Son were said to be one, and the One in the other.’ And in the fourth book he says: ‘For as our intelligence utters the word from itself, as the prophet says, My heart uttered a good word (Ps. xlv. 1), and, while either is distinct from the other, occu- pying a place of its own distinct from the other, the one dwelling and stirring in the heart, the other upon the tongue,—yet they are not separated, not for a moment lost to one another, nor is the intelligence without utterance (dAoyos), nor the word without intelli- gence, but the intelligence creates the Word being manifested in it, and the Word shews forth the intelligence having originated in it, and the intelligence is as it were an internal word, and the word an issuing intelligence; the intelligence passing over into the word, while the word circulates the intelligence among the hearers: and so the intelligence through the word gains a lodgment in the 8 See Orai. ii. 37. note 7.
souls of the hearers, entering in along with the word; and the intelligence is as it were the father of the word, existing in itself, while the word is as it were the son of the intelli- gence, having its origin, not of course before the latter, nor yet concurrently with it from some external source, but by springing out of it;—so the mighty Father and universal Intelligence has the Son before all things as His Word, Interpreter and Messenger.’
24. If the Arians agree with Dionystus let them use his language.
These things Arius either never heard, or heard and in his ignorance did not understand. For otherwise, had he understood, he would not have so grossly libelled the Bishop, but certainly would revile him also, as he did ourselves, because of his hatred of the truth. For being an adversary of Christ, he will not hesitate to persecute also those who hold the doctrine of Christ, as the Lord Himself has said before- hand: ‘If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you’ (Joh. xv. 20). Or, if the leaders of impiety think Dionysius was a partisan of theirs, let them write and confess what he did. Let them write about the vine and the husbandman, the boat and the ship- builder; and let them at the same time con- fess, as he did in his defence, the Unity of Essence, and that the Son is of the Father’s Substance, and eternal; and the relation of intelligence and word, and the well and the river, and the rest; in order that they may see from the very contrast that he used the former class of language for a special purpose, but the latter as expressing the full meaning of the Christian Faith. And consequently let them, by adopting this language, revoke what they have held inconsistently with it. For in what way does the faith of Dionysius even approximate to the mischief of Arius? Does not Arius restrict the term Word to a con- ceptual sense, while Dionysius calls Him the true Word of God by nature? and while the one banishes the Word from the Father, the other teaches that He is the Father’s own, and inseparable from His Essence, as the word is to the intelligence and the river to the well. If then any one is able to separate and banish the word from the intelligence, or to put asunder the river and the well, and wall them off, or to say that the river is of another essence than the well, and to shew that the water is from elsewhere, or ventures to divide the brightness from the light and to say that the brightness is from another essence, then let him join Arius in his madness. For such an one will cease to have the semblance even of human intelligence. But if Nature knows DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
poe ee! Sees ee ae a ee ee eee that these are indivisible, and that the off- spring of those objects is their very own, then let no one any longer hold with Arius or slander Dionysius, but rather on these grounds admire the plainness of his language and the correctness of his faith.
25. The teaching of Dionysius on the Word (continued), For with reference to the madness of Arius when he says that the Word which is in God is distinct from that one of which John said, ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (Joh. 1. 1), and that God’s own wisdom within Himself is not the same as that to which the Apostle refers as ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ (1 Cor. i. 24), Dionysius resists and denounces any such error, as you may see in the second book where he writes on the subject as follows: ‘“‘In the beginning was the Word;” but it was not Word that sent forth the Word, for “the Word was with God.” The Lord has been made wisdom (cf. x Cor. i. 30): He then that sent out Wisdom was not Wisdom, for “I was she,” saith Wisdom, “‘in whom He delighted.” Christ is truth: but “Blessed,” saith He, “be the God of truth”’ (1 Esdr. iv. 40). There He over- throws both Sabellius and Arius, and shews both heresies to be equal in impiety. For neither is the Father of the Word Himself Word, nor is the offspring of the Father a creature, but the Own-begotten of His essence. And again the Word that proceeded forth is not Father, nor again is He one word out of many; but He alone is the Father’s Son, the true and genuine Son by nature, Who both now is in Hin, and is eternally and indivisibly from within Him. Thus the Lord is both Wisdom and Truth, and is not in the second place after another wisdom; but He alone it is through whom the Father made all things, and in Him He made the manifold essences of created things, and through Him He is made known to whom He will, and in Him He carries on and effects His universal pro- vidence. For Him alone does Dionysius re- cognise as Word of God. This is the faith of Dionysius: for I have collected and copied a few statements from his letters, enough to induce you to add to their number, but to put the Arians to utter shame on account of their libel upon the Bishop. For in all, even the details, of what he wrote, he exposed their error and branded their heresy.
26. How Dionysius dealt with the Sabellians.
Hence too it is manifest that even the letter to Euphranor and Ammonius was written by him in a different sense and for a special pur- pose. For this his defence makes plain. And in truth this is an effective form of argument for the subversion of the madness of Sabellius, for him that wishes for a short way with those heretics, not to start from expressions applicable to the deity of the Word, such as that the Son is God’s Word and Wisdom and Power, and that ‘I and the Father are one’ (John x. 30), lest they, perverting what is well said should use such expressions as a pretext for their un- blushing contentiousness, when they hear the texts, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ (John x. 30, xiv. 9); but to emphasize what is said of the Saviour as Man, as He Himself has done, such as His hungering and thirsting, and being weary, and how He is the Vine, and how He prayed and has suffered. For in so far as these are lowly expressions, it becomes all the clearer that it was not the Father that was made man. For it follows, when the Lord is called the Vine, that there must also be a hus- bandman: and when He prayed, that there was one to hear, and when He asked, that there was one to give. Now such things shew far more readily the madness of the Sabellians, because He that prayed was one, He that heard another, one the Vine and another the Husbandman. For whatever expressions are cited to dis- tinguish between the Son and the Father are used of Him by reason of the flesh which He bore for our sake. For created things are dis- tinct in nature from God. Accordingly since, the flesh being a created thing, ‘the Word,’ as John says, ‘was made flesh’ (John i. 14), although He is by nature the Father’s own and inseparable from Him, yet by reason of the flesh the Father is widely distinguished from Him. For He Himself permits that what is ap- propriate to the flesh should be said of him, that it may be made plain that the body was His own and not that of any other. But this being the sense of these sayings, Sabellius will be the more quickly confuted, it being proved that it was not the Father that was made flesh, but His Word, who also redeemed the flesh and offered it to the Father. But thus having con- futed and persuaded him, he will next be able more readily to teach him concerning the deity of the Word, how that He is the Word and Wisdom, Son and Power, Brightness and Express Image. For it is here again a neces- sary inference that as the Word exists, there must also exist the Father of the Word, and as Wisdom exists, there exists also its Parent, and as Brightness exists so also does the Light; and that in this manner the Son and the Father are one.
ON] THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
27. Conclusion.
Dionysius knew this when he wrote. And by his first letters he silenced Sabellius, and in his others he overcame the heresy of Arius. For just as the human attributes of the Saviour overthrew Sabellius, so against the Arian madmen one must use proofs drawn not from the human attributes but from what be- tokens the deity of the Word, lest they per- vert what is said of the Lord by reason of His Body, and think that the Word is of like nature with us men, and so abide still in their madness. But if they also are taught about His deity they will condemn their own error; and when they understand that the Word was made flesh, they too will the more easily distinguish in future the human characteristics from those which fit His deity. But this being so, and the Bishop Dionysius having been shewn by his writings to be pious, what will the Arian madmen do next? Convicted on this evidence, whom will they again venture to malign? For they needs must, since they have fallen from the founda- tion of the Apostles and have no settled mind of their own, seek some support, and if they can find none, then malign the fathers. But no one will believe them any more even if they make efforts to libel them, for the heresy is condemned on all hands. Unless perchance they will henceforth speak of the devil, for he is their only partisan, or rather he it is who suggested their heresy to them. Who then can any longer call men ‘ Christians’ whose leader is the devil, and not rather ‘ Diabolici,’ so that they may bear the name not merely of adversaries of Christ, but of partisans of the devil? Unless indeed they change round, and, rejecting the impiety they have contrived, come to know the truth. For this will at once be for their own good, and it is thus that it beseems us to pray for all those that are in error.
WAH Se VINO) NUE (WRITTEN BETWEEN 356 AND 362).
Tue Life of St. Antony is included in the present collection partly on account of the important influence it has exercised upon the development of the ascetic life in the Church, partly and more especially on the ground of its strong claim to rank as a work of Athanasius. If that claim were undisputed, no apology would be needed for its presence in this volume. If on the other hand its spurious and unhistorical character had been finally demonstrated, its insertion would be open to just objections. As it is, the question being still in dispute, although the balance of qualified opinion is on the side of the Athanasian authorship, it is well that the reader should have the work before him and judge for himself. To assist his judgment, it will be attempted in the following paragraphs to state the main reasons on either side. In doing so, I can honestly disclaim any bias for or against the Vita, or monasticism. Monasticism, with all its good and evil, is a great outgrowth of human life and instinct, a great fact in the history of the Christian religion; and whether its origin is to be put fifty years earlier or later (for that is the net value of the question at issue) is a somewhat small point relatively to the great problems which it offers to the theologian, the historian, and the moralist. But the point is at any rate worthy of careful and dispassionate examination. In attempting this, while holding no brief for either side, I may as well at once state my opinion on the evidence, namely that, genuine as are many of the difficulties which surround the question, the external evidence for the V7/a is too strong to allow us to set it aside as spurious, and that in view of that evidence the attempts to give a positive account of the book as a spurious composition have failed.
1. BiBLIoGRAPHY. a. Sources. The only reference to Antony in other writings of Athanasius is in Hist. Ar. 14. See also Fest. Index x. Vita Pachomiti in Act. SS. Mai., Tom. iii. Appx. (written late in the fourth century, but by a person who had known Pacho- mius). Coptic fragments and documents (for early history of Egyptian monasticism with occasional details about Antony) in Zoega, Catalogus codd. Copticorum, (Rome, 1810), Mingarelli, Codd. copticorum religuie, (Bologna, 1785), Revillout, Rapport sur une mission, etc. (in Archives des Missions scientifiques et littéraires, 3™¢ série, 1879, vol. 4), Amélineau, Hist. ade S. Pakhome, &c. (Annales du Musée Guimet, vol. xvii. Paris, 1889).
6. Modern discussions. Since the Reformation the general tendency of protestant writers has been to discredit, of Roman Catholics to maintain the authority of the Vita. To the former class belong the Magdeburg Centuriators, Rivet, Basnage, Casimir Oudin; to the latter, Bellarmin, Noel Alexandre, and above all Montfaucon in the Benedictine edition of Athanasius (especially in the Vita Athanasit, Animadversio II. in Vitam et Scripta §.A., and the Monitum in Antonit Vitam, which latter may still claim the first rank in critical discussions of the problem). We may add, as more or less unbiassed defenders of the Vita, Cave (Hist. Lit. 1, 193), and Tillemont (4Zem. vol. vii.). All the above belong to the period before t750. In more recent times the attack has been led by Weingarten (Ursprung des Monchtums in nachkonst. zeitalter, reprinted in 1877 from Zeitschrift fir K.G. 1876, and in Herzog, vol. x. pp. 758 sqq.), followed by Gass (in Zésch. K.G. Il. 274), and Gwatkin (Studies, &c. pp. 98—r103). Israel, in Zettsch. Wiss. Theol. 1880, p. 130, &c., characterises Weingarten’s attack on the Vita as ‘too bold.’ Keim (Aus dem Urchr. 207 sqq.) and Hilgenfeld (tn Zeitsch. J. Wiss. Theol. 1878) put the book in the lifetime of Ath. without absolutely pronouncing for him as the author, while Hase (7. Prot. Zh. 1880), Harnack (especially in Zh. Lés. xi. 391, VITA S. ANTONI. 189 VITA S. ANTONI. 189 see also ‘ Das Minchtum’ u.s.w., Giessen, 1886), Moller, Lehrb. der K.G. i. 372, and Eichhorn (‘ Athanasti de vita ascetica testimonia, Halle, 1886, the most convincing discussion of recent date, and indispensable) decide without hesitation in its favour. The discussion of Bornemann (Jn investigando monachatus origine, guibus de causts ratio habenda sit Origenis, Leipzig, 1885) may also be mentioned as bearing on the general subject; also the articles ‘ Monastery,’ “Coenobium,’ and ‘Hermits’ in D.C.A. The article ‘Antony’ in D.C.B. passes over the question without discussion, excepting the trite, but untenable, statement that the Vita ‘is probably interpolated.’ Farrar (Zives of the Fathers, and Contemp. Review, Nov. 1887) follows Gwatkin. Picturesque representations of Antony (from the Vita) in Kingsley’s Hermits and Newman’s Historical Sketches, vol. 2.
2. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO AUTHORSHIP AND DATE. This is given by Montfaucon in the Monitum and reproduced by Eichhorn, pp. 36 sqq.
: 1. Zhe Version of Evagrius. - Evagrius, ~presbyter (Eustathian) and subsequently (388) Bishop at Antioch (in Italy 364—373), translated the Vita Antonit into Latin. He prefaced it with a short apology (see below, Vit. Ant. § 1, note 1) for the freedom of his rendering, addressed “Innocentio carissimo filio.’ Now this Innocent, the friend of Jerome and Evagrius, died in the summer of 374, almost exactly a year after the death of Athanasius (D.C.B. iii. 31, 251). Of this identification there is no reason to doubt; still less ground is there for the hesitation (fist. Zit. I. 283, ‘non una est dubitandi ratio’) of Cave and others as to the identity of the version, printed by Montfaucon and transmitted by very numerous MSS. (‘que ingenti numero vidi,’ Migne xxv. p. clviii.) with that actually made by Eva- grius. Therefore, even if we make the two very improbable assumptions that the Dedi- cation to Innocentius falls within a few weeks or days of his death (i. during the journey from Italy to Syria!), and that the Vita was translated by Evagrius almost im- mediately upon its composition, the composition of the Vztfa falls within a few months of the death of Athanasius. Its antiquity then ‘is fully conceded’ even by Mr. Gwatkin (Studies, p. 103, who yet, p. 98, puts it down to ‘the generation after Athanasius!’). The translation of Evagrius also preserves what looks like the original heading. It should be added that the Evagrian version (read in the light of its preface), entirely excludes the hypothesis that the Greek text of the Vita is interpolated. Evagrius avowedly abridges at times, while in some cases he embellishes (see § 82, note 16).
ii. Jerome wrote his Vita Pauli in the Syrian desert, between 374 and 379. He mentions both the Vita and its Latin Version in the prologue: if he had seen the latter he can scarcely have been ignorant of its heading. The non-mention of Athanasius as the author is an argumentum ex silentio of the most precarious kind. Some fifteen years later (de Script. Eccles. 87, 88, 125) he repeatedly mentions Athanasius as the author, and specifies Evagrius as the translator.
iii. Ephrem the Syrian (Opp. ed. 1732-43, I. p. 249) quotes ‘Saint’ Athanasius by name as the biographer of Antony. Ephrem died in 373. But little stress can be laid upon this testimony, in view of the lack of a critical sifting of the works which bear the name of this saint (so Tillemont viii. 229, and vil. 138). More important is aa iv. Gregory Naz. Or. 21, ‘Athanasius compiled the biography of the divine Antony rot povadixod Blov vopoIectay &v mhdopare dSinynoews’ (cf. Vita, Prologue). This oration was delivered in 380, seven years after the death of Athanasius. Gregory, it 1s true, is not a good judge on a point of criticism. But he expresses the opinion of his time, and confirms and is confirmed by the evidence of Evagrius and Jerome. hoe suyaa y. Rufinus, His? Zecl. I. viii. He would give an account of Antony, but ‘ille libellus exclusit qui ab Athanasio scriptus etiam Latino Sermone editus est.’ This was written 400 A.D.: if in a later work (Hist. Mon. 30, and see also 29) he happens to allude to the Vita without mentioning its author, we are not entitled to say that to Rufinus ‘the work is anonymous’ Gwatkin, p. 103). : vi. The Py, of Pachomius, which (as above mentioned) has details of Antony’s life independent of the Vita, also mentions the latter (c. 1) as the work of; Athanasius. Though written perhaps as late as 390, this document is of great weight as evidence in the case (see Kriiger in Zheol. Lteg. 1890, p. 620).; a Paulinus aon pois t the Life of Ambrose (after 4oo) refers to the Vita as written by Athanasius.
Vill. i ritth-century historians, Palladius, Hist. Laus. 8, Socrates CHL i221) ee (i. 13) attest the established tradition of their day that Athanasius was the author of the Life.
190 VITA S. ANTONI.
ix. Augustine (Conf. viii. 14, 15, 19, 29) and Chrysostom (Hom. 8 on S. Matthew) mention the Vita without giving the name of the author. But we are not entitled to cite them as witnesses to its (alleged) anonymity, which they neither affirm nor imply.
The above witnesses, all of whom excepting No. viii. come within 50 years of the death of Athanasius, are a formidable array. No other work of Athanasius can boast of such external evidence in its favour. And in the face of such evidence it is impossible to place the composition later than the lifetime of the great Bishop. We have therefore to ask whether the contents of the V7fa are in irreconcileable conflict with the result of the external evidence: whether they point, not indeed to a later age, for the external evidence excludes this, but to an author who during the lifetime of Athanasius (ie. not later than the year of his death) ventured to publish a hagiographic romance in his name (‘ Evagrian’ heading, 3. INTERNAL Evivence. It may be remarked ¢ /imine that for the existence of Antony there is not only the evidence of the Veta itself, but also that of many other fourth-century documents (see above t. a. under ‘ sources’). Weingarten quite admits this (R.Z., X. 774, but he implies the contrary in his Zedt-tafeln, ed. 3, p. 228); and Mr. Gwatkin is certainly far ahead of his evidence when he pronounces (Arian Controversy, p. 48) that Antony ‘ never existed.’
a. Origin and early history of Monasticism. According to the Vita, the desert was un- known to povaxyoi (solitary ascetics, at the time (about 275? Vit. §3) when Antony first adopted the ascetic life. About the year 285 he began his twenty years’ sojourn in the ruined fort. To the end of this sojourn belongs the first great wave of Monastic settlement in the desert. During the later part of the great persecution ‘ monasteries ’ and monks begin to abound (§ 44, 46). The remainder of his long life (311—356) is passed mainly in his ‘inner mountain,’ where he forms the head and centre of Egyptian monasticism. Now it is contended by Weingarten and his followers that the Vita is contradicted in this im- portant particular by all the real evidence as to the origin of monasticism, which cannot be proved to have originated before the death of Constantine. But Eichhorn has I think con- clusively shewn the hastiness of this assumption. Passing over the disputable evidence of the De Vita Contemplativa ascribed to Philo, (which Weingarten endeavours, against Lucius and others, to put back to a date much earlier than the third century and out of relation to Chris- tian asceticism’), the writings of Athanasius himself are the sufficient refutation of the late date assigned to the rise of monachism.
In the writings of the supposed date (356—362) of the Vita, references to monks are very frequent (e.g. Apol. Fug. 4, Apol. Const. 29): but previous to this (339) we find them men- tioned in Ezcy/. § 3, and yet earlier, Afol. Ar. 67 (see below). In the letter to Dracontius (Zetter 49 in this vol.), corporate monasticism is implied to be no novel institution. Dracontius himself (about 354) is president of a monastery, and many other similar communities are re- ferred to. (Gwatkin deals with this letter in an unsatisfactory fashion, p. 102, see the letter itself, S$ 7, 9, and notes.) The letter to Amun, probably earlier than that just mentioned, is clearly (sub. fin.) addressed to the head of a monastic’ society. Again, the bishops Muis and Paulus of Letter 49, § 7,who were monks before their consecration, had been in the monastery of Tabennze before the death of Pachomius, which occurred almost certainly in 346 (Eichhorn 12, 13. The whole history of Pachomius, who was only a year or two older than Athanasius, al- though personally but little known to him, his monastery being at Tabennz, an island near Philz, is in conflict with Weingarten’s theory). Lastly? one of the most character- istic and life-like of the documents relating to the case of Arsenius and the Council of Tyre, namely the letter of Pinnes to John Arcaph (Aol. Ar. 67) carries back the evidence earlier still. Pinnes is ‘presbyter of a monastery’ (wom): that porn here means a society of monks, and not a posting station (Weing. in 2. #.,X. p. 775) is clear from the men- tion of ‘ Helias the monk,’ and ‘I, Paphnutius, monk of the same monastery. This letter proves that there were not only Catholic but Meletian monks, and these not hermits but in societies: and thus the origin of the solitary type of monasticism goes back as far asthe Meletian schism, (The existence of Meletian monks is attested independently of this letter, see Eich. P- 347.) Weingarten is quite unable to deal with this obstacle to his theory. His argument is simply this: either the letter has nothing to do with monks and monasteries (he overlooks Paphnutius), t See the note in Vol. I. of this Series, p.117, D.C.B. iv. 368, Theo.t. Lilag. xiil. 493—4 2 The silence of Zp, Hest. X. (338) is made much of by Weingarten, but there is nothing there to lead up to a reference to desert monasticism, VITA S. ANTONI. 19! or it must be rejected as spurious! What reductio ad absurdum could be more complete? In an equally desperate way he deals with the clear evidence of Aphraates, Hom. vi., as to the existence of (at any rate) solitary monasticism in Eastern Syria as early as 336. See Zexte und Unter- suchungen iii. 3, pp. xvi. 89, &c. (Leipzig, 1888.)
6. fistorical misstatements. i, It is better to include under this head rather than under Peioscrs title ad peregrinos Jratres. Who were the ‘ foreign monks’ (rods év th Eévy povaxovs)?
troduction of monasticism into the West seems to belong to the time of S. Ambrose (Aug. Conf. vill. 6, cf. Sozom. III. 14, ‘ the European nations [before 361] had no experience of monastic societies ’) or rather Martin of Tours (D.C.B. iii. p. 840). The statement (Zucycl. Brit, ‘ Monachism’) that Athanasius carried the Vita Antoni’ to Rome in 340 is based on a misunderstanding of Jerome (%. 127), who really says no more than that the existence of monachism in Egypt first became known at Rome from the visits of Athanasius and of his suc- cessor Peter. If then the ‘ peregrini fratres’ are to be looked for in the West, we have a serious difficulty, and must choose between the Vita afd Sozomen. But the foreign monks may have belonged to the East. (I cannot see that § 93 ‘assumes,’ as Mr. Gwatkin maintains, ‘ the ex- istence of numerous monks in the West.’ What is said is simply that Antony had deen heard of —n«ove8y-—in Spain, Gaul, and Africa.) However, the point must be left uncertain, and so far allowed to weigh against the Vita. lu. Early intercourse of Athanasius with Antony (Prologue, and note 2). If the Bene- dictine text is correct, the reference must be to the period before Athanasius became deacon to Bishop Alexander, in fact to a period previous to 318 a.p. Tillemont (viii. 652), who main- tains the other reading, mainly relies upon the impossibility of finding room for the intercourse in question in the early life of Athanasius. But his only source of knowledge of that period is Rufinus, a very poor authority, and Montfaucon replies with some force (Animadv. 11) that we have no sufiicient information as to how Athanasius passed the years previous to his ordination by Alexander. He also suggests that Athanasius may have been one of those who followed Antony’s example (§ 46, cf. Afol. c. Ar. 6) after his first visit to Alexandria. I may add that the notes to the Vita will call attention to several points of contact between the teaching of Antony and the earliest treatises of Athanasius. Yet the impression left on the mind is here again one of uncertainty (cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 1 jiz.).